President Biden has been trying to draw a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons in an attempt to claim his commitment to Israel’s security remains “ironclad” even as he withholds aid. But such a distinction is completely untenable.
In the CNN interview last week, he insisted, “We’re not walking away from Israel’s security. We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas.” He added, “We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently. But it’s, it’s just wrong. We’re not going to – we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”
A White House official then argued to Gabby Deutch Jewish Insider, “It’s ironclad to Israel’s security, right, like, I mean, they need Iron Dome defense systems. You can argue that they don’t need a 2,000-pound unguided munition in order to defend themselves.”
In reality, the whole point of going on offense is to prevent terrorist attacks by dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure as well as establishing deterrence against Iran. Even if missile defense systems were perfect, Israelis will not feel secure if they are constantly under bombardment and having to seek shelter from those rockets that could sneak through.
Early on in the campaign, thousands of rockets were being fired at Israelis. But due to Israeli actions in Gaza – yes, some of which involved bombing rocket launch sites that are located in civilian areas – the frequency of rocket fire has been reduced substantially. It has not, however, been eliminated. On Friday, Hamas launched 14 rockets at the Israeli city of Beersheba – nine of which were fired from Rafah – and Israel responded by hitting two launch sites.
To suggest that it constitutes “ironclad” support to allow Israelis to sit back on their heels and wait for missile defense systems to protect them rather than targeting the source of the attacks and dismantling the group responsible for them is absurd.
Furthermore, it is actually quite similar to the failed strategy that led to October 7th. A lot of Israelis had arrogantly convinced themselves that because they had Iron Dome, the threat from Hamas was limited. This way of thinking allowed Hamas to grow in strength and it left Israelis asleep at the switch when the terrorist group used rocket attacks as cover for a massive ground invasion. The massacres that occurred on that day are what led to a significant shift away from the very defensive-focused strategy Biden is advocating.
Biden’s distinction is not driven by any real security considerations, of course, but rather, it’s an effort to navigate the internal politics of his own party, in which Israel has become a divisive issue. As he courts the pro-Hamas caucus within his party, he’s trying to convince his pro-Israel supporters that he hasn’t abandoned Israel. This strategy will only inflame both sides.