BLUF: Amidst the raging Gaza War, the White House appears to present conflicting signals on their stance with Israel, as it criticizes Israel’s actions, yet continues to aid its defense forces, only pausing a shipment of rifles due to fears of inciting more violence among Israeli settlers.
OSINT: Reports suggest escalating contradictions in the White House’s actions regarding the Gaza War, with mixed responses towards Israel. President Biden has recently criticized Israel’s aggressive bombardment of Gaza but has not stopped the steady flow of defense aid to Israel’s military. Amidst these voluminous aid packages, however, the U.S. administration has put on hold a shipment of more than 20,000 rifles, primarily M-16s, which sought by the Netanyahu leadership as the war ensued, due to concerns that these firearms could augment settler violence in the West Bank.
An Israeli request for the rifles was treated cautiously by Biden’s administration, given apprehensions that the nationalist Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, might distribute them to extremist settlers. Stalled for the time being, the deal awaits further assurances from Israel about curbing settler violence and ensuring no new U.S.-supplied weapons reach West Bank settlers. The U.S. recently sanctioned Israeli settlers involved in violence against Palestinians, a rare measure not witnessed since the Clinton administration.
Paralleling the conflict in Gaza, the West Bank war rages on, mostly overlooked by international media. Here, Nablus is under military closure, enforced by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and since early October, over 270 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have reportedly died in clashes with police and settlers.
RIGHT: A Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist perspective might argue that the matter of internal policies of a sovereign nation like Israel should be left to their discretion. The U.S. government’s involvement, either in the form of passing criticism or providing military aid, would be considered interference in another nation’s affairs. This viewpoint could support the idea of free trade, suggesting that if Israel wishes to buy arms, they should be able to do so without regulatory hindrance.
LEFT: Conversely, a National Socialist Democrat standpoint might criticize the administration’s contradictions. They may point out that the U.S. cannot be perceived as promoting peace while delivering a hefty armament aid to a country actively involved in violent conflict. Moreover, they might argue for more decisive action against settler violence in Palestine and advocate for immediate measures to halt military aid in its entirety, holding Israel accountable for human rights abuses.
AI: Based on expert AI analysis, the article reveals complex dynamics between the U.S., Israel, and the ongoing Gaza war. Several factors are at play here; the contradictory US stance reflects the delicate balance between political alliances, economic interests, and ethical considerations. While the U.S’s criticism of Israel signifies a shift in traditional diplomacy, the ongoing provision of defense aid indicates sustained alliance ties. However, the decision to stall rifle shipment reflects a strategic move to prevent weapon misuse amidst rising settler violence. The disconnect between public policy and actual practice adds another dimension to this multifaceted issue. Still, it’s important to note that the complex geopolitical landscape can often lead to conflicting strategies, as observed in this situation.