Doubts about Comments point to Cognitive Challenges and Political Hypocrisy
As US President Joe Biden inappropriately advocates for a Palestinian state and meddles in Israeli politics in the midst of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his muddled approach has raised significant concerns, and not just in Israel. These are not only about his understanding of the region’s dynamics but also about his cognitive capacity to grasp the intricacies of such sensitive issues. The impracticality of Biden’s vision, considering regional realities, is increasingly questioned, and troubling in the present tinderbox. To call Israeli bombing “indiscriminate” is not only factually inappropriate and inconsistent with the close coordination of the IDF with the US military. It’s also a damaging and undermining comment for the war effort.
In a recent address, President Biden said, “You cannot say there’s no Palestinian state at all in the future,” emphasizing his administration’s commitment to a two-state solution. This statement stands in stark contrast to the reality on the ground and Israel’s security concerns. It also appears contradictory to Biden’s acknowledgment of Israel’s right to defend itself, especially in light of the recent hostilities with Hamas.
Biden’s assertion that “They not only want to have retribution — which they should — for what Hamas did, but against all Palestinians… They don’t want anything to do with the Palestinians” is particularly jarring. This generalization seems to disregard the complexity of Israel’s position, which is rooted in legitimate security concerns and the experiences of past peace efforts that backfired, such as the Oslo Accords and the Gaza Disengagement.
Further evidence of Biden mush brain came when he was ask about Israeli plans, reportedly being executed, to flood Hamas terror tunnels to render them unusable. His answer: “With regard to the flooding of the tunnels… There (are) assertions being made that there [are] no hostages in any of these tunnels, but I don’t know that for a fact,” Biden said, incomprehensibly. “I do know that, though, every civilian death is an absolute tragedy, and Israel has stated its intent to match its words with actions,” he added.
Biden’s suddent push for a two-state solution seems to overlook Israel’s legitimate security concerns and historical experiences. His failure to address critical issues, such as the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) reluctance to condemn terrorism and its continued financial support to families of terrorists, raises doubts about his grasp of the situation. Gaza was a test case for the two-state solution. It failed in a spectacular way. The failure to recognize this abject failure is critical, considering these are key factors that fuel Israel’s skepticism towards the feasibility of a Palestinian state, particularly in territories close to its borders.
The President’s cognitive state and mental wandering has been a subject of public discussion, with concerns raised about his ability to effectively deal with such a nuanced and high-stakes issue. These concerns are not trivial, as they bear on the capacity of the US to play a constructive role in one of the world’s most enduring conflicts. The complex nature of the Israeli-Palestinian issue requires a leader with acute awareness and understanding, traits that are increasingly being questioned in Biden’s case.
Biden, in his remarks to donors at the fundraiser, recounted a private conversation with Netanyahu in which the Israeli leader told him, “‘You carpet-bombed Germany. You dropped the atom bomb. A lot of civilians died.'” Biden said he told Netanyahu: “Yeah, that’s why all these institutions were set up after World War II to see to it that it didn’t happen again − it didn’t happen again. Don’t make the same mistakes we made in 9/11. There’s no reason why we had to be in a war in Afghanistan.”
That probably left Bibi scratching his head, and perhaps a bit terrified. He was comparing US military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 to Israel retaliating against Hamas starting 10/7? Is the UN or NATO preventing wars? Is the President of the United States a rational actor?
Biden’s vision of a Palestinian state also seems wildly impractical now. Israel, given its historical experiences, particularly the fallout of the Oslo Accords and the Gaza Disengagement, is highly unlikely to agree to a Palestinian state in its immediate vicinity. The security risks are deemed too high, a perspective rooted in past experiences of escalated violence following territorial concessions.
This leads to the consideration of alternative solutions, such as the establishment of a Palestinian state, not in the West Bank but in Jordan, which already has an overwhelming Palestinian population seething against the Hashemite occupation. This idea, while controversial, is seen in Israel as a more viable option than carving out a rump state within its borders, a scenario that Israel is unlikely to accept ever.
Biden’s approach, seemingly disconnected from these on the ground realities and evidently impaired by cognitive challenges, risks not only the efficacy of the US’s role in the peace process but also the stability of the region. His advocacy for a two-state solution, without adequately addressing Israel’s security concerns and the complex nature of Palestinian politics and society, appears overly simplistic and potentially counterproductive. For Israel, the President’s mumblings and miscues can cost lives.
Amidst these concerns, President Biden’s approach also raises questions of political hypocrisy, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of his own domestic challenges. He dared throw stones at Netanyahu’s coalition partners while apparently ignoring his own “glass house.” Biden’s foray into the intricacies of Israeli politics and his prescriptions for the region seem paradoxical, especially considering the disarray within his own party. The Democratic Party is grappling with internal divisions, where factions like ‘The Squad’ hold starkly anti-Israel views. Yet Biden has not taken a firm stand against these factions, nor has he managed to unify his party’s stance on Israel.
This situation highlights a double standard in Biden’s approach. While he appears eager to dictate terms to Israel on sensitive security matters, he has yet to demonstrate the same level of assertiveness in addressing the divisive and often contradictory views within his own political base. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of his advice to Israel and gives the impression of an external interference that is not grounded in a balanced understanding of the situation.
Before suggesting strategies to Israel, a critical ally in a volatile region, it would be prudent for President Biden to address the divisions and contradictions within his party, especially those that pertain to foreign policy and international relations. The act of getting one’s own house in order is essential before attempting to influence the policies of other sovereign nations, particularly on matters as crucial as national security. This added layer of domestic political complexity in the US further complicates Biden’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reinforces the need for a more coherent and internally consistent policy approach.
0 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks