Biden’s strategy for the war in Gaza was called a “confusion”: too contradictory goals

Washington went on the defensive Tuesday over its claim that a U.N. Security Council ceasefire resolution on which it abstained was allegedly non-binding, putting the U.S. at odds with other member states, international relations scholars and itself. UN, notes The Guardian.

Analysts say the tension is becoming increasingly evident as the administration seeks to maintain policies aimed at influencing Israeli actions and preventing full-scale famine in Gaza, while avoiding using leverage such as arms restrictions that could have political consequences domestically in an election year.

Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior Biden official who is now president of the advocacy group International Refugee Relief, said “the strategy is a mess.”

“The US is playing a big game about fighting hunger, which its bombs and diplomatic cover helped create,” Konyndyk said on social media platform X. “That’s not how you fight hunger. This is indecision while people are starving.”

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged the depth and urgency of the crisis on Tuesday when he met with his Israeli counterpart Yoav Gallant at the Pentagon. “Gaza is in the midst of a humanitarian disaster, and it’s getting worse,” Austin told Gallant in remarks to the press, calling for a significant expansion of overland aid deliveries.

Under US pressure, Israel opened a third land crossing into Gaza, Gate 96, allowing access to the north, but continues to limit the number of aid convoys passing through, imposing restrictions on goods it deems dual-use. designating the small number of drivers allowed to use the checkpoint and other procedural requirements.

Israel announced on Monday that it would end cooperation with the United Nations Emergency Relief Agency (UNRWA), the main relief agency serving Gaza. UNRWA says its humanitarian aid convoys have been blocked since March 21.

That same day, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller insisted that there was currently no reason for the US to challenge Israel’s assurances that it was complying with humanitarian law in Gaza.

“We have not found that they violate international humanitarian law, either when it comes to waging war or when it comes to providing humanitarian assistance,” Miller said.

The US assessment is critical under a national security memorandum issued by Joe Biden in February, known as NSM-20, requiring “credible written assurances” from countries receiving US weapons that they will use “any such defense items in accordance with with international humanitarian law.”

One of the criteria was that “the recipient country would facilitate, and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transportation or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance and U.S. Government-supported international humanitarian relief efforts.”

If the secretaries of state or defense consider that the country’s compliance with the obligations has been “questioned,” arms shipments may be suspended.

Miller’s remarks about Israeli guarantees angered aid groups and some progressive members of Congress.

“Pretending that Israel is not violating international law or interfering with U.S. humanitarian aid is absurd on its face,” said Senator Bernie Sanders. “The State Department’s position makes a mockery of U.S. law and the guarantees provided to Congress.”

Miller said there are “ongoing processes” to evaluate the legality of Israeli military operations in Gaza, citing a review mechanism the administration created in September called the Guidance for Responding to Civilian Harm Incidents.

“At this time, we have not concluded that Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law,” Miller said, but added that the review process will continue and that a full report on compliance with the presidential memorandum is due no earlier than May 8.

Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic senator, said the State Department’s position is ambiguous, but if it says Israel is currently in compliance with NSM-20, “their decision is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground, especially regarding the required standards for the delivery of humanitarian aid.” “Humanitarian assistance to and within Gaza.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said: “If the assurances received from Israel are considered sufficient in the face of worsening famine, disproportionate civilian casualties and repeated threats of an offensive in Rafah contrary to US wishes, then NSM-20 in its first foray appears to be an empty gesture, and functionally gives the green light for Israel to continue to use our weapons against US laws, interests and values.”