Podcasts > The Ben Shapiro Show > Biden Sides With Satan

Biden Sides With Satan

By Ben Shapiro

On The Ben Shapiro Show, Shapiro examines President Biden's decision to withhold shipments of precision bombs to Israel during recent military conflicts. While Biden claims this move aims to minimize civilian casualties, Shapiro argues it could backfire, potentially forcing Israel to use less precise munitions and thus increasing collateral damage.

Shapiro suggests Biden appeases progressive Democrats critical of Israel and may embolden hostile groups with this policy shift. He raises concerns over violations of aid agreements and accusations of siding with Hamas over a democratic ally. The episode dissects Biden's motivations and the broader political and strategic implications of halting arms transfers.

Listen to the original

Biden Sides With Satan

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 9, 2024 episode of the The Ben Shapiro Show

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Biden Sides With Satan

1-Page Summary

Biden Halts Bomb Shipments to Israel

According to Joe Biden, his decision to pause the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel aimed to minimize potential civilian casualties. Critics argue Biden has provided no clear strategies for Israel to achieve objectives while limiting casualties.

Biden's Motives for Withholding Weapons

Responding to Anti-Israel Democrats

Ben Shapiro suggests Biden appeases Democrats critical of Israel, citing Biden's response to protestors calling him "genocide Joe" as evidence he's swayed by the party's progressive wing.

Potential Consequences

Forcing Use of Less Precise Munitions

Shapiro warns withholding precision bombs could force Israel to use less precise weapons, leading to more civilian deaths, undermining Biden's stated goal.

Emboldening Hostile Groups

Shapiro argues Biden signaling "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel may encourage aggression from groups like Hezbollah, who may perceive the U.S. pulling back support.

Hindering Hostage Release

Biden's approach purportedly weakens Israel's leverage to negotiate release of American hostages held by Hamas, as Hamas has less incentive to cooperate.

Potential Violations of Aid Agreements

Shapiro accuses Biden of violating the Impoundment Control Act by withholding Congressionally-approved military aid without justification. GOP leaders demand timelines and explanations.

Siding With Hamas Over Israel

Biden faces bipartisan criticism that halting arms transfers takes Hamas' side over democratic ally Israel, signaling a damaging political shift.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator known for his strong support of Israel and criticism of progressive viewpoints. He often voices concerns about actions that he perceives as detrimental to Israel's security or interests. Shapiro's credibility is a subject of debate, with supporters valuing his insights and detractors questioning his biases and objectivity.
  • The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is a U.S. federal law that limits the power of the President to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. It requires the President to seek approval from Congress if they wish to withhold or delay the spending of funds. The Act was passed in response to President Nixon's actions to impound funds without congressional approval. Violating this Act can lead to legal and political consequences, as it undermines the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
  • The United States has a historically strong relationship with Israel, often seen as a key ally in the Middle East. Hamas, on the other hand, is a Palestinian militant group that controls the Gaza Strip and is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The relationship between the U.S., Israel, and Hamas is complex and often marked by conflict due to differing political goals and approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. has typically supported Israel while condemning Hamas for its violent tactics and refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.
  • The aid agreements mentioned in the text likely pertain to the military aid that the United States provides to Israel. These agreements involve financial and military support from the U.S. government to Israel for defense purposes. The Impoundment Control Act is a law that restricts the President's ability to withhold funds appropriated by Congress, ensuring transparency and accountability in the budget process. Violating these agreements could have legal implications and raise concerns about the proper use of allocated funds.

Counterarguments

  • The decision to halt bomb shipments could be seen as a responsible act of diplomacy, aiming to de-escalate tensions and prevent further violence.
  • A pause in military aid could provide an opportunity for diplomatic solutions and negotiations to come to the forefront.
  • The use of precision bombs does not necessarily guarantee the avoidance of civilian casualties, and a halt in shipments could encourage the development of more discriminate and proportionate military tactics.
  • The argument that Biden is appeasing anti-Israel Democrats overlooks the possibility that his decision may be based on broader strategic or humanitarian considerations.
  • The claim that Biden's actions embolden hostile groups could be countered by the argument that a show of restraint might actually reduce tensions and undermine the narrative used by such groups to justify their aggression.
  • The assertion that Biden's approach weakens Israel's leverage in hostage negotiations assumes that military aid is the primary or only form of leverage, which may not be the case.
  • Accusations of violating the Impoundment Control Act would need to be substantiated with legal analysis, and it is possible that the administration has legal justifications for the pause in aid.
  • Demands for timelines and explanations could be addressed through proper channels and oversight procedures, which may already be in place.
  • The criticism of siding with Hamas over Israel assumes a binary choice, whereas U.S. foreign policy may be attempting to balance complex regional dynamics and long-term goals.
  • Bipartisan criticism could reflect differing political perspectives, and the administration's stance might be supported by other segments of the political spectrum who prioritize diplomatic solutions and human rights considerations.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Biden Sides With Satan

Biden's Rationale and Justification for Withholding Weapons from Israel

Joe Biden faces scrutiny for his decision to pause the shipment of 2,000-pound U.S. bombs to Israel, framing the action as a bid to minimize civilian casualties in potential offensives on Rafah.

Biden presents this decision as an attempt to limit civilian casualties

Critics of Biden point out that while he claims Israel's use of bombs has caused civilian deaths, he has not provided Israel with specific military strategies that would limit casualties while achieving their objectives. Furthermore, Biden has been criticized for not acknowledging Israel's efforts to evacuate civilians from targeted areas before strikes.

Biden's lack of articulated clear criteria

Shapiro criticizes Biden for failing to offer clear guidelines on when Israel could employ offensive weapons. This lack of clarity, he suggests, could inadvertently embolden Hamas to use civilians as human shields, leveraging the absence of a defined strategy to their advantage.

Biden is appeasing the anti-Israel faction of the Democratic party

Biden's response to political pressures

Biden, when confronted with protestors labeling him "genocide Joe," indicates that he hears th ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Biden's Rationale and Justification for Withholding Weapons from Israel

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • In the context of the text, the lack of clarity on military strategies that could limit casualties while achieving objectives implies that there is criticism towards President Biden for not providing specific guidance to Israel on how to conduct military operations in a way that minimizes harm to civilians while still achieving their goals effectively. This criticism suggests that without clear guidelines, there may be concerns about unintended consequences or risks that could arise from the ambiguity surrounding the use of offensive weapons in conflict situations.
  • Biden is accused of appeasing the anti-Israel faction of the Democratic party because his decision to withhold weapons from Israel aligns with the views of those within his party who are critical of Israel's actions. This move is seen as a response to pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which has been vocal about advocating for a more restrained approach towards supporting Israel in its conflicts. Biden's actions are interpreted as an attempt to placate this faction and address their concerns, potentially at the expense of traditional ...

Counterarguments

  • Biden's decision to pause the shipment of bombs may be based on a principled stance on human rights and international law, which seeks to prevent any potential misuse that could lead to civilian casualties.
  • The provision of military strategies to another sovereign nation may overstep the bounds of U.S. authority and infringe on Israel's right to self-defense and military autonomy.
  • Acknowledging Israel's efforts to evacuate civilians could be seen as implicit approval of military actions that may still result in civilian harm, which could conflict with international humanitarian principles.
  • Offering clear guidelines on when Israel could employ offensive weapons might be seen as the U.S. overstepping its role and infringing on Israel's sovereignty.
  • The lack of clarity in guidelines could also be a deliberate strategy to maintain flexibility in a complex and rapidly changing conflict situation.
  • Biden's sensitivity to criticisms from the progressive wing of his party could be interpreted as responsiveness to a diverse electorate and an attempt to balance various perspectives within a democratic framework.
  • The accusation of Biden appeasing the anti-Israel faction could be countered by the argument that he is attemp ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Biden Sides With Satan

Potential Negative Consequences of Biden's Decision

Biden's actions embolden Hamas and damage Israel's defensive capabilities

Withholding weapons could force Israel to use less precise, more destructive munitions, leading to more civilian casualties

Shapiro criticizes Biden for considering an arms embargo against Israel amidst a conflict with Hamas. He argues that denying Israel targeted weapons, which are designed to minimize civilian casualties, could lead to Israel having to use less precise and more destructive munitions, resulting in increased civilian casualties. Shapiro iterates this point, underscoring the potential for higher civilian casualties due to Biden's withholding of these munitions.

The message of daylight between the US and Israel could encourage Hezbollah and Iran to become more aggressive

Additionally, Shapiro warns that Biden demonstrating daylight between Israel and the United States may lead to more aggressive posturing by groups like Hezbollah and countries like Iran. Shapiro suggests that this perceived distance may embolden Hezbollah to open a northern front and signal to Iran that the U.S might not resupply Israel in the event of a conflict. The concern is that such a division signals weakness and may prompt more assertiveness from Israel's adversaries, believing that the U.S. may not fully back Israel militarily.

Biden's decision jeopardizes efforts to secure the release of American hostages held by Hamas

Biden's posture weakens Israel's negotiating leverage and gives Hamas no incentive to release the hostages

Shapiro criticizes the Biden administration's approach toward Israel, indicating that this stance weakens Israel's negotiating po ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Potential Negative Consequences of Biden's Decision

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The conflict between Israel and Hamas is a long-standing and complex issue rooted in territorial disputes over land in the Middle East, particularly the Gaza Strip. Hamas is a Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza and has been in conflict with Israel over issues like borders, security, and the status of Jerusalem. The conflict involves a history of violence, including rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel and Israeli military operations in Gaza, leading to casualties on both sides an ...

Counterarguments

  • The decision to withhold weapons could be part of a broader strategy to pressure all parties towards de-escalation and a ceasefire, potentially saving lives in the long term.
  • Diplomatic distance between the US and Israel might encourage Israel to pursue more diplomatic avenues for conflict resolution, potentially leading to a more stable peace.
  • The US's approach to the hostage situation could involve behind-the-scenes diplomacy that is not immediately apparent, and public posturing might not reflect the full extent of ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Biden Sides With Satan

Political and Legal Issues Surrounding Biden's Actions

Ben Shapiro and others have raised concerns about the legality and political implications of President Biden's decision to withhold military aid to Israel.

Biden's actions may violate existing aid agreements and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Joe Biden is accused by Ben Shapiro of unilaterally deciding to withhold weapons shipments to Israel, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Shapiro states that the Biden administration is sitting on a deal that includes various munitions, implying that the aid had been previously arranged and is now being withheld. This decision contradicts Congress's appropriation of funds specifically for military aid to Israel. Biden has not provided Congress with the required justification or timeline for his review of the arms shipments, says Shapiro, creating a conflict with existing aid agreements and statutory obligations.

Representative Brad Sherman emphasizes that the Congressionally appropriated funds for Israel have to be used as designated, suggesting Biden's delay or withholding of these funds requires proper justification and adherence to a timeline, which has not been provided. Republicans have expressed difficulty in obtaining information from the Department of State or Defense regarding the halted weapons transfers. Moreover, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have demanded explanations from Biden regarding the review's timing, potential pauses to other shipments, the office conducting the review, and when the review is expected to conclude in order to allow vital assistance to m ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Political and Legal Issues Surrounding Biden's Actions

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was enacted to limit the President's ability to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. It requires the President to spend funds as directed by Congress unless specific conditions are met. The Act aims to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally altering the allocation of funds approved by Congress. It was a response to concerns about presidential power over budgetary decisions.
  • The text mentions concerns raised about President Biden's decision to withhold military aid to Israel, specifically mentioning halted weapons transfers. These weapons shipments are part of aid agreements between the U.S. and Israel, and the delay in providing these weapons has raised legal and political questions. The specifics of the weapons being withheld, the reasons for the delay, and the impact on Israel's security are key points of contention in this issue. The lack of transparency and communication regarding the review process for these weapons transfers has led to criticism and demands for clarification from Congress and political figures.
  • Ben Shapiro raised concerns about President Biden's decision to withhold military aid to Israel, suggesting it may violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and existing aid agreements. Shapiro criticized Biden for not providing Congress with a clear justification or timeline for the review of arms shipments to Israel. He highlighted the potential conflict with Congress's appropriation of funds specifically for military ...

Counterarguments

  • The President may have legitimate national security concerns that justify a temporary hold on military aid, which could be in line with broader foreign policy objectives.
  • The Impoundment Control Act allows for the withholding of funds under specific circumstances, and it's possible that the administration is acting within the legal framework but has yet to communicate this effectively to Congress.
  • The decision to review arms shipments could be part of a larger diplomatic strategy aimed at de-escalating tensions in the region or responding to new intelligence or developments.
  • The characterization of Biden's actions as siding with Hamas is a subjective interpretation; the administration may argue that its actions are neutral and aimed at ensuring that U.S. aid is used in a manner consistent with U.S. laws and values.
  • The withholding of aid could be a measure to ensure that military assistance is not used in a way that could exacerbate conflict or result in civilian casualties, aligning with international humanitarian principles.
  • The administration may be conducting a thorough review to ensure that military aid aligns with current U.S. policy and the evolving situation in the Middle East, which could ultimately strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.
  • Bipartisan disapproval does not necessarily indicate that the decision is wrong; it could reflect differing opinions on foreign policy and the ap ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA