Reactions in Washington as Netanyahu Returns to the Spotlight
After spending a moment in the limelight at the United States Congress, where his address drew as much protest as praise, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced a day in Washington filled with uneasy messages. In meetings with President Joe Biden and later with Vice President Kamala Harris, the new reality pressed in: American leaders want a clear path to end the Gaza conflict and to secure the safe return of hostages. Even allies in the Republican camp urged caution, arguing that continued fighting could blur Israel’s image on the world stage.
In Washington, Netanyahu found that Biden, despite maintaining courtesy, is growing tired of the back-and-forth that has surrounded the crisis. The White House has pressed for a three-phase plan to secure a lasting ceasefire, advance humanitarian relief, and eventually bring home the 115 hostages held by Hamas. Several Democrats have questioned whether Netanyahu is prioritizing political survival over the nation’s broader interests, a concern amplified by his congressional speech and the kind of public reception it received here.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi captured the moment for many on the floor, calling Netanyahu’s address one of the starkest moments of a foreign leader speaking before Congress. Her assessment underscored a broader frustration among some lawmakers who are eager to see tangible steps toward de-escalation and accountability in Gaza.
—
Private talks with Biden
No press questions or statements were offered prior to the Oval Office meeting, beyond standard greetings. The encounter is viewed as potentially one of the last high-level exchanges before a transition in U.S. leadership; it occurred as Biden’s term winds down and speculation grows about the next chapter in American politics. In a book of memories, Netanyahu expressed gratitude for decades of friendship and support for Israel. The White House appears intent on securing a consensus among progressive circles before November, seeking to balance domestic concerns and foreign policy commitments with a display of steadfast backing for Israel.
Officials in the administration stressed that the aim is to mobilize support for a ceasefire package that could reassure critics at home while sustaining Israel’s security needs. The underlying message was that the time is ripe for a shared path forward, one that acknowledges wartime hardships and focuses on reducing civilian suffering in Gaza while safeguarding Israeli security interests.
Harris was expected to convey a similar message in a later meeting with Netanyahu, a session that drew attention from observers who scrutinize the alignment of U.S. and Israeli approaches to the crisis. Critics who did attend Netanyahu’s public appearance described it as a moment that intensified pressure on all sides to move toward de-escalation rather than escalation.
Republican leaders in Congress voiced their dismay at Harris not attending Netanyahu’s address in person, framing the absence as a snub amid a broader conversation about U.S. support and the conditions attached to it. The discussion also touched on perceived inconsistencies in how the United States speaks about humanitarian concerns and military needs in the region.
Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, signaled concerns over the optics of Western support and the overall strategy, labeling some positions as problematic. The day highlighted the delicate balance required when allies reassess tactics after intense conflict, and when domestic pressures in the United States influence foreign policy decisions.
No clear signs of a Gaza end in sight
Netanyahu left Washington without signaling a shutdown of the war. If anything, his remarks in Congress suggested a continued effort to bolster military capabilities and maintain a strong stance against Hamas. The aim, as described by supporters, was to degrade Hamas and recover hostages while seeking broader international backing for continued operations in Gaza.
Advocates for an immediate shift toward diplomacy argued that public declarations of a quick peace are essential to healing the region and preventing further casualties. Critics, however, noted that such declarations were absent from the prime minister’s remarks, reinforcing perceptions that political calculations are shaping strategic choices in Israel as much as military objectives do.
Amid the debate, former President Donald Trump signaled support for closer collaboration with Netanyahu, calling for an end to the bloodshed. In a recent interview, Trump argued that Israel has suffered from negative publicity and suggested that improved public relations could help the country maintain stability and international standing. The upcoming discussions were poised to shape how both leaders approach the conflict in the near term.
As the week closed, Washington remained focused on the tension between urgent humanitarian concerns and security imperatives. The path forward involves navigating complex political dynamics at home and abroad, with the shared goal of reducing harm to civilians while preserving Israel’s security interests and regional stability.