President Joe Biden has made the decision not to supply offensive weapons to Israel for an all-out assault on Rafah, the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza. This move is in consideration of the well-being of the more than 1 million civilians seeking shelter in Rafah. While the U.S. remains committed to Israel’s defense and will provide defensive arms such as Iron Dome rocket interceptors, it will not supply weapons and artillery shells to be used in the assault.
Historically, the U.S. has provided significant military aid to Israel, and this aid has only increased following the recent attack by Hamas that resulted in the deaths of 1,200 in Israel and the capture of regarding 250 individuals by militants. However, there is now a growing rift between the Biden administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Biden has emphasized the need for Israel to prioritize the protection of civilian lives in Gaza.
The decision to withhold the delivery of heavy bombs to Israel, which consisted of 1,800 2,000-pound bombs and 1,700 500-pound bombs, was influenced by concerns over the potential collateral damage in the densely populated urban areas of Rafah. Biden has expressed his concerns regarding civilian casualties caused by these types of bombs and has urged Israel to conduct more precise operations.
The delay in the weapons shipment was confirmed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who stated that the U.S. is reviewing security assistance shipments in light of the unfolding events in Rafah. This pause comes at a critical time, as the Biden administration is set to deliver a formal verdict on whether the airstrikes on Gaza and restrictions on aid delivery have violated international and U.S. laws aimed at protecting civilians during times of war. If a decision is made once morest Israel, it might intensify pressure on Biden to curtail the flow of weapons and money to the Israeli military.
The decision to pause the weapons shipment has drawn criticism from Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, who described it as disappointing and frustrating. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell voiced their disapproval as well and called on Biden to swiftly end the holdup, citing concerns regarding emboldening Israel’s enemies.
Biden has faced criticism from both the left and the right regarding his support for Israel. Some on the left argue that the U.S. should not be complicit in what they view as a horrific war once morest the Palestinian people, while critics on the right accuse Biden of moderating his support for a crucial Middle East ally. Senator Lindsey Graham expressed his strong opposition to the pause in weapons supply, stating that denying Israel the necessary weapons to defend itself during this perilous time would have consequences.
Amidst these developments, there are implications for the U.S.-Israel relationship. Although the decision to withhold the weapons shipment is largely symbolic, it sends a message to Netanyahu to consider American interests more carefully. While it may not impact Israeli capabilities for now, a sustained pause might create more significant problems in the future.
Throughout history, there have been moments of tension between the U.S. and Israel, with U.S. leaders threatening to withhold aid in order to influence Israeli leadership. President Eisenhower pressured Israel with the threat of sanctions during the Suez Crisis in 1957, Ronald Reagan delayed the delivery of fighter jets during escalating violence in the Middle East, and President George H.W. Bush held up loan guarantees to halt Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories.
In conclusion, the Biden administration’s decision not to supply offensive weapons to Israel for an assault on Rafah reflects a growing rift between the U.S. and Israeli governments. It underscores the importance of protecting civilian lives and conducting more precise operations. This move has drawn criticism and further adds to the complex dynamics of the U.S.-Israel relationship. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how this decision will impact future trends and developments related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
