Unprecedented testimonies from former officials in the administration of US President Joe Biden revealed the extent of tension and division within the White House during the Gaza war, amid a growing feeling that Washington did not exert sufficient pressure on the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, despite repeated warnings about the scale of the bombing, the disruption of humanitarian aid, and the risk of the confrontation expanding into Iran and Lebanon.
According to a report published by the Israeli “N12” channel, based on an extensive investigation in “The New Yorker” magazine based on interviews with dozens of former officials, a number of senior Biden administration officials directed sharp criticism at the way Israel is managing the war in Gaza, and at the White House’s own policy in dealing with it.
Many of them believed that the United States did not use sufficient pressure tools on the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even though closed rooms repeatedly witnessed warnings about the course of the war and its repercussions.
From the first weeks of fighting, White House officials feared that the intensity of Israeli strikes, the high number of civilian casualties, and the obstruction of humanitarian access would lead not only to accusations of war crimes, but also to harm American interests in the region, jeopardize prisoner release negotiations, and increase the possibility of a broader regional confrontation.
Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan revealed that Biden and his team repeatedly discussed the possibility of delaying arms shipments to Israel, but the president refrained from taking this step, based on his belief that a prisoner deal and a ceasefire were still within reach.
“When we look at it today coldly and with the passage of time, it becomes easier to see the trap we fell into because of this way of thinking,” Sullivan said.
He added: “I say it clearly, we had to put more pressure on Israel to adopt a different approach.”
Other officials reported that open and unconditional American support for Israel was viewed within the administration as a kind of “moral hazard,” as it gave Netanyahu more room to expand the confrontation, including against Iran.
Philip Gordon, former national security adviser to Vice President Kamala Harris, said Washington had repeatedly warned Netanyahu against escalation with Iran.
He added: “We could have strongly advised them, and this is what Biden repeatedly did with Bibi: For hell, take the victory and do not drag us into another war.” But the Israelis knew that we would defend them.”
According to the report, former US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin likened Netanyahu to a gambler “playing with house money,” referring to his reliance on American cover that allows him to take greater risks.
American officials said that Israel repeatedly carried out major operations against Iran and Hezbollah without providing sufficient warnings to the White House in advance.
A former senior White House official described the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which was carried out shortly after an American call for a ceasefire, as an “insult” to Biden.
At the same time, concern has escalated within the administration since the early stages of the war due to the scale of the bombing of the Gaza Strip.
A former US State Department official said that members of the administration were “shocked” by the severity of the strikes.
He added: “We were all in shock at how aggressive and deadly they were, and we were asking: What the hell are they doing?”
According to the report, former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken asked his team how Israel could justify the extent of the destruction, while American officials believed that it was not possible that all of these legitimate military targets had been identified and chosen individually within such a short period of time.
The investigation also revealed sharp internal disagreements over the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Blinken told Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant that bringing food into the Strip “is not just a moral responsibility, but a strategic necessity and a legal necessity as well.”
According to the sources, Netanyahu did not agree to bring in a limited amount of aid until Blinken threatened to cancel a visit that was scheduled for Biden to Israel.
The issue of American arms shipments came back to the forefront repeatedly during White House meetings.
Sullivan said that the possibility of suspending these shipments had been raised several times, but that Biden had not agreed, other than delaying one shipment of bombs, to more important steps.
The report revealed that during the war, the administration prepared a strongly worded draft speech that Biden was supposed to address directly to the Israelis, bypassing Netanyahu, to convince them that a comprehensive war does not serve Israel’s interest.
The idea was to capitalize on Biden’s high popularity inside Israel after the October 7 attack, in order to present a different path that would focus on liberating prisoners, avoiding unnecessary harm to civilians, and progressing toward normalization with Saudi Arabia and the two-state solution.
But Netanyahu and former Minister Ron Dermer conveyed messages to the White House indicating that Israel was seriously considering a prisoner exchange deal, which prompted Biden to back down from the escalatory rhetoric and replace it with a speech that called on Israel to adopt the proposed proposal for the deal.
A number of American officials who spoke to the author of the investigation said that Netanyahu was not actually serious about moving the agreement forward.
“Bibi was playing games,” a former senior White House official said.
In turn, Blinken expressed his remorse for the results of the war, and said: “How can we not feel remorse in light of the price paid by innocent men, women and children?”
But he added, citing Biden’s words: “Question my judgment, but don’t question my motives.”
Sullivan revealed that he suffered long sleepless nights thinking about the steps the United States could have taken differently.
He said about the introduction of humanitarian aid: “We advanced and then retreated, we advanced and then retreated. “We had to find a way out of this constant push and pull.”
On the other hand, he explained that the administration was afraid that any dramatic step against Israel would lead to a double result: that it would not change Israeli policy, and at the same time push Hamas to become more stringent in the negotiations and prolong the war.
John Viner, former deputy national security adviser, also harshly criticized the way military operations were conducted.
He said: “The defining characteristic of the Gaza war was that harming civilians, for Hamas as well as for Israel, was not a side effect, but rather part of the strategy.”
He added that the United States “should not accept wars in which targeting civilians is a goal, and should not allow its weapons to be used to achieve this goal.”
Between Biden’s hesitation to use the weapon card, and his team’s fear of disrupting prisoner negotiations, the administration remained stuck between its desire to arrest Netanyahu and its refusal to break the American cover over him, while testimonies today reveal that the price was not only political, but also humanitarian and regional.
