For decades,
U.S. support for Israel rested on one of Washington’s strongest bipartisan
assumptions: that military assistance was strategically necessary and
politically untouchable. But Gaza has weakened that consensus.
Critics now see Israeli military aid as a misguided strategy and political target. The most visible shift has occurred inside the Democratic Party.
A
collapsing bipartisan consensus on Israel
Driven by
voter and demographic shifts, humanitarian concerns in Gaza, and the
unwarranted conflict with Iran, more than 100 House Democrats recently
supported an amendment seeking to block billions of dollars in Israel-related
assistance, an extraordinary departure from previous voting patterns.
House
Democratic leadership (including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) has
officially called for a “major reset” in U.S.-Israel relations.
Senate
efforts to restrict weapons transfers have also attracted substantial
Democratic support, reflecting growing concern about civilian casualties,
international law, and U.S. responsibility.
The
Republican coalition is also less unified than before. While most Republican
lawmakers remain strongly supportive of Israel, MAGA-aligned figures influenced
by anti-interventionism, “America First” priorities, and skepticism toward
foreign aid have increasingly questioned open-ended commitments.
Growing
opposition within the MAGA movement to U.S. arms transfers centers on a deep
ideological rift over foreign interventionism. Former Georgia Congresswoman
Marjorie Taylor Greene left office in January 2026 after a bitter falling out
with President Trump.
While much
of the base supports President Trump’s foreign policy, a growing, vocal
faction—backed by prominent voices like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and
Representative Thomas Massie—challenges continued, unconditional weapons
shipments.
The result
is a new political landscape: traditional pro-Israel Democrats, evangelical
conservatives, progressive Democrats, libertarian Republicans, and
anti-interventionist conservatives now approach the issue from fundamentally
different premises.
The debate is therefore no longer simply “pro-Israel versus anti-Israel.” It concerns whether U.S. strategic interests, domestic law, international obligations, and humanitarian concerns can continue to be reconciled under existing policy.
From
political controversy to legal challenges
At the same
time, legal initiatives accusing U.S. officials of complicity or failure to
prevent alleged Israeli violations have moved the debate from politics into
courts, international institutions, and questions of historical accountability.
The legal
debate has developed along several tracks. The most significant U.S. case
was Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, brought
by Palestinian organizations, Gaza residents, and Palestinian-Americans against
President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd
Austin, for their alleged “failure to prevent and complicity in the unfolding
genocide against Gaza.”
Along with
the human rights organizations, the lawsuit was promoted by Josh Paul who had
resigned from the U.S. State Department over arms shipments to Israel; Jewish
Voice for Peace; and genocide and Holocaust scholars spearheaded by
international lawyer William Schabas.
The
plaintiffs proposed that a genocide, or serious risk of genocide, of
Palestinians in Gaza was occurring. They also argued the U.S. is violating its
duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in the genocide.
Those U.S. failures were seen to contribute to the erosion of “long and widely
held norms of international law,” including the Genocide Convention and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Palestine
et al. v. Biden et al. case was dismissed by the U.S. Court with a ruling
that “while it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” U.S.
foreign policy was a political question over which courts lacked jurisdiction.
In a written decision, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White quoted approvingly
from a prior preliminary ruling (by the ICJ in the case brought against Israel
by South Africa). It found Israel’s conduct in Gaza may amount to genocide and
ordered it to stop killing and wounding Palestinians.
Other
initiatives include advocacy and legal campaigns by groups such as Democracy
for the Arab World Now (DAWN), which warned U.S. officials that continued
assistance after awareness of alleged violations could raise questions of
aiding and abetting.
DAWN wanted
the ICC to investigate Biden, Blinken, and Austin for violating Articles
25(3)(c) and (d) of the Rome Statute. These crimes featured those identified in
the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Intriguingly, the DAWN submission
widened the net of “accessorial liability” to include several other U.S.
officials as well.
More
recently, DAWN and allied organizations have also challenged Trump
administration’s measures targeting ICC-related advocacy.
Genocide scholar William Schabas and other international-law experts have supported arguments that third-party states may face responsibility if they knowingly facilitate atrocities. In the mainstream corporate media, these remain contested (though increasingly popular) legal interpretations. Yet, the latter have expanded the debate beyond Israel itself to states providing weapons, diplomatic protection, or political cover.
Biden
cabinet’s accessorial liability
Critics of
the Biden administration argue that responsibility cannot be limited to the
president alone. They point to a broader decision-making network involving arms
transfers, diplomatic protection, intelligence coordination, and political
messaging.
During her
failed presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris touted her readiness
for executive responsibility by supporting continued military aid to Israel.
Although she acknowledged that Gaza was a “humanitarian catastrophe,” she said
that she would not shift policy from Biden. Nor would she end arms sales to
Israel.
The role of
Secretary of State Antony Blinken was most critical because he served as
Biden’s right-hand in the Middle East and led the administration’s (largely
futile) diplomacy in the region. The State Department oversees diplomatic
relations, arms approvals, and implementation of human-rights-related foreign
assistance standards.
U.S.
military support relied on his subordinates who failed to raise the alarm on
the use of arms transfers to Israel in disregard of U.S. foreign policy,
domestic legal standards, and international obligations, including Bonnie
Jenkins, the Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security, and
Stanley L. Brown, acting as Assistant Secretary Political-Military Affairs,
which coordinates between the State and Defense Departments on arms transfers
and oversees the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
Along with
Blinken, Pentagon had the vital role. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and senior
officials were involved because the Department manages military assistance and
security cooperation. Israel’s military support relied on senior officials like
Amanda Dory, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who provided strategic
direction for international arms sales, and Mike Miller, as Director of the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Other
officials identified by critics include National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan
who advised the President on the strategic implications of arms transfers and
ensured the coordination between defense, diplomatic, and intelligence
agencies. In turn UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield had a high-profile role
in the UN Security Council. She vetoed seven resolutions calling for immediate
ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and limits to Israeli attacks against
civilians. She was the public face of a cabinet that was more willing to
finance arms for genocide than to end the atrocities.
As Secretary
of Treasury, Janet Yellen may look like a gentle grandmother, but she also
pledged the U.S. could afford to offer huge amounts of military aid to Ukraine
and Israel at the same time, enabling the ceaseless flow of arms in both wars.
She warned Iran that nothing was “off the table” for sanctions if Tehran were
to be linked to the Hamas-led attack on Israel.
Commerce
Secretary Gina Raimondo oversaw dual-use technology exports. CIA Director
William J. Burner and the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines were
intimately linked with the Biden cabinet’s actions regarding Gaza.
So, in
addition to the big three and the supportive six members of the Biden cabinet,
the widening net of accessorial liability includes at least half a dozen other
heads of executive departments and some ten cabinet-level officials.
The legal
question is not whether every official who supported policy decisions shares
identical responsibility. The narrower issue is whether individuals who
knowingly continued, facilitated, or defended policies that allegedly
contributed to unlawful acts and mass atrocities could or should face
political, reputational, or legal consequences.
Historically, accountability after mass atrocities has increasingly examined not only battlefield actors but also the widening web of political leaders, administrators, financiers, and institutions that enable military campaigns.
Are mass
atrocities crimes without punishment
In
Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov thought he was
above ordinary morality. Since some are destined to rise beyond good and evil
for a higher purpose, he commits a murder but discovers that he will gain no
salvation without atonement. Raskolnikov’s unraveling reveals a deeper truth.
No mind, no matter how brilliant, can erase its own humanity.
But perhaps
things have changed since Dostoyevsky.
After
leaving office, many senior Biden officials moved into academia, consulting,
publishing, advisory boards, and policy institutions. Today they pontificate on
their great achievements in the Biden cabinet.
After
leaving office on January 20, 2025, former President Joe Biden has been writing
his White House memoir. Thanks to a deal with Creative Artists Agency (CAA), a
Hollywood giant, he hopes to cash on future opportunities. He has made only
selective public appearances, due to ongoing treatment for prostate cancer.
Having
served as Biden’s echo chamber on Gaza, Vice-President Kamala Harris moved to
Los Angeles with her family. Like Biden, she, too, signed with CAA to focus on
speaking and publishing.
Former State
Secretary Blinken entered the policy and academic circuit. He has a book deal
with Crown Publishing. The memoir promises to provide a “candid” and “rare
glimpse” of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza. Blinken is
likely hoping a new post in a post-Trump Democratic administration or a return
to lucrative private sector consulting.
Former
Defense Secretary Austin has also returned to defense-policy and advisory
circles. Prior to the Biden White House, he earned seven figures from defense
companies, while working alongside Blinken at Pine Island Capital Partners, a
private equity firm investing in defense companies. In summer 2025, he rejoined
the Carnegie Corp., while launching a consulting firm, Clarion Strategies, with
former NATO officials. As CEO and co-founder, he now stood to benefit from the
global defense industry.
Jake
Sullivan, the former National Security Advisor joined Harvard Kennedy School as
the inaugural Kissinger Professor of the Practice of Statecraft and World
Order. After the Gaza genocide, he teaches international affairs and global
strategy.
Linda
Thomas-Greenfield, the public face of the Biden cabinet in the UN, works as a
senior advisor at the global advisory and advocacy firm APCO Worldwide. Over
the years, APCO’s multiple controversies include corporate campaigns for the
tobacco industry, lobbying for foreign governments with poor human rights
records, ties to Israeli defense contractors, and investigations into spying on
journalists.
Gina
Raimondo, former Secretary of Commerce, joined the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) as a distinguished fellow, co-chairing a task force on economic security.
After her
role in arms transfers to Israel and the Gaza genocide, Bonnie Jenkins serves
as a visiting professor of international affairs at George Washington
University. Specializing in security assistance, weapons destruction, and
international security operations, Stanley Brown continues to do what he did
during the Gaza genocide.
Janet
Yellen, William Burns, and other former officials transitioned into advisory,
institutional, or private-sector roles.
Supporters
argue these transitions reflect normal democratic circulation between
government, academia, and policy institutions. Critics say they demonstrate a
structural problem. Officials involved in controversial foreign-policy
decisions often face limited consequences and can continue operating within
elite networks. Revolving doors between the White House and the private sector
compound the problem.
The broader
issue is institutional rather than personal. If officials who design or defend
disputed policies face no meaningful review, future administrations are likely
to conclude that reputational costs are manageable and legal risks minimal.
President Joe Biden hosts a strategy meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir
Starmer, Friday, September 13, 2024, in the Blue Room of the White House.
Seated alongside the President are Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, and
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. (Official White House Photo by Adam
Schultz). Public Domain. Via Picryl.
The Trump
escalation: Gaza, Iran, the ICC, and complicity allegations
The second
Trump administration has transformed the Gaza debate from a question of U.S.
military support into a broader confrontation over the limits of executive
power, international law, and American responsibility for allied conduct.
Critics
argue that President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Mike Waltz, ex-Security Adviser and current US
Ambassador to the UN, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have moved beyond
Biden-era policies by rejecting many external constraints on U.S. and Israeli
actions.
On Gaza, the
Trump administration has supported positions that critics describe as
facilitating potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, or forced
displacement.
The most
controversial proposal was Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. could take control
of Gaza and relocate its Palestinian population — a plan critics argued raised
serious questions under international humanitarian law, while supporters
presented it as a reconstruction and security initiative.
As the Trump
administration pursued policies hostile to international accountability
mechanisms, the confrontation with the International Criminal Court (ICC)
became a defining issue. Trump issued Executive Order 14203 imposing sanctions
and other restrictions on ICC officials involved in investigations affecting
U.S. personnel or Israeli officials, arguing that the Court had acted
illegitimately against American sovereignty and its allies.
Critics
argue that attacking the ICC while shielding Israeli officials facing
allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity severely risks weakening
global accountability mechanisms.
In Iran and
the wider Middle East, the administration adopted a “maximum-pressure”
strategy, restoring sanctions and intensifying efforts to constrain Iran’s
nuclear program, regional networks, and military capabilities. Critics warn
that escalation policies — including support for Israeli military actions
against Iran and threats of overwhelming retaliation — risk expanding regional
warfare, generating new civilian harm and participating in war crimes and mass
atrocities.
The central
legal argument against the administration is not that every official personally
committed crimes, but that senior policymakers may incur political or legal
exposure if they knowingly authorize, facilitate, or shield actions that
violate international humanitarian law.
The historical question is whether these policies will be remembered as necessary exercises of state power — or as a precedent where a great power increasingly exempts itself and its partners from the rules they claim to defend.
Collapse
of credibility
The central
question is whether controversial wartime policies become temporary exceptions
or permanent precedents. If extensive civilian harm, unrestricted weapons
transfers, collective punishment allegations, or attacks on the accountability
of institutions become politically acceptable, the consequences will extend
beyond Gaza.
The United
States has historically promoted international legal norms with strategic
exceptions. The Gaza debate exposes that contradiction more sharply than many
previous conflicts because Washington is simultaneously a military supplier,
presumed diplomatic protector, and global advocate of a “rules-based order.”
The ultimate
issue is therefore the collapse of the U.S. institutional credibility, due to
the fatal gap between Washington’s stated values and observable events.
There is no return to status quo ante Gaza.
Filed Under: Featured, Israel/ Palestine, US Foreign Policy, US politics
About the Author
Dan Steinbock is
the author of The
Obliteration Doctrine and The Fall of
Israel, . He is the founder of Difference Group and has served
at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for
International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment