Biden’s Israel policy and Hamas’ prison exchange


President Biden recently delivered a significant address from the Oval Office, focusing on the US’s commitment to its allies, most notably Israel and Ukraine. This crucial speech followed Biden’s brief but impactful visit to Israel, where he engaged with Israeli leaders to offer support in the aftermath of the devastating October 7 attacks, which resulted in over 1,400 casualties.

In his address, President Biden underscored the unwavering US commitment to ensuring Israel’s security, particularly in light of recent attacks by Hamas. He also delved into the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, elaborating on the US’s strategic response to Russia’s aggressive maneuvers. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre announced that the primary objective of the speech was to articulate the US’s stance on these pressing international matters.

While in Israel, Biden also emphasized the urgent need for humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, an area controlled by Hamas terrorists. He disclosed that Egypt had consented to permit a convoy of supply trucks to enter the besieged territory. British Guardian labeled Biden’s statement in Israel a hypocritical foreign policy.

In terms of financial aid, Biden is strategizing to secure Congressional approval for an expansive, year-long aid package estimated at $150 billion. While the President is leveraging the sentimental weight of Israel’s security and the historical connection of Jews to the land to gain support, it’s crucial to note that the package is not exclusively for Israel. It also encompasses aid for Ukraine and Indo-Pacific countries, including Taiwan. This multi-faceted aid proposal has ignited a contentious debate in Congress, particularly over the distribution of funds to Ukraine.

Given the current global tensions, Biden’s ambitious plan raises questions about the feasibility of the US engaging on multiple fronts; with Hamas, with Russia, and now with China as well. While Biden has stated that America will not deploy its “own troops”, the evolving geopolitical landscape, especially in case of military conflict with China, suggests that the US might eventually find itself compelled to commit military forces.

The US has already allocated tens of billions of dollars in both aid and weaponry to Ukraine. Conversely, an emergency aid package for Israel has received widespread bipartisan endorsement.

Biden’s focus on humanitarian aid to Hamas-controlled Palestinian territories raises serious security and military concerns for Israel.

The address also illuminates the intricacies of US foreign aid, revealing the challenges and debates within Congress. The bipartisan support for Israel stands in contrast to the more contentious discussions surrounding aid to Ukraine, reflecting the diverse opinions and priorities within the US government.

President Biden did not utter Iran during his whole speech. The Republicans are agitating against this. The decision to provide $6 billion in aid to Iran in exchange for prisoners was strategically ill-advised, particularly at a time when intelligence sources were confirming meetings between Khomeini, Hezbollah, and Hamas leaders. Such a move not only raises questions about the alignment of geopolitical interests but also risks emboldening these groups, which have been involved in various forms of aggression and destabilization efforts. The timing of the aid could potentially send a wrong message to allies and global observers, casting doubt on the commitment to counter-terrorism and regional stability.

In a recent Fox News article, President Biden came under heavy criticism for not mentioning Iran during his address about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. The article highlights that conservatives took to social media platforms to lambast the President for this omission, calling it “utterly irresponsible and weak”. Critics argue that ignoring Iran, a state sponsor of Hamas, in the discussion about the Israel-Hamas conflict is a significant oversight, given Iran’s role in supporting terrorist activities. The article also notes that Biden’s silence on Iran comes at a time when the country is reportedly involved in planning attacks against Israel.

Moreover, the decision to provide $6 billion in aid to Iran in terms of a prison exchange comes at a time when intelligence sources have confirmed meetings between Khomeini, Hezbollah, and Hamas leaders, according to The Indian Express. This move could be strategically detrimental for Bangladesh, especially when the country is already under scrutiny for its diplomatic choices. The government’s stance, coupled with these recent developments, could not only isolate Bangladesh on the global stage but also expose it to economic and political vulnerabilities.

According to some credible sources it has been revealed that Hamas and Hezbollah together have prepared a list of prisoners to be exchanged with hostages. These prisoners are imprisoned in the UK, France, and the United States.

President Biden’s unequivocal support for Israel not only addresses immediate geopolitical concerns but also has far-reaching implications for the future of the Middle East and the world. The existence of Israel in a predominantly Arab region serves as a strategic foothold for American interests, providing a reliable ally in a volatile area. This relationship is further justified by the historical presence of Jews in the land, dating back thousands of years. While religious and Islamist forces have always challenged Israel’s legitimacy by calling it an illegitimate child of the West citing various mythical and religious texts to claim that Jews are “not allowed” in the land, the US backing effectively counters these narratives. Biden’s stance solidifies the long-standing American policy of supporting Israel, reinforcing its right to exist and safeguarding US interests in the region.

Bangladesh and Hamas

At the same time, the situation in Bangladesh concerning its diplomatic stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict is increasingly complex and fraught with potential repercussions. A recent report from MEMRI quoted by The Eastern Herald has highlighted the Bangladeshi government’s ambiguous position, which seems to be leaning towards the Islamist bloc sympathetic to Hamas. This is particularly concerning given the recent threats to US embassies in the Middle East, as reported by Jihad Watch and PJ Media. These threats have been linked to terrorist groups like Hamas, raising questions about Bangladesh’s diplomatic choices and their potential impact on relations with Western nations, particularly the United States.

The appointment of individuals with pro-Hamas leanings in key US departments, as mentioned in the Jihad Watch article, further complicates the situation. It raises questions about the US’s own stance and how it might react to countries like Bangladesh that appear to be aligning themselves with groups considered to be terrorsits. Given that the US has recently imposed special visa restrictions on Bangladesh, the government’s current leanings could invite stricter actions from the US and other Western nations.

Mutiny in Washington

The situation becomes even more precarious with information from some sources suggesting the possibility of mutiny within the White House administration. These sources indicate that some top leaders may be involved, adding a layer of internal instability to an already complex international landscape. This internal mutiny could have a ripple effect on how the US deals with countries like Bangladesh, especially given the already complicated dynamics surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An article by Akbar Shahid Ahmed in the Huffington Post discusses what it describes as a “mutiny” brewing within the US State Department over President Biden’s Israel-Palestine policy. Pakistani writer, who is known for taking positions that are sympathetic to Hamas and Palestinian terrorist viewpoints, reports that there is widespread dissatisfaction among State Department officials. According to this article, these officials feel that Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his senior advisers are ignoring internal expertise. The situation has escalated to the point where diplomats are preparing a “dissent cable“, a formal internal document that criticizes American policy. This so-called mutiny is set against the backdrop of ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine, which has led to over 4,000 deaths since Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel.

However, it’s worth noting that Akbar’s portrayal of a “mutiny” within the State Department could be seen as an attempt to amplify internal disagreements into something more dramatic. The article also highlights the resignation of Josh Paul, a veteran State Department official who left his position because he could not morally support the US’s moves to supply Israel’s war effort.

In the article, Pakistani author Akbar Shahid Ahmed employs the term “mutiny” to describe internal disagreements within the US State Department, a choice of wording that could be seen as an attempt to sensationalize the situation and align it with a Hamas perspective. The use of such a strong term may serve to amplify what might otherwise be considered internal policy disagreements, casting them in a more dramatic and potentially destabilizing light. This choice of language could be interpreted as an effort to advance an Islamist agenda by framing the US government as deeply fractured on its Israel-Palestine policy, thereby undermining its stance against terrorist groups like Hamas.

The article raises questions about the internal dynamics within the US State Department, but it’s important to consider the author’s controversial stance when interpreting these claims.

Mutiny at US embassy in Dhaka

While Huffington Post in this report claimed there is a possibility of mutiny inside the US State Department, Dhaka’s vernacular daily Jugantor in a report says the US ambassador in Bangladesh, Peter D. Haas has instructed the embassy to fly the national flag at half staff in the wake of devastating “Israeli bombings” on Gaza that have resulted in “significant loss of life and humanitarian crises”.

According to some sources, the US’s foreign policy could become unpredictable, making it even more challenging for Bangladesh to navigate its diplomatic path. The potential for stricter actions from the US against Bangladesh could escalate, especially if the internal mutiny within the White House leads to a more hawkish stance against countries seen as aligning with extremist groups. In such a volatile environment, Bangladesh’s diplomatic decisions could have far-reaching consequences, not just for its relations with the US but also for its standing in the global community.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here