A former State Department official sheds light on the U.S.’s mixed approach to Israel’s actions in Gaza, revealing deep-seated complexities

For several months, the Biden Administration has navigated a precarious path concerning Israel’s military operations in Gaza, oscillating between public criticism and continued support. This balancing act has sparked widespread confusion and debate about the underlying objectives and strategies of U.S. policy in the region. In a revealing conversation with Aaron David Miller, a seasoned expert on Middle Eastern affairs, we delve into the intricacies of the Administration’s stance, which combines sharp rebukes with an unwavering commitment to arm Israel despite escalating tensions.

Miller outlines two primary goals of the U.S. approach: containment, to prevent the conflict from spiralling into a broader regional war, and a nuanced handling of the conflict itself, acknowledging the complex dynamics at play between a sovereign state and a non-state actor like Hamas. The conversation highlights the Biden Administration’s deep-seated reluctance to impose significant consequences on Israel, despite growing frustrations within and outside the U.S. government. This reluctance stems from a combination of emotional ties, political considerations, and a strategic calculus that seeks to alter the situation on the ground without alienating a key ally.

The Administration’s strategy, described by Miller as “passive-aggressive,” reflects a broader historical reluctance among U.S. Presidents to engage in open confrontations with Israeli leaders. Despite the Administration’s private frustrations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government’s policies, public rebukes have not translated into tangible policy shifts or reductions in military support. This approach raises questions about the effectiveness and moral implications of U.S. policy, as well as the potential for meaningful change in Gaza.

Miller’s insights shed light on the complex web of factors influencing the U.S.-Israeli relationship, including the starkly different perspectives on humanitarian issues in Gaza. Despite the grave situation for Gazans, internal and external pressures have limited the Administration’s willingness to leverage its influence over Israel. The conversation underscores the enduring challenges of navigating U.S. foreign policy in a region marked by deep-rooted conflicts and shifting political landscapes.

As the Biden Administration continues to grapple with these challenges, the dialogue between U.S. officials and their Israeli counterparts remains a critical, yet fraught, element of the broader effort to address the ongoing crisis in Gaza. The insights provided by Miller offer a sobering perspective on the limitations and complexities of U.S. policy in the Middle East, highlighting the difficult balance between strategic interests, moral imperatives, and the realities of international diplomacy.