The unwavering U.S. support for Israel during the 2023 Hamas-Israel war, despite escalating tensions and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has raised questions about why the Biden administration refrained from imposing sanctions. President Biden’s deep-rooted personal connection to Israel, the unprecedented nature of the Hamas attacks, Israel’s complex domestic political landscape, and the need for Israeli cooperation in resolving the conflict all contributed to this decision.
Biden’s Long-Standing Relationship with Israel
President Biden’s decades-long engagement with Israel, stemming from his time in the Senate and reinforced by personal relationships with Israeli leaders, fostered a deep emotional bond. This predisposition towards accommodation rather than confrontation influenced his approach, prioritizing quiet diplomacy over punitive measures. Even面对 the most right-wing government in Israel’s history, Biden’s instinct was to manage tensions rather than resort to sanctions or restrictions on military aid, particularly during an active conflict.
The Unprecedented Nature of the October 7th Attack
The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, was a watershed moment, representing the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history and profoundly impacting the Israeli psyche. The scale of civilian casualties, hostage-taking, and displacement created a national trauma that solidified public support for a forceful response against Hamas. This unprecedented context made it politically challenging for any U.S. administration to exert pressure on Israel, especially when Hamas continued to threaten further violence and abuse hostages. Sanctions against Israel during such a crisis would have been highly controversial and potentially counterproductive.
Israel’s Domestic Political Climate
While Prime Minister Netanyahu faced declining popularity, the Israeli public largely supported his hardline stance against Hamas. Even potential successors like Benny Gantz remained aligned with the government’s war strategy. This lack of significant political opposition to the war effort further limited Biden’s options for applying pressure. Sanctions would not have resonated with the Israeli public and likely wouldn’t have shifted the government’s policy. The fractured opposition also lacked the cohesion to capitalize on any potential fallout from U.S. sanctions.
The Need for Israeli Cooperation
Ultimately, de-escalating the conflict and securing the release of hostages required Israel’s cooperation. Biden needed Israel’s involvement in humanitarian aid delivery, potential negotiations with Hamas, and any future arrangements for Gaza. Imposing sanctions would have likely jeopardized this crucial cooperation, hindering efforts to address the humanitarian crisis and achieve a lasting resolution. The U.S. relied on Israel to facilitate aid access and ensure the safety of aid workers, making sanctions a counterproductive measure.
Conclusion
The decision not to sanction Israel was a complex calculation based on a confluence of factors. Biden’s personal connection to Israel, the unprecedented nature of the Hamas attacks, Israel’s domestic political landscape, and the pragmatic need for Israeli cooperation all played significant roles. While the humanitarian situation in Gaza remained dire, the Biden administration prioritized diplomatic engagement and relied on Israel’s cooperation to achieve a resolution, making sanctions an unlikely and potentially detrimental course of action.
