In the days after Oct. 7, Mr. Biden had the opportunity to shape Israel’s response by publicly defining what kind of actions the United States would, and would not, support. While expressing solidarity with Israel and revulsion at Hamas, he might have withheld assistance for a military campaign until Israel formulated a plan that the White House deemed effective and just and that treated Palestinian civilians acceptably. Instead, Mr. Biden announced, “We’re with Israel,” pledging to provide for its defense “today, tomorrow and always.” Even as he privately pressed Israeli leaders to think twice about a ground invasion, he publicly requested $14.3 billion in emergency military aid, no strings attached.
There was no need to be so cavalier. A carrot-and-stick approach could have either improved Israel’s actions or distanced the United States from a costly failure. Yet the administration seemed to barely try; it preferred to commit itself first and then find out for what. Now the United States finds itself following Israel’s lead in a brutal war “of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences,” as Barack Obama, then a senator, described the invasion of Iraq before it began. U.S. officials are increasingly signaling their displeasure at Israeli military operations in Gaza and mounting settler violence in the West Bank, but they will have little leverage to make Israel change course unless they specify an “or else.”
Mr. Biden has been no better in identifying a long-term solution. Sidestepping the obvious reality that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land lies at the core of the conflict, Mr. Biden has mainly described Palestinians either as evil terrorists or as innocent civilians deserving of humanitarian protection. But Palestinians most importantly are political agents who seek self-determination and refuse to be ignored. Mr. Biden’s deflective, ideological language — “Terrorists will not win. Freedom will win.” — ignores that Palestinian terrorism and Israeli occupation are reinforcing injustices, both of which stand in the way of peace.
Perhaps Mr. Biden’s bear hug will give him political cover to reinvigorate the pursuit of a two-state solution, last attempted by U.S. diplomats in the Obama administration. Mr. Biden recently said “there’s no going back” to the prewar status quo. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called for the Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the West Bank, to govern Gaza after Israeli forces withdraw. That assumes Israel would sooner pull out than pay the price the Palestinian Authority would demand: serious progress toward a Palestinian state. To have any odds of success, the United States will have to threaten to reduce military assistance and political support and act accordingly. Otherwise Israel will conclude that U.S. talk is just that.
Don’t count on Mr. Biden to change. If he was unwilling to impose conditions on Israeli conduct at the outset, when it mattered most, he is unlikely to risk a breach with Israel, a popular cause in American politics, as next year’s presidential election nears. But he should — because the alternative is worse.
In the days after October 7th, Mr. Biden had the opportunity to shape Israel’s response by publicly defining what kind of actions the United States would, and would not, support. While expressing solidarity with Israel and revulsion at Hamas, he might have withheld assistance for a military campaign until Israel formulated a plan that the White House deemed effective and just and that treated Palestinian civilians acceptably. Instead, Mr. Biden announced, “We’re with Israel,” pledging to provide for its defense “today, tomorrow and always.” Even as he privately pressed Israeli leaders to think twice about a ground invasion, he publicly requested $14.3 billion in emergency military aid, no strings attached.
There was no need to be so cavalier. A carrot-and-stick approach could have either improved Israel’s actions or distanced the United States from a costly failure. Yet the administration seemed to barely try; it preferred to commit itself first and then find out for what. Now the United States finds itself following Israel’s lead in a brutal war “of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences,” as Barack Obama, then a senator, described the invasion of Iraq before it began. U.S. officials are increasingly signaling their displeasure at Israeli military operations in Gaza and mounting settler violence in the West Bank, but they will have little leverage to make Israel change course unless they specify an “or else.”
Mr. Biden has been no better in identifying a long-term solution. Sidestepping the obvious reality that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land lies at the core of the conflict, Mr. Biden has mainly described Palestinians either as evil terrorists or as innocent civilians deserving of humanitarian protection. But Palestinians most importantly are political agents who seek self-determination and refuse to be ignored. Mr. Biden’s deflective, ideological language — “Terrorists will not win. Freedom will win.” — ignores that Palestinian terrorism and Israeli occupation are reinforcing injustices, both of which stand in the way of peace.
Perhaps Mr. Biden’s bear hug will give him political cover to reinvigorate the pursuit of a two-state solution, last attempted by U.S. diplomats in the Obama administration. Mr. Biden recently said “there’s no going back” to the prewar status quo. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called for the Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the West Bank, to govern Gaza after Israeli forces withdraw. That assumes Israel would sooner pull out than pay the price the Palestinian Authority would demand: serious progress toward a Palestinian state. To have any odds of success, the United States will have to threaten to reduce military assistance and political support and act accordingly. Otherwise, Israel will conclude that U.S. talk is just that.
Don’t count on Mr. Biden to change. If he was unwilling to impose conditions on Israeli conduct at the outset, when it mattered most, he is unlikely to risk a breach with Israel, a popular cause in American politics, as next year’s presidential election nears. But he should — because the alternative is worse.