The recently brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, while offering a respite from a brutal 15-month conflict, serves as a stark indictment of President Biden’s approach to the crisis. The ceasefire, which halts the violence that claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, most of them civilians, is fragile and arrived far too late. Biden’s unwavering support for Israel’s military response, even as civilian casualties mounted and Israel’s war aims escalated, ultimately proved both morally reprehensible and electorally damaging. The administration’s refusal to exert meaningful pressure on Israel, driven by a misplaced fear of political repercussions, allowed the conflict to fester and contributed to the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
From the outset, the Biden administration offered unwavering support to Israel’s military actions following the Hamas attacks in October 2023, which killed over 1,200 Israelis, predominantly civilians. While expressing concern over the mounting Palestinian casualties, the administration failed to translate this concern into concrete action. This reluctance to challenge Israel emboldened Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose war aims spiraled from eliminating Hamas to a broader regional conflict targeting Iranian-backed forces. This expansive and ultimately unattainable objective prolonged the conflict and deepened the suffering of the Palestinian population. While some may tout the weakening of Hezbollah and Assad as victories, these gains are likely temporary, given Iran’s capacity to rebuild its influence.
The protracted nature of the conflict, culminating in a ceasefire only after the election of Republican Donald Trump, raises questions about Biden’s motivations. His long-standing deference to the Israeli narrative and a deep-seated fear of political fallout from confronting Israel appear to have paralyzed his administration. This inaction, coupled with the escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, eroded support for Biden among his base and ultimately contributed to the Democratic Party’s defeat in the presidential election. The timing of the ceasefire further suggests that Netanyahu strategically delayed its implementation, anticipating a more permissive environment under a Trump administration, potentially paving the way for policies like West Bank annexation.
The missed opportunities for Biden are glaring. By failing to exert pressure on Israel earlier in the conflict, he missed the chance to secure a ceasefire before the election, a move that could have bolstered the flagging campaign of his Vice President and designated successor, Kamala Harris. The perception of the Biden administration’s complicity in the ongoing violence alienated progressive voters and contributed to voter apathy within the Democratic base. The inability of Democratic foreign policy experts to devise a credible threat to compel a ceasefire highlights the administration’s paralysis.
The moral implications of Biden’s approach are even more disturbing. The immense human cost of the conflict, with countless Palestinians killed, displaced, and traumatized, underscores the administration’s failure to prioritize human rights and pursue a just resolution. The fact that the eventual ceasefire terms largely mirror those proposed earlier highlights the futility of the prolonged suffering inflicted upon the Palestinian population. The administration’s seeming indifference to the plight of the Palestinians will undoubtedly face greater scrutiny as more detailed accounts of the horrific conditions in Gaza emerge.
The parallels between Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict and the war in Ukraine are striking. In both cases, the administration’s initial support for the embattled party evolved into an acceptance of a protracted stalemate, ultimately failing to achieve a decisive or favorable outcome. This pattern of indecisiveness contrasts sharply with Trump’s willingness to take risks and challenge established norms in foreign policy. The Biden administration’s fear of applying pressure on allies, in contrast, resulted in a failure to achieve both its political and foreign policy objectives, leaving the resolution of these complex conflicts in the hands of the incoming Trump administration. This ultimately underscores the need for a more assertive and principled approach to international conflicts, one that prioritizes human rights and actively pursues peaceful resolutions rather than clinging to untenable war aims.
