Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama is the Problem in US-Israeli Relations
Algemeiner ^ | March 4, 2015 | Morton A. Klein

Posted on 03/04/2015 4:19:54 PM PST by SJackson

In an interview on the PBS television ‘Charlie Rose’ program, President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to accept the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner to address Congress on the issue of Iran’s looming nuclear threat had “injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the [U.S./Israeli] relationship.”

Nothing can further from the truth: it’s Obama’s partisanship that has produced a crisis in relations between the White House and Jerusalem, not Netanyahu’s – and the record shows it.

Obama doesn’t mind foreign leaders speaking to Congress – as long as they support his policies. That’s why he was happy for British Prime Minister David Cameron to do just that. But he deeply objected to Mr. Netanyahu critiquing his Iran policy to Members of Congress. It is not hard to see why: Netanyahu demolished the Obama claim that negotiations with Iran are going to lead to a deal that stops Iran going nuclear.

Yet, in truth, even that isn’t the reason Obama has refused to meet Netanyahu during his visit. People forget that, without any upcoming speech to Congress to rationalize his pique, Obama also declined to meet Netanyahu during his September 2012 visit to the U.S. Yes, there were tensions back then, too – Obama was pressing Israel not to militarily strike Iran, to which Netanyahu acceded – but this only shows that policy, not merely personalities, is driving the friction between them.

Indeed, Obama has elevated to crises disagreements that previous administrations tamped down. Obama has continually criticized and even “condemned” as anti-peace Israel merely announcing the building of homes in Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem – a bipartisan Israeli policy – that would remain Israeli under any conceivable peace agreement.

Conversely, there has been no condemnation of the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas for incitement to hatred and murder – though the Obama Administration said it would hold it accountable. Last week, a U.S. federal court held the PLO and Abbas’ PA are liable for six terrorist attacks in Israel that killed and wounded Americans more than a decade ago – but Obama has been silent about this.

The record of six years shows a president who has often spoiled for a spat with Israel over policy disagreements, involving refusal of photos ops; Netanyahu being compelled to exit the White House by a side entrance; having to cool his heels while Obama took dinner without him; an unidentified aide (never fired or reprimanded) calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit” and “coward” – for acceding to Obama’s demand that Israel not strike Iran, of all things – and other petty indignities which seem to be the hallmark of Obama’s meta-language towards insufficiently pliant allies.

Similarly, recall former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of the United Kingdom, who in March 2009 received no White House dinner, no family get-together, and an impromptu media conference, instead of the traditional joint press conference. Worse, in September 2009, Brown’s five requests for a private meeting with Obama were humiliatingly turned down.

The current problem therefore does not lie in Netanyahu accepting an invitation from the House Speaker to address Congress. Rather, it goes to the heart of Western security, which is why Congress was entitled to seek and hear the views of the prime minister of the country that stands to be most drastically affected by Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for Obama, put it well last week in the Wall Street Journal: “Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program … [it] is in the highest tradition of our democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

That’s why Obama’s overwrought efforts to cast Mr. Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation to address Congress as a partisan slap in the face ring hollow. The issue is entirely a product of President Obama’s policy on Iran, which engenders bipartisan concern in Israel. Put simply, President Obama seems willing to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapons threshold capacity – but Israel is not. Thus, veteran Israeli analyst, Ehud Yaari, an Israeli Labor Party supporter, actually urged Israeli Labor leader Yitzhak Herzog to accompany Netanyahu to Congress.

Moreover, the Israeli Prime Minister is scarcely alone in finding Obama’s approach deeply troubling. A McLaughlin poll only the other day found that 59% of Americans supported Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, while only 23% opposed. The sheer hollowness of the Obama Administration’s criticism of the Netanyahu speech is admirably laid bare when one recalls Obama’s homilies on the duties of honesty and forthrightness that allies owe to each other over policy differences.

Has not Obama said that allies sometimes have the obligation to speak out, even when their advice is uncomfortable? Did he not tell Jewish leaders that “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel might be necessary? This would seem to be such a moment. It’s just that President Obama only ever imagined himself advising Israel, not Israel advising him.


TOPICS: Editorial; Israel; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: netanyahuspeech; obamaisrael; obamanetanyahu; susanrice

1 posted on 03/04/2015 4:19:54 PM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

you get what you paid for.


2 posted on 03/04/2015 4:21:45 PM PST by brivette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

In Obama's mind there is no problem. US relations are his relations, and if he doesn't like Israel the US shouldn't. Same goes for many of our rejected allies. Iran, Cuba, those are the friends we should have.

3 posted on 03/04/2015 4:22:03 PM PST by SJackson (“ISIS is now going to regret this … because King Abdullah is not Barack Obama, Rep. Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

It’s all the fault of Winston Churchill.


4 posted on 03/04/2015 4:22:46 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Owebowma is THE problem.


5 posted on 03/04/2015 5:21:35 PM PST by vpintheak (Call them what they are - regressive control-freaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
It’s all the fault of Winston Churchill.

What is?

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t gonna resign.




6 posted on 03/04/2015 5:57:20 PM PST by rdb3 (Meh! A hole-in-one is just an eagle. Sink an albatross!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

0bama’s problems with Israel .


7 posted on 03/04/2015 6:07:10 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson