This is the only way to interpret the administration's sequence of actions, actions that severely sabotaged the war of the State of Israel and the IDF against Hamas and Co. and caused, according to Secretary of State Blinken's statement, a major delay in the return of the kidnapped and many other losses and casualties for the IDF.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In fact, in the war that developed after the October 7 massacre, the American strategy of the Biden/Blinken administration was to leave the Gaza Strip under Hamas rule, despite the fact that President Biden's administration condemned the massacre of October 7 and recognized the right of the State of Israel to take revenge on Hamas and the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Goals of the previous US administration

The administration wanted to end the war through a deal that would include the following components:

A. The return of all the hostages

B. The cessation of the war, including American guarantees that the war would not be renewed

C. The withdrawal of the IDF from all the territories occupied during the war, including a withdrawal from the border strip that connects Egypt to Israel and through which weapons and terrorist personnel are smuggled, on a huge scale, into the Gaza Strip.

Therefore, President Biden's administration did everything necessary to prevent the IDF and the State of Israel from succeeding in overthrowing the Hamas government.

The way of action

1. Immediately, and even before the IDF entered the ground maneuver, the administration forced the State of Israel to introduce humanitarian aid to the Strip in a volume significantly exceeding that required by the population.

The official goal was to provide food to the population that had lost the ability to work for a living.

In my opinion, it was clear to the administration even before the “humanitarian train” began that:

A. Hamas would take control of all supplies and thus gain complete control over the population.

B. Humanitarian aid would serve as a huge source of income for Hamas since they receive a lot of supplies for free and sell the supplies to the population.

C. Hamas would recruit many additional fighters by securing supplies for their families.

2. The American government opposed the occupation of the Philadelphia Axis, which is the buffer between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, with the aim of not allowing the collapse of Hamas and the occupation of the Strip by the IDF.

They knew about the massive smuggling of weapons from Sinai to the Strip and knew that a blockade and war in Gaza by means of a pincer movement would weaken Hamas to the point of collapse.

How did they force the State of Israel to surrender to this situation of conducting a limited war with tied hands?

1. As an effective means of pressure, the embargo was renewed from time to time on the supply of essential weapons.

2. The threat of the US approving the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution to end the war was constantly present.

And the Israeli government? It was forced to surrender.

Now to the main question: Why did the administration act in this way that harmed Israel’s security and also extended the duration of the war that harmed the release of the hostages, caused us many additional losses, etc.

Despite the terrible massacre, they were determined to leave the option of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.

This position, which ignores reality, was and remains the position of the Democrat Party in the US even today.

This is an ideological position that cannot be changed, and if and when the government changes hands, they will return to this position.

The fact that Hamas does not want a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel at all and, even more so, wants to eliminate the Jewish residents of the State of Israel does not matter to those who hold this ideology.

NEWSRAEL: It should be mentioned that it was the Netanyahu government that fought not only Obama/Biden while the IDF fought Hamas and Hezbollah - but virtually the whole Western world that has made the aim of a Palestinian state almost a religious belief.