Biden’s Speech Addressed an Israel That Doesn’t Exist

“As we manage challenges at home, we’re also managing crises abroad, including in the Middle East,” President Joe Biden said during his State of the Union address on Thursday night.

He presented a timeline of events beginning on Oct. 7: a massacre by Hamas; 1,200 slaughtered, sexual violence endured; the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust; hostages taken. There were family members of some of the hostages sitting there as he spoke.

Israel has a right to go after Hamas, he said, and Hamas “could end this conflict” by releasing the hostages and “surrendering those responsible,” and Hamas, he said, “has an added burden, because Hamas hides and operates among the civilian population. But,” he added, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.”

And here, too, he ran through the destruction: tens of thousands of innocent people killed; children orphaned; millions displaced; people starving.

And he described what the United States was planning on doing about it: pushing for a six-week cease-fire and “directing the U.S. military to lead an emergency mission to establish a temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine, and temporary shelters.” Israel had to allow more aid in, he said, and humanitarian assistance isn’t a bargaining chip. He concluded the section by arguing that the only solution for Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and America is a two-state solution.

One can see what Biden was trying to do, as it was what he often tries to do: hold the center—one expansive enough for Democrats, independents, and perhaps even some Republicans—by supporting traditional American foreign policy and support for Israel while also considering human rights, peace, and stability. He was putting forth a vision in which the status quo makes sense. Perhaps he was also trying to communicate that U.S. support for Israel in this war fits within his broader program of preserving liberal democracy and upholding multilateralism.

The problem with all of this is that, thus far, Israel has not protected civilians in Gaza, and families of hostages are themselves protesting the Israeli government. Israel does appear to be using humanitarian assistance as a bargaining chip, so much so that the United States is now building a port to get aid in. (Responding to the speech, the International Rescue Committee said in an emailed statement, “Palestinians in Gaza need a sustained ceasefire and they need it now. A temporary pier that could take weeks to construct or airdrops are not a solution.”) And Israeli leadership has said, repeatedly, that it will not allow a Palestinian state. And all of this is being done with American financial and diplomatic support.

Biden described himself as a lifelong supporter of Israel. But the Israel he is supporting in theory—the Israel that would support a Palestinian state if it could, that prizes civilian life over all—and the very real Israel, led by the real Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is widely believed by his own citizens to be invested in prolonging this war for domestic political purposes, are not the same.

To listen to this speech was to wonder: If this war is deadlier than all other wars in Gaza combined, as Biden pointed out, why is the United States blocking cease-fire resolutions at the United Nations? If Israel is using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip, why is the United States in turn not conditioning military aid to Israel? And if the only solution is a two-state solution, why is Biden providing his support to a leader who has repeatedly said he will never allow one to be created? If U.S. policy works under the conditions that Biden outlined, and those conditions are not being met—what, then, of the policy?

Increasingly, this is the position many are coming to—including both those who were staunch supporters of a cease-fire from the first days of the war and, increasingly, those who originally supported Biden’s policy toward Israel and the war. The “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group J Street and the Reconstructionist movement (a politically and religiously progressive movement of Judaism established in the United States in the early 20^th century that understands Judaism as “the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people”) recently joined calls for a cease-fire, signing on to a letter that read, “We firmly believe there is no military solution to this conflict.” Haaretz recently shared that, on Oct. 23, 75 percent of subscribers polled supported Biden’s Israel policy; earlier this month, that number was down to 31 percent. They supported the war at the beginning. Perhaps they supported the war in theory. But they have found themselves no longer able to support the war as it is actually being carried out.

Israel’s war has the potential to be a major political issue for Biden this November. Before the State of the Union, his motorcade was blocked by anti-war protesters on its way to the Capitol. His staff is reportedly planning events to minimize the chance that he’s protested. Some members of Congress held up signs calling for a cease-fire during the address. But the issue is not going to simply go away. Nor is it going to change based on what Biden might want it to be. Biden’s speech should have reflected the war as it is, not as he hopes it might be. His policy should, too.