I always thought “ironclad” meant binding, but to President Biden it apparently means a pledge that’s good until it becomes politically inconvenient to stick to it. On at least two occasions he asserted his (and our) commitment to Israel’s defense was “ironclad”:

“On July 18, 2023, seated beside Mr. Herzog. “And as I affirmed to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu yesterday, America’s commitment to Israel is firm. And it is ironclad.” 

He reiterated this pledge last month:

"As I told Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel's security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad - let me say it again, ironclad," Mr. Biden said.

His comments come one day after an interview, recorded a week ago, was aired in which Mr. Biden urged Mr. Netanyahu to "just call for a ceasefire" in Gaza and in which he said he disagreed with the prime minister's war strategy.

"I think what he's doing is a mistake. I don't agree with his approach," he said in the interview with US network Univision”.

With rockets pouring into Israel from Lebanon and Gaza after the most murderous barbaric attack of October 7,  “The Biden administration told Congress it would waive sanctions on military sales to several Middle Eastern nations the day before President Biden himself publicly declared that the U.S. would not give Israel offensive aid if it invaded Rafah. (Israel had already begun to invade Rafah.)

Some of those countries have been accused playing an active role in the proliferation of Hamas and other terror groups intent on wiping Israel off the map.

The State Department sent Congress a notification on Tuesday that it would extend existing sanctions waivers for Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen Libya, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia through April 30, 2025, according to a copy of the notice obtained by Fox News Digital on Friday.

This week, in accord with a National Security Memorandum issued in February, the Department of State released a report which covers Israel and six other states concerning whether these states, which receive U.S. defense aid, have provided assurances that they will abide by U.S. and International law. Respecting Israel, its report is convoluted and provides little cover for the President, who is now being charged with Articles of Impeachment for threatening to cut off aid to Israel, a move predictable because the congressional authorization for arms sales to Israel was most certainly a quid pro quo for the defense authorization for continued aid to Ukraine.

In relevant part the unclassified version of the report states, per Michael Crowley of the New York Times, as Powerline's Scott Johnson quotes and discusses:

"The Biden administration believes that Israel has most likely violated international standards in failing to protect civilians in Gaza but has not found specific instances that would justify the withholding of military aid, the State Department told Congress on Friday.” Crowley also observes that the report adds that “the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions” as to whether the Israel Defense Forces are making sufficient use of those tools…

Even so, the report -- which seemed at odds with itself in places -- said the United States had no hard proof of Israeli violations. It noted the difficulty of collecting reliable information from Gaza, Hamas’s tactic of operating in civilian areas and the fact that “Israel has not shared complete information to verify” whether U.S. weapons have been used in specific incidents alleged to have involved human rights law violations.

The report addresses Israel’s compliance with international law at pages 21-25. Here is a key paragraph at pages 21-22:

Given the nature of the conflict in Gaza, with Hamas seeking to hide behind civilian populations and infrastructure and expose them to Israeli military action, as well as the lack of USG personnel on the ground in Gaza, it is difficult to assess or reach conclusive findings on individual incidents. Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles covered under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm. Israel’s own concern about such incidents is reflected in the fact it has a number of internal investigations underway.

[snip]

The report addresses the IDF’s responsibility for civilian harm at pages 25-28. As I read it, Israel has undertaken heroic efforts to mitigate harm to civilians at great risk to its own soldiers, but that’s not quite what it says. 

[snip]

How accurate are Hamas’s accounts of “reported deaths”? Perhaps it would make sense to resort to serious statistical analysis, such as that conducted by Abraham Wyner in his Tablet column “How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers.” The report offers no such analysis or even any standard of comparison by which to assess “proportionality.”

Aside from any reliance on admittedly “highly questionable data,” the State Department report makes clear the alliance of Hamas and UNRWA in Gaza.

As Powerline reminds us, John Spencer, the West Point modern urban warfare expert, has already assessed the great and remarkable efforts by the Israelis to protect civilians behind whom the murderous, cowardly Hamas hides:

In their criticism, Israel’s opponents are erasing a remarkable, historic new standard Israel has set. In my long career studying and advising on urban warfare for the U.S. military, I’ve never known an army to take such measures [as the IDF has] to attend to the enemy’s civilian population, especially while simultaneously combating the enemy in the very same buildings. In fact, by my analysis, Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history -- above and beyond what international law requires and more than the U.S. did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As perfidious as this report is, I conclude it gives no cover for Biden’s halting arms shipments to Israel now, at its greatest time of need. 

In the words of my favorite online poster, Alex Bensky, the report says “we want to favor Hamas and hinder Israel even more and we can’t find any actual reason to do so.”

In the meantime, the Administration is continuing building a pier to Gaza even under fire by Hamas and even though it will continue to provide an attractive, easily accessible target for it, and Israel continues to urge civilians to leave Rafah where any remaining hostages and Hamas leaders are hidden underground.

There are two cheering bits of news this week. Two notable left-wing outfits, BLM and Tides, are at odds, with BLM suing Tides for fraud in withholding $33 million in donations. It’s one of those things where we could hope they’d both lose.

At Harvard, 170 professors have sent a signed letter to interim president Alan M. Garber which states:

Dear Interim President Garber,

We have been watching with increasing alarm the continuing situation with the encampment in the Yard and agree entirely with your statement that this must end.  We agree with the following principles, which we have edited from a similar document which MIT faculty members sent to their President. 

We support you fully in recognizing the following principles: 

1. Freedom of speech on campus is subject to limitations in time, place and manner, and subject to other applicable US laws, including Titles VI and IX.

2.    The right to free speech is not a right to cancel the speech of others. The encampment’s violation of Harvard rules is not theoretical. It has prevented the use of a central campus space by many students, and now threatens to displace and marginalize activities by groups following the rules.

3. The right to protest does not imply the right to impose unlimited costs on the University. The Harvard police and other elements of the Harvard administration which are tasked with supporting our entire community have been stretched to the breaking point by the encampment. This cannot continue indefinitely.

4. Conduct rules should not be set aside in troubled times. On the contrary, it is at times like these that they must be applied rigorously and fairly, along with free speech protections and a respect for diverse viewpoints.

5. Students engaged in civil disobedience must accept the consequences of their actions. The willingness to accept the consequences of one’s actions is a critical difference between civil disobedience and mob rule.  

6. Academic freedom is not negotiable. Harvard should never negotiate away the rights of its faculty, students and staff to engage in research and engage in scholarly collaborations which advance the academic mission. Any concession on this front, including minor adaptations to Harvard’s current processes or a commitment to review them in light of the protestors’ agenda, is likely to be interpreted as politicization of Harvard’s procedures.  

7. The administration must not make concessions to protesters that would have not been granted had they followed the rules.  Concessions of this type would reward bad behavior and undermine our commitment to fundamental principles of civil discourse. Furthermore, it may encourage other groups to engage in disruptive behavior.  

8. Prompt removal of the encampment should be followed by civil dialogue with those representing the views of the protesters who remain in good standing with the university. The sooner the encampment is removed, the sooner a meaningful conversation can begin. 

On the basis of these principles, and recognizing that there can be no academic freedom in an atmosphere of lawlessness, we fully support your efforts to end the encampment swiftly and as peacefully as possible, so that the academic missions of our community, including exams and commencement, can go forward without further disturbance. 

As you might expect, the signatories are not from the gender studies programs but almost entirely from the medical school, business, and science faculties, and this is significant because it’s my understanding these are the programs which receive the most donations to the school.