The Biden administration has subtly shifted its stance on the Israeli military intensification in the Gaza Strip, a position formerly characterized by unequivocal support for Israel and its right to self-defense, particularly following the ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’ operation on October 7. This adjustment has been influenced by internal pressures, including criticisms from numerous State Department employees, diplomats, federal agencies, and members of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. These critiques were driven by the significant humanitarian toll of the conflict, which was briefly alleviated by a humanitarian ceasefire that was extended for an additional two days, facilitating the release of numerous hostages and prisoners from both factions.
In recent days, there has been a discernible shift in the stance of the Biden administration towards the Israeli military operations in Gaza, compared to its initial position. The most prominent of which are as follows:
1- Restrictions on renewing the Israeli ground campaign: The U.S. government is striving to prevent additional civilian fatalities and large-scale displacement, reminiscent of the events preceding the humanitarian ceasefire. Consequently, U.S. reports, derived from high-ranking U.S. officials’ declarations, suggest that President Joe Biden’s administration has communicated to Israel the necessity to avert further extensive displacement of Palestinian civilians in Southern Gaza, should it recommence its ground offensive. This campaign, as perceived by Israel, is designed to neutralize the Hamas movement following the cessation of the humanitarian ceasefire. Moreover, it is imperative to refrain from targeting infrastructure, including power and water facilities, and hospitals in Southern and Central Gaza.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has unequivocally stated that the cessation of military activities by Israeli forces is merely provisional and will recommence following the temporary ceasefire. This cessation has been implemented to facilitate the exchange of hostages, apprehended by Hamas on October 7, for Palestinian detainees in Israeli custody.
Conversely, U.S. representatives have urged their Israeli counterparts to exercise greater precision in their operations in southern Gaza, as compared to their previous actions in the northern region of the Gaza Strip. As per an Associated Press report dated November 28, a U.S. official confirmed that the Israeli authorities were amenable to the concerns expressed by the U.S. administration.
2- Continuing efforts to extend the humanitarian truce: In an article titled “The United States will not back down in the face of the challenge of Putin and Hamas,” published in the Washington Post on November 18, President Joe Biden initially dismissed appeals for a ceasefire in Gaza. He argued that such a ceasefire would provide Hamas with an opportunity to replenish its missile inventory and strategically reposition its militants. However, in the face of escalating domestic and international criticism for his reluctance to advocate for a ceasefire, he subsequently revised his stance. President Biden expressed his desire for an extended ceasefire, highlighting that it has facilitated the increased influx of much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.
U.S. projections suggest that the matters Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is set to address, on his third regional visit since the onset of the Israel-Hamas conflict last month, will prioritize the pursuit of ceasefire extension and further hostage release. The topic of prolonging the armistice between Israel and Hamas dominated the American-Egyptian-Qatari-Israeli dialogue on the 28th of the preceding month.
3- Calls to provide “conditional” aid to Israel: The U.S. government has historically offered unwavering backing to Israel, particularly evident during the aftermath of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation on October 7. However, the escalating humanitarian implications of Israeli military activities in Gaza, coupled with domestic pressure on the U.S. president to reconsider this stance, have led to an intensified discourse. Notably, a growing number of U.S. legislators are advocating for the imposition of stipulations on future U.S. assistance to Israel.
In light of the significant civilian casualties in Gaza due to Israeli military activities, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy has advocated for the correlation of forthcoming American aid to Israel with its adherence to international humanitarian law. Senator Bernie Sanders, through his New York Times article published on November 22, titled “Justice for the Palestinians and Security for Israel,” has urged for the cessation of the so-called “blank check approach” to funding Israel’s security. He proposes that such financial support should be contingent upon the halt of bombing and settler aggression in the West Bank, along with Israel’s pledge to refrain from occupying the Gaza Strip.
4- Punishing settlers who attack Palestinians: In light of the apparent lack of earnest efforts by the right-wing Israeli government to curb the violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, the U.S. administration, for the first time, publicly expressed its readiness to impose sanctions on the involved settlers on November 18. This was announced by the U.S. President, who underscored the necessity of holding accountable those who engage in acts of violence.
In an article published in the Washington Post, the President stressed on his previous appeals to Israeli officials to cease the “extremist violence” against Palestinians in the West Bank. Furthermore, he declared the U.S.’s preparedness to implement a visa ban on extremists who assault civilians in the West Bank.
The US’s dilemma
The US approach towards the Middle East is confronted with a predicament unprecedented since the incidents of 2011, as articulated by Frederick Weary and Jennifer Kavanagh in their article “The Middle Eastern Quagmire Looming on the Washington Horizon” published on the Foreign Affairs magazine website on November 24. The military interventions of Israel in the Gaza Strip, coupled with the escalating Palestinian casualties and displacements, have engendered a pervasive sentiment of antagonism towards the United States and its regional interests. The exploitation of armed militias loyal to Iran for the initiation of assaults on American military personnel stationed in Iraq and Syria is a manifestation of the geopolitical dynamics at play. The stance taken by the United States administration regarding the escalation of military activities by Israel in Gaza, along with the wider geopolitical implications of the conflict, will inevitably exert significant influence on regional stability. This will also impact the capacity of the United States to engage with and deter adversaries in the Middle East and beyond.
The increased US military presence in the region, whether as a demonstration of support for Israel or as a preventative measure to restrict the Israeli-Gaza conflict from escalating into a wider war, carries the potential to increase regional instability. This not only amplifies the risks and costs associated with missteps but may also precipitate new conflicts that the US administration striving to avert.
The escalation of U.S. involvement in the region may inadvertently tether the nation to commitments within a territory it has recently sought to extricate itself from. This shift occurs in the context of a strategic redirection towards the Indo-Pacific region, a move designed to counterbalance the perceived non-peaceful ascension of China. Concurrently, the U.S. is striving to thwart Russia’s potential triumph in its conflict with Ukraine, a war that has persisted since February 24 of the previous year.