|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: TJVNews.com
President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, has stirred controversy and raised concerns, particularly in relation to his statements on the Israel-Hamas war. While the president briefly touched upon Hamas’ acts of sexual violence and the tragic massacre of 1,200 innocent people on October 7th, the majority of his address focused on a misguided approach to the ongoing conflict.
One of the key points of contention is Biden’s call for a Palestinian state as the “only solution” and “only path” to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict. Despite claiming to be a great friend of Israel, the president’s insistence on a Palestinian state has been met with criticism for endangering Israel’s existence. The demand for a Palestinian state, as articulated by Biden, overlooks the fact that 85% of Palestinians support the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, including the killing of innocent Jews.
Furthermore, Biden’s failure to acknowledge the opposition to a Palestinian state from both the Israeli people and leadership raises questions about the coherence of his approach. While the president briefly acknowledged Israel’s right to go after Hamas, his endorsement of a Palestinian state contradicts this stance, as Hamas is expected to be part of any such state.
The president’s address also drew attention to an imbalance in presenting the situation on the ground. Biden highlighted the displacement and bombardment in Gaza without acknowledging the ongoing displacement of Israelis due to attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies. The destruction of homes and communities in northern and southern Israel, along with the threats faced by the entire country, was notably absent from his remarks.
Biden’s description of Gaza’s “homes destroyed, neighborhoods in rubble, cities in ruin” prompted criticism for not providing a comparable acknowledgment of the destruction in Israel. Critics argue that failing to mention the intentional use of civilian structures by Hamas for launching attacks on Israelis creates a distorted narrative.
Biden’s call for Israel to prioritize assisting and protecting Gazans above all else has raised legal, moral, and strategic questions.
One of the central criticisms is that Biden’s demand places Gazan civilians as Israel’s foremost priority, even ahead of critical objectives such as rescuing hostages, preventing attacks on Israeli civilians, and eliminating Hamas’ terror infrastructure. This prioritization, according to Biden, seems to disregard the fact that a significant portion of the Gazan population overwhelmingly supports Hamas, the same group responsible for heinous acts against Israelis.
Contrary to Biden’s stance, international law provides a framework for assessing military operations where the anticipated military advantage is weighed against potential harm to civilians. Under these principles, a military operation is deemed acceptable if the harm to civilians is not excessively disproportionate to the military advantage sought. Israel, as consistently emphasized, adheres to these legal standards, often aborting operations to minimize harm to civilians. The assertion that assisting Gazans should supersede other critical objectives is a point of contention.
Moreover, international law does not impose an obligation on a nation to provide aid to an enemy population, especially if there’s a reasonable concern that such aid might be diverted for military purposes. Israel’s cautious approach to humanitarian aid aligns with these legal considerations, as Hamas has a track record of diverting aid for its military efforts.
One contentious issue is the casualty figures presented by Biden, who relied on Hamas-provided numbers without independent verification. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) dispute these figures, asserting that at least 12,000 casualties are Hamas terrorists. Additionally, AEI Distinguished Fellow Danielle Pletka has highlighted significant discrepancies in Hamas’ reported numbers, casting doubt on their accuracy. This raises concerns about the reliability of casualty statistics and the need for independent verification.
Biden’s call for prioritizing humanitarian aid to Gaza has also faced criticism. While the President emphasized the construction of a temporary pier by the U.S. military to bring more aid into Gaza, concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of such measures. The real challenge lies in Hamas’ control over aid distribution and its diverting of resources for its terrorist objectives. The accusation that Israel uses aid as a “bargaining chip” overlooks the substantial aid Israel has permitted into Gaza and downplays the issue of Hamas misappropriation.
Furthermore, Biden’s demand for Israel to allow more aid into Gaza raises questions about the underlying dynamics of the conflict. Israel has consistently facilitated aid delivery and taken measures to avoid civilian casualties. The primary impediment is Hamas’ mismanagement and diversion of humanitarian assistance. The construction of a new pier, as proposed by Biden, may not address the root cause of aid misallocation.
Biden’s remarks also revived discussions around his acknowledgment, in October 2023, that he had “no confidence” in the casualty numbers provided by Palestinians. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the Hamas influence on Palestinian health institutions. The inconsistency between Biden’s previous stance and his current reliance on Hamas figures has sparked criticism and calls for clarity.
Additionally, the President’s silence on Hamas’ false claims, such as the alleged bombing of Al-Ahli Hospital by Israel, adds complexity to the narrative. The omission of such incidents from Biden’s address raises concerns about a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of events in the region.
Biden’s proposal for an “immediate ceasefire” lasting at least six weeks has drawn criticism for its potential implications. A temporary cessation of hostilities does not address the fundamental problem – the existence and resilience of Hamas’ terror infrastructure. Instead of dismantling the terror organization, Biden’s plan allows Hamas to regroup and plan future attacks against Israel at its discretion.
The divergence between Biden’s stated plan and reported discussions on a recent “deal” has also raised eyebrows. While the President mentioned the gradual release of 40 hostages over six weeks, reports suggest that the deal includes the release of hundreds of convicted Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons. The terms proposed by Hamas, including a permanent ceasefire (subject to future breaches) and Israel’s guaranteed evacuation from Gaza, were notably absent from Biden’s address. Israel’s opposition to these conditions reflects the impracticality and potential dangers associated with such demands.
Iran’s role in the broader Middle East conflicts, especially its influence on groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hezbollah, was scarcely touched upon in Biden’s speech. The President failed to acknowledge Iran’s significant involvement in orchestrating attacks against Israel and supporting militias that target U.S. forces in the region. The omission of Iran’s role in the October 7th massacre and other incidents raises concerns about the comprehensiveness of Biden’s assessment of the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.
The Wall Street Journal’s investigative reports on October 8, 2023, shed light on Iran’s purported involvement in plotting and executing the October 7th attack on Israel. According to the Journal, Iran played a significant role in orchestrating the assault, providing the final authorization during a meeting in Beirut on October 2nd, and refining operational details in subsequent gatherings involving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hamas, and Hezbollah.
The report also disclosed that around 500 Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) militants received specialized combat training in Iran, led by the IRGC Quds Force and its commander, Brig. Gen. Esmail Qaani. Iran’s state-affiliated Kayhan International further attributed the attack to former IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani’s planning, acknowledging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s involvement.
U.S. National Security spokesperson John Kirby confirmed Iran’s continued support for Hamas and Hezbollah during a press briefing on October 23, 2023. The assistance included funding, resources, rockets, munitions, and training for these Iran-backed proxies.
A hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on October 26, 2023, revealed that Iran contributes approximately $350 million annually, constituting roughly 93% of Hamas’ total funding.
On January 3, 2024, Fars News reported IRGC spokesman Ramazan Sharif’s statement, indicating that the October 7th massacre was considered an act of vengeance by the “resistance axis” against the killing of Soleimani.
Despite these allegations, Iran has consistently maintained a narrative blaming Israel and the U.S. for various incidents, including the January 3, 2024, ISIS bombing in Kerman. Iran’s accusation that ISIS acts as an agent and mercenary for America and Zionism reflects the ongoing tensions and geopolitical complexities in the region.
The reports raise concerns about Iran’s active role in supporting terrorist proxies and as they engage in activities that destabilize the Middle East, prompting the international community to closely monitor the situation and assess its implications on regional security.
