The Biden administration is actively exploring strategies to temper the actions of the Israeli military, aiming to reduce civilian casualties and the chances of a broader conflict. This initiative comes amidst growing internal discontent regarding the administration’s policies in the Middle East.
US officials have signed a memorandum expressing their dissatisfaction with the White House’s reluctance to de-escalate the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. In a letter directed to President Biden and his team on Tuesday, over 500 government employees from about 40 agencies criticized the level of the administration’s support for Israel following the conflict in Gaza.
The letter condemned the Hamas-initiated deaths of 1,200 Israelis, predominantly civilians, on October 7. It urged President Biden to curb Israel’s military actions in Gaza, where, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, the death toll now exceeds 11,000.
The memo appealed to President Biden to actively call for a ceasefire and de-escalation, including securing the release of Israeli captives and arbitrarily detained Palestinians. It also emphasized the need to restore basic services like water and electricity in Gaza and to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, as reported by the New York Times.
The anonymous signatories reflect a growing discomfort within US government circles about Biden’s initial approach to addressing the conflict publicly, endorsing Israel’s right to self-defense, while privately attempting to curb its retaliatory measures. Critics argue that this tactic has proven ineffective.
Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, points out that rising concerns regarding the extent of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza have led to heightened internal dissent. The administration’s stance, particularly Biden’s early positions and skepticism about Gaza’s casualty figures, has triggered much of the disapproval.
More than a thousand staff members from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have openly called on the government to wield its influence to minimize civilian losses. Additionally, state department staff have reportedly employed the department’s formal dissent channel to call for policy changes on at least three occasions.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken takes the internal objections seriously, promoting open discussions within foreign missions worldwide for feedback.
Blinken has acknowledged to his staff that the humanitarian crisis is causing deep personal distress for many of them, assuring that their input is shaping current policy and messaging.
US administration officials assert that they have communicated the importance of restraint and reducing civilian casualties to Israel repeatedly. The Pentagon has reportedly been advising the Israel Defense Forces on how to effectively target Hamas in ways that limit “collateral damage.”
US influence is claimed to have deterred Israel from attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, which could have provoked a second front, ahead of a possible ground offensive in Gaza—a move that might have sparked a more extensive regional conflict. According to US officials, Hezbollah, while maintaining its image of resistance, is not invested in escalating the situation and fires only enough rockets into northern Israel to uphold its stance.
The United States has notably hardened its discourse concerning Gaza. President Biden recently emphasized the necessity to protect hospitals there, expressing hope during a press briefing that military actions would become less intrusive.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan echoed the call for Israel to maximize civilian protection while mentioning ongoing negotiations to release hostages held by Hamas, some of whom are American.
Samantha Power, the Usaid administrator, amplified this stringent tone, insisting upon the restoration of essential services to Gaza by Israel and compliance with international humanitarian law by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in alignment with the advisory board aimed at funding Israeli-Palestinian partnerships.
US officials concede that the change in their rhetoric is a response to unfolding events and internal discontent. They attribute some of the vocal dissent to a generational shift, with younger civil servants feeling more empowered to critique and influence policy than previous generations.
Departures over policy disagreements are not without precedent in the state department. However, dissent has been especially prominent during the Trump administration, particularly concerning policies like the early “Muslim ban” on immigrants and the Iraq war, which led to high-level resignations. To date, only one departure over the Gaza conflict has occurred: Josh Paul from the political-military bureau.
Despite the furor, key Arab nations have not abandoned their diplomatic ties with Israel. Bahrain and the UAE continue to uphold their Abraham Accords with Israel, and Saudi Arabia remains open to its own normalization agreement.
Lister suggests that the shift in the US administration’s tone has followed intense internal deliberation, culminating in a more balanced strategy that supports Israel while reinforcing the importance of civilian safety, humanitarian assistance, and adherence to international humanitarian law and the rules of warfare.