Soccer Dad

One man's conspiracy theory is another man's track record

The other day, I wondered how the NJDC would spin Vice President Biden's condemnation of Israel or would they just ignore it.

The answer: they spun it.

The reaction from the right-wing has been to trash Biden's pro-Israel bona fides and to concoct conspiracy theories that question the strong support for Israel's security that has been shown by President Barack Obama and his administration.

Conspiracy theories? Really.

The situation that unfolded last night represents a highly nuanced and complex issue that has rattled the current Israeli government. American and Israeli policies on this issue have differed for over forty years; if anyone thinks that Biden's statement was unprecedented, one only needs to look at the behavior of Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and the statements by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan regarding settlements.

Nuanced and complex. OK, but does the NJDC really want to compare the Obama adminstration to that of President George H. W. Bush? I can think of few presidents who were less friendly to Israel. As far as Reagan and George W. Bush, I know both didn't see eye to eye with Israel about settlements, but did either administration use the term "condemn?" That's what's unprecedented.

Look you don't need to be pro-Israel to conclude that Vice President Biden's treatment of Israel was shabby. Here's Jackson Diehl (via memeorandum)

Over the years U.S. envoys from Baker to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have learned that the trick is to sidestep such broadsides, expressing disapproval without allowing the toxic settlement issue to take center stage and derail peace negotiations. After all, most Israeli settlement announcements, including this one, are pure symbolism: No ground will be broken anytime soon, and even if the homes are eventually constructed they won't stand in the way of a Palestinian state.

By that measure, Biden flunked. Interrupted in the middle of what was supposed to be a day of love-bombing Israelis with speeches and other demonstrations of U.S. support, he kept Netanyahu and his wife waiting for 90 minutes into a scheduled dinner before issuing a statement that harshly criticized the interior ministry's announcement. Biden chose to use a word -- "condemn" -- that is very rarely employed in U.S. statements about Israel, even though he and his staff knew that Netanyahu himself had been blindsided by the settlement announcement. So much for love bombs.

On Wednesday, after meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Biden once again allowed the settlement issue to take center stage, declaring that the "Israeli government decision...undermines the trust we need right now in order to begin...profitable negotiations." That may be true. But part of the trust that has been missing has been between Israel and Obama, whose poll ratings in the Jewish state plunged to the single digits at one point last year. Many Israelis have resented the fact that Obama has visited Cairo and Riyadh as president, but not Jerusalem. Biden's trip was seen as partial compensation, and as a way of assuring Israelis that if they took risks in peace talks, this U.S. administration would stand behind them.

Mission accomplished? I would think not.

The NJDC makes one substantive point that should be addressed.

Settlements aside, it does appear that Biden made progress towards coaxing the Palestinians towards discontinuing their anti-Israel incitement. According to both Ha'Aretz and The Jerusalem Post, the Palestinian Authority (PA) cancelled a memorial ceremony for a terrorist who murdered Israelis along the Haifa-Tel Aviv Highway in 1978. The PA's announcement followed today's meetings between Biden and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayaad.

Well yes, the Vice President apparently did play a role in getting the dedication cancelled or postponed. But he was asked to do so.

Israeli news reported that PM Netanyahu asked George Mitchell and then Vice President Biden to put pressure on the PA to cancel the event. Late yesterday the Palestinian Authority cancelled today's event.

However, where did the condemnation of Israel come from? Martin Peretz:

In any case, Biden knew that his condemnation raised questions and objections, and not just from Israelis or Zionists or Jews. So he explained that he thought that the announcement of the construction "undermined the trust required to conduct the negotiations." And, therefore, "I--at the request of President Obama--condemned it immediately." This is all reported in a Jerusalem Post article, "US has no better friend than Israel," published today.

I was correct in my intuition that it was really Obama doing the condemning. You may draw your own conclusions.

Again, let's be clear. Martin Peretz is generally supportive of the President. He's certainly no right winger.

My friend, the Hashmonean drew his conclusions:

It's hard to escape the fact the speech was heavy on lecturing us in Israel, the bulk of it was seemingly devoted to this, Biden's personal anecdotes of friendship aside.

•How we don't do enough for peace
•How we don't risk enough for peace
•How we endanger peace.
•How hard Peace is & how we are making it harder.
As I listened to it, even the parts extolling our long friendship, I couldn't help but be struck at how superficial it all was. The personal anecdotes were the same ones delivered by Biden previously to AIPAC in other speeches, that's fine & understandable. It may have effected me nonetheless. I can't even fault Joe, he delivered his speech well. But I felt it's as if this White House is just going through the motions when it comes to Israel.

It's such a stark contrast to the genuine warmth we felt from Bush. When he spoke you could hear it in his voice & see it in his eyes he was true friend. You could feel the alliance pulsing, the passion that real friends or brothers have for each other. Shoulder to shoulder, thick & thin.

Put simply, to ask the PA not to incite against Israel required an external request; to condemn Israel for a disputed matter, the administration had the fortitude on its own to administer a very public rebuke that can only encourage Israel's enemies.

The NJDC insisted during the Presidential campaign that Barack Obama was a friend of Israel and attributed bad faith to those who would differ. At some point, I suppose, I could have given them the benefit of the doubt, but still I had little faith that someone who was preached to by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; who was friendly with Rashid Khalid and who was funded by Alan Solomont would be sympathetic to Israel. The President's record so far has borne out my fears. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it is a track record. And it is one that the President stated last year.

Crossposted on Yourish.