The Biden Incident

· Friday, March 19, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?

And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don’t bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.

But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.

Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.

Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.

The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.

Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)

Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.

In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract pre-emptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.

Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.

Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That’s why the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks” -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat’s groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.

And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?

Now that's an insult.

So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?

Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?

Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel – at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.

(c) 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Marcus

I think Israel did the announcement on purpose. What better way to draw out comments from the US government than announce what they did during Biden's visit?

I think it was brilliant.

Posted March 19, 2010 at 4:43:26 PM


MichaelSSEC

My own views tend to lean toward the appeaser theory, but with a more sinister motive than mere cowardice.

President Obama is one of those radical Leftists who blames America for virtually every problem in the world and who feels 100% certain that if only America were less powerful, less "arrogant," less wealthy, less influential, the world would be able to achieve that fabled Leftist Utopia.

Every single Obama policy has been geared toward weakening America militarily, economically and diplomatically, while emboldening our enemies in ways both subtle and obtuse. Quite frankly, giving Hamas $200 million when everybody openly admits they will use the money to purchase more weapons with which to shell Israel, goes far beyond simply appeasement. Especially when he's promised another billion dollars on top of that amount.

Declaring that Iran has some astonishing "right" to nuclear technology, when they've been quiet boastful of their intention to use nukes to "wipe Israel off the map," goes FAR beyond appeasement. Indeed, it rockets into the realm of giving all possible assistance to the enemy.

Refusing to support the Iranian pro-Democracy protesters (who cited Iraqi Democracy as direct inspiration for their demonstrations) and declaring the tyrants the "duly elected legitimate government of Iran" was obviously calculated to insure that the radical, anti-Western regime remained in power, with it's anti-Israeli agenda and anti-American long-range goals.

This latest backhanded aggression towards Israel simply underlines the overall administration contempt and overt hostility displayed since before Obama was even sworn in.

Nor does that attitude vanish when Republicans control the White House, for they must contend with Leftist factions in Congress who are appeasers at best -- and actively anti-Israel at worst. They ceaselessly pressure all American Presidents to take these one-sided positions against Israel. Reagan's diaries were peppered with precisely that sort of pressure from the Left.

Though it be a dangerous path, Prime Minister Netanyahu MUST resist this arm-twisting, slow-motion surrender being foisted upon him by this radical administration. If President Obama thought he could get away with it, he would demand the immediate disarmament of Israel, on the pretext of such foolishness being "a gesture of goodwill" or similar twaddle. I pray that no Israeli leader ever is blind enough to accept such a thing.

"When Islam lays down its arms, there will be an end to war. When Israel lays down her arms, there will be an end to Israel." -- Benjamin Netanyahu.

He's exactly right.

Posted March 19, 2010 at 5:49:21 PM


Greg Welch

"When Islam lays down its arms, there will be an end to war. When Israel lays down her arms, there will be an end to Israel." -- Benjamin Netanyahu.

I hope the 80 plus percent of the American Jewish vote majority for OBAMA, the Messiah, is happy now.

How is that Hope 'n Change working out for you now???????

Posted March 20, 2010 at 10:40:51 AM


MichaelSSEC

Yes, that's always been a very peculiar conundrum, how so many American Jews can ally themselves with the party that clearly works against the best interests of Israel. I don't know that it was 80% of Jews who voted for Obama, but I expect a definite majority did.

Evan Sayet offers what I think are two good explanations for this.

One, he notes that to people who have been persecuted, there is just something appealing about the notion that nothing will be judged. If the Jew can't be judged, the Jew can't be called evil, and he can't be put in an oven. It's not difficult to see how that would appeal to many, even when the non-judgmental aspect of Liberalism is never applied to Israel specifically.

Two, Mr Sayet observed that as with any other religion there is a whole range of views among Judaism. You have your secular Jews, your Orthodox Jews, etc. The closer you get to tradition Jewish values, the more likely you are to have values in common with the American Right, and vice versa. The less religious you are, the more likely you are to side with the Left and see things through the Liberal lens. Judaism simply tends to be less important to those who tend to be the most Leftist, whereas the more important Judaism is in your life, the more likely you are to be aware of the hypocrisy of Liberals toward Israel.

I certainly agree with him on the first part of the explanation, and I'm willing to take his word on the second. They both make sense. When I hear Liberal Jews talking about the plight of Israel, they often rip the Republicans for not doing enough, but tend to give the Democrats a pass even though the Left's record is a thousand times worse. I guess to them, Leftist ideology is more important than Israel. That attitude fortunately is not universal among American Jews -- and it's virtually non-existent among actually LIVING in Israel, where George W Bush was immensely popular while President Obama is not.

Posted March 20, 2010 at 10:39:29 PM


Gretchen

Why do so many Americans, and other peoples across the world miss the point of why Israel is so very important, and must stand protected and protecting....?

Isreal belongs to the Jews and Christians of the world...and to those true Moslems who revere her!

Isreal is Zion, the home-place of those who believe in the one God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and... Jesus! Isreal belongs to these believers who can and have changed the world.

Think about that, folks!

When my sons were growing into manhood in the 1960's and 70's, as their mother I told them, "There is no war in which you should give your life - save a direct attack on our country - except to save Isreal!"

I firmly believed that then; and my sons believe that now!

As Christians, born-again to bring the word of God and the works of Jesus into life, we cannot allow the holy places of Christ,of David,of all prophets and apostles who came before and after, to be abandoned OR descecrated!

Isreal belongs to all of God's people. "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord..." and protect and defend our Holy Land!

Speak for yourself, Hillary! Those who belong to God's army, will not support your words, of turning away from Israel. Jews and Christians stand hand-in-hand in supporting Israel at all costs!

Posted March 22, 2010 at 11:35:56 PM


Abu Nudnik

I like MichaelSSEC's ideas above but there's something deeper here. The messianic vanity is part of the whole history of human culture that precedes the West.

And Gretchen points in the right direction. As Christianity claims to have superseded Judaism so too did Islam claim to have superseded both (though they keep that part quiet to divide and conquer).

American Jews favor secularism as a hedge against strong religious prejudice. They don't seem to get that the biggest threat comes from the type of atheist who can't stand the stubborn worship of anyone other than their vain selves. God is just too competitive!

But we must understand the nature of Judaism as a revolutionary idea to understand what's going on. To appeal directly to God alone, the Jew made his covenant in his flesh and rejected the entirety of the child-sacrificing Sumerian cult that required obeisance of the first-born son to the class above it. The sacrifice of the King's to his god was the closing of the social circle. The circumcision was a substitute for child-sacrifice.

American Jews are caught on the horns of a dilemma. The revolutionary nature of Judaism is what instinctively appeals to Americans (also the identification of flight from Europe/Egypt). On the other hand, Jews are afraid of supersessionist Christians who seem to be on the Right.

This is an illusion. Not only are there Left-wing supersessionist Christians (like Carter) but the main of Leftist agnostic/atheists also see supersession in their pseudo-scientific world-view of Marxist pseudo-equality. This means that Jewish intellectual leadership must itself cede to other groups within the "rainbow coalition," much as Jewish genius in popular music began to be replaced. What was smart has been replaced by what is hip. And it's hip to be an anti-Israeli "new Jew."

Exeunt and Enter the Neo-Cons, the first sign of sanity in the midst of...

"Vanity, vanity, all is vanity..."

Posted April 5, 2010 at 1:19:51 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund