Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: How does Joe Biden's Israel policy differ from that of his predecessors?

Checked on October 17, 2025

Executive Summary — Biden’s Israel policy mixes restored diplomacy with continuities in arms and security commitments, but critics say it both reinscribes longstanding U.S. positions and fails to alter the underlying dynamics that produced repeated crises. Biden has re-emphasized traditional U.S. diplomacy and multilateral engagement while maintaining robust security support for Israel; rivals and critics emphasize his administration’s limited willingness to press hard on Israeli policies like settlements and Gaza operations [1] [2] [3].

1. Biden’s Return to Diplomacy — Old Tools, New Tone

President Biden prioritized rebuilding alliances and re-engaging with Palestinian and regional partners, reversing several of the Trump-era departures from multilateralism. He restored funding to Palestinian aid mechanisms paused under the prior administration and publicly endorsed a two-state framework as a strategic goal, signaling a rhetorical and institutional reorientation toward diplomacy [4] [1]. Critics argue this amounted to symbolic repair rather than a transformational policy shift because core security arrangements with Israel and high-level military assistance remained intact, limiting leverage on Israeli policy choices [2].

2. Security Support Continuity — Military Aid and Shared Threat Perceptions

Biden continued strong U.S. military backing for Israel, including weapons sales and intelligence cooperation, framing these as essential to countering Hamas and regional threats. This continuity in hard-power commitments contrasts with rhetoric about renewed diplomacy and shapes the administration’s leverage, or lack thereof, in influencing Israeli operational decisions in Gaza and the West Bank [1] [3]. Supporters frame this as stability-preserving realism; critics contend it reduces U.S. willingness to condition assistance on human-rights or restraint measures, perpetuating cycles of conflict [2].

3. Gaza Strategy — Humanitarian Concerns Versus Support for Israeli Operations

Biden’s administration repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense while calling for humanitarian pauses, safe corridors, and increased aid to Gaza—an attempt to balance Israeli security imperatives with civilian protection. This dual-track posture drew praise for addressing humanitarian consequences and condemnation for appearing to enable protracted Israeli campaigns against Hamas without robust accountability measures [1] [2]. Policy debates focus on whether U.S. insistence on humanitarian steps constitutes meaningful pressure or merely mitigates reputational costs.

4. Settlements and Two-State Rhetoric — Words Versus Levers

While Biden reasserted support for a two-state solution, his administration stopped short of taking forceful measures against Israeli settlement expansion, reflecting a pattern of rhetorical commitment without decisive economic or diplomatic penalties [4] [2]. Advocates for Palestinian statehood argue that restored dialogue must be paired with concrete U.S. incentives or penalties to alter Israeli settlement trajectories; defenders of Biden’s approach say heavy-handed coercion risks destabilizing the U.S.-Israel relationship and undermining cooperation on shared security goals [3].

5. Regional Realignment — Building Arab-Israeli Ties, Differently from Trump

Trump emphasized transactional deals and economic ties—most visibly through the Abraham Accords—favoring rapid normalization between Israel and Arab states. Biden preserved some momentum on Arab-Israeli cooperation but placed greater emphasis on diplomacy, security alignments, and humanitarian concerns, reflecting a shift from deal-driven diplomacy to alliance management and crisis mitigation [3] [5]. Observers note both administrations sought broader Arab involvement in Gaza contingencies, but they diverged on sequencing, public messaging, and conditionality.

6. Internationalization of Gaza Peace Options — Competing Proposals and Actors

Recent proposals from various actors—Trump-associated plans, international security force ideas, and multilateral frameworks—illustrate competing blueprints for Gaza’s future. Biden’s approach prioritized coordination with Gulf states and the UN while avoiding endorsement of unilateral Israeli proposals that would dramatically alter governance on the ground, producing a cautious internationalist posture that sought to share responsibility but often failed to crystallize a viable endgame [6] [5]. The proliferation of plans highlights fragmented international consensus and diverging agendas among U.S., Israeli, and regional stakeholders.

7. Domestic Politics and Congressional Dynamics — Constraining the White House

U.S. policy toward Israel under Biden was shaped by stark domestic political pressures: strong bipartisan congressional support for Israel’s defense, progressive critiques demanding accountability, and interest-group influence. This domestic constraint limited the administration’s room to apply coercive measures and forced a calibrated posture balancing electoral politics with foreign policy objectives [7] [2]. The result was a policy that emphasized support and diplomacy while avoiding deep ruptures with Israel’s government.

8. Critics’ Bottom Line — Reformers See Inadequate Change

Analysts critical of U.S. policy argue Biden’s tenure continued a pattern of strategic denial and inadequate rethinking of America’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that rhetorical commitments to two states and humanitarian relief did not equal structural policy shifts required to prevent recurring wars [2] [3]. Supporters counter that restoring alliances and maintaining deterrence were necessary prerequisites for any future political solution, framing Biden’s blend of support and diplomacy as pragmatic given regional volatility [4] [1].

9. What Matters Going Forward — Leverage, Credibility, and Outcomes

The central test of Biden-era divergence from predecessors lies not in statements but in whether the U.S. converts diplomatic restoration into leverage that changes Israeli behavior, improves Palestinian governance, and reduces violence. If military aid continues unconditioned and diplomatic channels remain limited to crisis management, patterns of continuity will likely persist; if multilateral pressure and concrete incentives are deployed, Biden’s diplomacy could mark a meaningful shift. Analysts remain split on which trajectory will prevail as crises and regional alignments evolve [2] [5].

Want to dive deeper?
What were the key differences between Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's Israel policies?
How has Joe Biden's Israel policy been received by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
What role has the Israeli-Palestinian conflict played in shaping Joe Biden's Middle East policy?
How does Joe Biden's approach to Iran nuclear deal impact US-Israel relations?
In what ways has Joe Biden's Israel policy diverged from or aligned with that of Donald Trump?