The Biden Doctrine on Israel

By Walter Block

Mr. Tom Friedman of the New York Times is unhappy with “the inability of Israel’s right-wing government to articulate any plan for governing Gaza the morning after the war’s end with a non-Hamas Palestinian partner.” Accordingly, he supplies a “Biden Doctrine.” It consists of three tracks:

“On one track would be a strong and resolute stand on Iran… On the second track would be an unprecedented US diplomatic initiative to promote a Palestinian state — NOW… On the third track would be a vastly expanded US security alliance with Saudi Arabia, which would also involve Saudi normalization of relations with Israel…”

What of the US in the midst World War II? Did that country have a plan for governing Germany, Italy and Japan on “the morning after the war’s end?” If America had such a blueprint it was not widely known, to say the least; certainly not during the war. The US had other concerns: a minor detail such as first winning the war. The fact of the matter is that “The Marshall Plan was first proposed in a speech by Secretary of State George C. Marshall on June 5, 1947, at Harvard University. The plan was signed into law by President Harry Truman on April 3, 1948.” So Friedman is demanding of Israel something not supplied by the US, and, at least a case can be made that the former country is in greater danger of being overrun and conquered, at present, than was the latter nation in the mid 20th century.

Certainly, if the Marshall plan even existed during the war, not too much time or effort was placed upon this then not very vital task (compared to conquering the enemy!). What, then, were the leaders of the US doing with their precious time and effort instead? This will come as a shock to scholars such as Friedman, but they were trying to win World War II! They wanted to do so with as few US military casualties as possible. This was pretty much enough on their plates.

There is something else with which they did not unduly concern themselves: saving the lives of enemy civilians (who were not used as shields, even by the Nazis, unlike Hamas). They pulverized Dresden. They destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The argument bruited about was that dropping atomic bombs on the non-combatant filled cities would obviate the need for an invasion. Why do this? In order to save the lives of American servicemen. I don’t say this was justified; only that it occurred.

So far, several hundred IDF soldiers have perished in the war against Hamas. Has this New York Times columnist ever concerned himself with these losses? If so, an attempt of mine to discern this has failed. Yes, every one of these lives lost was precious. These losses have been exacerbated by what some might regard as an excessive concern for protecting Gazan civilians.

Notice anything wrong with this Biden Doctrine, anything weird? When last I looked, Joe Biden was still president of the US (yes, he is on his way out, but he still holds that office), not prime minister of Israel. The US Constitution gives Biden the authority to create all of the “doctrines” he wishes – about the US! It offers no warrant, none at all to pontificate about what should occur anywhere else in the world, the Middle East certainly included.

But no “good deed” ever goes unpunished. Since Friedman was kind enough to concoct a Biden policy for Israel, I can do no less in behalf of Netanyahu regarding the US. The prime minister of Israel has his hands full with other concerns at present, so I will fill in for him in this regard.

Imagine if Bibi Netanyahu concocted a “doctrine” about the US. It, too, would also have three “tracks.” Emulation is the highest form of flattery, after all. The three tracks are, respectively, foreign policy, economics and personal liberties. As to the first, the US should butt its nose out of other people’s business. It should limit itself to defending its borders against foreign attack. Concerning the second, this country should adopt laissez faire capitalism as its basic principle; stop bollixing up the economy with needless taxes, regulations, etc. Third, all victimless crimes should be repealed for consenting adults: drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, should all be fully legalized.

This, of course, is chutzpah of the highest degree. If ever Netanyahu did anything of this sort, he would be highly, widely, and rightly condemned for gall, impudence, effrontery. Well, the shoe fits the other way around as well.

The critic would say that Netanyahu has no right to poke his big fat nose into US issues; that he should confine his opinions to his own country. But what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. Netanyahu, under my libertarian guidance, is merely returning the favor. If Biden can order Netanyahu around, Netanyahu, with equal justification (that is, none at all), may order Biden around. After all, both are leaders of sovereign nations, are they not? I do not denigrate the rights of free speech. Any private citizen may aver anything he wants. But when they do so in their official capacity, they cross the line.

As to the specifics of Friedman’s Biden Doctrine I say, thanks but no thanks.