Over the weekend, Joe Biden made it known that he intends to have a chat with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His reasoning for this? To avoid a larger conflict in the Middle East. One can’t help but wonder if this is just another example of Biden’s questionable diplomacy methods.
Biden didn’t share specifics on when he intended to discuss the matter with Netanyahu. All the while, Israeli airstrikes have been battering Lebanon and taking a heavy toll on the Hezbollah’s command structure which was backed by Iran. This has even included the reported killing of Hezbollah’s overall leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah has been engaged in almost daily exchanges of rocket fire with Israel for nearly a year. This constant upheaval is forcing countless Israeli and Lebanese civilians from their homes. Biden’s administration has been attempting to broker a resolution, but true to their form, it appears they are struggling to bring about real change.
During the ongoing conflict, the White House’s national security spokesman issued a statement. Apparently, Israel’s airstrikes have decimated Hezbollah’s command structure, leading to the death of Hassan Nasrallah and a number of top-ranking leaders within the group.
The White House seems to believe that the void left by Nasrallah’s death will cause Hezbollah to scramble. However, rather than provide a tangible solution, they have merely issued vague statements such as, ‘we’re watching to see what they do to try to fill this leadership vacuum’. It appears the Biden administration is more focused on watching and waiting, rather than acting decisively.
The spokesman conveniently overlooked questions about the administration’s position on Israel’s targeting tactics. These tactics, the Israelis explain, are directed at Hezbollah’s leaders who have cleverly set up their command infrastructures in civilian areas. But, it seems the White House is silent on this issue, raising suspicion about their stance.
Lebanese officials claim that collateral damage from these strikes has been substantial, with numerous innocent civilians falling victim. Yet, the administration remains mum about this side of the conflict, directing attention instead towards a suggested ceasefire.
Despite the devastation and loss of life, the White House continues to suggest a 21-day ceasefire. This plan, proposed last week by the U.S., France, and several others at the U.N. General Assembly, aims to bring the Israel and Hezbollah dispute to an end. However, with little action to back it, this seems to be yet another empty guarantee from the Biden administration.
The Biden administration’s representative further solidified their soft stance by advocating for a ‘diplomatic path’. While diplomacy is crucial in such situations, the pressing question is whether this administration has the competency to effectively steer such a course in current Middle East turmoil.
Under Biden’s leadership, it is troubling to see the administration sidestep issues instead of facing them head-on. The avoidance behavior stoops to a new low with the recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict. On one hand, it pleads for a ceasefire, and on the other, it refuses to acknowledge Israel’s measures to disable Hezbollah’s dangerous potential.
The approach employed by the Biden administration appears to be one of political convenience rather than effective strategy. This leaves the Middle East, and indeed the world, questioning whether Biden can deliver a resolution to this complex issue, given his track record of inaction and lackluster diplomacy.
Furthermore, Biden’s passive stance towards the ongoing conflict raises serious questions about his grasp of geopolitics. His diplomacy seems hesitant at best, ineffective at worst, painting a dismal picture of the potential for successful resolution to the current crisis.
In conclusion, Biden’s planned talk with Netanyahu, his silence on the Israeli actions, and his wishy-washy diplomatic approach all point towards a failing administration that merely reacts to situations, rather than proactively tackling them. This lack of leadership integrity only serves to add more confusion and instability in an already volatile region.