Biden wanted Bibi gone for ideological reasons long before the latest war, but the US’ full support of Israel at the start of this conflict risked irreversibly harming American soft power in the Islamic World and poses a diplomatic threat to its interests if neutral Russia mediates a resolution. It was therefore decided to apply a combination of “grassroots”-media-political pressure onto Bibi to get him to ruin ties with Russia then ramp up the regime change operation against him afterwards.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for regime change against Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu in a speech that was praised by Biden as “good” because it “expressed serious concerns shared not only by him but by many Americans” but was predictably condemned by the powerful AIPAC lobby. The Alt-Media Community (AMC), whose dogma and general composition can be learned about here and here respectively, is now in a dilemma since they usually oppose regime change but they also hate Bibi.

If some of its members oppose this due to their foreign policy principles, then they’ll be accused of not wanting to stop his genocide of the Palestinians, but supporting a US-backed regime change in Israel with the expectation that it’ll end the genocide could lead to accusations that they’re imperialists. The AMC as a whole is also confused since they took for granted that the US would never turn against Israel, but these background briefings make sense of this policy shift and show that it’s been long in coming:

* 16 January 2023: “Israeli Protesters Are Functioning As Useful Idiots For A Unipolar Color Revolution”

* 27 March 2023: “The US-Backed Color Revolution In Israel Just Reached Crisis Proportions”

* 28 November 2023: “Why’s WaPo Blowing The Whistle On Bibi’s Years-Long Faustian Bargain With Hamas?”

* 2 December 2023: “Did The New York Times Just End Bibi’s Political Career?”

In brief, the liberal–globalist Biden Administration opposes Bibi’s conservative-nationalist government for ideological reasons first and foremost, but it was also against the Israeli leader’s more balanced approach at the time towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. From the US’ perspective, Color Revolution unrest and unsavory media revelations could pressure and discredit him enough respectively to leave office or be voted out during the next elections, thus resulting in policy changes in that event.

After Hamas’ sneak attack last October sparked the ongoing war with Israel, the US began to realize that its full support of the self-professed Jewish State risked irreversibly losing hearts and minds across the Islamic World. Concerns also swirled that Russia’s balancing act between Israel and Hamas could lead to Moscow reviving the stalled peace process and mediating a lasting solution to the “Palestinian Question”. These four background briefings expand on the insight shared in the last two paragraphs:

* 29 November 2023: “The Associated Press Shed Light On The US’ Shadowy Ties With Hamas Via Qatar”

* 31 December 2023: “Clarifying Lavrov’s Comparison Of The Latest Israeli-Hamas War To Russia’s Special Operation”

* 7 March 2024: “Israel’s Partial Compliance With The US’ Anti-Russian Demands Risks Ruining Ties With Moscow”

* 9 March 2024: “Biden’s Gaza Aid Policy Is An Electioneering Spectacle”

What happened was that the US began preconditioning the public to accept its impending policy shift in late November after it became clear that Israel wasn’t going to blitz through Gaza, which combined with gradually more critical rhetoric to get Bibi to distance himself from Russia. Upon him crossing the Rubicon by approving the dispatch of early warning systems to Kiev despite Moscow’s objections, which risks ruining their ties, the US then accelerated its plans to remove him after he served his purpose.

The Democrat primaries showed that a significant share of Biden’s base is “uncommitted” to voting for him to protest his full support of Israel, which could be enough for Trump to return to office if he wins swing states like Michigan and Minnesota, hence the incumbent’s Gaza aid electioneering spectacle. Schumer’s call for regime change against Bibi builds upon Biden’s narrative momentum from the aforesaid policy to kill two birds with one stone: win back pro-Palestinian Democrats and get rid of Bibi.

To summarize everything, Biden wanted Bibi gone for ideological reasons long before the latest war, but the US’ full support of Israel at the start of this conflict risked irreversibly harming American soft power in the Islamic World and poses a diplomatic threat to its interests if neutral Russia mediates a resolution. It was therefore decided to apply a combination of “grassroots”-media-political pressure onto Bibi to get him to ruin ties with Russia and then ramp up the regime change operation against him after that’s done.

This took the form of reviving the Color Revolution campaign, promoting unsavory media revelations that discredit his leadership, and gradually becoming more critical of civilian casualties, all while preconditioning the public to accept the US’ impending policy shift by talking about its ties with Hamas. Once Bibi partially complied with the US’ anti-Russian demands, Biden announced his Gaza aid electioneering spectacle and Schumer called for regime change in Israel, which Biden then endorsed.

Circling back to the AMC, most of its members are oblivious to these policy imperatives and the sequence in which everything unfolded, while others know better but remain silent out of fear that they’ll be “canceled” for saying anything that can twisted as “defending Zionism”. Top influencers serve as gatekeepers who maintain narrative control in order to generate clout, push their ideology, and/or solicit donations, but now they’re in a dilemma over whether or not to support regime change in Israel.

A notable exception is former British diplomat Alastair Crooke, who published a detailed analysis on 11 March titled “‘Out of Touch With Reality’ – White House Fails to Navigate the Israeli Re-calibration”. It describes the growing differences between these two over Gaza, including US plans to replace Bibi with Benny Gantz, who doesn’t differ all that much from his rival on this issue. It’s an interesting read, and Crooke deserves praise for defying the AMC’s dogma by reporting on this despite the reputational risks.

Considering how zealous many of their members are about the Palestinian cause, it’s predictable that they’ll contradict their foreign policy principles of opposing American meddling and regime change wherever it may be by making an exception to fully support this against Bibi. They can’t acknowledge the self-interested domestic and foreign policy imperatives behind the Biden Administration’s shift, however, because that could be twisted by the gatekeepers as “defending Zionism” to get them “canceled”.

In the event that the AMC as a whole pivots towards embracing these policies in this particular case, they’ll then discredit themselves and everything that their community built, especially some of their excellent works that opposed these same policies in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere on principle. Honestly speaking, that wouldn’t be surprising though because many of these same folks never had any principles to begin with, but were always just pushing an ideology where “the ends justify the means”.