Joe Biden’s presidency has been marked by a wide set of policy decisions and rhetorical stances that have gained both support and criticism. Of the criticisms, two areas have become especially contentious: those concerning his cognitive health and how his administration is handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Questions over President Biden’s cognitive health have long been an issue since his inauguration.
For somebody of his age, his mental sharpness is relevant, critics say. Age alone is not the determinant, but his being the oldest president in the history of the United States begs the question of how really capable Joe Biden can be of handling such rigors. Others say rare verbal missteps or a slow pace on some policy initiatives reflect broader mental sharpness concerns. To that end, supporters say extensive experience and accomplishments in both domestic and foreign policy serve as a definition of capability. Another major point of contention has been his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There has always been a role that the United States has played in this context as a sure ally for the state of Israel, and such an alliance has been one of the central constituents of American foreign policy. However, the stand of Biden has been criticized by many, particularly with regard to his administration’s policies toward the Palestinians. Thus, critics argue, these policies were informed by a continued U.S. tradition of supporting Israel at the expense of Palestinian rights and aspirations. By this assessment, the Biden administration had made no serious move to solve the decades-long Palestinian grievance. Indeed, military and financial aid was supplied to a great extent by the U.S.
More Read
to Israel, which critics say only sustains the endless conflict and suffering of Palestinians. Some critics have charged that the Biden administration has responded inadequately to escalations of violence in recent months between Israel and Palestine. Indeed, during periods when violence has flared, public statements from the administration have often clearly affirmed the right of Israel to self-defense but paid scant attention to the humanitarian effect on Palestinian civilians. This one-way approach has been strongly criticized for seeming to show a lack of empathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Furthermore, there have been criticisms regarding Biden’s commitment to the advancement of a two-state solution—a long-held goal of U.S. policy.
Though he has declared his support for the solution in principle, some critics argue that he hasn’t been doing enough by way of formulating policies that would really move the process of peace forward. To some, it has come to reflect a larger failure: the inability to address the root causes of the conflict and advocate for meaningful changes toward a lasting resolution. Indeed, the approach of the Biden Administration toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also been colored by domestic political considerations. The State of Israel has a powerful lobby in the U.S. Maintenance of good relations with Israel is something many politicians perceive as important to gaining the support of certain voter bases and interest groups.
This dynamic makes it hard for the administration to adopt policies that may be seen as unfavorable to Israel, even if the realization of such policies might benefit the peace process. The state of President Joe Biden’s cognitive health and how his administration is handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have come into focus as central debating points. While concern for his mental acuity reflects broader debates about age and leadership capacity, those against his policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict display continuing disgruntlement regarding American foreign policy and global conflicts. The crisscross of these issues underlines the complicities that the Biden administration will face in domestic and international challenges.
