The Antisemitism Of The Biden Administration

On May 11, Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article about another move by the Biden administration to hinder Israel’s efforts to defeat Hamas.

The article reports:

In February President Biden promulgated National Security Memorandum 20. NSM-20 directs the State Department to “obtain certain credible and reliable written assurances from foreign governments receiving [U.S.] defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services” that they will abide by U.S. and international law. NSM-20 also requires the Departments of State and Defense to report to Congress within 90 days on the extent to which these governments and services are abiding by their assurances.

NSM-20 purports to impose a generally applicable requirement. However, it is obviously aimed, Biden style, at Israel’s heart — as Senator James Risch accurately pointed out in a brief statement posted yesterday.

This is that statement:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today released the following statement on the Biden Administration’s National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20) report on Israel:

“In keeping with nearly four years of failed foreign policy, the Biden Administration is trying to have it both ways. Today, the administration has given Israel a politically damaging assessment while publicly announcing it is withholding a select set of precision weapons. The administration is attempting to placate voters on the far left at the expense of a close ally in the midst of its justified war with Hamas terrorists.

“NSM-20 is aimed squarely at Israel in the near-term, but the additional highly-politicized reporting requirements will eventually be aimed at other American allies and partners across the globe, further impeding the delivery of security assistance and undermining our ability to deter China and Russia.”

Background:

On February 8, the Biden Administration issued NSM-20, which undermines Israeli operations against Hamas in Gaza by affording Israel’s critics the opportunity to falsely claim Israel is committing war crimes.

NSM-20 threatens to cut off aid unless Israel meets arbitrary deadlines for providing “assurances” regarding international humanitarian law as well as vague facilitation of humanitarian assistance.

On April 30, Risch sent a letter with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to the Biden Administration urging for the repeal of NSM-20.

The article concludes:

Speaking of assessments, I assess that the report constitutes another friendly Biden stab in Israel’s back by the Biden administration. I would juxtapose the report with the judgment of John Spencer, the West Point modern urban warfare expert:

In their criticism, Israel’s opponents are erasing a remarkable, historic new standard Israel has set. In my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures [as the IDF has] to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The international community, and increasingly the United States, barely acknowledges these measures while repeatedly excoriating the IDF for not doing enough to protect civilians—even as it confronts a ruthless terror organization holding its citizens hostage. Instead, the U.S. and its allies should be studying how they can apply the IDF’s tactics for protecting civilians, despite the fact that these militaries would almost certainly be extremely reluctant to employ these techniques because of how it would disadvantage them in any fight with an urban terrorist army like Hamas.

Spencer is the voice of sanity. Interested readers can hear him at length in Sam Harris’s May 7 podcast with him.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are treating the people who have sworn to destroy us (Iran and Hamas) better than the people who would defend us (Israel).

Prepare For Supply Chain Problems

Remember the supply chain crisis caused by the Covid virus? Remember the problems parents had buying Christmas gifts for their children? We may be headed right back there only for a different reason.

On Sunday I posted an article about terrorism interrupting the flow of shipping through the Red Sea (article here). The article stated that because of a Houthis’ attack on one of their vessels, A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S is ‘pausing’ their ships heading for the southern entrance of the Red Sea.

On Monday, The BBC reported the following:

Oil giant BP has announced it is pausing all shipments of oil through the Red Sea after recent attacks on vessels by Houthi rebels.

The firm blamed the “deteriorating security situation” in the region as Iran-backed Houthis target ships they believe are bound for Israel.

Many freight firms have suspended journeys as the attacks continue.

BP said it would keep its “precautionary pause under ongoing review” and monitor the region.

Analysts suggested that if other large oil firms follow suit, oil prices could rise. Brent crude, the international benchmark foroil prices, increased to $78.44 per barrel.

“Right now it’s unclear how significant the impact will be,” said Gregory Brew, an oil historian and analyst at Eurasia Group.

“Though if more shipping companies divert their traffic, and if the disruption lasts more than a week or two, prices are likely to climb further.”

The Red Sea is one of the world’s most important routes for oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, as well as for consumer goods.

This is an international matter. The world needs to understand that Iran is funding the Houthis. Iran is also funding Hamas. Iran is also funding Hezbollah. There seems to be a pattern here. It’s time to put international sanctions back on Iranian oil and enforce them. One major move that the international community can make to slow down terrorism is to defund Iran. If they are not willing to unite to do that, look behind the scenes to see who benefits from the terrorism.

 

The Silence Is Deafening

On Thursday, Issues & Insights posted an article about the media’s ignoring the hostages that are currently being held by Hamas. President Biden invited the families of American hostages to the White House on Monday.

The article reports:

CNN reported that: “Ruby Chen, whose son Itay is a reservist missing since the militant group’s October 7 attacks on Israel, said a number of the families of American hostages were in Washington, D.C., this week, and had reached out to the White House asking to attend the reception but were not invited. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.”

The White House then scrambled to have these families meet President Joe Biden on Wednesday.

Biden isn’t the only one who doesn’t seem to care much about these hostages. The press has been weirdly quiet about their plight and seems content to wait for Biden to “negotiate” their release. If they’re even still alive.

Who are these hostages? Who are the families? What are they going through? It’s possible there have been news reports telling the world about the seven American men and possibly one American woman who are being held captive by these murdering, butchering, raping terrorist thugs. But we couldn’t find any. Even Biden’s unbelievable invitation foul-up was given ho-hum treatment.

This is in stark contrast to other such stories, where the press devotes endless amounts of ink to personalizing and humanizing victims — if they’re the right victim of the right sort of crime, that is.

This media blackout is not for lack of trying by the families. USA Today notes that these families have a public relations firm representing them. And several told CNN that “they wanted the international community – both governments and the Red Cross – to push more forcefully on behalf of their loved ones, to speak out against the terrible conditions they’re experiencing and for their release.”

Where is the outrage?

 

Another Broken Promise By China

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about what is about to happen in Hong Kong. As you may remember, the agreement between China and Britain in 1997 stated that China would respect Hong Kong’s independence for the next 50 years. Well, fifty years sure went by fast.

The article reports:

You may recall that the months of protests in Hong Kong were prompted by an attempt to introduce a new law which might have made it possible for China to extradite people to the mainland for trial. That proposal was eventually withdrawn because of the protests. This time China is simply holding the vote in a place where protests won’t matter. And China is using the authoritarian’s favorite gimmick, claiming opposition to the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong isn’t home-grown but based on collusion with “external forces.”

In a clear effort to head off international concerns, China’s Foreign Ministry sent a letter on Thursday night to ambassadors posted to Beijing, urging them to support the legislation and laying out the government’s position.

“The opposition in Hong Kong have long colluded with external forces to carry out acts of secession, subversion, infiltration and destruction against the Chinese mainland,” the letter stated.

American Senators are aware of what is going on. The article notes:

Senators Rubio, Risch, and Gardner also released a joint statement:

“Reports that the CCP will introduce legislation implementing Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law at this week’s National People’s Congress indicate Beijing will begin an unprecedented assault against Hong Kong’s autonomy. The Basic Law states clearly that the authority to advance Article 23 legislation rests with the executive and legislative branches of the Hong Kong government, and not with Beijing. The Chinese government is once again breaking its promises to the people of Hong Kong and the international community.

“This comes on the heels of a series of other serious blows to Hong Kong’s self-rule in recent weeks, including the advocacy of a law criminalizing disrespect of the national anthem of the People’s Republic of China and pressure on Hong Kong’s legislature that led to the sidelining of pro-democracy legislators.

“The United States will stand resolute in its support of the Hong Kong people. These developments are of grave concern to the United States, and could lead to a significant reassessment on U.S. policy towards Hong Kong.”

China is looking for a way to distract the global community from the Chinese responsibility for the coronavirus. If they can end freedom in Hong Kong at the same time, that’s a side benefit for them. This action should lead to a strong response from western countries. I am not sure it will–but it should. China needs to keep its promise.

 

 

Unfortunately This Is Going To Require A Response

Fox News is reporting today that two tankers flying British flags have been seized by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.

The article reports:

Fox News has learned that a second Liberian tanker operated by a British company was also seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and was seen on maritime tracking services making a turn, headed towards Iran.

President Trump said Friday that Iran is “nothing but trouble” and that “we heard one, we heard two,” tankers were seized.

Iran seized a British-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz earlier Friday amid growing tensions in the region.

The Stena Impero, which has a crew of 23 onboard, “was approached by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter during transit of the Strait of Hormuz while the vessel was in international waters,” Stena Bulk, the shipping company that owns the vessel, said in a statement. “We are presently unable to contact the vessel which is now heading north towards Iran.”

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard forces, in a statement on their website, say the ship was seized for “non-compliance with international maritime laws and regulations” and is being brought to an unnamed Iranian port, according to the Associated Press.

Websites tracking the ship’s path show it turning sharply in the direction of Iran’s Qeshm Island, instead of its intended destination of Saudi Arabia.

“We are urgently seeking further information and assessing the situation following reports of an incident in the Gulf,” a U.K. government spokesperson told Fox News.

In July 2018 Reuters posted the following:

With a third of the world’s sea-borne oil passing through it every day, the Strait of Hormuz is a strategic artery linking Middle East crude producers to key markets in Asia Pacific, Europe, North America and beyond.

That dynamic has changed slightly due to the fact that America now exports more crude oil than they import. The countries that will be hurt by problems in the Strait of Hormuz will be Europe, India, and China. I am sure that America will be willing to help Europe, Russia will also increase her oil production. The price of oil will rise sharply, but it is doubtful that the Strait will remain closed.

The latest report that I have heard is that there are actually three tankers that have been seized. This is an international problem and should be handled by the international community in unison.

Rewriting History

One of the problems with the Internet is that whenever you say something it can be instantly checked.

McClatchy is reporting that today President Obama stated that he did not draw a red line concerning the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

The article reports the statement:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

Well, there is an inconvenient video that was posted on YouTube a year ago:

The statement about the red line comes at about 1:54 in the video.

It would have been nice if a grown-up President had confirmed his previous statement and stood by it. I don’t support military action in Syria, but I certainly would have more respect for the President if he were more honest about his previous statements.

The problem with the statement made today is that the President typically refuses to take responsibility for his previous statements. There is no reason to assume that in the future he will take responsibility for his actions.

Enhanced by Zemanta