Bret Stephens insists that refusing to provide the Israelis with offensive weapons that are essentially intended to cause a disproportionate number of civilian casualties is a blunder. Let’s analyze his reasons for that:
- DENYING THE WEAPONS MAKES BIDEN LOOK WEAK: Really? Making demands about the use of weapons and having the Israeli government ostentatiously ignore them makes Biden look strong? In what parallel universe is that true?
- DENYING THE WEAPONS HELPS HAMAS: The American objective, and the objective of the Israeli military (the cabinet is another matter) is to destroy Hamas by first separating the fighters from the innocent civilians. Measures taken to push the Israeli government in that direction do not help Hamas.
- DENYING THE WEAPONS PROLONGS THE WAR: The fact that Hamas is regrouping in the northern part of Gaza suggests that the current government strategy is not working and that the war will not be over any time soon. In any event, there is every reason to believe that Bibi wants a long war, and sacrificing speed for more ultimate success in creating a viable, moderate Gaza is a good idea.
- DENYING THE WEAPONS MAKES AMERICA LOOK LIKE AN UNRELIABLE ALLY: Who is being unreliable here? The party that is giving away weapons, but wants them to be used in a particular way, or the party that thinks it is entitled to use the free weapons in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the gift?
- DENYING THE WEAPONS WILL HAVE UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES: In reality, having the Israelis abuse our gifts is damaging America’s image in the world and weakening our argument for protecting Ukraine from human rights abuses. Those are the real unforeseen consequences here.