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
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.