Daled Amos concludes why he doesn’t trust Sen. Biden on Israel:
Against this background of saying one thing but doing another–while I appreciate what Biden says about Israel, I am concerned that once he is in a different position, one where he will have input on policy and no longer need to score points with his constituency by associating himself with particular Senate bills, Biden will show a different agenda. Under those circumstances, I just don’t trust Biden to keep his promises to Israel.
And indeed a recent statement of his:
It is quite a swipe at the organized Jewish community that the Jerusalem Post is reporting Senator Biden has launched against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “I take a backseat to no one — including Aipac — when it comes to supporting Israel,” the Post quotes the Delaware Democrat just chosen as Senator Obama’s running mate as saying. “They don’t speak for the entire Jewish community. There are other organizations that are just as strong and consequential,” he said.
“Aipac does not speak for the State of Israel.”
… raised questions at the NY Sun:
Well, it is true that Aipac does not speak for the state of Israel; it is not a foreign agent. But Aipac is the formal voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, and through its governance structure, represents the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations that is the umbrella group for the Jewish community in this country. Aipac has not publicly criticized Mr. Biden, though it did take different stances than he did on some Iran-related legislation. Aipac has described Mr. Biden as pro-Israel, a description whose accuracy we do not dispute.
If Mr. Biden, though, really thinks there are other American Jewish organizations that are as strong or as consequential as Aipac when it comes to the America-Israel relationship it sure will be illuminating to see him name them. If he has in mind dovish groups such as the Israel Policy Forum or the J Street Project, Mr. Biden is only going to hurt the Obama ticket with that portion of the Jewish vote that is actually up for grabs in this election.
Jennifer Rubin characterizes Biden’s statement as
It is further evidence of poor temperament, something that no amount of study can solve. Putting aside the merits of his dispute with AIPAC, the tone and the fact that he is in a public spat with a key representative group from a key constituency says something about his fitness for high office. His mouth and penchant for verbosity are only part of the Biden problem. He is incapable of behaving with restraint, modesty and discretion — the very qualities you expect in a leader in high office.
But I think Rubin and the Sun are missing something here. I don’t believe that Biden’s statement is out of line with Sen. Obama’s views at all or reflective of a problem with his tempermant. Keep in mind that Sen. Obama said:
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel,” the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. “If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”
Substitute AIPAC for Likud and the statements sound very similar. And indeed there’s a school of thought on the Middle East that AIPAC is representative of the Likud. (It’s actually, usually representative of whatever party is in power in Israel.)
Or consider that J-Street an organization that would seem to be in line with Biden’s statement, J-Street is funded by Alan Solomont, one of Sen. Obama’s main fundraisers.
Or consider that the group of Republicans for Obama have a record of being anti-Israel.
This morning, former Iowa Republican Congressman Jim Leach, former Rhode Island Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and prominent lawyer and former White House intelligence advisor Rita E. Hauser will host a conference call to endorse Senator Barack Obama and announce the formation of Republicans for Obama.
The theme continues: these Republicans — with the exception of Jim Leach — also are very cool towards the American-Israel relationship.
I don’t think that Sen. Biden’s remarks about AIPAC can be construed as anything other than a sign that a President Obama, would take a more adversarial approach to Israel than the previous two administrations.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
“Likud” is a code word here. Note the number of people protesting over the last few years that they’re not anti-Israel, just not marching in lockstep with the pro-Likud element in Israel, even though Likud hasn’t been the government.
Here, “Likud” means strongly pro-Israel; you say you’re just against the Likudniks to let people know you have not abandoned your progressive bona fides when you claim to support Israel.
I have searched and searched for someone to say he is pro-Israel but opposes Israeli government policies because he’s not part of the pro-Kadima group. I haven’t found anything like that; has anyone?
“Likud” is a code word here. Note the number of people protesting over the last few years that they’re not anti-Israel, just not marching in lockstep with the pro-Likud element in Israel, even though Likud hasn’t been the government.
Here, “Likud” means strongly pro-Israel; you say you’re just against the Likudniks to let people know you have not abandoned your progressive bona fides when you claim to support Israel.
I have searched and searched for someone to say he is pro-Israel but opposes Israeli government policies because he’s not part of the pro-Kadima group. I haven’t found anything like that; has anyone?
Along these lines of “pro-Obama Repubs cool on America-Israel relations” one can also see that Pat Buchanan is an Obama supporter–which speaks volumes in and of itself.
I don’t think Obama is anti-Israel, but i also fear he is nowhere near the President Israel needs (or America for that matter) in terms of global security and especially the ME security.
Meryl
Yoy may have noticed Drew and I were commenting on the rlative fitness of the VP candidates a few days ago.I asseerted -along from a lack of intellect,I felt Biden’s support of Israel was contingent ,not on Us priorities,not on Israeli safety,not on basic good vs evil,but on popularity.I agree I feel this tosme extent because the Dem party seems driven by pressure groups and polling.
Drew said,given Gov Palin’s stands on abortion,oil and creatonism why would a centristlike you(Meryl) support her.I spent wat too much time on he net last week end-since I was fascinated with the multitude of charges percolating and surfacing against Gov Palin.I noticed on one site,she was accused of wearing a blue pin signifying support of the IDF.She was lampooned as a creature of minimal intellect,who would soon be converted by the Neocons ,like Wolfowicz,Kristol,et al into a sock puppet who would be a puppet of the Neos-who are Seventh Day Adventists or something.The story was soon corrected;it’s a pin parents of Iraqi based or bound sodiers wear.So no Jew puppet.But,I mentioned to Drew,the churhgoing Christians-as opposed to the twice/year liberals tend to be fervent supporters of Israel.Reading Powerline this morning,there was an article about an Israeli film maker/former IDF pilot who’d interviewd Palin last summer and was surprised to find a map of Israel on her office wall.On questioning,she exclaimed how much she admired the country and wanted to visit it someday.Probably this will be twisted into either a Karl Rove scheme to get all those Alaskan Jews to vote for her or a demonstraton of why she is too religious too be trustd,but it’s unlikely she ,or Mc Cain would sell an ally out for a few votes.And unless Marty Mc Fly had visited her,she couldn’t have known she’d be a VP candidate when she put up the map
Lincoln Chaffee is no longer a Republican. He left the party after his defeat in the last election. Not that he was ever a real Republican. He rather epitomizes RINO, only worse.
#4 – a Karl Rove scheme to get all those Alaskan Jews to vote for her? Sounds like a lot of effort for what, three votes? I rather think she is simply interested in a nation that, despite it’s rather difficult situation and against great odds, continues to thrive. I suspect she feels a certain kinship there.
The big issue with Obama/Biden is that they are, instinctively, appeasers. A victory for that team would be a clear signal to Iran & other malign regimes that it has become much safer to attack American interests and American allies–including, but not limited to, Israel.
Indeed, as appeasers, Obama/Biden are considerably worse that Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain’s problem was not simply trying to appease another power, which can be done safely if that poower is appeasable. It’s that he was trying to appease a power that was unappeasable, and never could be appeased. Chamberlain and his colleagues thought they were preventing another Great War, and that nothing could be worse than that. They also did not know how it would turn out in the end (though there were those, like Churchill, who did foresee how it would turn out). Now we know that there are things worse than even WWI and we know how it turned out. Today’s appeasers have much less excuse for their advocay of appeasing the unappeaseable.
Michael…Indeed, we have the benefit of the knowledge of Chamberlain’s failure, which he of course did not have. Also, as I point out at the link, Chamberlain at least hedged his appeasement policy, by continuing to invest heavily in Britain’s defensive capabilities (the radar-communications network and the Spitfire and Mustange fighters.) Obama/Biden, on the other hand, have been hostile to defense, and had they been in Chamberlain’s position, they would probably have done the appeasement but not the fighters and the (“unproven”) radar system.
The above should have been “the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters,” of course.
David,
Quite so. The ironic thing is that Churchill, while foreseeing what the policy of appeasement would bring, did not understand the importance of the radar chain. Had he been in charge before the war it is possible that he would have downgraded it in favor of some harebrained scheme favored by his friend Dr. Lindemann, like aerial minefields. This was a point made, long after the war, by C. P. Snow IIRC. So you are right that in some ways it was a good thing that Chamberlain was in charge, if not in all ways.
Strangely,I always thought Churchill was responsible for pushing the ‘Chain Home” (radar) stations