Biden’s Patience With Netanyahu Is Running Thin

The Israel-Hamas war is revealing fractures in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. These strains are driven by deep differences on Israel’s policy toward Gaza, as well as rising public opposition to President Joe Biden’s policy on the conflict. Biden’s announcement that the United States is preparing to open a maritime corridor to Gaza is an expression of both his impatience with the Israeli government and concern about losing votes on the issue in November.

Where We Are Now

Five months into the conflict, fighting in Gaza has been bloody. Israel sustained over 1,000 fatalities, most of them civilian, on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas launched its initial terrorist attack. The militant group continues to hold dozens of Israelis hostage. Roughly 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza have died because of the Israeli invasion, a high percentage of them women and children. Israeli military losses are in the hundreds, while Hamas’ losses are much higher, in the thousands. In addition to the lives lost, the Israeli invasion has devastated much of Gaza and displaced millions of its inhabitants. Starvation is now spreading due to extreme food shortages.

Discussions aimed at a temporary cease-fire, combined with a hostage release, continue among Hamas, Israel, the United States, Egypt, and Qatar. The advent of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, has added pressure to the negotiations.

But even if a cease-fire deal should be struck, the United States is faced with another, critical issue: Who will provide security in Gaza? Israel has no interest in permanently occupying Gaza, but is also loath to leave Hamas — an organization dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state — in charge. Arranging a regional peacekeeping force will be difficult, to say the least. Nonetheless, order will be crucial to getting Gaza and its economy back on its feet, beginning with the urgent provision of food supplies.

The Challenge of Finding a Permanent Peace

Fostering a permanent peace between Palestinians and Israelis will be another huge challenge. For over 25 years, the U.S. track record has been one of unmitigated failure and the circumstances could not be less propitious now. Trust between Palestinians and Israelis is at a historic low. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long opposed the creation of a Palestinian state, and Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have continued to grow over recent decades — making the creation of a geographically viable Palestinian state ever more difficult.

The United States has long been Israel’s chief supporter in the international arena, providing arms, intelligence, and diplomatic support. Throughout Biden’s extensive political career as senator, vice president, and now president, he has been a staunch advocate of Israel’s cause. In the months since Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Biden has maintained this stance, but his patience with the Netanyahu’s government is running thin.

Biden’s New Approach

Biden is not the first president to have differences with Israel or Netanyahu. American administrations have long disapproved of the prime minister’s policies in support of expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. But the current war — along with the large number of Palestinian deaths — is causing a deep rift between the U.S. and Israel. The administration is becoming ever more candid in its criticism of Israel’s unwillingness to provide sufficient supplies to those suffering. This is in part due to the fact that Biden is coming under increasing attack from the left wing of his party for his policy on the war.

The planned maritime corridor — which will include a pier set up just off the coast of Gaza — is an effort to address both these concerns. However, it will be a month or more before the corridor is fully operational, and it will neither create a permanent cease-fire nor increase security for Gaza. Given the humanitarian stakes, the maritime bridge is a necessary stop-gap measure as the United States and other parties continue to fumble for a solution to this brutal conflict.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.