Biden and the Democrats Are About to Abandon Israel

We knew weeks ago that Biden’s support of Israel, no matter how resolute it sounded, was not on solid ground. He is being battered by his staff, the overall Administration, and now Congress, trying to get him to tie the hands of the Israelis in their efforts to defeat Hamas. Naturally, everyone couches their recommendations in “humanitarian concerns”; I think, instead that all these protests are determined to ensure that Israel loses the war.

Let’s review the strong words that Biden used at the beginning:

‘The United States unequivocally condemns this appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, and I made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that we stand ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel. ‘Terrorism is never justified. Israel has a right to defend itself and its people... My Administration's support for Israel's security is rock solid and unwavering.’

Didn’t he sound resolute and impressive?

Yet since those days, the Biden Administration has continued to exert pressure on Israel. They are less concerned with Israel’s determination to defend its people. They insist that Israel should agree to more “pauses” to meet Hamas’ requirements for releasing hostages; Hamas will certainly use that time to rearm and re-stock and continue to demand that incarcerated Palestinians be released by the Israelis.

Biden has made clear that he wants this war finished:

‘My expectation and hope is that as we move forward, the rest of the Arab world and the region is also putting pressure on all sides to slow this down, to bring this to an end as quickly as we can,’ Biden said.

Translated: they need to get this war over before the US elections, if not sooner.

I learned from my research that the U.S. has been less than helpful in past years in supporting Israel:

Israeli commanders certainly understood the fickleness of Washington's declared support for their military offensive from the start, as Washington has an undistinguished record of abandoning its Israeli ally in times of peril. During the IDF's military incursions in Gaza in 2009 and 2014, for example, the Israelis were forced to stop fighting within three weeks, with ceasefires brokered on both occasions by Egypt and forced on Israel by Washington. Indeed, Washington's willingness to impose ceasefires on Israel when its forces have clearly established a military advantage on the battlefield against their enemies has been a constant feature throughout Israel's 75-year existence.

I can’t help but ask, just which side is Biden really supporting?

In spite of the evidence that Hamas uses hospitals as screens to protect its military, and its unwillingness to allow Palestinians in the hospitals to leave, Biden made this comment:

‘My hope and expectation is that there will be less intrusive action relative to hospitals,’ Biden told reporters. Then USaid had to get into the act, demanding actions by Israel: The Usaid administrator, Samantha Power, stiffened the rhetoric further on Tuesday, saying: ‘Israel’s restoration of communications, electricity, water lines, and fuel to Gaza is imperative. ‘And even as Israel defends its people, it is imperative that the IDF adhere to international humanitarian law,’ Power told a meeting of an advisory board created to fund Israeli-Palestinian partnerships.

Power has no authority to demand anything from Israel; and Israel is already complying with international law, as I've said repeatedly.

Here’s another explanation by an administration official that Biden screwed up in his initial support of Israel, causing his handlers to step in:

‘With time, it became increasingly clear that Biden himself was the sole driver of that initial zero-sum approach and it took weeks of concerted high-level effort – from state, Usaid, the intelligence community and even part of the national security council itself – to turn things around and shape a more holistic, strategic approach that prioritised support to Israel alongside a far greater emphasis on civilian protection, humanitarian access, and commitment to international humanitarian law and the laws of war.’

* * * *

As if the Biden administration’s words and actions aren’t dangerous enough, our U.S. Senate has also decided to tell Israel how to run the war. They also demand compliance with international law, which Israel is already doing and which several people criticizing them ignore. Now the Senate is telling the Israelis they are killing too many people:

The stipulation is said to be merely that Israel follow international law. But since Israel does follow international law, and the U.S. already can withhold foreign assistance on human-rights grounds, the condition is unnecessary—but not harmless. During wartime, it would signal to Israel’s enemies that the U.S. has gone wobbly on the campaign to destroy Hamas.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Middle East, made positive noises about the idea Sunday. ‘We regularly condition our aid to allies based upon compliance with U.S. law and international law,’ he said, adding, ‘I think that you can defeat Hamas without this level of civilian casualty,’ which he calls “unacceptable.’

Bernie Sanders was happy to jump on the bandwagon.

I cannot believe that these Senators, most of whom know nothing about warfare, never mind the type of war that is happening in Israel, are telling them they are certain that the Israelis can kill fewer people. And if they don’t shape up, U.S. aid will be in jeopardy. It’s clear to me that the Democrats have no idea how far they are out of their wheelhouse, that they are in agreement with Biden setting up the Israelis to lose this war, and that they want Hamas to be victorious. This approach to this war is a travesty. The WSJ posed the following question:

The purpose is to warn Israel that it will risk losing U.S. support if it tries to complete its mission of toppling Hamas; and that Hamas-induced civilian casualties mean Israel can’t destroy Hamas’s terrorist capabilities. Is that the emerging position of the Democratic Party?