How bad have things gotten between Israel and the United States? Yesterday’s nasty exchange between the two countries in which President Obama turned down a request for a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu showed that the problem has now escalated from a simmering, longstanding argument about the peace process to a full-blown feud. The White House did some damage control and reportedly the two men spoke at length last night. But anyone who thinks that will resolve their differences hasn’t been paying attention to the unhealthy dynamic that has been festering since the two both came into office in early 2009.
The two have sniped and carped at each other for most of the past four years. But the decision of much of the mainstream media, including some journalists in Israel, to characterize this as being a personal dispute is a mistake. Though there’s no question that the two don’t like each other, what is at play here isn’t merely a brawl between two overachieving powerful men who like to have their own way and don’t care much for those who contradict them. Their quarrel is primarily about serious policy differences that represent a fundamental disagreement about the alliance between the two nations and Israel’s place in the world. Obama’s stubborn refusal to treat the nuclear peril from Iran as an existential threat that must be met expeditiously can’t be put down to personal antipathy. Nor is Netanyahu’s refusal to accept Obama’s lip service to the question as an adequate response a function of his surly temperament. Though the personality conflict has aggravated the squabble, it would exist and probably be just as dangerous even if the two were thoroughly compatible.
That Obama can’t stand Netanyahu is not in dispute. We didn’t really need the president’s “hot mic” moment last year, in which Obama sympathized and agreed with then French President Nicolas Sarkozy about his distaste for the Israeli, to know the two weren’t buddies. But that placed it on the record.
Obama came into office saying that any good feelings about Israel were not extended to Netanyahu’s Likud Party and quickly demonstrated that he meant what he said when he resolved to distance the U.S. from Israel as part of his campaign to show that the closeness between the two nations that had grown up during the Bush administration was at an end. In each of his first three years in office, Obama picked fights with Israel over settlements, Jerusalem and the 1967 borders. What’s more, he personalized the argument by repeatedly showing disrespect to Netanyahu on his visits to the U.S. and pointedly refusing to make a courtesy call to Israel when he made his outreach speech to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009.
Netanyahu held his fire and took the abuse without saying much the first two times, but when the president ambushed him with a speech on the peace process that tilted the diplomatic field in favor of the Palestinians, Netanyahu had enough. He lectured Obama publicly about the dangers facing Israel and then received the cheers of a bipartisan pro-Israel majority at a joint meeting of Congress. The president made no secret about the fact that he was ticked off about the reception Netanyahu was given. But since the Palestinians’ disinterest in making peace even on Obama’s terms rendered the arguments moot, nothing came of any of this.
However, the issue which the two countries are currently arguing about can’t be pigeonholed in this manner.
Netanyahu is not mad at Obama because of a snub or hurt feelings about what the president said to Sarkozy or any of the other slights he has received or given. What he wants from the president is a commitment to do something about the Iranian nuclear threat. The American pretense that failed diplomacy and ineffective sanctions can still resolve the problem cannot be sustained. Netanyahu wants the United States to pledge to establish some red lines about Iran that would at the very least make it clear that at some point action rather than further talk would be contemplated. Were Netanyahu to gain such a pledge there’s little doubt he would gladly put up with all manner of personal indignities from the president. But that is something the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton firmly refuse to do.
If Netanyahu is frustrated and angry, it is not out of pique but the result of a growing conviction that the administration is not serious about making good on its pledges about Iran. You don’t have to be a mind reader to see that the Israeli fears the president is considering a course change should he receive a second term. Such a switch might lead him to push for a nuclear deal with Iran that would compromise Israel’s security.
This distrust is exacerbated by the fact that both men consider each other obnoxious and arrogant. They are both probably right about that, but that would mean nothing were they in agreement about the need to act in such a manner as to convince the Iranians that the only alternative to surrender at the negotiating table was the application of force. It is this profound difference on a question that is a matter of life and death to Israel that is at the heart of the row, not that the two get on each other’s nerves.
The personality story line serves Obama’s interests, since it provides him with a ready excuse for his shabby treatment of the Israelis and distracts us from the key foreign policy issue facing the United States. Though it is undoubtedly true that the quarrel has gotten personal, were it not so it would still be just as bitter.
There is absolutely no excuse for Obama's shabby treatment of the Israel . It is all about nObama's foolish policies and ideology. The Mid-East is burning and Obama is holding the matches.
Mr. Obama exasperated any personality conflicts when he deliberately snubbed Mr. Netanyahu and when Mr. Obama declared that he would put daylight between the U.S. and Israel. To a country the size of Israel, with enemies who would harm her given the chance, any show of lessening support on the part of the U.S. is an invitation to those hostile parties to attack that tiny nation. n nSo, when Iran blatantly, consistently, and openly, tells the world that Iran will wipe Israel off the map, that's not just a threat, it's Iran's policy. Iran is to be believed. n nWhat is Israel to do? She can simply allow Iran to continue her nuclear program and then what? Wait for the bombs to fall? Maybe she can defend herself? There's an idea. Maybe, just maybe, her ally the United States will come help even. There's another idea. n nBut for the U.S. to tell Israel that Israel should not attack, that the U.S. is tying Israel's hands so as to prevent any action on the part of Israel's army, that's too much. At that point Mr. Obama is intentionally trying to inflict humiliation and possibly irreparable harm on Israel and her people. That must be answered. n nMr. Netanyahu is answering Mr. Obama's decision to hold Israel from defending herself. Mr. Netanyahu deserves our support because he's protecting his country and the Jewish nation. Mr. Obama is showing his true sentiments about Israel and Jews and those sentiments are ugly. n nWhat makes this all the more tragic is that Iran's nuclear program is bad for many Arab states as well. Iran, if she becomes a nuclear power, will surely threaten her neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and will excerpt ever more influence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. It will start a nuclear race that can only end badly. That Mr. Obama lets his personal enmity of Mr. Netanyahu interfere with what would be a positive step for these Arab nations is unconscionable.
Not only telling Israel not to attack; leaking Israeli secret information so as to make it more difficult for Israel to attack, and endangering both American and Israeli intelligence assets and operatives.
Obama has trashed every relationship with every ally. He only and uniquely reaches out to countries that either hate us or are indifferent.
Obama l'havdil is like King Saul, King Solomon, Paul of Tarsus, and Ben Gurion. nLike Saul, he is willing to destroy anyone he sees as a threat to his continued power. nLike Solomon, he is willing to risk the national interest in order to have closer ties with Egypt. nLike Paul of Tarsus ('to the Greeks, I became like a Greek', etc.) he does not respect truth in and of itsefl and is willing to tell blatant lies in the service of what he sees as a greater cause, until he has forgotten what truth is. nAnd like Ben Gurion, he has no love for the British.
I agree with you on Saul, Solomon & Ben Gurion. But to call the Christian St. Paul a liar is really below the belt–and no way to gain allies for Israel among gentiles. Paul was consistent with what he believed was true–the verse you mentioned was only referring to cultural/incidental practices, not bending truth. If Paul wasn't faithful to the truth–he would of never had his head cut off by Nero. I know you must disagree with what Paul believed, but please don't ignorantly call him a liar–or lump him in with Mr. Obama. n
As Joe Klein said today on NBC – he's never seen a so-called ally (Israel) try to drag us into a War. Netanyahu or at least his government is not long for this world.
What is amazing is how many people who Obama has political and ideological difficulties with end up somehow being seen as having a problem with him personally 9and vise-versa). Obama apparently dislikes Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. I think this is part of denigrating the beliefs of those who disagree with you on a regular basis( clinging to God and Guns etc.). Obama doesn't see legitimate differences and so looks to personal animus, racism or other flaws when he is forced to deal with those he disagrees with. He seems to have little ability to fight with someone over policy or position and not turn it into a personality issue. He is childish in this way. it also explains why he never spends time with any of the opposition in order to foment a relationship that can aide in creating compromise.
Excellent. Certainly fits observable behavior.
He pronounces Pahk-EEE-stun very authentically. The Pakistanis obviously appreciate it. n nHe traveled all the way to Cairo to give his 'speech to the Muslim world'. They obviously appreciate it as well. That goes double for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Islamist dictatorship Obama midwifed. They certainly appreciate it. n nHe knocked out Gaddafi(Hillary Clinton cackling demonically 'we came, we saw, he died' -), and turned over Libya to Islamists. They obviously appreciate it. n nHe chose not to support the Democratic movement in Iran, to preserve Ahmadinejad's good graces, and vilified Netanyahu as he extolled the Iranian leadership. They obviously appreciate it. n nSo if he's done all these good things for them, why are they killing our diplomats and trashing our embassies? n nWhy isn't Iran listening to him? n nIt's a head scratcher for sure. No doubt Leon Panetta and the genius for the ages Petraous have a plan, and this is all part of it. n nIt's all going exactly as planned.
I worked at a think tank (Hudson Institute) discussing nuclear weapons (I have a Ph.D. in physics). It was very difficult work, thinking and analyzing, meeting and discussing. What angers me is that the day of the surprise attack on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, Obama gives an interview on 60 minutes. This means he did not spend any time thinking about the problem. The American public must rise up against this unthinking leader. No organization can continue to exist without the leaders spending serious time thinking.
Well…the situation is ludicrous. What happened to the strategic cooperstion agreements between The US and Israel?
One thing is quite apparent. That is a US President can really damage this country and it’s strategic alliances if given half a chance.
78% of Jewish Americans went to the polls four years ago and despite clear, well reported shocking and disturbing revelations, voted for, an angry bitter anti Jewish, anti Israel left wing radical community organizer, with no experience to become the leader of the free world, The President of The United States! Now four years later, this person has done such tremendous long term and short damage, it is virtually impossible to even begin to assess it. If that were not enough to make one absolutely sick to their stomachs, these same Jewish Americans have got a hard on to vote him into a second term, one in which there is a good chance he will try to destroy Israel and apologize to America’s sworn enemies who will stop at nothing to kill as many of us as possible.
This is a very good blog by JT. It raises a number of interesting points which I agree with. One of them is the notion that making a personality conflict out of the Bibi obama rift is a manipulation by the “white” house(wh). The next thing out of the wh will be trying to equate obama with the black slaves and bibi with The South Afrikaners. This man is the president. He gets angry and refuses to meet with The PM of Israel at a time like this?
If Obama is re-elected, I’m out of here…The USA is going to go down for the count and Israel will adapt and somehow and will manage.
…. each considers the other obnoxious and arrogant. They are both probably right about that …. n nThat the patently pathologically narcissistic Obama is is obnoxiously and arrogantly ignorant is surely a given. n nBut Prime Minister Netanyahu has a track record of achievement that put him in a class so far beyond the reach of the clown, who before he made street agitator, had already been picked the perfect Peter Principle poster person in a half dozen prior positions!
I have never understood the opinion that obama is a nice guy. Every time i hear that, i see him in my memory with his middle finger pretending to scratch his nose. he is sarcastic, petty, arrogant, condescending, rude, and thugish. i could cite examples but this is just a comment not a book.
Double blow to Pr. O ME policy. Undermines Israel and gets a public slap in the face from the ME. nThe American Jews should be ashamed of themselves. Soon the Jewish democrats will behave towards Israel like Hamas towards the PA. But they have already taken cover in the USA.