The Biden Administration has stood firm in supporting Israel since October 7, 2023. This stance includes condemning Hamas, imposing sanctions, and providing military aid to Israel. Despite initial calls for restraint, the Administration deployed military assets and vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions, sparking criticism. This steadfast support, amid concerns over Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and Israel’s actions, underscores the prioritization of strategic ties over global calls for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid.
Since October 7, Israel has intensified its bombing campaign on Gaza following a surprise attack by Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups. This attack was in response to Israel’s prolonged occupation, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal settlements, and ongoing threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel has used this incident to escalate its military operations, resulting in extensive destruction and significant civilian casualties in Gaza.
37,396 Palestinians, including a significant number of journalists and humanitarian aid workers, have been killed so far. 87,000 homes have been demolished, and approximately 297,000 houses are now uninhabitable. Around 160 healthcare centres have been targeted, leading to 1.1 million people suffering from food insecurity and around 1 million diagnosed with infectious diseases, including cases of Hepatitis A and C. According to the ICRC, 50,000 vulnerable individuals in Gaza are in need, 1,320 surgical procedures have been performed, eight local healthcare centres are providing medical care, and 11,164 forensic items have been distributed in both Israel and Palestine.
Biden gave an interview to MSNBC in March where he emphasized the critical defense support for Israel, saying, “there’s no red line (in which) I’m going to cut off all weapons so they don’t have the Iron Dome to protect them.”
Later, in a statement to CNN earlier in May, he said, “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone into Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem.”
Despite Israel crossing Biden’s red line on May 26 with an attack on Rafah resulting in at least 45 deaths, including reports of many perishing in burning tents in the Tal as-Sultan area, Biden’s administration maintained unwavering support for Israel. Globally, solidarity with Rafah grew under the slogan “All eyes are on Rafah,” yet despite significant criticism, Biden refrained from taking action against Israel.
This article explores the factors behind the US’s continued support for Israel despite these actions and breaches of established red lines in its bombardment of Palestinians.
Economic and Strategic Foundations of Unconditional US Support for Israel
The economic interdependencies between Israel and the US serve as a critical factor in sustaining the latter’s policy of unconditional support.
Israel’s advanced technology sector provides significant benefits to the United States. Major American companies like Google, Microsoft, HP, and Intel employ many engineers in Israel, focusing on cutting-edge fields such as cybersecurity, AI, and embedded systems, which enhances America’s technological edge. (Read more here)
Furthermore, the coastal strip and occupied areas of Gaza controlled by Israel possess significant oil reserves estimated at $524 billion. Historically, major powers have sought natural resources like oil during wars. “In 1908, imperial forces discovered oil in Iran. In 1927 came the discovery in Iraq. At the time, these oil reserves sat largely within British territories, but by the 1920s, the US entered the Middle East oil scene. By the 1970s, a third of US oil consumption came from the region,” notes Atif Kubursi, Retired Economics Professor at McMaster University.
The historical context of shared interests in Middle Eastern fossil fuels further complicates this alliance, revealing a troubling pattern of prioritizing economic and geopolitical advantage at the expense of addressing fundamental justice and rights issues in the region.
Following the Russia-Ukraine conflict, oil prices surged due to Russian supply constraints, leading to an escalating energy crisis in Europe. Consequently, Gaza, under Israeli control, serves as a crucial source of oil revenues, contributing significantly to European and American energy needs through the US-Israel energy cooperation agreement.
Support for Israel is not a recent phenomenon in US foreign policy. Over the decades, successive administrations have consistently backed Israel with significant military aid and diplomatic support.
This longstanding alliance dates back to the US recognition of Israel as a state with whom it maintains a robust trade relationship, exchanging goods and services valued at $50 billion annually. Israel serves as a highly productive and cost-effective laboratory for the US defence industries and armed forces, showcasing this through the deployment of fighter jets such as the F-35, F-16, and F-15, among numerous other US military systems.
Israel is often described as the eyes and ears of the US in the Middle East, crucial for countering threats such as Iran’s influence and nuclear ambitions. By supporting Israel, the US wants to strengthen a regional power that can help counterbalance Iran’s influence, which aligns with broader US geopolitical interests in regional stability and securing oil flow. Israel’s military capabilities act as a deterrent against regional threats, enhancing stability and indirectly supporting US economic interests by maintaining a stable environment conducive to oil production and transportation from the Gulf states.
Influence of Lobbying and Political Support
Since 1948, Israel has maintained close ties with the United States, further solidified during the Cold War when Israel served as a strategic ally against Soviet influence. Support for Israel receives bipartisan support in the US Congress and from successive administrations, strengthened by the influential lobbying efforts of organisations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
These groups influence policy decisions, ensuring robust US aid and diplomatic support for Israel, reflecting broader support within the American public and political establishment. This consensus reinforces US policy decisions that prioritize maintaining a close relationship with Israel, even amid controversies over Israeli military actions or human rights concerns.
Implications for US Domestic Politics
President Joe Biden’s handling of Israel’s proposed three-phase cease-fire plan with Hamas has significant implications, especially with the upcoming US elections and public dissatisfaction with his administration’s support for Israeli atrocities.
Biden announced the plan, initially backed by Israeli leaders but later muddied by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s contradictory statements. This inconsistency reflects the complexities of Biden’s own diplomatic strategy. With many Americans unhappy with the administration’s support for Israel amidst the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Biden’s policy decisions are under scrutiny. Public protests, criticism from advocacy groups, and disapproval from influential figures amplify the dissatisfaction.
As the 2024 elections approach, Biden’s foreign policy, particularly his handling of the current crisis is a critical factor. The administration’s stance has not only shaped international relations but also influenced domestic perceptions. Voters are questioning Biden’s commitment to humanitarian issues and his ability to effectively manage complex diplomatic situations.
This scenario presents a serious dilemma for the Democrat Leader. His administration’s alignment with Israel, while consistent with longstanding US policy, has created significant political and diplomatic challenges. Biden’s decisions in this context will impact his electoral prospects, the broader Democratic Party’s stance on Middle Eastern policy, and his legacy as president.
**The opinions in this article are the author’s own and may not represent the views of The Diplomatic Insight. The organization does not endorse or assume responsibility for the content.
