The tenuous humanitarian pause between Israel and Hamas has dissolved, marked by a distressing reality of ongoing violence, even during the supposed cessation. Israel’s persistent targeting of Palestinian civilians, compounded by an alleged Hamas rocket attack, has led to a resumption of bombings.
The resultant surge in casualties, particularly among civilians, underscores the Biden administration’s challenging dilemma — how to harmonize its avowed commitment to minimizing civilian deaths with its steadfast support for Israel in practical terms.
The Israeli government’s decision to end the pause, citing an alleged Hamas rocket attack on Friday, has intensified an already dire situation.
Over 700 Palestinian civilians have lost their lives since the resumption of hostilities, adding to an already staggering death toll of more than 15,000, with the vast majority being civilians.
This grim reality underscores a fundamental policy contradiction faced by the Biden administration throughout the course of the conflict.
In a notable departure from previous engagements, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke out at a National Defense Forum on Saturday, adding his voice to the chorus of public rebukes directed at Israel by the Biden administration.
Austin emphasized his personal efforts to press Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties and condemned irresponsible rhetoric, as well as violence by settlers in the West Bank.
As the overseer of the Pentagon, Austin’s criticism extended beyond the violation of international law to question the coherence of Israel’s military strategy.
Austin’s sobering assessment, highlighting the centrality of the civilian population in the conflict, raises essential questions about the strategic sense of Israel’s military approach.
While his caution is compelling, it fails to address the parallel incoherence evident in the Biden administration’s handling of Israel. Since October 7, the Biden administration has pursued what is termed a “bear hug” strategy, tightly embracing Benjamin Netanyahu as a means of containing and directing Israel’s response.
As Stephen Wertheim from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace succinctly puts it, the bear-hug strategy seems to be Biden’s chosen method of attempting to restrain Israel.
Recent days have seen this embrace accompanied by louder public criticism of Israel’s disregard for civilian life, a departure from previous private expressions of concern.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, at a press conference in Tel Aviv, underscored the imperative of preventing a repetition of the massive loss of civilian life and displacement witnessed in Northern Gaza.
However, the rhetorical emphasis on civilian life in public statements contrasts starkly with the lack of substantive policy changes.
The Biden administration has thus far resisted putting any conditions on aid to Israel, providing no tangible incentive for Netanyahu’s government to heed the pleas of top officials like Austin, Blinken, or even Vice President Kamala Harris, who has also expressed concerns.
The Wall Street Journal encapsulates the essence of Biden’s approach with a headline stating, “After sending massive bombs, artillery shells, U.S. also urges Israel to limit civilian casualties.”
This characterization captures the core of Biden’s bear-hug strategy — a paradoxical combination of sending larger munitions while espousing humanitarian platitudes.
The failure of the bear-hug strategy is glaringly evident, with Israel engaging in one of the most ferocious conflicts of the 21st century, as noted by Lloyd Austin. The ongoing war, lacking strategic coherence, not only fails to defeat Hamas but risks radicalizing a new generation of Palestinians.
Faced with this reality, Netanyahu is reportedly considering a proposal to “thin out” Gaza’s population, forcibly expelling surviving residents into neighboring countries.
This drastic policy, akin to a second Nakba, would not only be a moral atrocity but could irreparably tarnish the reputations of Israel and the United States globally.
The potential consequences of such a policy, including a heightened risk of future instability, loss of international credibility, and strained alliances, are incalculable.
To avert this catastrophe, Biden must reject the bear-hug strategy and openly communicate the consequences of pursuing ethnic cleansing to Netanyahu.
However, there is scant evidence that Biden possesses the inclination or the will to take such a decisive step.
Beyond the immediate humanitarian and geopolitical concerns, there are dire political implications for Biden, with the declining support for Israel among key demographics in the Democratic coalition.
A Gallup poll reveals a nearly equal split in the country’s opinion on Israel’s policies in Gaza, with 50 percent supporting and 45 percent opposing.
However, among critical groups that contributed to Biden’s 2020 victory — women, young people, people of color, and Democrats in general — the opposition to Israel’s actions is pronounced.
The erosion of support, particularly among these demographic segments, poses a significant political risk for Biden. If these voters remain demoralized in the coming years, it could severely diminish Biden’s chances of reelection.
The political landscape is further complicated by the narrow margin of Biden’s 2020 victory, with a shift of fewer than 45,000 votes in three states potentially tipping the electoral college in favor of Donald Trump.
In conclusion, the bear-hug strategy, far from achieving its intended restraint, has become a unfolding disaster with severe consequences. Beyond endangering the long-term security of the United States and its international reputation, it divides the very coalition that Biden needs to secure his reelection.
