I discuss the war in the Middle East with Malgorzata a lot and, like Roseanne Roseannadanna, I ask a lot of questions. Andrzej had written a precis of his view of what’s going on there for Listy, and Malgorzata translated his Polish into English just for my sake. I thought I’d post Andrzej’s take on this site, but if you read Polish, you can see the original on Listy here. (Yahya Sinwar is of course the leader of Hamas.)
As you can see, Andrzej is incensed at Biden’s decision to withhold arms from Israel and sees this as a sign that Biden is concerned more with his own reelection and with achieving comity with Iran than with defeating the terrorism of Hamas. Remember, these are Andrzej’s views, not mine, but I have to say there’s substantial (though not complete) overlap
Biden-Sinwar-Khamenei Pact
Andrzej Koraszewski
The former U.S. ambassador to Israel said there was no doubt that Biden had sided with Hamas. On Holocaust Remembrance Day, the American President announced that he intends to stop supplying weapons to Israel (with the exception of missiles for the Iron Dome). In other words, the American President announced that he would try to avoid too many Jewish casualties, but eliminating the threat to Israeli civilians interferes with his plans to cooperate with Iran.
According to The New York Times, this is a “turning point”. We are actually seeing a qualitative change. Biden said out loud what he had quietly said for days. Restrictions on American arms and ammunition supplies had actually begun earlier, although there were official attempts to deny this. Now, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the American president, citing concern for the Palestinian civilian population, decided that he must save Hamas from final defeat and create the conditions for the creation of a Palestinian state under Hamas.
We hear that it is still just a threat, that supplies will be halted “if,” but the Pentagon confirms that they have already been halted.
Is the American president naïve, or is he just pretending that he does not know what he is demanding? In all the months since Hamas started the war, American condemnations of Hamas have been nothing but empty words. There has been no firm pressure on Qatar or Iran, no demand for the expulsion of Hamas leaders from Qatar, no demand for the immediate release of Israeli hostages, no threats to move the U.S. military base out of Qatar, and no ultimatum to Tehran. On the contrary, all the American grievances were directed at Israel, Hamas’s information about Israel’s alleged crimes was taken seriously, human rights were turned into a laughing stock, a tool for constantly accusing Jews, no one blamed “President” Abbas for supporting Hamas’s barbarism, and the American administration gave permission for public hatred of the Jewish state.
The U.S. President has previously asserted that “Hamas does not represent the Palestinians.” He did not reveal the secret of how he knew this, and he also pretended that he had no knowledge of Palestinian opinion polls, or who supposedly represented these Palestinians and how they did it.
Meanwhile, Tehran said on the same day that it may be “forced to change its nuclear doctrine and build nuclear bombs if its existence is threatened.” The fact that Iran either already has nuclear weapons or is a few weeks away from building them has been known for some time. Now they have apparently decided that they have gotten green light from Washington and it is time to stop pretending that they are not aiming at acquiring nuclear weapons at all. Thus, there is no longer a need for a fatwa (which President Obama happily talked about, but which no one has ever seen), which supposedly stated that Islam forbids the production of nuclear weapons.
The new UN statements on readiness to recognize the “State of Palestine” were probably not related to President Biden’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, but it is easy to guess that the atmosphere was already considered favorable for taking this step, because there is a possibility that the US in the Security Council will not block the proposal, and the General Assembly resolution itself will certainly obtain the required majority, so journalists will consider it a binding decision of the UN anyway, and that’s what it’s all about.
So what does this “turning point” for America mean? Israeli historian Gadi Taub, in an article published on the same day, wrote:
In the eyes of the Biden administration Hamas is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. is willing to live with Iran’s proxies everywhere, as part of its “regional integration” policy—i.e., appeasing Iran. But they are unwilling to live with Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. The stubborn Netanyahu clearly does not want to learn from his would-be tutors like U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken how to “share the neighborhood” with genocidaires in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Tehran, whom his electorate understands to be bent on murdering them.
Tony Bardan, an American scientist from the Center for Research on Terrorism of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, recently wrote that Israel is facing a choice whether to remain an independent state or to be a client-oriented country in the service of a great power. Bardan reminds us that the latter has already happened once. Herod the Great was practically the governor of Rome, and it ended with the destruction of the temple, and in the following decades the genocide of the Jews and the exile of most of the survivors.
Gadi Taub, describing today’s American frolics in the Middle East—insidious attempts to overthrow the elected leader of the Israeli government and then collusion with a possible “U.S. own” Israeli prime minister—shows that for the Democratic Party, the enemy is Netanyahu rather than Islamic terrorism (not seen as a threat to America and the entire democratic world) and rather than another nuclear-armed enemy of democracy nor a genocidal Hamas.
The American president repeated his usual mantras about Israel’s right to defend itself and about his steadfast support for its ally, while doing everything in his power to save Israel’s genocidal enemy and strengthen its main sponsor.
In a world that has returned to the old rut of murderous Jew-hatred, Israel is dependent on American aid and care. But, Taub writes, the United States keeps Israel on a leash, rationing ammunition, forcing it to uncontrollably deliver humanitarian aid that falls into the hands of Hamas, maintaining its power over the people of Gaza, and in the diplomatic field supporting unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. And while the U.S. helped repel a massive rocket attack by Iran, it forced only a symbolic response from Israel. America’s primary goal today is to ensure the survival of Hamas as ruler of the Gazan fortress.
The United States treats Israel as Jews have always been treated – with superiority and contempt. They invited the prime minister’s political rival (Gantz) to the talks, tried to summon the commander-in-chief of the Israeli army for separate talks, and did not protest when a caricature of an international court threatens to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli leaders. Moreover, there is a great deal of evidence pointing to U.S. government financial and organizational support for Israel’s internal divisions and political destabilization of the country at a time of struggle for existential survival.
Let’s not kid ourselves, the “turning point” is just the climax. Even if not everything is going according to plan and Benny Gantz has not yet decided to cooperate fully, and Prime Minister Netanyahu apparently refuses to give in to pressure, the American alliance with Hamas is delaying the final defeat of this terrorist organization. And the campaign of relentlessly dishonest accusations against Israel is intensifying with each passing day the hostility towards the Jewish state, hostility towards Jews, and sympathy for enemies not only of Israel, but also of America and the rest of the democratic world.
The intentions of the allies are clear: the poster of the BDS movement says it bluntly:
NOTE: A commenter below points out that this is not from the BDS movement, but from an anarchist site. So ignore the figure below.
For Islamists, Hamas’s war with Israel is intended only to open the gate to further fighting. For President Biden, only his election campaign and the expectations of his electorate are important. The option to support the Islamic Republic of Iran was chosen by President Obama, and Biden probably really believes that Israel should learn to live with a Palestinian state armed by Iran and with Lebanon in the hands of Hezbollah. If Israel is not ready for this, so be it—America will continue to pretend to defend human rights. The question of why this human must be a genocidal terrorist might be considered tactless.
Anyone surprised? Me, not. The same as with Ukraine: Biden’s main concern is not that tens of thousands of Ukrainians are murdered by Putin’s regime on their own land but that crossing Putin could lead to “escalation” (whatever this means) and, hence, jeopardize Biden’s reelection campaign.
Nukes detonating above downtown Washington/ New York etc. Shortly followed by airbursts over Moscow and almost every other major city on the planet. Say, the top thousand (leaving strategic weapons for another several thousand military targets).
Sorry, did you think that threat had ever been taken off the table? Do we live on the same planet?
Yes, I think this threat has been taken off the table, or rather that it has never been on the table, just a scare tactic that unfortunately works too well. This is exactly what I meant.
No, we don’t live on the same planet.
You have a far higher opinion of politicians than I do.
No. I just think that the so-called civilized world should not let a nuclear-armed bully grab any land he wants and slaughter all residents who oppose him.
At some point, we must say no to evil – at least, I think so. There are always risks to be taken. But the alternative is capitulation to evil.
Even Putin knows that “MAD” means the destruction of Russia and his empire. The ones to worry about are those who will happily crisp the planet in the sure and certain faith that paradise awaits them complete with all accessories. Islam!
Biden is a senile old fool hanging on to ensure Trump gets elected. Antisemitism is alive and flourishing in the Democratic party of the USA.
Some people apparently live on planet Lalaland rather than on planet Earth. Nuclear weapons have always been a real threat, and they are even more of a threat now, no matter the apparent — and very lucky — success of the MAD doctrine.
I think nuclear war is even less of a threat now than in the past, Jon. It is not living in LaLaLand to think so. Not only does MAD continue to make a first strike foolish, advances in anti-ballistic missile defences force an adversary to contemplate that his surviving forces might be inadequate to deal the death blow in retaliation. Yet the side launching the first strike can’t be sure that his own defences would in fact be adequate to blunt the counterstrike. As Scientific American pointed out many years ago, (before any practical ABM system had been developed), even if both sides purchased identical systems from a third party, neither could be confident that it would protect himself but nor could it assume that it would not work superbly as advertised for his adversary. This additional layer of mutually asymmetric uncertainty makes nuclear war even less rational than before.
Of course if a rogue state attacks for jihadist or Marxist purposes it must be annihilated at once. And against a state that possesses no nuclear weapons at all and has no nuclear allies willing to risk all to defend it, nuclear war remains as rational as it was in August 1945.
Sorry, Leslie, I don’t agree with your reasoning. Mistakes and irrationality are the main reason nuclear war remains a threat, and the “iron dome” of MAD’s luck is getting thinner every year with the spread of nuclear weapons.
No one can teach me about the threat or otherwise of nuclear weapons. I have first hand experience of the subject matter whilst serving in the RAF on the “V” force during the cold war, up front and and very personal. I know exactly what they are and what they look like and what they are capable of.
I spent my fair share of practicing for Armageddon, I will never forget it
“Some people apparently live on planet Lalaland rather than on planet Earth.”
I don’t think this tone makes the discussion very productive; but speaking about planets, I wouldn’t want to live on a planet where everyone cowers to a nuclear-armed bully and lets him grab land and slaughter people with impunity.
If anything, the USA presumably knew what it was doing when in 1994, it pressured Ukraine to surrender its nuclear weapons and promised to defend it in return.
Or not?
Speaking of which… What “tone” does your comment “No, we don’t live on the same planet” express?
I know little about what I’m sure would have been very complex discussions relating to Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was focused on other things, then. But to me it seemed a good idea, then, for reasons that don’t necessarily mean “kowtowing” to a bully whose imperialist nature was not yet so apparent.
And I’m sure that no one anticipated a Republican Party that became brainwashed into supporting that bully by trying to reduce or end U.S. support of Ukraine.
But among a number of potential existential disasters, nuclear war is still near or at the top of any list. Underrating the potential for nuclear war just makes nuclear war more likely.
My comment “No, we don’t live on the same planet” was a direct answer to a question by a previous commenter, “Do we live on the same planet?”
I don’t think there was anything wrong with my tone, and my interlocutor didn’t show any offense. His question was rhetorical, and my answer was figurative. It reflected my profound sense of alienation from those who have different opinions on this particular subject.
On the other hand, your reference to “la-la land” to me sounded like ridiculing me and all others for whom the existence of Ukrainians is important.
Well then, Maya. Something about your perspective caused you to misunderstand the focus of my “tone” — which I do not agree was any different from that of your initial exchange with Robert about living on different planets.
In any case, I was ridiculing the idea (see, I’m stating it rather than just politely implying it) that nuclear weapons should not be considered very carefully in any confrontation with Putin — even if it means backing off or not being as aggressive as one might like to be.
My father was Ukrainian. He was 6 years old during the Russian revolution. His family was treated badly during the Soviet era, though they did survive. Many Ukrainian families didn't, of course.
I have posted here a number of times about my support and my concern for Ukraine, but maybe you were not aware of that. My wife and I have so far contributed almost a thousand dollars to Ukrainian relief efforts, and we would continue supporting Ukrainians even if the unthinkable happens and Putin somehow succeeds in his imperialistic aims.
My wife and I have flown a Ukrainian flag on our house ever since Putin's outright attack on the mainland, although I do regret not being more outwardly supportive of Ukraine beforehand.
https://x.com/Jon_Alexandr/status/1781753030171582465
You misread my comments, Maya.
I’ve conflated some comments of Maya with those of Leslie. Sorry about that.
I support Ukraine, and I think it’s important to be vey careful with nuclear weapons. It’s probably best if the world didn’t have them.
I’m not sure that’s the same ‘BDS movement’ that’s calling for divestment and boycotting…this one sez Burn, Destroy, Sabotage. I think some radical anarchists have co-opted the initialism.
BDS was built on the premise that Israel must be dismantled. It was openly said by one of its founders, Omar Barghouti (there is a video with his speech). However, BDS tried for years to use “human rights” language to gain support in the West. Now, when open antisemitism is allowed in the most enlightened “human rights” circles, they do not have to be so circumspect.
Fact is that here we are shown a poster that is presented as emanating from the BDS-movement. While even a 5 year old child can see at once that this is “fake”.
You are right. Except that it’s not a fake but the organization which posted it is not BDS. My husband (definitely over the age of 5) tells me that he found it in an article which ascribed it to BDS and knowing the destructive work of BDS he took it without checking the origin (which is a major SIN). Here is the original organization: https://www.anarchistfederation.net/zine-no-more-colonial-states-2/
I support Biden’s moves entirely. The pathway of killing them all and then sorting out the terrorists within the dead has led to world-wide condemnation for Israel. Assisting Israel in defending themselves is sound. But so is withholding arms Americans paid for from an attack on a city of refuges, some of which have no where to go or no means by which to get there. Hamas deserves eradication, but it must be done strategically.
If Israel did as you say—”killing them all and then sorting out the terrorists within the dead”—the war would be over on October 9 or 10. The war has lasted so long because Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties to a degree not known in urban fighting by any army. Don’t take my word for it. Try to check what an American expert in urban warfare, John Spencer, and British military expert Richard Kemp have to say. Notice that even if you take falsified data about victims from Hamas’s Ministry of Health, the ratio of civilians to combatants is much, much lower than in any war. The world’s average is 9 civilians to every combatant; the U.S army manages 3 civilians to every combatant, while in Gaza it is one to one. You seem exceptionally misinformed.
You are certainly misinformed on every possible level. The arms you say “Americans paid for” are sold to Israel, they are not gifts and the rest of your post does not address any of the facts, complete rubbish!
Randy, perhaps you can share your specific thoughts on how to eradicate Hamas. You are welcome to share not only your strategic insights, but also your operational and tactical ones.
The long game. Israel no doubt has their pictures. That’s all you need.
Over time, later and served cold, no Hamas person they haven’t got now…will survive. Better to wait until the heat dies down and pick off the stragglers, all leisurely like.
They’ll never be able to leave their cave/tunnel without the terror buzz of a nearby drone announcing that person’s last moments unexploded.
Happy day.
D.A.
NYC
In fact, Israel went out of its way to minimize civilian casualties. It gives warnings before attacks so that civilians could evacuate. It is sad that this also gave Hamas time to relocate and hide the hostages.
“A city of refuges, some of which have nowhere to go” – it is not Israel’s fault that no country wants to shelter the Palestinian refugees after they have plotted against every country that has accepted them. Egypt doesn’t want the Gaza strip back because it goes in package with its population.
Strategically? You mean with nuclear weapons?
Or do you just mean, “Not the way you are doing. Some other way that’s better.”?
Biden is appealing to his far left, Jew-hating base. He knows he has the pro-Israel, older segment of the Democratic party locked up. His team fears that the the college protest crowd might stay away if he doesn’t go their way, but the older, pro-Israel D’s will still pull the blue lever no matter what he does. You’ll hear a lot of “I held my nose and pulled the lever” but they’ll still vote D rather than R regardless of policy. Trump could click most boxes that the older Democrat voter wants (pro-Israel, tariffs, pro invitro fertilization, HBCU funding, union jobs, etc.), and they’ll still find a way to say “yeah, but..” and vote team blue. I’ve heard people say “I may withhold my vote altogether,” but no, that won’t happen, and Team Joe knows it.
Netanyahu to Biden: If we don’t have smart bombs, we’ll use dumb ones. If we lack precision weapons, we’ll use imprecise ones. And if we run out of everything else you provide, then we will still go door-to-door and shoot every Hamas son-of-a-bitch we find.
I would love to have heard the actual conversation. Perhaps the weapons stall is all a cynical ruse on Biden’s part, having confirmed with Netanyahu that he has sufficient weapons to get him through November. Somehow, I doubt it.
Israel will press ahead. If it was counting on those weapons to destroy tunnels, command centers, and other critical infrastructure, then it will continue combat at increased risk to the IDF. How many votes will Biden get for each additional Israeli killed? Small price to pay. After all, Biden must win and face down an “existential threat” at home: I’ve heard that elderly, rural, red-state voters imperil “our democracy.” Once he dispatches that menace, then he can turn back more fully to supporting Hamas and placating Iran.
I read that the UK (David Cameron) said they had no plans to cease the supply of armaments to Israel. France and Germany said something similar. With Ukraine as well it must be difficult keeping up with the demand, good business for arms manufacturers.
I’ve read that one of the items Israel has been buying from the United States is the strap-on kits that convert a dumb bomb into a precision-guidable bomb. The kits are expensive, something like $30,000 while the part that goes Boom, dumbly or smartly, is ~$5000 depending on size. The extra expense is fully justified if the kits reduce the number or air sorties you have to fly against sophisticated air defences to destroy a high-value target. But against undefended targets that don’t have to be hit with great accuracy (like a bridge or a tunnel entrance would be), it is more sensible just to drop more (or bigger) ordinary bombs with the best targeting you have, hoping the non-combatants got out of the way, and carefully husband the expensive luxury of high accuracy. After all, if the Hamas fighter is shooting from behind a baby carriage, the baby in it is going to be a martyr, too, no matter what you do.
Viewed this way, President Biden’s stated refusal to sell this kit to Israel could give Israel a justification for more civilian casualties, instead of the unacceptable alternative of higher IDF casualties from more “careful” warfare.
I’m sorry, but I can’t unsee the image of Israel giving it to Hamas with a “strap-on kit.” In another era, this would have made for interesting murals or airplane art.
I don’t agree with every word, but a great deal rings true. One thing is a certainty: the Biden Administration decided from the start to demonize Prime Minister Netanyahu. If Biden can’t convince Americans to blame Israel directly—most American Jews would not do this—he can surely get them to hate Netanyahu to achieve the same outcome. It’s cynical, self-serving, and puts at risk the long-term viability of the only democratic (small-d) state in the Middle East, and the only safe haven for Jews in the world.
Careful of putting Netanyahu vs the entire Pal side on a similar axis of morality. The asymmetry is awesome, amazing, huge.
Netanyahu is a terrible politician IN A DEMOCRACY. That last word is a limiting factor no matter how bad he is. His incompetence and mendacity are WITHIN PARAMETERS.
Hamas is not.
There is NO comparison between the two sides.
Judge Bibi next to Joe Biden, or Rishi Sunek or even Mitt Romney.
Judge Hamas (again, and the entire Pal movement unless there’s some kind of peace train there I’ve been unaware of for half a century) next to Al Qaida and ISIS.
To take the moral claims of the Pal movement – all of it – seriously demeans us.
+100%
Sleepy Joe…uh, Joe Biden is simply using Israel as a political pawn to try to get re-elected. “Have to show some support for Israel, but can’t be unconditional in that support because it will cost me some votes.”
Great leaders, and none of those exist in this country, do what is RIGHT and not what is politically expedient. Not giving Israel the tools it needs to destroy genocidal barbarians is the definition of WRONG.
Agree. Although when I think of maybe I should vote for trump because he would take a hard line against Iran and its proxies, am I doing the same thing? Being politically expedient?
Just check out Trump’s Project 2025 to see for yourself why this man should never be allowed within ten miles of the Whitehouse again:
https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-agenda-next-republican-administration
Is that the best (worst) you’ve got? These are all policy positions which are naturally anathema to many but long overdue to many others. As policy, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of them. None involves subverting the Constitution, not that the President, or even the whole Federal Congress, can change the Constitution unilaterally anyway. The religiously coloured proposals would be challenged in the Courts and might not be worth the squeeze.
Speaking in a non-partisan manner…
The only potentially troublesome policy prescription is to make the Dept. of Justice responsible like the rest of Cabinet to the President. In some Westminster Parliaments, the Attorney-General also wears the hat of Minister of Justice and as such reports to the Prime Minister, at whose pleasure she holds both jobs. It is clear that the Prime Minister can direct the Minister of Justice to quash any prosecution not in the public interest, and can eject her from Cabinet if she refuses. The Prime Minister can also direct the Commissioner of the RCMP (but no other police force) to investigate, or not investigate, any person, but for obvious reasons rarely does. All Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are responsible to Parliament and they must be appointed from sitting MPs (or rarely Senators, who are appointed, not elected.). This provides a brake (more theoretical than real) on the Prime Minister’s authority and his ability to undermine the A-G’s independence that you don’t have with Separation of Powers. This last feature is the one that makes the idea of an American A-G being merely another Cabinet Secretary somewhat concerning. Nonetheless, if the President is really the Chief of the Executive he probably has this power already in fact.
There’s no question that a Trump Presidency having done its homework would try to bring about major changes that many will be aghast at. But even by the standards of the publication you cite, this would not be the end of the Republic.
Don’t think we have any real choices, anymore. That’s the problem…
Despite being a balls-out mega-extreme Zionist myself I’m pretty unconcerned about Biden’s armaments curtailment: overall he is close to the most pro-Israel prez we’ve had.
This latest maneuver is because he has to give SOMETHING to the other side – unfortunately – to keep up our “honest broker” ideals. Something for the Jordanians, Emirati and Saudis to calm their restive populations. Of course they hate Israel, it is RELIGIOUS (see Koran) but those gvts have been stoking the Israel hate for… well ever.
But these are the cards we have.
The cutting off some armaments is not going to make a spot of difference to the fight on the ground and Israel will pretty much ignore it.
I want ALL of Hamas destroyed utterly – every last member – and Gaza to be completely contained. There will never ever EVER be two states.
The Saudis etc will probably come around eventually even without a free, bristling, failed terror base with a real flag called “Palestine”. But Biden has to LOOK like he’s putting on pressure. Kudos.
Onwards Israeli heroes.
D.A.
NYC
I wouldn’t say “never” to two states, but certainly for a long time. Biden is navigating these turbulent waters as best as anyone else could, and probably a lot better than anyone else. Anyone thinking “none of the above” or of supporting the orange loon is missing some neurons and incapable of appreciating what the Enlightenment means.
I have seen a YouTube video while Trump was president (at NATO summit July 11 2018) where he argued with Europeans about not only their lack of GDP support for defense but the stupidity of relying on Russia for their energy supplies. I don’t trust Trump at all but recent events have shaken my faith in the people now in charge who have not stopped Iran or Putin or China. These are are all threats to enlightenment values and democracy and I don’t know if Trump will do any better, probably not. It’s just the part of the Democratic party that supports Hamas is just as bad just in a different way.
Bothsidesism like this is not a useful position except for those who just want to take down everything. It’s used by anarchists and nihilists who have given up.
It did sound that way. I am just frustrated with many on the left who seem to be doing all they can to get Trump elected. But I have not forgotten the lengths he went to try and stay in power. I might agree with what he said to the Europeans but January 6 makes him ineligible for the Presidency. You are right saying I sounded nihilistic and that isn’t helpful. Never give up.
Biden’s goal should be clear and simple:
DEFEND democracy!
Simple. He is making an arse of it and of himself. Criticise where it is needed when lapses are evident but the principles of democracy and therefore humanity are the bed rock, nothing else matters.
Well, a few other things matter, too. But democracy is up there.
https://x.com/Jon_Alexandr/status/1775554827411747018
That is not the Trump platform, but rather the Heritage Foundation proposal. Some of the ideas are actually good, once you get past the scare language of the author of the piece and to to the actual website. Some can’t be done, no matter what. As for me, I would agree that some aspects of the gender ideology movement have gone too far, that illegal immigration should be curtailed with a better way to allow legal immigration and more efficient processing of people wishing to work in this country, that DEI and CRT should be ended at a federal level, and that parents should be allowed greater choice in schools to send their children to via ESAs. As far as abortion, most of the decisions are at a state level now, and there’s no way Congress would ever outlaw it (the president certainly could not).
But even if Trump is elected, I don’t see how the president could unilaterally do much. He wasn’t able to change much his first term, and there were also changes that he chose not to make. Plus many of his changes were pretty liberal (record HBCU funding, criminal justice reform, increased tariffs on imports, killing the TPP, huge increase in spending, etc.)
One thing I would have liked to see in those Heritage recommendations is to limit the ability of the president to use executive orders to enact law. I realize it’s up to Congress to stop him (or her) and that they have abdicated this right in many cases, but just because I might like a certain outcome, I still want the full process to work, not a single wave of a pen by the prez.
Rather tangential to the point, but listing increased tariffs on imports as a “pretty liberal” change does not sound right. Restricting free international trade is a pretty anti-liberal move, but even if we say that international trade policy is outside of the range of interpretation of societal liberalism, it is still neutral.
Well, unless you use “liberal” as a tribe-sticker and call any change that aligns with the opinion of the majority of the tribe a liberal change, but then this is a reminder for me how these stickers do not make sense. (Also it is not evident for me that people under the conservative tribe-sticker would be against increased import tariffs.)
A question to ask is ‘What support would Israel get if Trump is elected?’
So. he thinks an alternative (whose name need not be written) would be more promising than Biden? Get real. Biden knows what he is doing under the circumstances. Does whatshisname?