Earlier this month, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz found herself in hot water after she seemingly fabricated a statement she attributed to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, essentially accusing Republicans of playing politics on Israel. Now Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer has taken it a step further, echoing a sentiment that has been floating around the American media for a while. Boxer wrote an open letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accusing him of “inject[ing] politics” into the effort to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Of course, we should always be wary of someone accusing a country’s most senior political figure of playing politics, as if presidents and prime ministers are somehow non-political actors. Boxer writes that she is “stunned” that Netanyahu would ever doubt President Obama’s commitment to Israel, and then played a bit of politics herself, instructing Netanyahu to publicly recant his comments and replace them with statements that might better help the president’s image on this issue:
I urge you to step back and clarify your remarks so that the world sees that there is no daylight between the United States and Israel. As you personally stated during an appearance with President Obama in March, “We are you, and you are us. We’re together. So if there’s one thing that stands out clearly in the Middle East today, it’s that Israel and America stand together.”
Thank you for that statement. I am hoping to hear that statement again.
At the heart of this controversy is the ignorant assumption, produced by a suspicious liberal establishment that seems willing to believe just about anything about Netanyahu, that the prime minister’s statements and actions are designed not to protect his own people from nuclear annihilation but from a desire to meddle in the American election. They worry he’s trying to influence the election and may be contemplating going to war with Iran to achieve that end.
But the truth is, as usual, much more mundane. Netanyahu simply understands the value of having a credible threat of force to back up sanctions and diplomacy. Rather than encourage military conflict, Netanyahu has been working to convince the West to enact tough sanctions for the last decade and a half, in order to prevent the necessity of war.
This is in keeping with Netanyahu’s general demeanor. The caricature of him in the American press as a right-wing ideologue could not be farther from the truth. In Israel, he is perceived as just the opposite—a cautious pragmatist who prioritizes stability over everything else. This is not always meant as a compliment in Israel; indeed, many Israelis wish they could say Bibi was “on their side.”
In Israel achieving a stable Knesset coalition is difficult–and maintaining one even more so—but is also beneficial to a populace that at times tires of the permanent campaigning that takes place when coalitions crumble every two years. Neither the settlers nor the left may see Netanyahu as an ideological ally, but they appreciate, at least, his even-tempered disposition that usually keeps the country out of trouble–and war.
And on that last point, it’s instructive to look back at Netanyahu’s two premierships. He has been as reluctant to use the military as any modern Israeli prime minister, and perhaps even more reluctant than most. Some of this is surely circumstantial—he wasn’t in office during the Palestinian intifadas, for example. But he has always been the opposite of a warmonger.
This lends him some credibility at home, then, when the issue of Iran’s nuclear program arises. As the New York Times discovered, “Israelis were generally sympathetic to Mr. Netanyahu even as they mulled the possible damage to ties with the White House.” Netanyahu’s rift with President Obama, they understand, stems in large part from his desire to keep Israel out of war.
Additionally, the idea that any Israeli leader would be more inclined to strike during an American presidential election does not pass the laugh test. Israeli history leads to the opposite conclusion—just look at how the Israelis wrapped up their Gaza counteroffensive in January 2009 in time for Obama’s swearing-in ceremony, declaring a unilateral ceasefire and beginning their withdrawal two days before the event. Israelis may not prioritize the opinion of the “international community” over their own self-defense, but they certainly take American opinion into consideration. Boxer’s letter to Netanyahu is predicated on an alternate reality that exists only in the minds of liberals, and deserves to be discarded rather than indulged.
Debbie and Barbie are worth each other is each is hopelessly worthless.
What arrant nonsense from Boxer, but that is her stock in trade. In fact, it is she, Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Sen. Schumer and other Jewish Obama apologists who are guilty in this matter. They refuse to criticize Obama's wretched behavior towards Israel, which they purportedly care about.
From Senator Boxer's letter: n n"President Obama has also reaffirmed that Israel has the right to make its own decisions regarding its security, stating that Iran “should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also repeated these commitments." n nIf that statement is still true, then Mr. Netanyahu has a green light to use military force to halt Iran's program. If, however, the statement is not true, and the U.S. is now telling Israel not to attack, telling Israel to wait, then we can better understand Mr. Netanyahu when he said: n n"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel." n nSeems like a disconnect, doesn't it. n nPerhaps what Senator Boxer is missing is that the U.S. claims to stand with Israel, claims to support her (and does with load guarantees, military support, intelligence sharing) but then the U.S. wants to tell Israel how and when to protect herself. We are friends, yes, but we are not truly selfless to let Israel have her independence. U.S. support comes at a price and that price is that Israel is expected to heed the words of the president. Given the quote on Israel's right to her own determination of needed actions, perhaps Senator Boxer should remind Mr. Obama of Israel's right to self-defense. Let Senator Boxer tell Mr. Obama of Israel's rights, too.
He should tell Barbara Boxer to get bent.
"a suspicious liberal establishment that seems willing to believe just about anything about Netanyahu" nJust as they are willing to believe any accusation against Israel. Or for that matter, l'havdil, about Pres. Bush, or Rush Limbaugh or Mitt Romney. n n" that the prime minister’s statements and actions are designed not to protect his own people from nuclear annihilation but from a desire to meddle in the American election. " nIt's called projection. Not unlike their constant accusations of racism, or their assumption that we think Romney is (or that Bush, or Reagan, was) perfect and beyond human error, just as some of them have turned Obama into a false god.
Boxer is Pelosi-lite.
Pr. O has adopted against Israel a policy of deliberate "ambiguity". This is a weapon to be used AGAINST your enemies and not an ally. Boxer does not get IT. Nor the rest of the Left. nDid the demo disqualify Gore and Kerry because they were aloof and very RICH!
Well, the Dems are zonot. Point taken. But there is no evidence Bibi actually has a plan to pre-empt Irans nukes he's willing to go to the mat for in his own security cabinet so a lot of this is just smoke and mirrors. Obama's foreign policy is in collapse and he's reached, apparently, the political limit of simply surrendering to any mob motivated enough to grab some RPGs and burn down an embassy. So he has to pretend a willingness to respond somehow, while slowly paddling in circles like a wounded duck in a wading pool. But Bibi doesn't have a willingness to go around the President's fecklessness by opening a two-front war against Iran and Hezbollah.
Apparently, it takes the left to fight a war: Since 1948, All of Israel's wars have been fought under left Labor or Kadima governments, with the exception of Lebanon 1 under Begin ( which was really Lebanon 2. Everybody conveniently forgets Rabin's Litani Campaign, and Lebanon 3, Peres' Grapes of Wrath campaign. Olmert managed to fight 2 wars in just over a year! n nShamir was in a joint national coalition government with Rabin during the Intifada, which wasn't really a war, but rather a televised police action, with few deaths, and lots of hand wringing. Under "intransigent" Shamir Israel did get hundreds of Iraqi missiles (and one death) without our retaliating. (Bush Sr. Needed his grand coalition of Arab despots to fight Saddam.) n nWhich leaves Bibi and Moshe Sharet (1950s) as the two Israeli prime ministers, who have avoided a war with our loony neighbors. So who is the pragmatist?
If Bibi is not perceived by some in Israel as a right-wing ideologue (and to many of us he most certainly is) that is only because there are so many far-right-ideologues that by comparison Bibi appears to be in the center.