Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2041380377-e1655288934143

Itinerary: Palestinians will get the pop-in treatment and little else from Biden trip

Campaign promises prove to be just that, as the administration prioritizes Israel-Gulf State security over dwindling prospects for peace.

Analysis | Middle East

The White House announced that President Joe Biden would visit Israel, the West Bank, and Saudi Arabia from July 13 to 16, and laid out a framework for the agendas of each planned stop. 

It should come as no surprise that the meetings with Israel and Saudi Arabia will focus on very specific subjects, while the meetings with Palestinian leaders will cover more general topics. A White House spokesperson said that Biden and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would discuss “the ways in which we might rekindle a new political horizon that can ensure equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity and dignity to Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

That description sounds more like a phone call than a meeting, and it reflects the fact that the United States, like its allies in the region, have no idea what to do about the plight of the Palestinians, and really wish the issue could be ignored. 

The absence of any substantial motion on Palestinian rights during Biden’s tenure is glaring. The few moves the United States has made since January 2021 have largely been aimed at simply restoring communication between Ramallah and Washington, which was shattered by Donald Trump. The administration has accomplished that much but virtually nothing else, and even the re-established lines of communication are tense and cold. Biden is not prioritizing the Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority has grown frustrated

Biden had committed to reopening the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, which served as the point of contact for American and Palestinian leaders for over 170 years before Donald Trump shut it down and used the site for the relocated U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. As I explained in December, Biden’s promise was foolhardy, as opening a consulate is a much more complicated affair than closing one if the host country (in this case, Israel) is not amenable to the move. 

Biden has tried to mollify the Palestinians by signaling that his administration is planning to upgrade the Palestinian Affairs Unit — the diplomatic mission to the Palestinian leadership which was downgraded as a department within the Israeli embassy by Trump — to a higher status that would report directly to the State Department rather than through the embassy. 

The PA was not impressed by the news. In a meeting last weekend with State Department officials to discuss preparations for Biden’s trip, their representatives reiterated the demand that Biden reopen the consulate. They also reaffirmed their demand that the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) designation as a foreign terrorist organization be removed. This was another promise Biden made that was easier said than done. 

Since 1997, the State Department has maintained a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). But in 1987, it was Congress that stuck the “terrorist” label on the PLO. This was part of the pushback against moves the Ronald Reagan administration was making to explore talks  with the PLO. A year later, Reagan would open talks with the PLO, using a presidential waiver that Congress provided. That waiver was invoked by every successive president until Trump declined to do so in 2019, forcing the PLO to close its Washington offices. 

Complicating the matter of reopening that office is the fact that a 2018 law called the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA) would cause the Palestinians to be liable for at least $655 million in damages from lawsuits over the years. The U.S. would only have the right to demand those funds under certain circumstances, one of which is having official Palestinian offices in the United States. 

Whether the Biden administration knew about these complications when it made its promises to the Palestinians or not, the promises were made and the Palestinians expect Biden to make good on them. Indeed, from the Palestinian perspective, these demands represent a radical lowering of expectations from the days where they hoped the United States would actively pressure Israel into taking significant steps toward a two-state solution. 

Biden’s hands are not completely tied, but he is not taking steps that he could take. For example, a bill currently in the House of Representatives could go a long way to enabling the sort of steps the Palestinians are hoping for. 

The “Two-State Solution Bill” was introduced back in September by Andy Levin (D-Mich.) and has many provisions that would seem to line up perfectly with Biden’s stated policies. One of those provisions is the removal of the terrorist designation from the PLO if it is declared to be in compliance with another bill, the Taylor Force Act, which demands the PA end financial support to families of Palestinians convicted of terrorist attacks against Israelis. 

Levin’s bill would, according to the congressman, allow for the reopening of the PLO office in Washington. It would also demonstrate that the administration had Congressional backing for reopening the consulate. The bill has 47 co-sponsors, and support from a wide range of groups that are important to Biden and the Democrats, including J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Foreign Policy for America, Oxfam America and others. Biden’s support would greatly enhance that base. 

Yet, Biden has ignored the bill. How can Palestinians possibly look at this and believe their concerns are being taken seriously?

In fact, they can’t, and while Biden’s upcoming trip will give Abbas and other Palestinian leaders another chance to plead their case, the trip is likely to end with the Palestinians in an even worse political position. 

In Israel, Biden will do the usual formal meetings, but will also attend a virtual summit of the new I2U2 grouping of India, Israel, the UAE and the U.S. This new group will, according to U.S. officials, start developing a framework for dealing with food security in the Middle East and Asia. But more militaristic security concerns are sure to be a major focus, and will present some very specific challenges to the UAE, given the strained status quo between Israel and the Palestinians and the recent Indian government attacks on its own Muslim minority. 

The Saudis, for their part, remain reluctant to fully normalize with Israel without some accommodation for the Palestinians. Still, it is unknown whether that resolve will outlast King Salman, and his son, Mohammed, is now in practical charge of the kingdom. The Saudis are already getting much of what they want from Israel, as the Abraham Accords are quickly leading to the anti-Iran military bloc they crave. Pressing the Palestinian case is not on MBS’ agenda. 

Biden’s trip will, at best, leave the Palestinians with a few symbolic gains, but a clear message that, in practice, nothing is going to change in the foreseeable future. Biden has made promises he was never going to be willing or able to keep, given his aversion to even the mildest challenges. And, politically, with midterms looming and his approval ratings very low, he is not going to take steps now for the Palestinians. This trip is all about Saudi Arabia and Israel, and, in Washington’s mind, the Palestinians are more a nuisance than a cause for concern.


President Joe Biden exits Air Force One. (Shutterstock/Chris Allan)
Analysis | Middle East
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

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.