In a recent revelation, U.S. President Joe Biden openly admitted to advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas during the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This admission, captured in a widely circulated video, has sparked a heated debate about the ethical and legal implications of the U.S.’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Biden’s Admission
During a conversation about his visit to Israel in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, Biden recounted his warning to Netanyahu against “carpet bombing” civilian areas. Biden stated, “You can’t indiscriminately bomb civilian areas even if the bad guys are there,” acknowledging Netanyahu’s justification rooted in historical military comparisons, including references to U.S. actions during World War II, including their use of atomic bombs. Biden countered by invoking the post-war development of international humanitarian norms.
Contextualizing the Conflict
Biden’s remarks are situated against a backdrop of intense aerial bombardments in Gaza, described by independent analysts as the deadliest air campaign against civilians in modern history. Reports from NGOs like Airwars document extensive civilian casualties, with thousands killed in the first weeks of the campaign. Despite these realities, the U.S. has continued its substantial military aid to Israel, totaling $18 billion since October 2023.
Legal and Ethical Questions
Critics argue that Biden’s acknowledgment of civilian harm, coupled with continued U.S. military support, constitutes complicity in grave violations of international law. The destruction of Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure, including attacks on hospitals and the deaths of medical personnel, has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations and reinforced calls for accountability.
Historical Comparisons
Netanyahu’s comparison of Israel’s actions to Allied tactics during World War II has been widely criticized as historically inaccurate and morally indefensible. Unlike Nazi Germany, which posed an existential threat to global peace, Gaza represents a densely populated territory under prolonged occupation and siege. This stark disparity underscores the controversial nature of using historical analogies to justify contemporary military operations.
Biden’s Legacy
As Biden approaches the end of his presidency, his handling of the Gaza crisis will define his legacy. While some see his statements as attempts to mitigate criticism, others view them as insufficient gestures overshadowed by continued military support for Israel. Polls indicate a decline in public perception of Biden, with many Americans ranking his presidency among the least favorable in U.S. history.
Biden’s comments reveal a complex interplay of moral acknowledgment and political calculation. Whether viewed as an act of accountability or a deflection of responsibility, they highlight the urgent need for international scrutiny and adherence to humanitarian principles.
