However, the political damage is already evident
At a time when Gaza is characterized by hunger, displacement, and the erosion of human dignity, the image of a top minister treating detainees as objects of mockery conveyed its own message: humiliation had become part of the political spectacle. That is why the French move matters. It is limited and must be honestly described as such. However, even small measures can show when a government is no longer willing to pretend that expressions of concern are enough. France's decision, combined with previous British and other sanctions against Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for incitement linked to violence against Palestinians, suggests a restrained shift: some Western governments are beginning to treat extremist ministers not just as internal Israeli political actors, but as diplomatic liabilities.
The problem of selective restraint in Washington
Washington's inability is almost the opposite. The United Statesoften expresses concern when Israeli actions become difficult to justify, but rarely turns that concern into real pressure. And this is not because they lack influence. Israel remains the closest US military partner in the region, and American aid has strengthened this relationship for decades. The problem lies in the habitual practice it follows: condemnation of excess, absorption of embarrassment, and then a return to normalcy. This habit may protect the relationship in the short term, but it teaches the most extreme actors in Israeli politics a dangerous lesson. They learn that American anger has limits and that consequences are unlikely. An alliance cannot function as an automatic forgiveness mechanism.
Trust requires boundaries
It needs trust, but also boundaries. When a far-right minister humiliates humanitarian activists or treats Palestinian suffering as useful political material, the damage is not limited to the Palestinians. It undermines Israel's international standing and forces American diplomats to apologize for behaviors they did not create but continue to cover up. This is not an argument for abandoning Israel. It is a reminder of the requirements that accompany a serious alliance. Partners sometimes need to hear that specific behaviors harm common interests. If Washington can demand restraint from its adversaries, it should also be able to tell its allies that incitement, humiliation, and the contempt for humanitarian norms have costs.
Internal pressure and the Iran test
American public opinion makes it increasingly difficult to ignore the issue. A recent Gallup poll showed that American sympathies in the Israel-Palestine conflict have shifted significantly, with support for Palestinians increasing and Israel no longer enjoying the same broad lead. This does not mean a sharp break with Israel is imminent. But it does mean that the old assumption that unconditional support has minimal domestic political cost is no longer as secure. Behind this unease is also an economic dimension. The Congressional Budget Office predicts large federal deficits and growing debt-servicing costs over the next decade. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York records that household debt remains heavy, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics monitors the continued pressure on prices for basic goods like food, energy, and housing. These data points do not dictate what Washington must do in Gaza, Tel Aviv, or Tehran. However, when many Americans feel economically squeezed, it becomes harder to justify a global strategy that seems reluctant to set meaningful boundaries for its close allies. The contradiction becomes particularly sensitive in relation to Iran. Washington is trying to prevent the collapse of regional diplomacy at a time when Gaza, maritime security, the Straits of Hormuz, and broader US-Iran relations remain interconnected issues. The Straits of Hormuzremain one of the world's most important energy channels, and any disturbance there can increase transport costs, energy prices, and the risk of broader escalation. If the United States asks Tehran for restraint while appearing reluctant to restrain Israel's most provocative ministers, it weakens its own message. This does not justify Iran nor imply that all regional actors bear the same responsibility. It is a practical observation regarding diplomacy: calls for restraint are more convincing when the state making them is also willing to impose discipline on its own side.
Discipline in the alliance, not abandonment
The French action is more than a bilateral gesture. It shows that some Western governments are beginning to separate Israel's security from the political immunity of the Israeli far-right. Supporting Israel's right to security does not require accepting ministers who deepen the occupation, fuel violence, or turn Palestinian suffering into a political spectacle. Defending a state does not mean defending every political faction that participates in its government. Europe is not innocent in this issue. It has often spoken the language of international law while moving slowly when the law itself was tested in practice. Many governments preferred careful expressions of concern over difficult decisions. However, the climate is changing because the cost of inaction is rising. Gaza has now forcefully entered the internal politics of European countries, in courts, universities, and parliaments. The stakes concern not only the Middle East but also what Western governments are willing to tolerate within their alliances. Washington should take this warning seriously. If it shields Israeli extremism from consequences, it will not preserve Western unity; it will widen the gap between American policy and European unease. It will not strengthen Israel's security; it will reward the forces that isolate it internationally. And it will not stabilize the Middle East; it will make American diplomacy selective and less credible at a time when regional de-escalation requires trust. The ban on Ben-Gvir entering France is less about a person and more about a principle. Alliances are stronger when accompanied by discipline. They are weaker when loyalty turns into immunity. If Washington wants to remain credible in the Middle East, it must stop confusing support for Israel with tolerance for far-right provocations. Impunity is not stability. Leniency is not a strategy. A rules-based international order cannot survive when the rules apply only to those outside America's protective circle.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών