Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1389604598-scaled

Biden may be imperfect, but he's the only option for those concerned about Palestinian rights

No one believes for a moment that any plea for mercy, let alone a call for justice, for the Palestinians will be met with anything but mockery by the Trump administration. But it is possible to move Biden.

Analysis | Middle East

“In my 34-year career,” presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told the Jewish weekly magazine, The Forward, in 2007, “I have never wavered from the notion that the only time progress has ever been made in the Middle East is when the Arab nations have known that there is no daylight between us and Israel. So the idea of being the ‘honest broker’ is not I think, like some of my democratic colleagues call for, is not the answer.”

There is no reason to think Biden is any more inclined toward fairness between Israel and the Palestinians today than he was back then. He maintains his self-proclaimed “Zionist” identity, and his rhetoric continues to reflect a deep bias in favor of Israel. But if Biden has remained in place, United States policy has lurched far in favor of extreme elements in Israel. The Trump administration has greenlit unilateral Israeli annexation in the West Bank, while abandoning any pretense of supporting even the minimal goal of a truncated Palestinian state, dependent on Israel, as the now-abandoned Oslo peace process envisioned.

In that sense, Biden represents a substantive alternative to Trump. The current administration has shattered the fragile diplomatic relationship with the Palestinians and made it politically impossible for even the overly accommodating Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel. It has broken the long-standing support system for the Palestinian people while placing more obstacles than ever in the way of Palestinians’ ability to support themselves.

When Barack Obama — and his vice president, Joe Biden — left office, Palestinians were worse off than they had ever been before. The same could be said for every administration since George H.W. Bush. But Trump has magnified the misery, despair, and oppression in a way his predecessors could not have dreamed of.

As with many other issues, Biden’s views are quite different from those of many of the voters he hopes to win over. But also like other issues, Biden’s views are even more different from Trump’s and, if Biden is unlikely to be moved substantially in a more progressive direction, he is still susceptible to persuasion by advocates for Palestinian rights where Trump is not.

If that sounds like faint praise, it is, but this is the choice we have, barring unexpected developments. No matter how negatively one views Biden, the devastation a second Trump term could cause for the Palestinian people is almost unimaginable. Trump would be free of electoral constraints and would feel vindicated in all his actions. Worse, he’d know that even a Republican successor would be unlikely to maintain his extreme policies, and he’ll do everything he can to get as much done in areas important to his base — like Israeli sovereignty over all of the West Bank — as will be possible in the four years he has.

There is no hope that Palestinian rights can be advanced during a Trump presidency. That said, it is crucial that we go into a possible Biden presidency with eyes wide open and ready to press hard for the sort of policies that have always been crucial and that four years of Trump’s recklessness have only made more important.

Biden and annexation

Biden offers little hope for preventing, or reversing, unilateral Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank. Unlike most of the rest of the Democratic field in the recent primary, he is steadfast in his refusal to use U.S. aid to Israel as a lever to persuade Israel against annexation. Biden has explicitly cautioned Israel against annexation, and in a statement last week, he urged Israel not to “take actions that make a two-state solution impossible.” But these statements strongly imply that Biden continues to eschew any material pressure on Israel whatsoever. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a career of calling such American bluffs, and he will certainly do so again.

But even if Biden has not changed since leaving the White House in 2017, the politics have. Biden was always seen as close to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and more aloof from the liberal pro-Israel group, J Street. But this year, J Street has, for the first time in their history, endorsed a candidate for president, and Biden, to the surprise of some, accepted their endorsement.

More telling was a letter sent to the Democratic National Committee by 30 former national security officials, many of them veterans of the Obama administration, calling on the DNC to include an explicit statement of support for Palestinian rights, "including self-determination, security and freedom,” in its platform. The letter unsurprisingly failed to impress long-time activists for Palestinian rights, but it was a dramatic step forward for mainstream Democratic foreign policy figures.

Another letter, from a coalition of more than 50 progressive organizations, called for Biden to, among other demands, commit to “ending Israel’s military occupation; disbanding Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; ending the Israeli military blockade of Gaza.” The demands were clearly tailored to be farther than Biden is likely to go, but still well within the mainstream of the Democratic party. This is a telling point.

No one believes for a moment that any plea for mercy, let alone a call for justice, for the Palestinians will be met with anything but mockery by the Trump administration. But it is possible to move Biden.

Biden and Bernie Sanders: an uneasy partnership

On Wednesday, the Biden and Bernie Sanders campaigns announced the joint formation of six task forces to tackle a variety of issues. While one devoted to climate change was the closest any of the committees came to foreign policy, there have already been signs that the two campaigns have been working together on that as well.

“It’s clear there’s a new progressive foreign policy discussion happening,” Sanders’ foreign policy advisor Matt Duss told Foreign Policy in late April. “That’s something that, now as the nominee and hopefully as president, Biden will need to engage with, and I’m confident he and his team will. It’s not to say he will change his views overnight, certainly not, but at least recognition that this is a part of the new progressive coalition, a broader set of organizations and ideas about foreign policy.”

That none of the new task forces deal directly with foreign policy is also unfortunately telling. Biden understands that defeating Trump is going to center on domestic issues that are of immediate concern to Americans, such as the economy, the pandemic, and climate change. Still, Duss is correct in pointing out that Biden must reckon with a more progressive approach to foreign policy, even in Israel, an area where he may have some personal investment, but where the government has shifted to such an extreme position that even someone as supportive as Biden will have to take action if he hopes to salvage the possibility of diplomacy.

There is no hope of Trump coming to that realization. Biden, though he may not be the candidate progressives want or need, is the only alternative they've got.


Photo credit: Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.