Listen to the article
Former White House adviser Brett McGurk and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have engaged in a heated exchange over U.S. military support to Israel during the Gaza conflict, highlighting tensions that persisted throughout the final months of the Biden administration.
The dispute erupted Tuesday when McGurk forcefully rejected Netanyahu’s assertion that a U.S. weapons embargo had contributed to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) casualties during the war. Netanyahu made these comments during a recent press conference, suggesting American restrictions on military aid had hampered Israel’s operational capabilities.
“That statement by Netanyahu is categorically false,” McGurk declared in a strongly-worded response. The senior Biden adviser countered that the former president had left office with several key achievements, including “a ceasefire in Gaza and hostages coming home, a ceasefire in Lebanon with Hezbollah defeated, and Iran in its weakest position since 1979.”
McGurk emphasized that Biden’s “commitment to Israel’s security to include U.S. military assistance was unwavering throughout the crisis,” portraying a very different picture of U.S.-Israeli relations than the one Netanyahu described.
The exchange quickly drew responses from Israeli media figures, with prominent journalist Amit Segal offering a detailed counterargument to McGurk’s claims. “Biden imposed a partial arms embargo on Israel, halted the transfer of bulldozers that Israel had already paid for — which led to soldiers being put at risk and killed,” Segal wrote. He further alleged that the restrictions “caused the IDF to enter Rafah with tanks that didn’t have full ammunition loads, which also put soldiers at risk and led to casualties.”
This public disagreement reflects deeper tensions that emerged between the Biden administration and Netanyahu’s government over the conduct of military operations in Gaza. Throughout 2023 and early 2024, U.S. officials grew increasingly concerned about civilian casualties in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis unfolding there, leading to more vocal criticism of Israeli tactics and some restrictions on certain weapons shipments.
The Biden administration had indeed paused some arms deliveries to Israel in May 2024, citing concerns about the planned military operation in Rafah. The administration temporarily held back a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs and slowed the delivery of other military equipment, including the armored bulldozers Segal referenced.
Segal also disputed McGurk’s characterization of regional developments, noting that “Biden opposed the assassination of Nasrallah,” referring to the Israeli operation that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024. He claimed that then-U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had reacted negatively when informed of the operation by Israeli officials.
The conflicting narratives highlight the complex and often tense relationship between the two allies during a period of intense regional conflict. While the Biden administration maintained that it provided unprecedented levels of military support to Israel following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, it also sought to influence Israeli military operations to minimize civilian casualties and work toward a ceasefire.
“The ceasefire Biden longs for was, for him, a goal rather than a means,” Segal wrote, suggesting fundamental differences in priorities between the U.S. and Israeli approaches to the conflict.
This public disagreement occurs as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, having promised a different approach to U.S.-Israel relations. The incoming administration is widely expected to offer stronger support for Netanyahu’s government with fewer conditions attached to military aid.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The conflicting narratives around US support for Israel during the Gaza war are concerning. Fact-based analysis is needed to shed light on the truth.
Agreed. Cutting through the political rhetoric to understand the actual dynamics and constraints around military aid is crucial.
This dispute over US military assistance to Israel highlights the complexities and sensitivities in their strategic relationship. Careful examination of the facts is warranted.
Absolutely. The political messaging from both sides seems to be clouding the underlying issues, which need to be better understood.
Interesting fact-checking on the claims made by the Biden adviser. It’s important to scrutinize statements from both sides to get the full picture.
Agreed, this dispute highlights the complex dynamics between the US and Israel, especially around military aid and operations.
This back-and-forth over military aid and its impact during the Gaza conflict raises important questions about the US-Israel relationship and strategic priorities.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out and what implications it may have going forward.
The allegations of misinformation from both sides seem concerning. As an observer, I’d like to see a more objective assessment of the facts and issues at hand.
Absolutely. Cutting through the political posturing to understand the core facts and concerns on all sides is crucial here.