The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has presented a significant challenge for the Biden administration’s foreign policy agenda. With mounting pressure from within the Democratic Party and growing international isolation, President Biden is tasked with convincing Israel to change its course in the war. The stakes are high, as the outcome of these diplomatic efforts will not only impact the course of the conflict but also have political repercussions for the administration.
The US approach thus far has been to offer advice rather than exert direct pressure on Israel. Officials, including President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, have emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense and acknowledged the need to target Hamas to prevent further attacks. However, this approach has faced criticism globally for failing to rein in Israel’s relentless bombing campaign, which has resulted in a high number of civilian casualties.
The Biden administration has achieved limited progress through persistent diplomacy, facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza and brokering a temporary ceasefire. Senior US officials, such as Blinken, have made multiple visits to the region to engage in face-to-face discussions with Israeli leaders. However, tangible results in terms of protecting civilians have been scarce, with the death toll in Gaza reaching a staggering 20,000.
In January, the Biden administration will face a crucial test as it pushes Israel to scale back its military operations in Gaza and adopt more targeted tactics with fewer civilian casualties. While Israeli Defense Minister has hinted at the war moving into different phases, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed this request. Critics argue that the US has been too cautious and effectively complicit in Israel’s disproportionate military campaign. They advocate for stronger calls for curtailment and conditioning of American military aid to Israel.
However, experts warn that pressuring Israel without offering a compelling alternative or outcome that they can accept will not be effective. Historically, Israel has only responded to US pressure when the demands align with its interests. The difficulty in micromanaging the battlefield dynamic further complicates the situation.
Internationally, the US is facing increasing isolation, particularly at the United Nations, where it has opposed calls for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Even some allies have criticized the US approach, highlighting the potential damage to its standing and credibility as a powerful nation.
The domestic implications for President Biden are also significant. A New York Times public opinion survey indicated declining support for his handling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, with key members of his electoral coalition expressing dissatisfaction. The poll revealed that a plurality of registered American voters believe Israel should end its military campaign. Liberal members of the Democratic Party have pushed for a resolution calling for a human rights report on Israel’s use of American weapons, potentially leading to a suspension of security assistance.
Amidst these challenges, President Biden must strike a delicate balance. Toughening his stance with Israel risks alienating a significant portion of American voters who strongly support Israel. Simultaneously, there is no guarantee that the current critics would be satisfied with a tougher approach. Scaling down the Israeli offensive quickly becomes crucial, as President Biden enters the final year of his first term and faces mounting domestic political pressures.
Ultimately, the outcome of Biden’s efforts to influence Israel’s actions in the Gaza War will have significant implications on the conflict and the administration’s political fortunes. It remains to be seen how effective the “bear hug” strategy of publicly supporting Israel while urging restraint behind closed doors will be in convincing Israel to alter its military campaign.
