The headline writers at Bloomberg knew exactly which part of Jeffrey Goldberg’s column would prove juiciest to those perusing the web today: “Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’”. The quote from the president will bother Israel’s defenders for the same reason Obama is usually able to push their buttons: Obama’s lack of knowledge about Jewish history, his decision to take potshots at the Likud party as a way to win over those hostile to the Jewish state during the 2008 election, and his refusal to learn basic facts about issues before throwing temper tantrums about them make him among the least credible public officials on the issue of what is in Israel’s best interests.
Goldberg’s access to Obama’s inner circle has made him an excellent source on the Obama administration’s perspective on Israel, though stories like this don’t exactly paint the president in a particularly positive light–especially the president’s belief that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a “coward.” But childish name-calling aside, the president, according to the column, seems to have given up on Netanyahu. He can’t muster outrage at Israeli actions that elicit rage from leftist activists and cartoonishly biased and inaccurate “news” stories. (The New York Times deserves special mention here for publishing an article on the E-1 corridor around Jerusalem and then publishing a “correction” noting that the entire premise of the article was wrong, having since consulted a map.) But the president seems unwilling to admit how he has contributed to the situation that upsets him so.
For example, Obama thinks the only thing that can save Israel long-term is a negotiated settlement over a two-state solution with the Palestinians. But as everyone knows, Obama was the one who pulled the Palestinians away from the negotiating table. Thus, it seems Obama knows what’s in Israel’s best interests and acted against those interests anyway. A bit of humility from the president on this would be appropriate. Additionally, Goldberg writes:
And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah — one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend — it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.
It’s unclear if this is Goldberg’s opinion or if he is paraphrasing Obama (or both). Of course an isolated Israel would be an increasingly threatened and weakened Israel. But Iran is only a “short-term” threat if the threat is disposed of in the near future. A nuclear Iran would probably be a long-term threat to Israel. And it’s on this issue where the U.S. and Israel are on shaky ground in terms of their alliance. Obama promised not to allow Iran to go nuclear, but Obama isn’t exactly famous for keeping promises, to say the least, and his steadfast opposition to sanctions, which usually results in his own efforts to water them down if he’s been unable to stop them from passing, puts understandable doubts in the minds of some Israeli officials.
Additionally, if you believe Iran to be a “short-term” threat, then you believe soon Iran will not be a threat. Once that threat is removed, it would become substantially easier to move on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track anyway, since the terrorist groups that are supplied by Iran reliably disrupt the peace process whenever they (or Iran) feel like it. If Iran’s threat will soon be removed then the peace process Obama cares so much about should get an immediate boost. So if Obama’s really about to remove the Iranian threat, why should he lose patience now?
The truth is, no one knows what Obama is going to do–possibly not even Obama. But he pushed the Palestinians away from the negotiating table and has yet to figure out a way to get them back to it. And he has sent both Israel and Iran contradictory messages by promising to stop Iran but then being the primary obstacle to tougher sanctions and nominating to be his defense secretary a vocal opponent of all the tools that could be used to stop Iran. (Though Chuck Hagel has recanted in return for support from key Democrats, Obama chose Hagel before he flip-flopped.) A president that sends clear messages on those issues and stops picking unnecessary and counterproductive fights with his allies would probably have a lot more credibility to claim to know what’s in Israel’s “best interests.” Obama has yet to be that president.
" he pushed the Palestinians away from the negotiating table and has yet to figure out a way to get them back to in" n nI guess if you keep repeating this non sense over and over again people will think it's actually true. n nThat's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back wasting reading this article.
Not sure why this is nonsense? n nThe President set the bar of restarting negotiations at a level that the Palestinians themselves have never set – a total freeze on settlement activity. Once the President put that out there there was no way the Palestinians could go back to the table without that as a pre-condition. n nHistorically a settlement freeze did not stop the Palestinians at Oslo or Taba and did not stop the Egyptians or the Jordanians from negotiating. n nJust calling it nonsense does not make it so.
I have only one question concerning Pres. Barack Obama: Which is greater? His arrogance? Or his ignorance?
“Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’”. _So he is going to tell them, after all he is all knowing, all wise, Dear Leader._And American Jews voted for him overwhelmingly._There you go!
"A bit of humility from the president on this would be appropriate." n nI didn't know commentary was a humor magazine! good one, Seth. humility from Barack Obama will come the day after Louis Farrakhan converts to Judaism and becomes an Orthodox rebbe. n nabout 65% of my fellow co-religionists managed to convince themselves that Obama was Israel's bestest friend ever. the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to maintain that belief is unimaginable to us normal people, yet the liberal "Jews" achieve it. maybe it was all those years of practice they got despising evangelical Christians, who are the most pro-Israel group in the country. n nif we didn't know it before the Hagel pick, we know it now: Obama isn't going to do squat about a nuclear Iran.
about 65% of my fellow co-religionists managed to convince themselves that Obama was Israel's bestest friend ever n———————– nNo. They didn't convince themselves of any such thing. Israel's interests are simply of no concern to them. n nAnd don't assume that they are your co-religionists. More likely no-religionists.
"despising evangelical Christians". You go tthat right and everything else.
fwiw, when I read this Goldblog earlier (yes, great title!) n, "…And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah — one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend — it won’t survive. …" n nI thought that was Jeffrey Goldberg's opinion, separate from the source(s) he was quoting. nBut, I was completely distracted by "its last steadfast friend", because I believe that is now Canada, and the Czech Republic. n nWhile I have never given Obama's worldview my support, and Ramat Shlomo in 2010 was certainly 'much ado about nothing', I am beginning to sense Obama knows everyone is trapped by the Sunni-Shi'a schism. The dilemma of having to hold hands with the GCC is increasingly thorny. n n
All true but he controls the US foreign policy. His long Islamophilia and far-left aspirations are major problems for Israel. Ignorance is bliss, superficial and limited knowledge is catastrophic! IL will have to resist and Obama and the EU.
Flip-flopping has one benefit. It keeps the other side unsure about what to think!
There is no surprise here at all. Why shouldn't he think he knows what's best for Israel? He thinks he knows what's best for me and every other American. He detests the US constitution because it hinders him from what he thinks he knows what's best to do for everyone. Let's face it! You don't know what's best for yourself, but Barack Obama does.
Re: "…Obama’s lack of knowledge about Jewish history," what—like Stalin's "lack of knowledge" about capitalism????? n nWhat part of "who Barack Obama is" do we continue to overlook? This man "knows Jewish history" through the lens he uses when he judges and analyzes every other aspect of human history. He's a Marxist, a man for whom "0ppressors and Victims" is the only game he is willing to play. And Israel, by dint of its success, wealth and independent stance in the world, fits the "Oppressors" model. n nBut, in our ignorance, we continue to accuse the president of "lacking knowledge," as he continues to run circles around us. For Israelis, Obama constitutes an existential threat: he means to cut the Jewish state "down to size," perhaps of the "microscopic" variety! And he means to do it via the slow process of convincing Americans that past support for Israel has been misplaced, misguided and harmful to US interests. In case any of us imagined that Al Gore's recent sale of Current TV to al-Jazeera was not 'approved' by the Obama folks (including George Soros and many other leftist Jewish operators) in advance, rest assured that nothing is less probable and less logical than that. Al-Jazeera will carry water for Obama et al., via slowly shifting the minds of Americans towards sympathy with Islam and the causes of Islam, in particular the cause of the Palestinians. And they will succeed. Why? Because we continue to insist that Barack Obama "lacks knowledge." Whereas, it's we who are clueless. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler—they and other demagogues grabbed absolute power thanks to the cluelessness of their opponents. n nI don't think it's possible to overestimate the cluelessness of Obama's opponents. What else can we call those who thought Mitt Romney was a proper candidate to oppose this president at this moment in AMERICAN HISTORY? n nAnyway, talk is cheap, and that's about all we conservative Jews seem capable of (in the Diaspora). We talk. Meanwhile, the vast majority of America's Jews are heads over heels in love with Obama. They've paid for his political rise, encouraged him, worked for him, and voted for him. Now—what, we expect no one's noticed what we did? And if in the future Americans manage to come out of the Obama-ether in one piece, whom do we imagine they're gonna blame for this—for helping elect a president who holds the nation itself in contempt, who wants to "transform" it into a kind of "people's republic?" You all think there won't be a price to pay for what we've done? n nAll these centuries, living in freedom, protected by the Constitution, finally a land where we're safe and allowed to prosper—and what do we do? We put a man devoted to destroying the Constitution in the White House. Who are we? Anybody know? I sure don't. Maybe it's time we find out.
"And he means to do it via the slow process of convincing Americans that past support for Israel has been misplaced, misguided and harmful to US interests. " n nMaybe. I'm more concerned he will do it by saying that his new path is the very same thing the US has always done, and that those of us who object are calling for radical change. And the press, the NJDC, the hofjuden and his amen chorus of TL's will let him get away with it.
we prolly disagree on the degree of imminent danger but for sure that is his rhetorical trademark, dressing up radical departures in traditional bunting. If he goes after Bibi it will be with a "as a true friend of our deep partner Israel's true and fundamental democratic values" speech.
This was a briliant post. n
What do we call those who thought Mitt Romney was a proper candidate? Primary voters?
regarding: n n……….we expect no one's noticed what we did? n nAnd if in the future Americans manage to come out of the Obama-ether in one piece, whom do we imagine they're gonna blame for this—for helping elect a president who holds the nation itself in contempt, who wants to "transform" it into a kind of "people's republic?" n nYou all think there won't be a price to pay for what we've done? n nby "we" i believe you mean the electorate.. n nI cannot believe you indict less than 0.02% of the American population for this administaton? n nor are you also, blaming Jews? n
As long as Israel chooses to remain an indentured servant of America, beholden for billions of dollars in various forms of payment every year, it will remain unable to extricate itself from American political opinion. n nIsrael should never have allowed itself to become a vassal state, dependent on the US for vast amounts of money every year. n nThe dignity of Israel is compromised by the dependency of Israel. Why should Israelis care what Mr Obama thinks about anything? As a wholly independent nation, it wouldn't need to.
Because Israel needs US loans to buy the advanced weapons it needs to protect itself from nations and non-state actors who want to destroy it and massacre its people? n nJust guessing, here.
There are other and better options for Israel. These do not require Israel to become a permanent financial ward of America. n nConsider lend-lease. This was invented by FDR in WWII as a way of providing essential weapons to Britain at a 'cost' the Brits could afford. It included, as you know, entire battleships on down. Britain and its Commonwealth fought the Nazis — virtually alone — from September 1939 to December 1941. We entered over two years after the war started. n nThere are parallels… n nIsrael's terrible dependency on US $ handouts is against her long-term interests. Per capita, she is the most heavily subsidized state in the world. A 21st C version of lend-lease might be far preferable. n
It isn't the 3 billion- n nI think it is the SC vote
If anything, Goldberg's piece would point to the relationship between Israel and the United States now being transacted, when it counts, directly between the top executives of each, maybe more so, if anything, coming from the American side where Obama indulges publicly with his circle in the personalization of American-Israeli, Obama-Bibi relationships. One question would be whether he truly is prepared to throw up his hands and walk away from the Israel-Palestinian feud ("I don't even bother getting angry any more"–Bibi keep the varsity jacket or give it back he says he could care less) or, as other leaks and atmospherics suggest, he is preparing for a donnybrook royale with Netanyahu. Or well-timed … surprise. n nEither way, the Hagel affaire that has consumed so much of our energy would be a side dish to the main course vis a vis Israel.
In the House of Commons debates in the run up to the September 1938 betrayal of Czechoslovakia, there were British MPs enough who rose to castigate the intransigent Czechs for alleged harsh treatment of the Sudeten Germans. There were then plenty of indignant voices expressing keen moral disapproval of Czechoslovakia as prelude to the betrayal of that small democratic country at Munich on September 30th. President Obama's words, signaling and messaging have consistently worked to undermine Israel's standing around the world. His June 4, 2009 Cairo speech included a thorough moral condemnation of Israel. In two May 2011 speeches, he made clear his desire to establish a "contiguous" Palestinian State. His own description of borders raises the suspicion that he envisages a new Palestinian State that would join Gaza directly to the West Bank and thus cut Israel off from the Negev, which President Obama probably wants incorporated into the new Palestinian State. This would intentionally deprive Israel of its defense and nuclear research facility at Dimona. The point is key because President Obama also intends to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. And, all of this has to take place within the next four years, because President Obama only has this final term in which to realize his heartfelt goals with respect to the Jewish State. Delivering Israel into the hands of its Muslim enemies is probably the centerpiece of President Obama's publicly announced outreach to the Muslim World.
Obama has bought the line that Israel’s creation and success is due to the US, that Israel’s leaders are ingrates and don’t know what is good form them, a view shared by Stephen Walt has also claims to really have Israel’s best interests at heart.
The fact is that the American people have been enormously and consistently supportive and generous to Israel, but not the US govt.
● Already in 1948, while recognizing the state Truman’s State Dep’t insisted on an arms embargo that forced the Jews to scrounge for weapons in Europe’s WWII junk yards while the Arab armies were equipped and even officered by the British.
● In 1953 the US threatened Israel with economic sanctions over her water dispute with Syria.
● In 1956 Ike forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai for no concession by Egypt, a move Ike later regretted.
● In 1967 LBJ failed to honor the US pledge to enforce Israel’s right to access to the sea.
● Israel fought the Six Day war with French Dessault jets and British Centurion tanks because the US was still not selling her heavy weapon.
● She suffered a near disaster in the Yom Kippur war for obeying US warnings not to preemptively attack Egyptian forces preparing to cross the canal. By the time the US got around to effecting the resupply of desperately needed weapons and ammo, the IDF had already crossed the canal and was on the way to surrounding the Egyptian army.
● Sadat’s historic rapprochement with Jerusalem was almost undermined by Carter/ Brzezinski’s tomfoolery of inviting the Soviets back into the Middle East.
● Carter allowed the UN’s Zionism is racism resolution, with a shrug of his shoulder.
● George HW Bush, and his Sec of State were openly hostile to Israel.
● Until the huge aid programs for Israel and Egypt, following the Camp David Peace treaty, US foreign aid to Israel had been in line with what other countries her size were receiving.
Moreover, against the colossal sums and oceans of blood the US spent to help Europe against the Kaiser, the Fuehrer and Stalin, and fight for Korea, Vietnam, etc. our financial and diplomatic support of Israel, for which not a single American soldier has ever bled, is almost trivial. Yet Obama, Hagel and their crowd believe that Israel is uniquely our beneficiary, owes the US everything and is an ingrate for not always acceding to our wishes.
Israel’s leaders have over the last sixty five years turned an impoverished crust of mostly wasteland, with a refugee population outnumbered by enemies 50 to one, into a modern democracy, with a first rate economy and a west European life style.
But Obama thinks that he, who has not been bungled our economic problems and has only brought us closer to the brink of bankruptcy, thinks he knows better than the Israelis how they should manage their affairs and safeguard their future. That is the audacity of an arrogant fool.
brilliant post
for which not a single American soldier has ever bled, is almost trivial.r nWell, the Liberty. many died, many bled. but not to aid israel but to spy on Israelr nHowever, in Lebanon 341 died, many bled, but not to spy on Lebanon, but to help it. r nThere is only one explanation for the action of the addicted. The addiction. oil addiction. When that ends, Israel will finally be able to set things right, according to the only document that was ratified by the US Congress: The San Remo treaty where the jewishg homeland extends from the Mediterranan to the Jordan river