President Joseph R. Biden finds himself in a position that historically has not promised great opportunities for policy change or decisive political action: As of last week’s election, he is a lame-duck president. A chief executive in the final months of office, so the conventional wisdom goes, is not much of a president at all in terms of the ability to accomplish his or her goals.
But this upending of Mr. Biden’s political status can also be an opportunity for real change. His White House now has much less to lose, in terms of political capital or ongoing diplomatic relationships. And there is one area of foreign policy that cries out for exactly the kind of decisive action that perhaps only he at this moment can bring about: putting the burden of peace on Israel for bringing the war in Gaza to an end.
The changed political calculus in the United States is not the only factor making the current moment a crucial one in attempting to bring an end to violence in Gaza after more than a year of Israel’s invasion following Hamas’ terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023. On Oct. 13, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned Israel that the United States might delay or cancel military aid if that nation did not allow an increase in the amount of aid permitted to enter Gaza within 30 days. That deadline passed two days ago.
On Tuesday, eight aid groups said Israel had largely ignored the U.S. demand, and large swaths of the population of Gaza continue to suffer from famine conditions. Over 45,000 people have already been killed in the war, and the United Nations estimates that up to 70 percent are women and children.
The Biden administration claimed Tuesday that Israel had made some limited progress on increasing aid to Gaza and indicated that U.S. weapons aid to Israel—a key component in that nation’s war-making machine—would continue. This is despite U.S. laws forbidding such transfers to any nation that the State Department determines is committing “gross violations of human rights.” A spokesperson for the State Department stated that “we at this time have not made an assessment” that Israel’s actions have violated such laws. “We continue to be in discussion with our partners in Israel about these steps that they have taken, which they took as a result of U.S. intervention, as well as additional steps that we feel that still need to be taken.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to continue the war in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed. Yet the architect of the Oct. 7 attacks, Yahya Sinwar, was killed in an Israeli operation last month. Yoav Gallant, whom Mr. Netanyahu fired as defense minister last week, told Israeli news outlets this week, “There’s nothing left in Gaza to do. The major achievements have been achieved.” Speaking to family members of hostages being held in Gaza, he contended that Mr. Netanyahu was responsible for obstructing a ceasefire deal to end the war and bring the remaining hostages home.
Mr. Gallant is no friend to the Palestinians—last October he called for a total siege, “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel,” on Gaza, describing the Hamas militants who attacked Israel on Oct. 7 as “human animals”—so his recognition that the next step for Israel is a move to end military operations in Gaza was all the more telling.
That concession supports the argument that Israel is violating international law with its continued prosecution of the war. As the editors noted in February, a just war requires not only a just cause but a reasonable chance of success and clear criteria for achieving and securing peace. If this is an expression of politicians and generals waging war simply for the purposes of punishment or vengeance, it is also a clear violation of the core tenets of just war theory—something with which our Catholic president is surely familiar.
What if Mr. Biden ordered weapons shipments to be stopped tomorrow? While Israel would still be capable of inflicting massive damage on Gaza, its future war-fighting capabilities would be severely compromised over time, increasing the pressure to negotiate in a nation quite aware of history and ever-vigilant about attacks from hostile neighbors. The possibility of forcing Israel to the bargaining table after a year of violence—and facilitating a deal for the remaining hostages held by Hamas—has never been greater.
The incoming Trump administration could (and likely would) simply countermand any such move by President Biden. But the threat of such actions tomorrow is a poor excuse for not working for peace today. Mr. Biden should uphold U.S. law forbidding weapons transfers on the grounds of humanitarian rights now, and put the onus on the incoming administration to reverse that determination in order to resume supplying weapons. This would at a minimum guarantee another debate—on substantially different terms—about the future of the war in Gaza.
People are starving and dying in Gaza. The only way to find out how much good U.S. pressure can do in the days to come is for Mr. Biden to begin to apply it.
