Last week, I read in the Washington Post that the White House had “summoned” Israeli leaders to Washington. It was as if Prime Minister Netanyahu’s top officials were misbehaving employees or school boys being summoned to the office of their boss or principal.
Recently, the Post changed its wording. Now, I was reading that the White House had “invited” the top officials to Washington.
I suspect that, in both cases, the wording came from Biden’s team. In the first instance, it wanted to project toughness in response to Netanyahu’s refusal to fight the war with Hamas the way that great military strategist Joe Biden has instructed them to do.
In the second instance, Team Biden wanted to soften the language in the hope that, upon arrival, Netanyahu’s team would be more receptive to Biden’s war strategy (to use that term loosely). Perhaps the Israelis informed the White House that it was offended by the Post’s use of the word “summoned.”
In any case, yesterday Netanyahu turned down Biden’s “invitation.” He decided that the senior officials invited (or summoned) to D.C. will not come.
The decision came after the U.S. declined to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and the freeing of all hostages. In the past, the U.S. has vetoed ceasefire resolutions and other such measures Israel opposes. This time, we abstained.
Why did Team Biden not veto this resolution? The official explanation, delivered by spokesman John Kirby, was that the U.S. favors both prongs of the resolution. It wants a ceasefire and the release of all hostages. In addition, Kirby added, the resolution is non-binding.
If the resolution is so good, why did the U.S. abstain, rather than voting for it? Because, Kirby explained, the resolution does not contain a condemnation of Hamas and because the resolution is not explicit about linking the ceasefire to the hostage release.
It all seemed to make sense, just like everything else Kirby says. The guy is the best official spokesman I’ve ever heard. (I also believe that, unlike most of the White House crew, he genuinely supports Israel. But maybe that’s just a testament to how good he is at his job.)
In reality, though, when it comes to Israel Kirby is just one face of a two-faced White House — a White House that talks out of both sides of its mouth, as I believe it did with “summon” and “invitation.” Kirby is the good cop. Much of the rest of the team is the bad one.
The two-faced nature of the White House is manifest from this story in today’s Washington Post. On the one hand (to mix my metaphors), we read that the White House is “taken aback” by Netanyahu’s decision to cancel his visit. After all, the non-veto of the Security Council resolution reflects "no policy change.” This was the line Kirby pushed at yesterday’s press conference. State Department spokesman Matt Miller said basically the same thing.
On the other hand, the Post acknowledges the obvious: there has been a “widening rift” between the U.S. and Israel. Team Biden is very unhappy with the way Israel is fighting the war in Gaza and with certain developments on the West Bank.
Furthermore, Team Biden is eager to express that unhappiness to outlets like the Washington Post (probably to pacify young leftist and Arab-American voters). The Post keeps reporting that “privately” the White House is frustrated and upset about this or that action by Israel. But the displeasure isn’t private when White House officials express it to the Post and other friendly outlets.
In sum, the White House publicly insists, through John Kirby, that the U.S. backs Israel and imposes no “red lines” on its military campaign. At the same time, it not-so-privately expresses its displeasure with Israel’s conduct of the war on an almost daily basis.
No wonder Netanyahu and the Israelis see the non-veto as another manifestation of White House displeasure.
Biden has a right to play his double game. But Netanyahu has a right to be fed up with it.
He is under no obligation to be a prop for Joe Biden. Indeed, I submit that, as the leader of a sovereign state, he’s under an obligation not to be one.
In addition to being obtuse, Joe Biden has always been a bully. His greatest talent has been flashing a smile as he tries to intimidate people. Notably, Clarence Thomas was not intimidated by that act.
Now Biden's an old, cranky, senile bully, and his teeth are fake, and his smile is reptilian. If Netanyahu was interested in being a client state and taking US largesse, he might have responded differently. But when your survival's at stake, you tell the bully, "Nuts."
It's actually remarkable the degree to which the Democrats, in this case the Biden administration, thinks it can say and do anything without consequence. Do they seriously believe anyone from Israel to Hamas believes there has been no change in US policy? How remarkably insulting. Do they really think that Israel is going to agree to lose the wa r because Biden needs votes? Do they really think their policy of utter and total fecklessness is not bein observed by Iran China and Russia? How does Blinken go to work every day knowing this is all happening? Can he be that stupid? At least Obama had a real if nefarious purpose. He wanted to weaken the west. What is the purpose of pushing for Hamas to win this war after supporting Israel with weaponry? What is the purpose of announcing to Iran that no matter what they do our response will always be minimal so they shouldn't worry? In the last hundred years I havent read of anything this insane. Israel had better change its doctrine so as not to rely on the United States ever again. We as a country cannot be trusted as one party is made up of Anti-Zionist cowards and the other is controlled by a narcissistic loon who is entirely unpredictable. It may mean a drop in lifestyle or living standard as Israeli industry manufactures its own weaponry but there is no other option. In the meantime ignore Biden and Harris and Blinken and Goofus and WIN THE WAR.