To understand President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s tactics, one must first understand that a fundamental aspect of U.S. policy toward Israel since the country’s founding has been to prevent Israel from achieving as complete a victory as possible against its enemies.
A look back over the past 76 years and an examination of the State Department’s FRUS archives makes that clear.
The second aspect is that since the Carter administration, with further push for the Oslo Accords by the Clinton administration, and now with pressure from the Obama camp, the Biden administration’s goal is for Hamas to win this war and achieve the two-state solution that was lost after the war but has now been found.
As The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted on May 22, the Biden administration has opposed Israel’s incursion into Rafah for months.
America Suspects Israel
An Israeli spokesman claimed there was “no credible plan” for evacuating civilians. The short-term arms embargo was based on this assumption. President Biden said, “We are giving up Israel’s ability to wage war in these areas.” Secretary of State Blinken also questioned whether Israel had an adequate plan.
“We continue to believe it would be a mistake to launch a large-scale military operation into the heart of Rafah,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.
Now, with over 900,000 Gazans safely evacuated and the operation proceeding smoothly, the U.S. government is claiming credit, like the elephant’s earworm.
“[Israel] “This operation addresses many of the concerns that we have expressed,” a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, adding that the operation could create “an opportunity to get the hostage trade back on track.”
But the underlying undercurrent of malice remains. Already on March 19, Blinken falsely accused Israel of “creating famine” in Gaza, without mentioning Hamas’ role. He joined the “chorus of hunger,” adding that “100 percent of Gaza’s population is experiencing severe levels of acute food insecurity.”
On April 11, US humanitarian envoy David Satterfield said that “most, if not all, of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents are at imminent risk of starvation.” Gaza does receive food supplies, but much of the aid is being stolen by Hamas and criminal gangs, killing Gazans in the process.
Moreover, Biden’s $320 million floating dock has not been much of a success: Though completed and functioning, the Pentagon acknowledges that little to no aid has been delivered through it to Gaza’s civilian population, and the US and UN are still working to establish a safe route.
Has Hamas been blamed after a crowd looted an aid truck coming from the port, leaving one Palestinian man dead?
Israel was accused of failing to ensure adequate conditions for humanitarian groups to operate safely, and Pentagon spokesman Gen. Patrick Ryder said it was still reviewing the conditions.
Earlier, on January 9, despite Israel taking unprecedented precautions to avoid civilian harm, Blinken announced that “the daily toll of this war on Gaza’s civilians is too high” and accused the IDF of “indiscriminate bombing.” As Blinken must have known, this accusation was not entirely accurate.
From how to evacuate civilians to feed them, ensure humanitarian aid and protect them during fighting, the US administration has shifted to foreign affairs.
“If Israel’s military action is not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian people, terrorists will return and Israel will remain a threat,” Sullivan said on May 13. But terrorists will do so with or without a political plan.
David Wurmser, an adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested on May 9 that the State Department had always been “pro-Arab” rather than pro-Israel, but that there was a growing “incentive to exert control” within the department.
Moreover, there is another objective beyond the psychological need to take the lead or be the “protector”: to prevent a total Israeli victory.
Whether Ami Dror, one of the instigators of the so-called “Kaplan Force,” really had inside information or was simply lying, his April 7 report, supposedly from a White House source, called for more violence in the streets and (at the time) the threat of ICC indictment to force the Israeli government into submission to the State Department’s plan.
The goal of this plan is to make Palestine an Arab state, even if it means allowing Hamas to escape and live out another day.
It should be remembered that the Biden administration has not been a big supporter of the Abraham Accords, and has insisted on the need for Israel to comply with Washington’s vision, while dangling a deal with Saudi Arabia.
Is that too harsh? Consider the Fox Network’s news in 2017 that, under the Obama administration, the State Department “actively intervened” to prevent the FBI from issuing arrest warrants for individuals illegally in the US suspected of helping Iran fund weapons of mass destruction.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson were provided with the documents by the whistleblower and reproduced them.
These records, including emails, show that leadership at the Department of Justice and the FBI “failed to take the steps necessary to stop it.” [then secretary of state John] Kelly’s sabotage.”
They uncovered 18 cases where lawsuits could have gone ahead but “the State Department chose to block them.”
Anything seems possible at the State Department: Israel can be stigmatized and threatened, Hamas can be saved, terror can be tolerated, and Israel can clearly win without achieving the ultimate goal of a two-state solution.
The author is a researcher, analyst and commentator on political, cultural and media issues.
