Biden’s Israel speech: not a game changer

March 12th, 2010

So did Vice President Joe Biden accomplish his top goal during this week’s Israel visit – reassuring a skeptical Israeli public about the Obama administration’s intentions while also reassuring the Palestinians the administration is serious about bringing the two sides back together for real peace talks?

Reading the text, it’s obvious Biden’s speech writers were extremely careful to hit on all the key reassurance points  - reaffirming an “unbreakable bond” between Israel and the United States that  is “impervious to any shifts in either country and in either country’s partisan politics,”  promising the administration won’t allow Israel to go nuclear, attacking continuing “incitement” against the Jewish state, citing the long connection between Jews and the land of Israel.

That, they undoubtedly hoped, would make Biden’s relatively harsh criticism of the latest Jerusalem housing decision – he said the announcement of 1600 new housing units in an East Jerusalem neighborhood was  “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel” -  easier to swallow and harder for critics to use as just more proof the Obama administration secretly hates the Jewish state.

It was well done; it reflected a genuine commitment to Israel by this administration, as well as a determination not to get into a squabble with a government there that doesn’t share the President’s vision of how a peace process should proceed; and it probably won’t make a lot of difference.

In Israel, opponents of any new peace talks won’t be swayed by anything Biden could or did say, and it’s hard to see how it will change a political situation that gives prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu very little wiggle room – assuming, of course, that he wants to do any wiggling.

The Palestinians have been dragged into new, indirect, low-key, low-expectations “proximity talks,” but the speech won’t do anything to improve the quality of Palestinian leadership, or change their expectations that somehow, some way, Washington will carry the ball for them in dealing with Israel.

The housing announcement, for all their protests, may  have been exactly what some Palestinian leaders wanted – something to promote strong U.S. action to change Israeli behavior. But if that’s what they’re counting on, they should prepare for disappointment. I just don’t see this administration – beset at home, with numerous other foreign policy issues on its plate – investing too much in this scaled-back peace process.

What about the Israeli public? Well, it’s bitterly divided on a whole range of issues involving peace negotiations; it’s not likely nice words from the second in command in Washington will change any of that.

Still, the peace will probably reassure some Israelis in the shrinking political center, and it was probably a good thing in terms of the administration’s dealing with Jewish voters here. But since there’s no hard evidence administration support had slipped dramatically – or at least as much as it has with the public at large – that’s just not a big  factor.

So, bottom line: good speech, nice reassurance – though it would have sounded a lot better coming from Obama himself – but not something that’s going to  change the playing field very much.

On the other hand, hardened by a year of disappointments, many self-inflicted, I don’t think the administration’s expectations were that great to begin with.

Meanwhile, here are two very different takes on Biden’s criticism of the housing decision. ADL leader Abe Foxman calls the decision a “disaster” in this Huffington Post piece.

But ZOA’s Mort Klein rakes Biden , saying the administration’s position’s policies on Jerusalem are “racist.”

Leave a Reply


Why did the Netanyahu government greet Biden with a bunch in the gut?

March 10th, 2010

Leave a Reply


The New York Times’ gift to AIPAC on eve of policy conference

March 10th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Big surprise (not): Biden Israel visit hits snag

March 9th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Iran sanctions hypocrisy

March 8th, 2010

One Response to “Iran sanctions hypocrisy”

  1. Rick Says:

    The US and other nations must make a decision, do they want a world in which Iran has a nuclear bomb? The answer is we do not, however I feel it is because the United States does not know what to do. We think Ahmadinejad is defiant today what would he be like if he is allowed to continue. Ahmadinejad is willing to roll the dice and knows the world is just going to sit back and allow him to continue. We will never get support from Russia or China and he knows this. Obama is weak and Ahmadinejad sensed this before Obama took office. The US has shown no real strength. Obama has been to weak to even publicly support Iran’s suppressed people in an overthrow if the government.
    Sad to say but again Israel is alone in this. If Israel strikes the nuclear plants in Iran will this stop them or just delay Iran’s progress? Would an Israel attack on Iran start a total mid-East war?
    I think it is time for Israel to roll the dice and stop Ahmadinejad before it is too late.

Leave a Reply


The Armenian Genocide, Turkey and the Jews

March 5th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Levin gets Ways and Means, Stark dissed

March 4th, 2010

Leave a Reply


The partisan gap on Israel - do Jews really care?

March 1st, 2010

One Response to “The partisan gap on Israel - do Jews really care?”

  1. Steve Sheffey Says:

    A third possibility is that the poll—which was of all Americans, not just Jews—did not measure intensity of opinion. It may be true that a smaller percentage of those who identify as Democrats do not support Israel as strongly, but Israel is a much more important issue for Democrats who do support Israel. Those within the Democratic Party who don’t support Israel don’t have much influence. The Democratic Party continues to strongly support Israel as—if not more—strongly than the GOP.

    The Illinois Tenth Congressional District is a classic example. I consider myself a Democrat, but I voted for Republican Mark Kirk in 2004 because in my view, his Democratic opponent was not strong enough on Israel. Kirk won in a landslide. But in 2006 and 2008, Kirk barely survived a challenge from Dan Seals, a pro-Israel Democrat. Democrats who were not pro-Israel simply accepted the fact that Seals disagreed with them and voted for Seals on other issues, whereas in Kirk’s previous election, Democrats who were pro-Israel jumped ship solely because of that issue. For more on why Jews vote Democratic and a comparison of Democrats and Republicans on Israel, read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-sheffey/why-we-are-democrats_b_430990.html

Leave a Reply


State Department wrist slapping on Hebron historic designation

February 25th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Ron Paul, tea parties and the GOP’s Jewish problem

February 23rd, 2010

2 Responses to “Ron Paul, tea parties and the GOP’s Jewish problem”

  1. Fred Mason Says:

    Ron Paul has little support from the actual Conservatives core…just from a small outlier group of dedicated followers…he’s well past his “Sell-by date”!

    The rest of the Tea Party folks are much more likely to support stuff that is “good for the Jews”…unlike many of the far left Israel-haters led by J Street and their ilk.

  2. Bill Pearlman Says:

    This would have slighty more resonance if I could find one Besser Column
    concerning the dangers of Obama and his court Jews, Axelrod and Emanuel. Or the Gaza 54 letter. I would trust the lowest guy at cpac over Israel more than half hte Democratic congressmen

Leave a Reply


More J Street silliness

February 19th, 2010

3 Responses to “More J Street silliness”

  1. Mark Says:

    It seems that one of the J-Street Congressional Delegation members currently in Israel is Warren Clark, executive director of Churches for Middle East Peace. Churches for Middle East Peace, like many other groups that generally favor divestment from companies doing business with Israel, heaps most of the blame on Israel for the lack of peace. This position comes from considering ‘the Occupation” the primary reason for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    If J-Street shares this analysis of the conflict, it is welcome to that analysis and it is welcome to collaborate with groups like Churches for Middle East Peace. But… they get no points for doing so.

  2. carlos Says:

    My take on it as that J street and the Jewish American public that supports it are out of touch with the Israeli public. As an Israeli who supported the Oslo process for many years and for my trouble have had missiles shot at me and suicide bombers try to kill me I am sick of outside groups trying to tell me what is best for me. If it was happening anyplace else in the world it would be called paternalism. BTW have you checked out who is funding J-street? Many of them are hardly friends of Israel.

  3. Edward Says:

    I’m a long-time-enough supporter of Israel to recall which cousin supported Mapai and which Mapalm prior to the formation of the Labor Party. My first visit to Israel was in 1971, my latest in 2007. I agree strongly with Besser: we must include among supporters of Israel those who disagree with the current Israeli government.

    I want an Israel where Jews can live in peace, prosperity, and safety. They will not have that until the Palestinians also have peace, safety, and prosperity. The present US contribution to the problem (essentially, supporting the prevention of a Palestinian economy and being sure that both sides get unlimited supplies of armaments) does not help either side to move in that direction.

Leave a Reply


Gridlock in Washington: Let’s blame ourselves, too

February 17th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Keith Ellison, Gaza and what it means to be “anti-Israel”

February 11th, 2010

3 Responses to “Keith Ellison, Gaza and what it means to be “anti-Israel””

  1. Mark Says:

    I coldn’t care less about Ellison who in a previous incarnation was a Farrakan supporter.What i see is all 53 colleagues are Democrats

  2. Neil R Says:

    As always, Jim Besser hits it on the head. We have to work with people like Ellison. The fact that he is acknowledging Israel’s security needs is progress. One cannot imagine the likes of Cynthia McKinney as having done so.

  3. Andrew Says:

    Mark makes an interesting point — apparently Democrats are the only REAL supporters of Israel. The other side of the aisle just cares about continuing the conflict.

Leave a Reply


What are New Israel Fund critics afraid of?

February 10th, 2010

2 Responses to “What are New Israel Fund critics afraid of?”

  1. Shmuel Says:

    Te NIF pumps millions of dollars into organizations that are 100% anti-Israel (check out Adalah for example). THIS is what people don’t like

  2. Shlomo Says:

    I used to contribute to NIF, and I’ve even traveled to Israel (from the U.S.) with NIF. It was precisely that grantee (Adalah) that was the cause of my disillusionment.

    An important NIF official once said (of Adalah) “. . . you don’t have to agree with everything . . . .” There’s such a thing as not agreeing with everything, and there’s such as thing as egregious. Adalah falls into the latter category!
    It’s too bad they have grantees like this as they do such good work over all.

Leave a Reply


Harry Schwarz, anti-apartheid crusader and South African Jewish leader, dies

February 8th, 2010

One Response to “Harry Schwarz, anti-apartheid crusader and South African Jewish leader, dies”

  1. Alex Joseph Says:

    The National Party led by FW de Klerk who ended apartheid, was a totally transformed party from 1948. You ignore the fact that Schwarz was offered much more senior cabinet positions by P.W. Botha and BJ Voster and refused every time because of their policy of apartheid. He accepted the role as ambassador after apartheid had been dismantled, Mandela had been released and de Klerk had committed to a democratic South Africa. Mandela recognized this and asked him to continue as ambassador when he was elected.

    So it’s not that “complex” when one considers all the facts and clear that Schwarz was not simply looking for a prominent position.

Leave a Reply


Rep. Ackerman counsels - gasp - patience on Iran

February 5th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Obama hit from both sides on faith-based initiative

February 4th, 2010

Leave a Reply


Blogging the New Israel Fund flap

February 3rd, 2010

Leave a Reply


National Prayer Breakfast controversy - again. And where are the Jews?

February 2nd, 2010

Leave a Reply


Jewish groups react to Obama budget proposal, part 1

February 1st, 2010

Leave a Reply