Follow us on social

2022-07-14t123121z_1749984962_rc2nbv9n2gac_rtrmadp_3_usa-israel-biden-scaled

Biden, media standards were all over the place during Middle East trip

However justified American concerns are with Saudi Arabia, little attention was given to abuses in Israel-Palestine.

Analysis | Middle East

The Biden administration’s approach and media coverage given to the president’s visits to Israel-Palestine and Saudi Arabia were starkly contradictory. While Biden gushed romantically with the Israelis, he was vague and hesitant with the Palestinians; and with the leaders of the Gulf Arab countries, he was so cautious that he almost undercut his message. 

The president arrived in Israel declaring, as he has in the past, that he is a “Zionist,” and that he felt “at home.” He received an Israeli Presidential Medal of Honor and signed what is called “The Jerusalem Declaration” with Prime Minister Yair Lapid. This document, heralded by an Israeli newspaper for its “intimacy,” was embarrassingly effusive, including virtually every over-the-top expression of affection in the lexicon of such terms used by American politicians.

On just the first page, the declaration affirms that the U.S. commitment to Israel is “unbreakable,” “unwavering,” “unshakable,” “sacrosanct,” “enduring,” and is a “moral commitment” based on a “bedrock of shared values.” 

Palestinians aren’t mentioned until near the end of the statement where it notes that both countries “condemn the deplorable series of terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens” and pledge to “improve the quality of life of Palestinians.” It’s intriguing that the declaration departs from its “both leaders” frame to note that only “President Biden reaffirms his…support for a two-state solution.” 

Biden’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was, as expected, stiff and uneventful. Because they couldn’t agree on a joint statement, each delivered their own readouts on the meeting — both of which included expected tired formulas making it clear that nothing had happened to move the needle on Palestinians achieving their rights or the United States playing a more aggressive role in helping to advance Palestinian rights. 

In his statement following the meeting with Abbas, Biden used his now shopworn “Israelis and Palestinians [both] deserve to enjoy equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity, and democracy,” and “his belief that the Palestinian people deserve to live lives of dignity and opportunity; to move and travel freely; and to give hope to their children that they will one day enjoy the same freedom and self-determination of their neighbors.” The U.S. president not only failed to criticize any Israeli behaviors that are impeding his hopes for Palestinians or provide any assurances that he would act to rein in these behaviors, but also went further to dash Palestinian hopes by twice stating that the time wasn’t right for any movement toward achieving long-denied Palestinian rights. 

As Biden left Tel Aviv flying to Jeddah, Israelis were left overwhelmed by the president’s affection and commitments of billions in aid and political support, and the Palestinians were left underwhelmed by his hollow words of support for their aspirations without any commitments to help realize them. 

Biden’s arrival in Jeddah was described as low key. In contrast to the effusiveness of his engagement with Israeli leaders, his initial greeting with Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman was punctuated by a fist bump — which was featured on the front pages of U.S. newspapers and played endlessly on U.S. news programs. If intended by the White House as an effort to make clear the president’s continued displeasure with the crown prince’s human rights record — including the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — it wasn’t read that way by a hostile U.S. press.

Biden was instead accused of giving the Saudi leader “a free pass.” A featured editorial in the Washington Post denounced the greeting as “selling out American values for votes.” And another weirdly decried the meeting with “despotic regimes subsidized by US taxpayers” and failing to live up to the values of an “American-led world order,” and “an insult to human rights.”

In the first place, it’s important to note that no Arab Gulf state is “subsidized by US taxpayers.” Second, after the excessive pandering that took place in Jerusalem, it strains credulity to suggest that Biden’s behaving in a statesman-like manner with Saudi Arabian leaders is about U.S. domestic politics. Third, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and all their attendant horrors, it takes more than a bit of hubris and/or disingenuousness to speak of “American values” or an “American-led world order.” And finally, it is patently dishonest for the same U.S. press to freely quote from reports by human rights groups to make their case against Saudi Arabia, when they have refused to even cover these same groups’ extensive reports on Israeli practices. In fact, there was nary a mention of ongoing Israeli violations of Palestinian rights or the need for the United States to take measures to pressure Israel to cease and desist. 

In the end, Biden’s meetings with GCC+3 countries and his bilateral meetings with each of the leaders concluded with several signed agreements on mutual defense, energy security and clean energy cooperation, and Arab-U.S. joint humanitarian assistance to alleviate hunger, promote health care, and build infrastructure in developing countries. These, however, received scant mention in press coverage, which remained focused on “the disgraceful fist bump.”

At trip’s end, what we are left with is a stark study in contrasts in how U.S. political leadership and media sees Israel and the Arabs through two different lenses: one is above criticism, the other is fair game. The impact of this double standard is that it distorts our relationships and undercuts our credibility as we struggle to find our way forward in the post-Iraq, multipolar world.


U.S. President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid attend the first virtual meeting of the "I2U2" group with leaders of India and the United Arab Emirates, in Jerusalem, July 14, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.