Why and how Biden should walk back his suspension of weapons delivery to Israel

Relations between the United States and Israel are at a moment of unprecedented historical paradox. While President Joe Biden has proven since Oct. 7 to be the most committed friend of Israel ever to serve in the White House, he may also be the president on whose watch the “unshakable” relationship between Washington and Jerusalem comes apart at the seams.

Some historical context: In Israel’s 76-year history, no American president has kept faith with the Jewish State through war nearly as long as Biden. Harry Truman recognized Israel in 1948, but imposed an arms embargo on it. In 1957, Dwight Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from the entire Sinai in return for commitments on access to the Straits of Tiran and the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers that ultimately proved worthless. On the eve of the 1967 war, Lyndon Johnson famously told Abba Eban, “Israel will not be alone unless it goes alone” — which it did and it was.

Richard Nixon stood by Israel in 1973, but his real concern was the superpower contest with the Soviets, and the debate about whether the mid-war weapons supply was held up, and by whom, continues to rage. In recent decades, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all tired of Israel’s wars and demanded cease-fires in a matter of weeks, well before Israel’s strategic goals were achieved.

By comparison, in the seven-plus months since Hamas triggered war with its barbaric attack against Israel’s southern communities, U.S. aircraft have been flying virtually nonstop to resupply Israel’s arsenal. Before excoriating Biden for his recent announcement suspending a delivery of weapons — which I will do — I will state that he deserves the thanks of a grateful ally and the admiration of American friends of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Biden has certainly made missteps. One was abstaining on a U.N. Security Council resolution in March that did not make a cease-fire contingent on a hostage release; if implemented, this would have been a huge Hamas victory. Another was praising Sen. Chuck Schumer’s speech calling for (D-N.Y.) new leadership in Israel. Regardless of policy differences with Benjamin Netanyahu, Schumer abused his self-described position as the highest elected Jew in American history to call for the resignation of the democratically elected prime minister of the Jewish State, in the process legitimizing more radical positions by other legislators.

And the administration sometimes picks precisely the wrong battles to fight with Israel. The Biden administration, instead of confronting Netanyahu on issues where he is politically vulnerable — such as why Israel has not produced a post-conflict plan for Gaza, why Israel refuses to police the distribution of food aid in Gaza or why Israel executed a West Bank land-grab that distracted from the war —has drawn its line in the sand on Rafah, an issue on which Netanyahu enjoys considerable public support.

These errors appear to stem from the poor advice of those who counsel that a public distancing from Israel on a major wartime issue would improve the president’s standing among critical voting blocs, especially young people. Biden, however, seems instinctively to know that turning on Israel after a lifetime of support would be mistake. His compromise is to agree to certain measures that come off as too clever by half — that is, so clever that they please no one.

This is how to view the administration’s decision to make public an awkward distinction between offensive and defensive weapons — denying the former, okaying the latter — as a way to warn Israel against a major invasion of Rafah, home to the last set of organized Hamas military units. Given that the entire conflict is a defensive war triggered by the unprovoked attack of an enemy the president just described in his Holocaust memorial speech as “driven by the ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth,” this argument beggars belief.

The fact that Biden supports purging Rafah of terrorists — just not the way Israelis seemed poised to do it — will do little to placate critics who want him to change course on Israel more dramatically. Even so, it will have huge implications. It provides a cordon of immunity around Hamas in Rafah, thereby decreasing pressure on its leaders to accept a cease-fire deal, with the unintended effect of extending the suffering of the hostages, including five Americans.

More broadly, a decision to withhold arms from America’s closest Middle East ally will ripple across the region, raising doubts about American spine, loyalty and commitment in the minds of Arab partners who only last month joined with Israel in a stunning display of American leadership to thwart Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack. And, it should be said, the decision will earn the president few of those wavering votes his advisors are worried about.

In my view, this is reflective of a broader misreading of the American domestic politics of the Gaza war. The administration will reap no political benefit from twisting Israel’s arm to take a slower, more incremental approach to dismantling Hamas forces in Rafah. In this context, all that matters is ending the war, because only then will the Biden campaign have a chance to “change the topic” and refocus the attention of wavering young voters on issues like abortion rights or student loan forgiveness.

The political imperative should be to get the war over as soon as possible. How it ends matters too — there is a powerful U.S. interest that the war end with a clear Hamas defeat, which is the only outcome that opens the possibility of non-Hamas governance of Gaza, renewed Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy and, with luck, a blockbuster U.S.-Saudi-Israel peace, security and normalization deal. Put in crass political terms, if American demands extend Israel’s main battle operations in Gaza through the summer and past Labor Day, the president faces serious political trouble.

But friends of the U.S.-Israel relationship — regardless of party affiliation — should be clear-eyed about one aspect of Gaza that is more important than taking Rafah, killing Yahya Sinwar or even defeating Hamas: If, come November, it is universally perceived that Biden lost the election because of his support for Israel, it will be a blow to the bilateral strength of the relationship which will take a generation to recover.

It is not too late for the White House to walk back the costly blunder of withholding weaponry from Israel during wartime while still saving face. Here’s what Biden should say: “America’s position on the Rafah operation has been misunderstood. We share with Israel the goal of dismantling the remnants of Hamas military capability, including the Rafah battalions. We want to see this achieved as quickly as possible. To that end, I am sending my top military advisors to coordinate with Israel on the best way to achieve this goal while also doing our utmost to protect civilians. Perversely, Hamas wants Israel to kill as many innocent Palestinian women and children as possible and we are committed to working with the Israelis to ensure that Hamas doesn’t get its wish. Let’s get this done — now.”

An approach designed to end main battle operations in Gaza quickly, successfully and with as few civilian casualties as possible has a chance of salvaging this own-goal error. And it has the added value of being the most politically wise course, too. But the window is closing; the president needs to act.

Robert Satloff is the Segal Executive Director of the Washington Institute.