One Response to “A Word for Biden”

1. Seth Halpern says:

   February 18, 2009 at 9:38 am

   Or, like a typical lib-lefty, he could simply be wagging his finger at them before empowering them to repeat the stunt as if nothing had happened.
2. George Jochnowitz says:

   February 18, 2009 at 10:28 am

   Peres, when he was a politician, negotiated Israel’s friendship with France, which lasted until it was destroyed by De Gaulle. France, until Kennedy became President, was one of the few countries that would sell arms to Israel. Eisenhower, America’s most anti-Israel President, maintained the embargo that was established against sending weapons to the Middle East in the days when nobody was arming the Arabs. If not for Peres, Israel wouldn’t have survived the Eisenhower years.
3. shmuel rosset says:

   February 18, 2009 at 10:31 am

   Mr. Halpern,
   If he (Peres) is going to empower them (Kadima &co) to a repeat performance (“stunt”) why should he declare beforehand that the disengagement was a mistake? I dont think he is a typical lib-lefty. He is an old man in his 87th year. He still has most of his faculties intact but it is possible that he is reverting to some of his original beliefs, of many years ago. I heard he gave a fiery speech in Davos recently, defending Israel’s actions in Gaza. And it may be recalled that in the early years following the six days war he and Rabin were among the greatest supportes of the jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (just as Sharon was!).

   Like every politician the guy is an opportunist. But perhaps when you are 86 years old and you know you are not going to be up for reelection again you throw away some of the wraps and go back to your basic, older, habits.
4. Seth Halpern says:

   February 18, 2009 at 10:56 am

   Anything is possible. But I note that there have been ostensibly conservative bloggers and commenters on this very site who have confused verbal admonitions with “leverage” so I doubt Peres, as an unapologetic leftist, is devoid of such school masterly foibles. As for the old-age theory of right-wing reversion, I’d be interested to hear of instances (Sharon? Rabin? Reagan?) when the decline in testosterone is accompanied by an INCREASE in vigilance.
5. Bob Miller says:

   February 18, 2009 at 11:12 am

   We’ll know soon enough.
6. LT JAF says:

   February 18, 2009 at 12:08 pm

   The thing that I agree with most is that same sentiment: Peres is one of the best Presidents Israel has had. But was a pretty poor political leader. I like him much better now- hopefully he is just acknowledging reality as he truly sees it- that Israel must be very careful in everything she does.
7. Elen says:

   February 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm

   George Jochnowitz,

   Eisenhower became President in 1953. Embargo was in place when Israel was declared in 1948 during Truman and during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known by the Israelis predominantly as War of Independence. I think GWB gave a pardon to a guy who violated Truman’s embargo. Nixon was Eisenhower’s VP. Nixon saved Israel during 1973 war.
8. George Jochnowitz says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Elen,

   Nixon, despite being Eisenhower’s VP, was a different person. He was not responsible for Eisenhower’s acts, nor was he bound by them.

   The 1948 embargo declared by Truman was not specifically anti-Israel. As time went by, and as the USSR became actively pro-Arab, the embargo took on a different meaning.

   There are no what-ifs in history. But I would guess that if Nixon had been President in 1956, the United States would not have joined with the USSR to oppose the French-British-Israeli coalition.

   Most of the world loves Eisenhower. Most of the world loves Hamas. I can’t understand why.
9. BenG says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm

   Just wait. Another insult from the Turks or alike will make Peres to admitt to other sins,
   like OSLO. The Turk hurt his pride, time to wake up from the foolish dream.
10. Israel P. - Jerusalem says:

    February 18, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    “It should have been done otherwise” does not in any way imply that it should not have been done. Quite the contrary, he is saying that it should have been done – but differently.

    But if Peres wants to express real regret, he should apologize to those whose homes and lives he helped destroy and do what he can to get them compensation. Then he should apologize for the demonization of those who were right back when he was busy being wrong.

    There is more, but let’s take this in small steps.
11. Israel P. - Jerusalem says:

    February 18, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    To George Jochnowitz (#2): There is an expression about a person’s dotage may embarrass his youth. This is Peres.
12. Israel P. - Jerusalem says:

    February 18, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    And one more thing. Hazony writes “Shimon Peres, a man who has surely been a far greater success in the role of president than he was as a politician…”

    Peres has not been a great success as president. He simply has not caused the trouble we are used to seeing from him. But let’s see how the next few weeks play out before we even grant him that.
13. Dan says:

    February 18, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    I don’t think Israel should have given up Sinai.

    Whatever lands Israel took, Israel should have kept.

    Even yielding Southern Lebanon was a mistake. What they should have done was request all Christians in the region to make their way to Southern Lebanon, then forge a close alliance with them, and simultaneously deport the muslims out of the region.

    It would have been far better and far more humane than tolerating a terror redoubt on their Northern frontier, and it would have been far better for the people of Lebanon, than allowing the Palestinians to make a complete hell-hole of their homeland.

    Why the Palestinians never get fingered for destroying Lebanon is just another one of those thngs I suppose…………
14. Dan says:

    February 18, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Israel should have ordered their military to prevent the refugee flow from Jordan from going into Southern Lebanon, way back in the early 1970s.

    When the Hashemites finally decided to end once and for all the Palestinian threat to the continuation of their regime, Israel should have made sure the Palestinians never got to Lebanon.
15. Elliott says:

    February 18, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    George, many people forget that Israel’s air force in the Six Day War was entirely or almost entirely French, with Mirages and Mysteres galore. It is interesting that the so-called “Left” even then in 1967 and still today in 2009 like to pretend to themselves that Israel’s air force was American all along and then argue that Israel was a cats paw for the USA, although more recently much of the Left has adopted the old neo-Nazi line that the USA is a catspaw for Israel [for instance, walt-mearsheimer and their so-called "book" are popular among much of the Left].
16. Elliott says:

    February 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    George, you’re right that Truman’s arms embargo on the Middle East was not specifically anti-Israel, at least not in form. However, it was known that the British were arming Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq. Most officers of the Transjordan Arab Legion were British as was the commander of the Legion [Sir John Bagot Glubb Pasha]. So we might say that the embargo on arms to the ME, ostensibly an embargo on all ME states, was meant to deny weapons to Israel.
17. Dan says:

    February 18, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    We have to remember why the State Department didn’t want any part of the Jews, back in the day.

    They were convinced, {as was the British Foreign Office by the way…} that Israel would turn out to be a Communist enclave, providing the Soviet military naval and air bases, at the Eastern end of the Med.

    The Jews who were fighting for independence DID have a great many commies amongst them.

    That scared the hell out of a good many people. And it should have. It wasn’t irrational; it wasn’t outlandish to anticipate the new state of Israel ushering in a Communist government. Remember too that the Soviet Union SUPPORTED the emergence of the new state. State and the FO couldn’t help but ask themselves if the Soviets knew something the leaders of the Free West didn’t.

    The United States didn’t step in to support Israel until after the Yom Kippur War. Prior to that there was the occasional arms sale, {such as the F-4 Phantom} but by and large, Israel went to war with weaponry that wasn’t American. AFTERWARDS, when The United States viewed the Arab/Israeli struggle as a proxy war in the Cold War, then the arms started to flow, in abundance.
18. Philo-Semite says:

    February 19, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Elliott #15

    I’m a confirmed social democrat (democratic socialist) but agree with you that the Left is indeed incorrigibly and infuriatingly anti-Semitic.