Introduction
President Joe Biden’s response to the October 7 attack on Israel was unlike that of any previous U.S. president. As Israel faced an unprecedented assault by Hamas, Biden offered firm support but broke with the long-standing tradition of forcing an immediate ceasefire. For the first time, a U.S. president allowed Israel the space to pursue its military objectives fully, while still encouraging restraint and the protection of civilians—a nuanced balance that carried substantial political costs, especially as the presidential election approached. Biden’s decision played a significant role in the election outcome, ultimately leading to a narrow victory for Donald Trump.
An Unprecedented Stance on Israeli Defense
Historically, U.S. presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama have forced Israel to accept early ceasefires, prioritizing regional stability over Israel’s full military objectives. Biden, however, diverged sharply from this precedent, understanding that Israel needed an opportunity to dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all. By not forcing a premature ceasefire, he departed from the U.S. tradition of ensuring stability at the expense of Israel’s security needs.
Biden saw his stance as an ethical approach to warfare, one where Israel could defend itself while minimizing civilian harm—a challenging line to walk. However, this stance also reflected his commitment to a fair balance between unwavering support for Israel and broader humanitarian principles.
Political Pressures and Conflicting Voices
Biden’s unwavering support faced significant domestic backlash, especially from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Progressive leaders labeled Israel as the aggressor, downplaying the severity of the October 7 attack and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Biden struggled to counter these voices, leaving an opening for Republicans to associate the Democratic Party with these progressive anti-Israel sentiments. This label placed Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in a difficult position, as the entire party was successfully labeled as supporting the progressive stance. This created a rift with Jewish voters traditionally aligned with Democrats.
Harris attempted to bridge this divide by advocating a nuanced approach—supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while gently pushing for a ceasefire without demanding one outright. Her goal was to retain progressive support while respecting Biden’s stance. Yet, her efforts to distinguish herself were largely ineffective, as Republicans painted the entire Democratic Party with the progressive brush. Arab Americans and progressives felt Biden’s approach was too favorable to Israel, while conservatives and many Jewish Americans criticized him for calling for any restraint.
Navigating Conflicts Over Military Support
Biden’s administration faced significant challenges in balancing military support for Israel with calls for restraint. While Biden approved almost all essential assistance, including missile defense technologies, he restricted access to certain heavy munitions, notably the 2000-lb bomb, to minimize civilian casualties in densely populated areas. This bomb is highly destructive, capable of leveling entire city blocks, with shrapnel traveling miles and posing a serious risk to civilians beyond the immediate blast zone. I fully agree with Biden’s position on restricting the use of such a powerful weapon. In practice, Israel already had hundreds of these bombs in their inventory, so Biden’s restriction was largely symbolic. Yet, this single restriction was quickly misconstrued as a full-scale arms embargo, and that narrative gained traction.
Biden’s attempt to ensure a measured military response was seen by some as withholding vital arms and not fully supporting Israel, creating friction with both sides. Progressives condemned his support for Israel, conservatives and Jews criticized his calls for restraint, and Arab Americans remained critical of his backing of Israel altogether.
For Biden, it would have been politically expedient to force an early ceasefire, appeasing critics across the board long before the election. Instead, he upheld Israel’s right to neutralize threats, understanding the political fallout this decision could bring. By staying the course, Biden faced criticism from all sides.
The 2024 Election Fallout
The election results ultimately underscored the impact of Biden’s stance on Israel. Many progressive voters abstained from voting, unable to align with Biden’s approach to the conflict. Disillusioned by what they perceived as the Democratic Party’s broader alignment with the progressive position, a significant number of Jewish voters shifted toward the Republican ticket. Meanwhile, Arab Americans also turned away from the Democrats, prioritizing Biden’s support for Israel as a defining issue, and dismissing Trump’s previous anti-Muslim positions.
Despite Harris’s efforts to clarify the Democratic position, her campaign was unable to shake the association with progressive views on Israel, which Republicans had effectively tied to the Biden administration. This proved to be a deciding factor in Trump’s victory, who would likely adopt a more unconditionally supportive stance toward Israel, sidelining efforts at restraint or diplomacy moving forward.
Biden’s Lasting Legacy on U.S.-Israel Relations
With Donald Trump assuming the presidency, the future of U.S.-Israel relations will likely shift. Trump’s administration is expected to offer unqualified support for Israel’s security efforts, likely without the restraint that Biden had advocated. This could again recalibrate regional dynamics and affect the balance between security and humanitarian considerations.
Biden’s refusal to enforce a premature ceasefire highlighted a political gamble that will shape U.S.-Israel relations and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. While Biden’s approach represented a departure from previous administrations, the electoral outcome underscores the political risks associated with prioritizing long-term stability over short-term political gain. His decision may serve as both a testament to the importance of strategic allyship and a reminder of the domestic political costs of navigating complex international conflicts.
This is a thoughtful, intelligent analysis f the costs and advantages of Biden’s approach. It’s hard to predict what the Trump administration might do. President Trump (part 2) will be transactional, his go to approach. Further, I wonder about the Russian sphere of influence (Crimea, Syria, Iran). No opinion, just a concern.