Bashing Biden on Bombs, Congressional GOP Wants a Blank Check for Israel
Forget military morality and the laws of war—Republicans say none of that matters in Gaza.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN HAS STRONGLY supported Israel in its war against Hamas. Days after Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians on October 7, Biden went to Israel to affirm America’s support for the Jewish state and to reject false accusations that Israel had bombed a Gaza hospital. He fought to pass $26 billion in wartime aid to Israel, and he ordered U.S. forces to help Israel thwart a massive Iranian aerial attack.
But Biden has drawn one limit. Two weeks ago, he withheld a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel. In a CNN interview, he explained—correctly—that “civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs.”
Republicans in Congress have denounced Biden for withholding these enormous bombs. In effect, they’re arguing against any limits on Israel’s conduct of the war. The debate between Biden and the GOP isn’t about whether to support Israel. It’s about whether Palestinian lives merit any restraint at all.
HAMAS’S BRUTAL REIGN IN GAZA, its long record of terrorism, and its barbarism on October 7 should leave no doubt as to who the bad guys are in this war. While Hamas tries to put Palestinian civilians in harm’s way, Israel warns them to leave targeted areas so they won’t get hurt.
But that doesn’t mean every Israeli operation is justified. A week ago, a U.S. State Department report cited “numerous credible UN, NGO, and media reports of Israeli airstrikes” in Gaza that “call into question whether expected civilian harm may have been excessive relative to the reported military objective.” In particular, the report noted an October 31 incident in which Israel bombed the Jabaliya refugee camp, “reportedly killing dozens of civilians, including several dozen children, [and] injuring hundreds more.”
A New York Times analysis found that Israel had “used at least two 2,000-pound bombs” in the attack. U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that (in the Journal’s words) Israel had “used an American-provided bomb with a large payload.”
The power of these weapons multiplies the risk and the magnitude of civilian casualties. Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, explained this weekend on Face the Nation that “2,000-pound bombs that are not precision-guided inevitably lead to a lot of collateral damage. They basically collapse buildings.” That was the lesson of Jabaliya. And that’s why, as Israel prepared in early May to go into densely populated Rafah, Biden held up a shipment of the big bombs.
Republicans responded by defending “these larger bombs.” They demanded that Biden “get these high-payload munitions to Israel as quickly as possible.” Last week, they passed a House bill that would cut off funds to the Department of Defense for any attempt “to withhold, halt, reverse, or cancel the delivery of defense articles . . . to Israel.”
This isn’t just a technical dispute over the costs and benefits of the big bombs. It’s a moral debate. Republicans are implying—and in many cases, openly asserting—that the ends justify any means. Here are some of their arguments.
1. No restriction should be imposed on a U.S. ally.
Last Thursday, as the House debated its bill to force Biden to ship the big bombs, Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declared: “Red lines are meant for our enemies. Red lines are not meant for our allies and our friends. But that’s precisely what this administration is doing to Israel.” In a speech against Biden’s decision, Sen. John Cornyn expressed the same view: “Israel’s operations should not be dictated by anyone but themselves and their national security interests.”
2. No limit should be imposed on civilian casualties.
On May 8, in a PBS interview about Gaza, Rep. Mike Lawler was asked, “Is there a civilian casualty number that’s too high for you?” Lawler lamented civilian deaths but didn’t answer the question. A week later, when the House Rules Committee met to discuss the deaths in Gaza, Rep. Chip Roy boasted that when President Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat Japan in World War II, “What he did not do was outline what the proper casualty ratio is. He said that we would win.”
3. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas started the war.
“There are civilian casualties and civilian suffering in Gaza,” Sen. Tom Cotton conceded in a Fox News interview on May 6. “The sole responsibility rests with Hamas, however. Hamas invaded Israel, slaughtered more Jews than at any time since the Holocaust. It brought this war on Gaza.”
It’s true that Hamas started the war. But Cotton’s inference—that Hamas therefore bears “sole responsibility” for whatever follows—absolves Israel of any obligation to spare civilians.
4. Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths, since Hamas uses human shields.
“All civilian casualties in Gaza are solely the responsibility of Hamas,” Cotton repeated last week on Face the Nation. “If Hamas did not hide behind and under civilians,” he argued, “there would not be civilian casualties.”
He’s right about Hamas hiding behind civilians. But again, the inference of “sole responsibility,” rather than primary or partial responsibility, gives Israel a blank check.
5. Hamas’s use of human shields makes casualty mitigation impossible.
A week ago on Meet the Press, Kristen Welker asked Sen. Lindsey Graham, “Why shouldn’t Israel’s war against Hamas proceed in a more precise way, with a clear plan to mitigate civilian deaths in Gaza?” Graham replied that “it’s impossible to mitigate civilian deaths in Gaza as long as Hamas uses their own population as human shields.” On this basis, he concluded that the United States shouldn’t be “restricting weapons” to Israel.
Graham is wrong: As the State Department report noted, Israel does try to mitigate civilian casualties, even when Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields. Graham’s argument would free Israel from that responsibility.
6. Civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable because most Gazans support Hamas.
In the past two weeks, as Republicans have defended the big bombs, some have tried to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinian civilians. Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, complained about “vocal support for Palestine, which is essentially Hamas in many instances.” Rep. Greg Murphy called the left wing of the Democratic party “pro-Hamas, pro-Palestine,” as though the two were interchangeable. And in an interview on May 9, Sen. Rick Scott agreed with two Fox News anchors who argued that “the Palestinian people,” not just Hamas, were responsible for the October 7 massacre.
At last Tuesday’s hearing of the Rules Committee, Roy used this conflation to rationalize the killing of Palestinian civilians.
Here’s one poll . . . which says that 71 percent of Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank believe Hamas made the right decision in attacking Israel. . . . My point being: Is it not also true that there is a significant, say, lack of clarity with respect to Hamas . . . and the civilian population, and where that—those lines bleed? Is that not an accurate, like, reflection of the difficulty with which Israel is faced [in] taking out the enemy combatants?
7. Israel should destroy Rafah.
At the Rules Committee hearing, Roy said Israel should have free rein because the U.S. approach to war was “to go in and just level the enemy.” On Fox News Sunday, Scott put it even more bluntly: “Israel has no choice but to destroy Rafah.”
8. Israel should do to Gaza what the United States did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At a press conference on May 9, Graham repeatedly suggested that Israel should emulate the American decision “to drop nuclear bombs on two cities.” He rejected any constraint on weaponry, asking: “What red lines did we have in World War II? Apparently none.”
Three days later on Meet the Press, Welker asked Graham: “Why does Israel need the most massive bombs, that can potentially level an entire block, in order to wage this war? Why can’t it be more precise?” Again, Graham touted the nuclear assault on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling it “the right decision” urging the Biden administration to “give Israel the bombs they need.”
Graham isn’t alone in this view. Other Republican lawmakers have invoked Hiroshima as a model. Cotton, for instance, proposed on May 6 that if Hamas “wants to stop civilian suffering and casualties in Gaza, it can unconditionally surrender . . . just like Japan did after we nuked them twice.” Until that surrender happens, he concluded, Hamas is “solely responsible for the civilian casualties in this war.”
GAZA PRESENTS AN EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT moral problem. Hamas, the fighting force that’s supposed to protect Palestinians, instead deliberately endangers them. That leaves Israel with the burden of trying to fight Hamas without killing the innocent people Hamas has cynically put in its way. Israel deserves patience and leeway as it tries to mitigate the resulting harm.
But that doesn’t erase Israel’s duty to mitigate the harm. In a war against terrorists, defeating them is only part of the job. It’s also important not to become like them. Sometimes it’s tempting to think that because the enemy is evil, you can cut moral corners. But when you find yourself arguing that civilians are fair game or that Hiroshima is a good model, it’s time to acknowledge that the good guys need red lines, too.