We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Israel is receiving patently inconsistent treatment from the Biden administration. There’s a reason for the chasm between Biden’s promises and the government’s conduct, and it’s not just Biden’s effort to placate the American people (who support Israel), while getting votes from the Muslims (who don’t).

Biden claims he will have Israel’s back forever, but he wants to leave Hamas standing in Gaza, and its desire for a two-state solution sets up future kinetic warfare as the default condition for the Jewish state. Biden guaranteed a constant supply of arms to Israel, only to place limitations on quantity, type, and permitted use.

The Biden administration insists that there can be no mass exit from Gaza for Muslims. Not only that, it continues to insist on Gaza’s racial-religious purity of Gaza because any suggestion of Jews resettling Gaza as a mechanism to keep it pacified is greeted with absolute horror and blood-vessel-exploding anger. Moreover, Biden demands that Israel is responsible for staunching the outflow of the Arab population by organizing relief efforts while it fights against Hamas.

Image: AI’s take on the bureaucrat’s view of the world

Now, a new idea is making the rounds in Washington. We hear that the US Department of State is preparing to import a few hundred thousand Gazans into America. Wouldn’t importing angry Muslims increase the anti-Jewish feeling that is sweeping college campuses and make life for Jews here even more uncomfortable than it already is? For an administration that claims to support Israel, isn’t this a strange policy that will add fuel to an already out-of-control fire unless conflict and destruction are, in fact, the desired results?

We’ve seen the same type of thing when it comes to America’s domestic policies—such as the failure of our southern border, printing money almost without limit, and raising of taxes on individuals and businesses. In each case, the policies are at diametrically at odds with the rhetoric.

Perhaps President Biden is too mentally impaired to expect logic. He has already been judged too incompetent to be legally responsible for ‘mishandling’ highly classified government files. However, the Democrat party views him as competent enough to run for another four years as president. That seems to be not-quite-right! With an even mildly mentally incompetent president, who will be taking responsibility for the outcome of government policies? Who will be held to account through our election system for upcoming disasters?

Therefore, we may need to conclude that Democrats are retaining an incompetent candidate precisely because he is incapable of fulfilling a leadership role. The professionals in our government seem to be saying, “Look, we can function without an elected president to lead us!” The “state” has become independent of the people it rules and may no longer require the electorate to support it. The “state” is omnipotent and can rightly expect and demand the citizens’ passivity even in the face of the people’s loss of government control.

I’d like to argue, though, that things are even worse than they seem. I put the word “state” in quotation marks because there really is no such thing as the “state” or the “government”! These are abstract, shorthand terms for amorphous entities that are constantly shifting in meaning, purpose, and authority, depending on who holds power. Moreover, neither can be held responsible for its actions because it has no collective conscience or morality.

Put another way, a “state” or “government” is merely the collection of the individuals who interact to structure the blurry abstract constructs. Individuals can be held to account, not abstract constructs. The American government’s policy was different under Obama versus under Trump. No matter how big the state gets, power comes from above. Importantly, though, when a large group of people draw their paychecks from the state, they will develop two collective consciousnesses. The first is to do the least work for the most money, and the second is to keep those paychecks coming.

With that understanding, we can see why America is victimizing Israel in the current Middle East war.

The first reason is that it’s simply easier to victimize Jews than their enemies. Engaging in anti-Semitism uses far fewer calories than opposing submission to Islam.

The second reason for professional government employees to victimize Israel is that the more conflict in the world, the more secure the positions are for those who make their living by addressing conflict. Certainly, most State and Defense Department employees would have difficulty finding other positions as generous to secure their daily bread and fat pensions. If the world were more peaceful, each unneeded government employee would not only lose a paycheck but would also have to expend energy—more energy than a job that allows the least work for the most money.

Thus, the contingencies of reinforcement predict that people in the State Department will preserve themselves by instigating conflict, even if it means sacrificing others. They make their living by creating conflict, not resolving it.

If the Jews were meaner and angrier than their Muslim Arab enemies, Israel would be placated instead of victimized. The best example of this phenomenon is Iran, whose people march about screaming ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’. They have made billions from their real and faux anger.

The abstract state employs bureaucrats who are just ordinary people out to make an easy buck, if at all possible, and to maintain job stability. And so the real people in the abstract state have a vested interest in penalizing Israel and maintain conflict in the Middle East.