In the Biden administration, Lise Grande, a top U.S. official handling the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, revealed in an August meeting with aid organizations that the United States would not consider halting weapon shipments to Israel, even as the country blocks essential food and medical supplies from entering Gaza. This revelation, made during a two-hour meeting in Washington on August 29, has cast doubt on recent statements by the Biden administration suggesting that pressure might be placed on Israel regarding its humanitarian policies.
Grande’s comments came during a gathering attended by more than a dozen humanitarian organizations. These groups have been increasingly frustrated by the Israeli government’s strict control over aid delivery to Gaza, which is facing an escalating humanitarian crisis. According to three individuals present at the meeting, along with two others briefed later, Grande acknowledged that despite the pressing humanitarian concerns, the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons or defense support from Israel in an attempt to force changes.
“She was sort of saying, with certain allies, we can’t play bad cop,” one aid official said, describing the meeting as a rare and blunt admission of the limitations of U.S. influence on its closest partners.
Despite offering possible alternative strategies—such as utilizing the United Nations to apply pressure—Grande made it clear that any direct action on military aid was off the table. The meeting, which was described as shockingly forthright by attendees, also underscored the importance the U.S. places on its strategic relationship with Israel, framing it as one of the few key alliances it is unwilling to jeopardize.
Grande’s remarks come at a time when the Biden administration is publicly signaling a harder line on Israel’s actions in Gaza. Just this past Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin sent a letter to Israeli officials, warning that unless humanitarian conditions in Gaza improve dramatically, the U.S. might reconsider its military support. The administration gave Israel 30 days to make substantive changes.
However, the August meeting, combined with Grande’s admission, has led to skepticism among aid organizations about whether the U.S. will follow through on its threats. One person familiar with the meeting suggested that Grande’s comments reflect the administration’s real stance on the issue, one that is unlikely to change despite public posturing.
For decades, the United States has been one of Israel’s staunchest allies, providing billions in military aid each year. Israel’s geopolitical significance in the Middle East and its role as a democratic outpost in the region have long been the cornerstones of this relationship. However, this unwavering support has frequently placed the U.S. in a difficult position, particularly when Israel’s actions—such as settlement expansion or military operations in Gaza—are criticized by the international community.
Israel has often been accused of violating international humanitarian law in its handling of the Gaza Strip, which has been under blockade since 2007. Humanitarian groups argue that Israel’s restrictions on food, medical supplies, and fuel amount to collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, a practice prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. While the U.S. State Department has stated that it is “reasonable to assess” that Israel’s actions may violate international law, it has stopped short of making a formal determination.
This ambiguity has created tension between the Biden administration’s stated commitment to upholding human rights and its strategic imperatives in the Middle East.
While the Biden administration has made some attempts to engage diplomatically with Israel on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it has largely avoided making any moves that could be interpreted as reducing military support. In his August meeting, Grande emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, describing it as a “tight circle of very few allies” and one that the U.S. would not jeopardize by “holding anything back that they want.”
This reflects the broader U.S. policy posture in the region, which has been focused on maintaining security alliances rather than addressing humanitarian or legal concerns through punitive measures such as weapons withholding.
During the August meeting, some aid organizations argued that Israel’s actions in Gaza were in direct violation of international humanitarian law. They pointed to Israel’s refusal to allow their trucks to pass through alternate routes that would bypass militant groups and theft risks, which have plagued previous aid deliveries. Grande, however, indicated that Israel has passed intelligence to the U.S. suggesting that Hamas, the militant group in control of Gaza, was using some of the aid supplies to bolster its own forces.
This intelligence was cited as one of the reasons for Israel’s tight control over aid distribution, and Grande indicated that the Biden administration supported this assessment. Grande further explained that the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), the Israeli military agency overseeing humanitarian aid to Gaza, was primarily a “mailbox” for instructions from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and intelligence agencies, limiting its ability to deviate from those directives.
Under international law, all parties in a conflict are prohibited from blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid or from endangering aid workers. The Geneva Conventions state that aid must be allowed to pass freely and safely in conflict zones, and governments are responsible for ensuring access to basic necessities, including food, water, and medical care, for civilians in war zones.
Yet, Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which has lasted for more than a decade, has led to severe shortages of these essentials. Aid organizations argue that Israel’s control of access points, combined with its targeting of key infrastructure within Gaza, constitutes a breach of international law. Israel, in turn, justifies its actions by pointing to security concerns, including the threat of Hamas militants smuggling weapons and using aid for military purposes.
The August meeting made it clear that while the U.S. acknowledges these challenges, it is unwilling to place real pressure on Israel to abide by these international norms.
Aid organizations present at the August meeting expressed deep frustration with the U.S. government’s unwillingness to act more forcefully. Several groups have already had their operations in Gaza interrupted, and some are considering pulling out entirely due to concerns for the safety of their staff.
Grande reportedly tried to offer some reassurance, saying that if aid groups chose to withdraw, Israel had a plan in place to use the private sector to deliver aid, potentially in cooperation with neighboring countries. However, this has done little to alleviate concerns. Humanitarian workers in Gaza remain skeptical that alternative delivery systems can adequately address the scale of the crisis.
Some organizations have sought to explore creative solutions for getting aid into the enclave, but their efforts have largely been thwarted by Israel’s strict oversight. Grande’s comments, outlining how COGAT receives its directives from multiple agencies within the Israeli government, reinforced the sense that efforts to negotiate more flexible aid distribution were unlikely to succeed.
The August meeting between U.S. officials and aid organizations has underscored the complexity and challenges of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. While the Biden administration has signaled concern for the civilian population trapped in the conflict, its actions remain constrained by the broader U.S.-Israel relationship. With military aid shipments unlikely to be affected, and Israel maintaining its control over the flow of supplies into Gaza, aid groups face an uphill battle in trying to meet the growing needs of the enclave’s population.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate, and the question remains whether the U.S. will eventually be willing to use its considerable leverage to force a change in Israeli policy. However, based on the candid remarks made by Lise Grande in August, it seems clear that the U.S. is still hesitant to adopt any stance that could jeopardize its strategic alliance with Israel, even at the cost of worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza.
