How former Biden officials defend their Gaza policy

During the Gaza War, there were two phases of delivery of major aid to the Palestinians: the initial effort involved mainly hundreds of facilities by the United Nations, and Current system Run by the Gaza Humananiashian Foundation, an Israel-backed U.S. nonprofit organization. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government imposed nearly all of its aid on the territory after Israel and Hamas ended a ceasefire last March, until May, when the GHF took over. The United Nations food delivery cannot meet the overwhelming demands of Gaza, but at least they have already happened throughout the territory. GHF has only four sites open. Hundreds of Palestinians were shot dead in the chaos there. Since July 1, 24 people have died of malnutrition. (The total number of Palestinian deaths in the war exceeded 600,000.) Even President Donald Trump admitted the hunger. In response, Netanyahu has provided more aid to the territory, and Trump’s ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee announced that the GHF will create more aid distribution locations. But Gaza people continue to starve, and Netanyahu said he plans to expand the war and occupy the city of Gaza. In Israel, this sparked protests against his government, with the families of the remaining hostages held by Hamas (that is believed to be about twenty still alive), who continued the war for political reasons.

exist Recent works exist diplomaticJacob J. Lew, a former Biden administration official, became Israeli ambassador less than a month after October 7, while Satterfield was Biden’s special envoy to address humanitarian issues in the region. They wrote in the article: “Although the results of our work never satisfy us, let alone our critics, in fact, our efforts led by the Biden administration have made Gaza open for humanitarian relief. The fact remains that in half of the first and half of the relentless war, Gaza did not face mass hunger because humanitarian aid reached them.”

I recently spoke with Lew, who served as Treasury Secretary in the second Obama administration and is currently a professor of international public affairs at Columbia University, introduced this work and the broader U.S.-Israel relations. In our conversation, after editing time and clarity, we also discuss whether the Biden administration is trying to put Netanyahu in power, the extent to which Israeli behavior is shaped and what Lew has learned on a late-night call with Israeli officials.

You wrote in your article that the Biden administration prevented massive hunger in Gaza while serving in Gaza. What have you done to prevent mass hunger?

From the beginning of the war, President Biden made it clear that he was back and that he would continue to support Israel and its legitimate efforts to defeat Hamas. However, very serious efforts must be made to deal with the civilian problem of the Gaza war. So we are engaged every day and night with effective strategies for how to provide assistance in the war zone. We have worked very hard to get the attention of the Israeli leaders to increase the urgency of the opening aid crossover. So, this is not a one-day event. I’ve been there literally and it’s a very important part of the work we’re doing.

During your tenure, people from humanitarian groups, the United Nations and even the Biden administration are constantly saying that there is not enough aid to enter Gaza. The death toll more than Before you leave the office, forty million. I know you’re not saying that the aid system is enough, but how will you characterize it?

In every aspect, we say more needs to be done. I’m not saying we achieved our goal of getting enough food to meet all needs. But this is very different from mass malnutrition and famine. And, each time there are inaccurate reports of famine, which makes it more difficult to get more aid. We try to criticize in a balanced way to keep the pressure on Hamas, rather than giving up Israel’s efforts to defeat the enemy that attacked it on October 7, even if you have a pressing obligation every day, even if you have an open attitude, even if you have a pressing effort, and even if you have any dangers, even if you have a pressing effort. This is a difficult job.

If Hamas holds fuel or food, the risk of strengthening Hamas is a serious problem. This is not a constitutive issue. We have never seen it spread directly from what is available in the United States. So I want to be clear about this. But there is no doubt that they try to control the management of aid because it is a way to stick to governance.

But I just want to know: people starve to death in 2024. I know the masses hunger has not happened, but people are dying, right?

I can tell you that we have not seen evidence of mass hunger that leads to death. We do see children, some of them with illnesses, who are particularly vulnerable to the impact, which is miserable. Any civilian who dies from malnutrition is miserable. Therefore, I will never say there is no problem. Until March 2025, this is not good, but people can’t survive. This is not accidental. Only by participating continuously can you stay mobility. I will never say there is no problem. I think the report on famine is premature and exaggerated. Even last month, I found out that I found a serious risk of famine in the north, which is actually the route we were busy opening up the food day and night to attract people who were still in that northern Gaza, which is disturbing.

It seems like what you are talking about is that part of the “premature” warning of famine is that humanitarian groups warn of famine, and then once things get bad enough, Israel will increase the aid coming in. You mean you put pressure on the Israelites, so they turn on the faucet more and things will get better. This hasn’t happened much in the Trump administration, so hunger gets worse.

Well, look, when I arrived in Israel in November 2023, the country was bombarded. From October 7, any of us in New York on September 11 will be understood in a very intrinsic way. Therefore, people do not make decisions based on long-term thinking. I would say that once we enter November, we interact with senior policy makers who understand the need to address humanitarian issues. The challenge is that the country does not fully understand the scope of humanitarian needs, and the right-wing elements of the Netanyahu coalition government are opposed and there are other views that threaten to lower the coalition. How did you make a decision without causing the government to collapse? Now, people ask, why do we care about this? Because you work with the government. We do not vote in elections in other countries. We do not choose leaders.

But supporting government power is different from saying we will help the government work hard to survive.

We didn’t do that, Isaac. We have never had the position we should have on the government in one way or another. There are some in the government who think we want it to fall. People outside the government think we are not doing enough. We strive to formulate policies with the government.

In the article, you wrote: “In view of the tensions within the government, it actively and stably engages to manage political dynamics within Israel and maintain adequate flow of aid. If politics is difficult, blame American politics, we provide information to our interlocutors in the Israeli government.” At that time, it was crucial to allow Netanyahu to invoke the needs that meet our needs – and today it is crucial. ”This makes it seem like you are trying to help the current government continue to rule.

No, I think you missed the point. The point I want to make is that if your goal is to keep humanitarian aid flowing and you see the obstacles that must be overcome, then you have to be realistic about what you need to achieve. Our goal is to get assistance. We want Israel to gain the upper hand in the war. What we are talking about in the paper is really about how to make decisions and the limitations of alliances that care about not falling. It’s their concern, not our concern. I think our position is characterized by the fact that when we try to solve immediate, urgent problems, we try to defend the alliance, which is in the case of humanitarian assistance.

So when you say this, “It is crucial to allow Netanyahu to invoke the need to meet our needs – it is still crucial today”, what do you mean? Netanyahu doesn’t want to annoy the government’s super far-right ministers, Israel is providing aid. So you are saying that allowing Netanyahu to invoke the necessity of meeting our demands is crucial for him to remain in power, right?