While Hamas’s interests may be served by dragging out the war, Israel’s would be served by hastening its end—not through a ceasefire, but through victory. That, argues Seth Mandel, is the lesson Benny Gantz, the leader of Israel’s National Unity party and a member of the post-October 7 unity government, should take away from his recent visit to London and Washington. The favored candidate to replace Prime Minister Netanyahu in the event of an election, Gantz seems to have believed he could garner more sympathy for Israel than Netanyahu. Instead, he got lectures from Kamala Harris as well as from the British foreign minister David Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak. Mandel writes:

How should Gantz interpret this? As a reminder that, as far as the West is concerned, Israel does not have all the time in the world to finish off Hamas. Neither Sunak nor Cameron particularly cares how this war ends. Gantz and Netanyahu don’t have that luxury. The reason Hamas is disingenuously manipulating the U.S., Israel, and Qatar on the hostage negotiations is because their only goal is to run out the clock.

The same message, Mandel adds, should be taken from President Biden’s scheme, announced last week, to build a floating dock off the coast of Gaza for the delivery of humanitarian aid. An American ship has already been dispatched with equipment for the project, which is expected to involve as many as 1,000 U.S. military personnel:

Nobody cheering “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is going to change their mind thanks to a hastily constructed port that will simply serve as a more dangerous way of getting aid to Palestinian civilians. Which means when it fails to move the needle of progressive opinion, Biden will try something else to make them happy. Israel needs to accept that this ball is now rolling downhill, and it’s standing at the bottom.

Kamala Harris and the other Americans threw a lot of words at Benny Gantz. So did Rishi Sunak and David Cameron. But they all amount to the same thing: Get moving.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.