Biden Doesn’t Want Israel to Win

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is busily telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to go into Rafah to finish the task of destroying Hamas.

It is a red line, but I am never going to leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical. So there is no red line I am going to cut off all weapons, so they don’t have the Iron Dome to protect them. But there’s red lines that if he crosses….
[As paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal] He added that a complete cutoff of weapons shipments wasn’t an option.

He went on to cite Hamas’ own claim of 30,000 civilian deaths and said that was an unacceptable casualty count. With that, Biden continues to provide zero evidence that Israel isn’t trying to protect civilians as it goes after the terrorists; by implication he’s blaming the casualties on Israel. Biden also continues to ignore the fact that Hamas’ casualty count has been demonstrated to be entirely bogus.

Biden’s threat to provide only enough support to keep Israel in the fight bleeding and dying while preventing the nation from winning the war Hamas has inflicted and is prosecuting isn’t necessarily antisemitic, though; it’s part and parcel with his moves to prevent Ukraine from winning with his slow-walking and blocking delivery of weapons needed for actual, and relatively prompt, victory.

Bipartisanship

Joe Lieberman wants some, particularly regarding any nuclear weapons agreement with Iran.

The only way to assure that [bipartisan unity] is for President Biden to submit an agreement with Iran to the Senate as a treaty, needing 67 votes to be ratified. That would require support from members of both political parties. It would bring Washington, for a moment, back to bipartisanship in foreign policy.

And

Achieving an agreement with Iran that could get 67 votes in the Senate wouldn’t be easy, but it is worth the effort. It would restore the longtime bipartisan consensus in Washington about Iran….

What is it that Lieberman wants here–bipartisanship, which is a worthy step to a lasting worthy agreement?

Or a permissive path for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, which it then will use to destroy Israel, to sell to terrorists for attacks on Europe and the US, and to use itself around the world?b

An agreement that facilitates Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a worthy one.

Support for Hamas

Iran has been exposed, once again, as supporting terrorism, this time straight from the horse’s mouth.

[Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau,] Ismail Haniyeh…thanked “the Islamic Republic of Iran; who did not hold back with money, weapons, and technical support.”

Nor does the support for Hamas come solely from Iran.

In his speech Friday at the start of his joint press conference with Republic of Korea President Moon Jae-in, President Joe Biden (D) spoke at length—bragged—about how he’d been in frequent contact with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and about how several levels of his administration had been in constant contact with various levels of Netanyahu’s government to pressure the Israelis to “find a way” to end the hostilities with Hamas (and, oh by the way, Egypt helped out), and how he, Biden, had pushed Netanyahu to stop the rioting in Jerusalem. Biden had not a word, not a syllable, of his effort to push the Hamas leadership to stop their terrorist attacks on Israel or to push the Hamas leadership to stop Palestinian rioting in Jerusalem.

That’s coupled with Biden’s anxious push to get Iran to let the US (re)join the Iran nuclear weapons acquisition deal, ultimately to lift sanctions, and to pay billions more American dollars to the terrorism- and terrorist-supporting state, much of which money will go to Hamas.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took note of that latter, also.

America is about to supply Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief to continue this. For America’s security, and for that of Israel, this is dangerous.

That’s this administration’s one-sided pressure on Israel, backed up by his Progressive-Democratic Party as Party Congressmen insistently accuse Israel of terrorism and apartheid, with nary a word about Hamas’ terrorism and with no contradiction from Party leadership. Biden has pretty words, to be sure, about undying support for Israel, but that prettiness is belied by his actual behavior.

Whether it’s Biden’s intent or not, the outcome of his behavior is decreased antithesis toward Hamas and Hamas’ terrorism (which much clearly is Party’s intent), and increased the danger to Israel and to us.

Another Role for UNRWA

A writer of a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal wondered why the UNWRA still was involved in handling Palestinian refugees instead of the UNHCR, which handles all other refugees worldwide.  This includes Palestinian refugees in the Gulf states, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, but not those in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza, and other geography close to or abutting Israel.

Here’s what the UNWRA did in support of its “refugees,” in particular Hamas’ 2014 terrorist war against Israel in furtherance of their own Gaza “refugees.”

  • warehoused the terrorists’ rockets for them
  • allowed the terrorists to dig their tunnels under UNRWA facilities
  • participating in the terrorists’ staged propaganda

As another letter-writer in the same chain noted, UNRWA exists because those supporting terrorism demand it—especially, contra that writer, those in the UN.

Four Pillars of a Health Care System?

The Wall Street Journal posited this in a Wednesday op-ed.

1. Provide a path to catastrophic health insurance for all Americans.

The WSJ then supports this with old saws: being covered generally leads to better medical results, health insurance is good for the wallet, and so on.  Then they want a government solution—while they carefully avoid saying how they would pay for it:

The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit….

They don’t even say why catastrophic health insurance should be particularly targeted by Government.  They ignore an actual market solution for this: free market competition, accompanied with lower tax rates (which leave more money in people’s pockets), and no annual or income caps or requirements for high deductible insurance plans (and no requirement for any insurance plan at all) on Health Savings Accounts.  Folks are fully capable of making their own decisions about the structure of their health insurance plans without the Know Betters of Government holding them by the hand.  And insurance companies, in a fully competitive environment, are fully capable of developing and delivering the products actual customers want without Government mandates.  If that includes catastrophic insurance plans, those will appear.

2. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

See above regarding free markets.  Of course such coverage would come at a higher cost than other sorts of health coverages; the risk being transferred to the insurer is higher.  But even this risk is not certain.  Folks who’ve had a heart attack (or more than one), for instance, have a preexisting condition (unless a single heart attack has occurred sufficiently far in the past that a medical doctor (the patient’s, not the insurer’s or a Government hireling) says it’s a one-off and not preexisting), but not everyone who’s had heart attacks will have their next one simultaneously.  Even a preexisting condition can be amortized across time given a free market that allows pooling of [those who’ve had heart attacks] so that premiums can be adjusted to match the actual payout requirements, the actual risk—just like “ordinary” insurance plans.

So as long as someone remains insured, he should be allowed to move from employer coverage to the individual market without facing exclusions or higher premiums based on his health status.

This conflates two separate questions.  The preexisting question is addressed just above.  The mobility of an insuree (or someone who’d like to buy a health insurance plan) is separate: and yes, in a free market environment, an insuree would be able to take the plan he’s purchased, whether originally obtained through his employer (unless it was the employer who actually did the purchase and the premium payments) or bought on the individual market, with him wherever he went or to whatever job he moved.  The latter case, too, would reduce or eliminate the need for the new employer to offer health insurance coverage through his benefits program.

3. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.

There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs combined with high-deductible insurance should be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Another Government solution—again carefully unpaid for—and it’s much too timid.  I addressed HSAs and their market availability above.

4. Deregulate the market for medical services.

This is the only move necessary.  It’s the move to enable the free market solution.

Full stop.