One’s own terrorism is not that bad?

Joe Biden’s article:  “Joe Biden: The U.S. won’t back down from the challenge of Putin and Hamas”

Joe Biden’s article published on Saturday in The Washington Post addresses the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, presenting three conclusions.

First, it is obviously one of the first steps taken on the eve of the upcoming US election campaign. The US presidential elections will be held in November 2024. In this manner, the Democratic Party’s leadership has signalled to the top American bureaucracy and the public the foreign policy Biden intends to pursue in the coming months. However, this strategy may appear poorly conceived, absurd and bizarre – simply put, unappealing.

Second, Biden begins this election step with a historical setback. According to sociological polls, Biden’s approval rating hit a new low, with over half of respondents saying they have no trust in their president and do not approve of his policy. Not a very good birthday present as he enters his ninth decade.

Third, instead of the traditional address to the nation, the president’s political team has opted for the format of a written article for an obvious reason. They did not deem it possible to have the president speak personally or at least on the record about complex foreign policy issues. This would have turned out even less appealing.

Now let’s analyse the theses presented in the article published under the name of the US president.

“Joe Biden” (we will put it in quotes considering that he did not write this article) draws parallels between the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East for a simple reason: full support for Israel is the only issue of bipartisan consensus in the top echelons of power in America. On all other issues, Republicans and Democrats are divided by insurmountable differences. The two factions in Congress failed to reach an agreement even on the support for the Kiev regime. It’s worth recalling that recently, the Senate endorsed a plan to continue funding the federal government without providing aid to Ukraine.

Washington's stance on the conflict is framed through the lens of American exceptionalism: “Joe Biden” asserts that “the United States is the essential nation.” In the context of the Middle Eastern developments, this self-perception is not uncommon. Just days before the onset of another round of escalation, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser to the US President and Biden's closest associate, published an article titled “The sources of American power” in Foreign Affairs, apparently echoing “Joe Biden’s” article, in which he claimed that thanks to Washington “the region is quieter than it has been for decades.” Significant events unfolded a few days after this article went to press, emphasising the utter failure of the US establishment’s efforts in the Middle East. It seems that the thesis about the United States being “the essential nation” will meet a similar fate.

“Joe Biden” repeatedly refers to Hamas' “terrorist strategy” forgetting that Hamas came to power democratically in 2006, with the United States playing a significant role in bringing the movement to prominence. At that time, Washington insisted on free elections in the enclave, but later boycotted the legitimately elected political force. The words of then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the results of the plebiscite seem to have been forgotten: “nobody saw it coming”. Jake Sullivan, with his article written 17 years later on the eve of October 7, 2023, appears to be the last person caught off guard by the then American democracy games.

“Joe Biden” repeatedly emphasised the importance of international efforts, yet the last effective and working mechanism for the Middle East settlement, the so-called Middle East Quartet, which in addition to the United States, includes the EU, the UN and the Russian Federation, was blocked largely due to the actions of Western countries, primarily the United States. When a brutal escalation occurred in October 2023, no one had enough authority to stop the bloodshed. Certainly, neither Joe Biden nor the collective “Joe Biden” can serve as such an authority, even in theory.

It is hard not to agree with the author of the article regarding the need for a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue and the fact that evicting Palestinians from the enclave is unacceptable. But why doesn't “Joe Biden” publicly direct these sentiments to the Government of Israel, which must contend with these American approaches? After all, the plans for the resettlement of Palestinians could not have been devised by the Israeli authorities without involvement from Washington.

One cannot help but question why, while accusing one side of the conflict of resorting to terrorist methods, the author overlooks the terrorist actions in the policies of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.

“Joe Biden” talks about shelling hospitals, which is precisely what the Ukrainian armed forces are doing, using Western weapons to shell hospitals in the DPR and the LPR.

“Joe Biden” talks about atrocities against civilians, but these are precisely the actions of neo-Nazi thugs - Kiev's militants.

“Joe Biden” mentions the attack on a youth music festival, while Zelensky's crumbling army launches attacks on schools during children's matinees.

This is why we refer to the Kiev administration as a criminal regime resorting to terrorist methods. Why doesn't “Joe Biden” see or acknowledge this? Or one’s own terrorism is not that bad?

This article contains many peculiar and contradictory statements. But an outstanding historical inconsistency takes the cake. For some reason, the author of the article, purportedly the President of the United States, speaks about an order to send two aircraft carrier groups to the conflict zone. When have aircraft carrier groups of the world’s largest US army brought stability or contributed to a ceasefire? The very names of the aircraft carriers seem like scoring an own goal: Dwight Eisenhower, during whose stint in the White House the Americans participated in the Korean War, and Gerald Ford, the president of the United States during the Vietnam War. If the “American might” follows the trajectory of the United States during the Korean and Vietnam wars, we can only feel sorry for Israel.