Joe Biden continues to disappoint Israel by publicly criticizing our allies
Israelis are currently engaged in a significant battle on multiple fronts, yet President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have chosen this moment to make public threats that restrict their actions.
This raises the question: Whose side are they really on?
It appears that their support is lacking for Israel, and even worse for America, when they insist that Israel show leniency towards terrorists who pose a threat not just to Israel, but also to the United States.
The approach taken by the White House hardly qualifies as a policy; rather, it seems to be a reactive measure stemming from a place of vulnerability that views any display of American or Israeli power as a threat.
The instinct of the administration leans towards maintaining a temporary peace, even if it means rewarding the enemy in the process.
The consequences of a defeatist approach can be seen in the case of Afghanistan, where the decision to withdraw hastily had grave repercussions.
The initial defeatist stance towards Israel’s war earlier this year was likely to appease Muslim-American voters and anti-Semitic college students, leading to a pattern of appeasement.
Election-year strategy
During the campaign, Biden reacted by pressuring Israel, and later delegated Secretary of State Tony Blinken, lacking military experience, to dictate Israel’s targets in Gaza.
As the election nears and Harris becomes the nominee, the administration is once again tightening its grip on Israel, demanding restraint in Lebanon and Iran, as well as calling for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Essentially, the message is for Israel to back down until after the American election or face consequences such as an arms embargo supported by the US, France, and others.
The administration’s bizarre focus on protecting Israel’s enemies, who are also American enemies, raises questions about their priorities and alliances.
The demands placed solely on Israel stand out, while other parties are not held accountable or given ultimatums.
Israel finds itself responsible for the care of Gaza’s civilians, despite Hamas using them as human shields, with no pressure on neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt to assist.
Why is Israel required to risk lives to care for the enemy’s civilians in a situation where Hamas could end the conflict immediately?
The administration’s bias in favor of Israel’s enemies and against Israel’s security needs is evident in their actions and demands.
It is clear that the current approach only benefits terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, to the detriment of Israel and America.
It seems that a reminder is needed for the White House to remember how they reached this point, as they seem to have lost sight of important strategic considerations.
Hamas initiated the conflict with Israel over a year ago by breaking a cease-fire, leading to Hezbollah’s support with daily rocket attacks, creating a dire situation for Israel.
Despite the ongoing threats from various sources, the White House insists on moderation from Israel, limiting their response options.
Perilous duel with Iran
As tensions with Iran escalate, the Biden administration’s fear of further conflict is apparent in their restrictions, mirroring a similar situation with Ukraine and Russia.
The debate on whether Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities before they acquire a nuclear weapon highlights the urgency and complexities of the current situation.
The clock is ticking, and decisions must be made quickly to prevent Iran from reaching a point of no return.
Israel’s commitment to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran reflects the threat posed by the regime, which openly advocates for the destruction of Israel.
While Israel has made significant progress in weakening terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, the threat from Iran remains imminent and requires decisive action.
As the debate continues, the stakes remain high, and the importance of strategic decisions cannot be overstated.
