On 27 October, amid the intense hostilities against civilians in the Gaza Strip, in which the Israeli occupation forces severed Internet and communications access, John Kirby, the US National Security Council spokesman, stated that Washington “isn’t drawing red lines for Israel” and that the United States will continue to provide support for Israel’s security requirements. This aligns with President Joe Biden’s statement, made following the escalation of 7 October, that the US “stands ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel” and that the US government’s backing for Israel’s security is “rock solid and unwavering”.
This begs the question of whether Washington can continue to provide unconditional support to Israel, particularly in view of the massacres and other atrocities committed by Israel.
Challenges to US Support for Israel
In a swift response to the escalation on 7 October, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to Israel by announcing its intention to furnish military assistance that fortifies the country’s military capabilities against Hamas. This exemplified a reversal of all discernible signs of discord that emerged between the two countries in recent months, including Biden’s adamant denial when queried about inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House and urging him not to implement judicial reforms, while expressing serious concern for the state of Israeli democracy. It did not stop there. There was a surge of demands for the termination of US aid to Israel, expressed not only by certain Democrats but also by Republicans, on the grounds that this could be used as a pressure card to dissuade Israel from reconciling with China.
Hence, the current intensification of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be regarded as a fresh motivation for the United States to reassert its unrestricted backing for Israel. Throughout history, Washington has assumed a proactive role in the Arab-Israeli conflict by serving as a sponsor and mediator. However, it has consistently upheld its commitment to safeguarding Israel and ensuring its security. It appears improbable that the ongoing developments will significantly alter this equation; however, examining the United States’ current strategy and position necessitates dissecting a few conundrums that have grown to be significant elements of the current landscape, the most notable of which are:
Power versus Values: While policies can occasionally dictate and direct the situation on the ground, the situation on the ground can also dictate the form of policies and the boundaries of action at other times. Examining the current situation of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict reveals that it marks a new and distinct phase of escalation, reflecting both the mediocrity of Israeli intelligence performance and the evident growth in Hamas’ capabilities. From the Israeli standpoint, this calls for Tel Aviv to immediately and decisively respond with great severity so as to bolster Israel’s standing and deter Hamas and other Palestinian factions. On the basis of this, US statements upheld Israel’s right to self-defense and refrained from drawing red lines for Tel Aviv.
Upon assuming office, the Biden administration has emphasized the significance of reviving Washington’s moral leadership role and implementing a values-based approach to foreign policy, with a focus on democracy and human rights. Washington is, therefore, acutely cognizant of the necessity of adhering to this strategy in order to safeguard its international reputation. As such, the United States is confronted with the predicament of maintaining amicable relations with its longstanding ally, Israel, while simultaneously safeguarding American values, particularly in view of the heinous atrocities perpetrated by the occupation forces in Gaza.
Internal Political Battle: Amidst the prevailing political polarization in the United States, every issue is being refocused and capitalized upon in the dispute between the Republican and Democratic factions, and the recent developments in the conflict between Israel and Palestine are no exception. Several Republicans, such as former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, exhibited a tendency to blame and criticize the Biden administration, arguing that the attacks instigated by Hamas were primarily motivated by the Biden administration’s stance on Iran and the execution of the hostage release agreement, which can be regarded as a compelling reason for the enormous backing that the US has given Israel.
In light of Washington’s strong desire to extend Israel unrestricted assistance, a group of officials, led by the Director of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Josh Paul, reached the decision to tender their resignations. Additionally, over 400 officials reportedly endorsed a letter that criticized the Biden administration for “failing to support the Palestinians”, according to some reports. This may be regarded as one of the rationales behind Biden’s recent recurrent declarations concerning the imperative to safeguard civilians and provide humanitarian assistance. As a result, one of the biggest issues influencing how Washington handles current events is the degree of political division and the partisan conflict that persists, particularly given that a new presidential election is about to begin.
US Street Division: Analysts have long considered street support for Israel in the United States to be a stable dynamic. Nevertheless, things have changed in recent years, particularly since some Americans now associate their views on Israel with the domestic fight against racism. Amid the ongoing escalation, numerous demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause have taken place in the United States, including in New York, Washington, and New Jersey, in addition to divisions and protests observed in universities including Harvard and Indiana and among high school students in Fairfax County, Virginia.
A similar sentiment was expressed by thousands of Jews participating in sit-in at the Capitol Hill organized by two of the largest Jewish organizations, namely Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, in which they supported the Palestinian cause and condemned the violations committed by the occupation forces. In addition, Jon Minadeo, the head of the Goyim Defense League, declared that the Palestinians are destroying the Temple of Satan and prayed to Allah to reward the courageous men of Palestine. This scene exemplifies a glaring dilemma in Washington’s strategy: the need to reconcile opposing movements, namely, evangelical and conservative movements that unconditionally support Israel on the one hand, and other movements that reject such support and even advocate for Palestinian rights on the other.
Israel’s Security versus Regional Security: Safeguarding Israel and promoting its security in the region has been regarded by multiple administrations as a top priority. Furthermore, Washington sees it as a resolute US commitment grounded in the need to maintain Israel’s superior military might and improve its capacity to repel any attack.
Conversely, Washington seems to prioritize regional stability due to its apprehension regarding potential disruptions to the region’s energy supplies and the expansion of opposition forces’ influence, both of which are associated with a potential escalation in the influence of Washington’s adversaries in the region. Therefore, in accordance with its current far right-wing perspective, safeguarding Israel’s security does not merely entail neglecting the stability and security of the region; it also incites the escalation of a regional conflict. This situation poses a dilemma for the United States in light of the persistent Israeli violations.
Normalization versus Escalation: The ongoing escalation is occurring within a volatile regional environment characterized by a degree of security and political instability. This means that by assisting Israel and encouraging Tel Aviv to continue on its bloody path and carry out more massacres in order to maintain its image as a powerful state in the region, the US is pushing the region closer to a tipping point and increasing the likelihood that the situation in Gaza will escalate into a multi-front conflict that may eventually turn into a regional conflict.
This blatantly runs counter to the normalization-based path of regional stability that the Trump and Biden administrations started and pursued in order to bolster Israel’s standing in the area. This means giving up recent gains, the most visible of which has been the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It means losing the gains made in recent years, the most recent effects of which became apparent in the potential normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which seems vulnerable to disruption given the challenges Saudi Arabia faces in maintaining its rapprochement with Israel while the Palestinian people continue to die. Washington, therefore, has a genuine conundrum when it comes to balancing its backing of Israel’s propensity to propagate language of destruction and violence with the regional normalization path that Washington has been eager to encourage in the region.
The Role of the United States versus its Adversaries’: Regardless of the extent of the human and humanitarian costs in Gaza, the US has prioritized protecting Israel and ensuring its security in the region. This has been clear throughout successive administrations, and it is now clear during the current escalation, manifested in a complete and clear siding with Israel and its movements. This has created a clear dilemma for Washington, as evidenced by the increasing number of its opponents, including China and Russia, who are taking advantage of the US’ bias towards Israel to advance their own moderate roles in the regional and global spheres and support the Palestinian cause.
Put another way, Washington’s statements and actions are at odds with those of Moscow and Beijing, which have a tendency to criticize Israel in a way that seems to be an attempt by the two countries to fortify their leadership roles and positions in opposition to the biased American leadership. For instance, the two countries attempted to use diplomacy to lessen Israel’s escalation in Gaza, which was evident in their obstruction of the US Security Council’s draft resolution denouncing Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood operation.
In short, the United States’ unrestricted backing of Israel and its historical commitment to safeguard it, as evidenced by its blatant bias towards the atrocities and massacres perpetrated by Israel against civilians in the Gaza Strip, encounter a series of predicaments that impose constraints and possibly limitations on this support. This means that there are opportunities, albeit limited, for the United States to take a more moderate and possibly more balanced stance. However, if Washington ignores these dilemmas or does not take action, its influence will be undermined both domestically and internationally.
