Biden’s diplomacy in Gaza: Facade of peace efforts while supporting endless war

An article from Foreign Policy critically analyzes the Biden administration's approach to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, particularly its claims of conducting diplomacy to end the war between Israel and Hamas. The author argues that while the Biden administration publicly portrayed itself as attempting to negotiate a ceasefire, in reality, it did not exert significant pressure on Israel to end the war or to alter its goal of completely destroying Hamas—a goal the article asserts is unattainable.

The article argues that, despite claims from the Biden administration, the US never made a genuine attempt to secure a lasting ceasefire. It suggests that while there were numerous diplomatic meetings, they lacked any real substance, as the US never pressured Israel to adopt more realistic and achievable goals. Biden's public statements and policy choices, such as supporting Israel’s stated objective of "eradicating Hamas," further reinforced this lack of real diplomatic engagement.

Early in the conflict, Biden rejected calls for a ceasefire, with the US even banning its officials from using terms like "ceasefire" or "de-escalation." Instead, the US encouraged temporary pauses in fighting, often for just a few hours, while maintaining its support for Israel’s broader military objectives. The administration's stance was that a ceasefire alone would not bring peace, a position at odds with broader international sentiment.

The article suggests that the US engaged in diplomacy primarily for public relations purposes rather than to resolve the conflict. It argues that Biden, aware of growing domestic discontent with the war, sought to placate both pro-Israel factions and critics of the war by appearing to negotiate a ceasefire while continuing to supply Israel with arms. This approach aimed to convince the public that the US was doing all it could to end the war, despite the reality that it was largely following Israel’s lead.

The article asserts that Israel’s position, particularly under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has been clear: the war will continue until Hamas is completely eradicated. This objective, which is framed as essential to Israel’s security, has prevented meaningful progress towards peace. Israel has consistently rejected the idea of a permanent ceasefire without achieving its military goals.

The article highlights the role of public opinion in shaping US policy. With a significant portion of the American public, particularly among Democrats, disapproving of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Biden's administration has sought to balance supporting Israel with a veneer of diplomatic engagement. This balancing act, the article suggests, is aimed at avoiding further backlash while maintaining an unwavering stance of support for Israel’s war effort.

In conclusion, the article argues that while the Biden administration repeatedly claimed it was working towards peace, it never truly sought a diplomatic solution. Instead, it allowed the war to continue by supporting Israel’s objectives without placing any meaningful pressure on the country to cease hostilities or negotiate a lasting peace. The author posits that the administration's failure to secure a ceasefire was not due to the limits of US power, but rather because the US never truly tried to end the conflict.

By Vafa Guliyeva