From "Jewish Insider"

In today’s Daily Kickoff, we look at the diplomatic fallout from yesterday’s U.N. Security Council vote, and report on Michigan Jewish leaders’ concerns following a disruption at the University of Michigan convocation. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, Eitan Hersh and Noa Kirel.

Monday was supposed to be the start to a big week for U.S.-Israel relations in D.C., with a delegation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top advisers slated to arrive in Washington to meet with senior White House officials about a looming Israeli invasion in Rafah, Jewish Insider senior national correspondent Gabby Deutch reports.

It quickly became apparent that Monday would, indeed, be a huge day for the relationship between the U.S. and Israel — but not in the way people expected. The day began with a threat from Netanyahu, who said he would call off the delegation if the U.S. did not veto a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire. And that’s exactly what happened.

By abstaining from the vote, the U.S. allowed the U.N. to pass a resolution calling for “an immediate cease-fire” during Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire,” as well as the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” Netanyahu took issue with the fact that the resolution did not tie the call for a cease-fire directly to a call for the release of hostages, nor did it condemn Hamas. (The U.S. introduced a measure to that effect last week, but it was vetoed in the Security Council by China and Russia.)

What followed was an awkward dance, with several top Biden administration officials claiming that their move at the U.N. didn’t actually represent a change in policy, even though it was the first time the U.S. had allowed the Security Council to issue a call for a cease-fire in this manner.

“Our vote does not — and I repeat that, does not — represent a shift in our policy,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Monday.

It was an exercise in Washington spin, albeit a confusing one, with the White House doubling down on an assertion that the vote did not change any policy. One administration official even pointed out to JI that the effect would be limited, since Ramadan ends in two weeks and the resolution is nonbinding.

The White House offered several lines of messaging on Netanyahu’s decision to keep National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer in Israel. Kirby called the move “disappointing and perplexing.”

But the White House also argued that it was relatively unimportant, since Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was in Washington for his own set of meetings with senior officials, and that they could discuss Rafah with him. However, with Gallant and Netanyahu at odds politically, the Biden administration will not be holding meetings with people who have Netanyahu’s ear. One Biden administration official told JI that Netanyahu was being driven by domestic politics, which may have caused him to react so strongly.

Despite any internal political issues driving Netanyahu’s actions, the Israeli prime minister was correct that the move represented a shift for the U.S. The resolution did not condemn Hamas, which the U.S. had been demanding as a precursor for Security Council action for months. And while it did call for both a cease-fire and the release of hostages, it did not say that one was contingent upon the other, contrary to the U.S.-authored resolution that failed last week.

“The ones we vetoed didn’t condemn Hamas. This one didn’t condemn Hamas, which is why we couldn’t support it. But we didn’t veto it, because in general, unlike previous resolutions, this one did fairly capture what has been our consistent policy, which is linking a hostage deal and the release of those men and women with, of course, a temporary cease-fire,” Kirby said in a second Monday press briefing.

Perhaps the strongest break between Washington and Jerusalem has been over Rafah, the southern Gaza city where Israel says that the last four battalions of Hamas terrorists are dug in. Biden had called Hanegbi and Dermer to Washington to present an “alternative approach” to Israel’s plan for a major ground operation, which the U.S. strongly opposes on humanitarian grounds. But the White House has declined to say if Israel will face any consequences if it mounts a major operation, contrary to U.S. wishes.

One takeaway from this episode: Most of the previous disputes between Israel and the U.S. since Oct. 7 have been over messaging, but not policy. It was plausible to argue that the White House needed to assuage its progressive base, but still substantively backed Israel’s mission of defeating Hamas wholeheartedly — including vetoing cease-fire measures at the U.N.

Monday, however, marked a U.S.-Israel divide over not just symbolism but substance too. The administration sounds like it wants to constrain Israel’s actions — as it tries to forestall an Israeli showdown against Hamas in Rafah.

Meanwhile, Hamas last night rejected the latest cease-fire proposal, ​​saying — as it did before Ramadan, when President Joe Biden teased a looming deal — it was sticking to its demands including a permanent cease-fire and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office responded this morning, saying that “Hamas once again rejected every American compromise.”

“Israel will not surrender to Hamas’s delusional demands and will continue to act to attain its war aims: to free all the hostages, to destroy Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and ensure that Gaza will no longer threaten Israel,” the statement said.