Here's a revised version of the content that aims to be plagiarism-free and unique:
"Senior officials in the Biden administration believed they had clearly communicated to Israeli counterparts during extensive weekend discussions the potential for the United States to abstain, rather than veto, a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza on Monday.
However, the White House was surprised by the aftermath of the abstention vote: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu abruptly canceled a high-level delegation's visit to Washington, which President Biden had specifically requested in a recent phone call, to discuss U.S. concerns regarding Israel's plans for a significant military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
In a reaction that downplayed the administration's astonishment, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller described the cancellation as "surprising and unfortunate."
This unexpected turn of events has widened the gap between Biden and Netanyahu into a public rift. Administration officials rushed to clarify that there had been no change in U.S. policy, that Israeli plans for a Rafah operation were not imminent, that negotiations for the release of hostages would continue, and that they anticipated further discussions with Netanyahu and his government.
Despite extensive consultations over the weekend, and without any attempt by the Israeli leader to directly contact Biden, Netanyahu claimed in a statement released by his office after the vote that the United States had "abandoned its policy at the U.N. today... Regrettably, the United States did not veto the new resolution, which calls for a ceasefire that is not contingent on the release of hostages."
The statement characterized this as "a clear departure from the U.S. position."
The scheduled delegation, led by Ron Dermer, Netanyahu's senior strategic adviser, would not travel to Washington as planned.
The one-page resolution itself was a result of an effort to bridge divides that had made the Security Council appear ineffective in previous attempts to halt the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The United States had vetoed three earlier ceasefire resolutions; its proposal on Friday for a resolution linking an immediate ceasefire to a hostage release was vetoed by Russia and China. Monday's resolution was introduced by the 10 nonpermanent members of the council, representing the rest of the world beyond the five countries—Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States—that have veto power.
Israel objected to much of the language, seeking the removal of the word "permanent" before the ceasefire language and insisting that the demand for releasing Israelis held hostage by Hamas be linked to any cessation of hostilities.
The United States shared these concerns: it convinced the sponsors to remove "permanent" and to at least combine the calls for a ceasefire and a separate hostage release in the same paragraph.
The final version called for an "immediate ceasefire" lasting at least until the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan in two weeks, "leading to a lasting sustainable" end to the fighting.
In the same lengthy sentence, it also demanded the "immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as assuring humanitarian access."
It did not mention Israel or Hamas by name.
"We did not agree with everything" in the final document, said Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, addressing the council. The United States still sought a clear condemnation of Hamas and a connection between the release of hostages and a ceasefire, as it continues to pursue in ongoing Israel-Hamas negotiations.
However, Washington ultimately deemed the resolution satisfactory.
Hours after the vote, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby sought to minimize the sense of bilateral tension, stating at the White House press briefing that the United States would continue to "have Israel's back" and advocate for the release of all hostages held by Hamas.
Nonetheless, he expressed disappointment at Netanyahu's decision to cancel the delegation's trip. "We're somewhat perplexed by this," Kirby remarked, reiterating the administration's position that the abstention did not represent a policy change.
"It seems the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of disagreement when it's not necessary."
For Biden, who has a deep attachment to Israel and has been reluctant to break with Netanyahu, the rupture marked the culmination of months of frustration. Since the conflict began with Hamas's attack on October 7, which killed about 1,200 Israelis and resulted in at least 250 hostages being taken, Biden and his senior aides have consistently supported Israel.
This support continued even as Netanyahu publicly opposed the United States on nearly all major issues, including the administration's desire to see the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, a significant increase in humanitarian aid to the enclave, and a path to a Palestinian state.
Facing growing international isolation over the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli air and ground strikes in Gaza and hundreds of thousands more on the brink of famine, the administration has consistently reiterated its support for "Israel's right to self-defense" and has continued to supply weapons to Israel.
Frank Lowenstein, a former State Department official who played a key role in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in 2014, identified three main factors that likely contributed to Monday's events: deep disagreements between Washington and Israel over a large-scale invasion of Rafah, where more than a million Gazans have sought refuge from Israeli attacks further north; the dire humanitarian situation; and Israel's announcements of new settlements while Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in the country last Friday.
"Biden has done everything possible for months to avoid a major public dispute," Lowenstein said. "This reflects a significant change in the White House's approach to managing the Israelis for the remainder of this conflict.
The Israelis will either pay attention now, or we are likely to continue down this path."
Over the weekend, Israel announced that it would no longer permit UNRWA, the primary U.N. aid agency operating in Gaza, to deliver humanitarian aid to the north.
Despite private U.S. appeals, Israel has refused to take steps to expedite the passage of aid trucks into and through Gaza, prompting Biden to authorize the U.S. military to airdrop food supplies and to construct a temporary pier on the Gaza coast for a humanitarian supply shipment.
The administration has been particularly troubled by aggressive actions by the Israeli military and settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, as well as announcements of new settlements that it considers illegal.
White House officials have warned Israel that this new construction undermines its long-term security by further inflaming and radicalizing the Palestinian population and thwarting the possibility of a two-state solution.
On Friday, during Blinken's visit to Tel Aviv for meetings with Netanyahu and senior officials, Israel announced its largest seizure of West Bank land since 1993.
The move was viewed as a significant sign of disrespect. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whom the United States considers a particularly problematic member of Netanyahu's government, along with National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, boasted about the settlements.
Mara Rudman, who served as a Middle East envoy during the Obama administration, noted that while the fundamental relationship could withstand the latest dispute, "the personal dynamics between Biden and Netanyahu are likely particularly strained" in ways that highlight why there are increasing calls for a change in leadership in Israel.
"Geopolitical relationships, like personal relationships, go through rough patches, even in the most committed partnerships," she said.
"The U.S. and Israel are experiencing such a period now."
Netanyahu's relationship with President Barack Obama was also tense, and the U.S. decision to abstain from a U.N. Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements in late 2016 further exacerbated tensions between them.