|
14 September 2012 By Stephen
Lendman Much has been made about an Obama/Netanyahu
rift. At times, it's hard separating rhetoric from
reality. Nonetheless, neither leader, it appears,
particularly likes the other. Disagreement between
them is palpable. It's over Iranian red lines and
deadlines. Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan
Halutz said he doesn't believe in "red line policies."
He responded to Netanyahu saying: "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." "Now if Iran knows that there is
no red line. If Iran knows that there is no deadline,
what will it do? Exactly what it's doing. It's
continuing, without any interference, towards
obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there,
nuclear bombs." A previous article called
Netanyahu the mouth that roars for good reason. He
repeatedly puts both feet in his mouth and risks
swallowing them. He's arrogant, offensive,
duplicitous, thuggish, and dangerous. He's an
embarrassment to legitimate governance. It's hard
imagining why any Israelis put up with him. If ever a
bum deserved to be thrown out it's Netanyahu. One Israeli analyst said he "must
set red lines on his malice toward Obama." Israelis
and many others are fed up with his bluster. He's gone
out of his way to alienate support from his closest
ally. An unnamed Israeli official said he caused
"profound" damage in relations with Washington. Haaretz contributor Yoel Marcus
accused him of "acting wildly irresponsibly." He
overstepped "traditional boundaries." He crossed a
proper comportment red line. He's interfering in America's
election. He's making a serious mistake. Marcus cited
a Bulgarian proverb, saying: "When God wants to punish
someone, the first thing He does is take away his
brains." Doron Rosenblum questions the
future of "Bibi-ism." It's a "state of mind." It
"dictates the tone of Israel." It does so by a leader
"who concentrates more and more authority in his
hands," wields it like an autocrat, "while nurturing a
media personality cult." Bibi-ism's bottom line is what he
says goes. Opposition isn't tolerated. His mouth
disengages from his senses and sensibility. He's
combative and overbearing. Observers call him pompous,
domineering, and insufferable. He engages in the "politics of
permanent" confrontation. He never misses a chance for
a good fight. He avoids "reconciliation and
cooperation." Obama and some officials around
him are tired of his ultimatums. They're also unhappy
about his thinly veiled support for Romney. Perhaps
he's emotionally unbalanced and can't help it. It's
cause for concern that his finger's on Israel's
nuclear trigger. Conscience International head
James Jennings told Press TV America must stop
supporting Israel. "The United States should change
its entire Middle East policy," he said, "beginning
with its support for Israel and should support the
Palestinian cause more." Doing so "would send a great
message," he added. Perhaps it would go a long way
toward ending bloodshed. After an overnight conversation
with Obama, Netanyahu's tone softened. It's likely
temporary. Don't bet he changed. Photos of the two
together show images of strained relations. Former State Department spokesman
PJ Crowley witnessed nine face-to-face meetings.
There's "a lack of rapport between these two men," he
said. "They don't like each other very much. Plus,
there are serious differences between our interests
and Israel's." He added that Netanyahu stresses
"agenda-setting." He watched both political
conventions. Israel and Iran were mentioned, "but not
significantly discussed, even" though Democrats
changed their Jerusalem position. Netanyahu wants
Israel on "the front burner." It's also personal with Bibi,
said Crowley. He thinks he has maximum leverage
pre-election. He believes his hawkishness got
Washington to impose tougher sanctions. He's not about
to go it alone and attack Iran. He thinks Obama will
win in November. He prefers Romney. Last November in a press
conference with Nicolas Sarkozy, a hot microphone
moment caught the former French president saying "I
cannot bear" Netanyahu. He also called him "a liar." Obama responded, saying "You're
fed up, but I have to deal with him every day." Netanyahu claims "leaders are
tested at times of differences with our allies, even
our closest allies. We face huge challenges. As prime
minister, it's my duty to insist on Israel's vital
interests and to ensure its security and future." As long as he remains prime
minister, relations with any US president won't be
easy. "The most important interest
today," he claims, "is to prevent Iran from continuing
its clear effort to obtain nuclear weapons - weapons
in the hands of a state that calls for our destruction
and is bent on achieving its goal." Of course, he, other Israeli
officials and US ones know Iran has no nuclear weapons
program, doesn't plan one, threatens no one, and isn't
hell bent to destroy Israel. Yet he keeps saying it.
His bluster long ago wore thin. No wonder Obama, other
US officials, and some Israeli ones are fed up with
him. He'll keep stressing red lines,
he says. Without them, "Iranians would have no reason
to stop their drive to obtain nuclear weapons." His
bombast won't quit. Nor do supportive comments from
other Likudnik hardliners. Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz
blamed him for strained US/Israeli relation.
"Throughout Israel's history," he said, "the drums of
war have never beaten so incessantly as during these
days." Jonathan Cook calls America's
special relationship with Israel more myth than
reality. It's been "propagated by politicians to mask
the suspicion - and plentiful examples of duplicity
and betrayal - that have marked the relationship since
Israel's founding." "Politicians may prefer to
express undying love for Israel, and hand over
billions of dollars annually in aid, but the US
security establishment has - at least, in private -
always regarded Israel as an unfaithful partner." Disagreement over Iran is
palpable. It's more about timing than intent. At the
same time, officials in both countries strongly oppose
war. They know potential consequences are too
catastrophic to risk. They're also concerned about a
volatile, at times out-of-control, prime minister. For
good reason, they don't trust him. A former US intelligence official
said "Israel is far from a trusted ally in the US 'war
on terror.' " So why talk of special ties. In part,
it's because of the formidable Israeli Lobby. It
intimidates virtually the entire Congress. Israel is also nuclear armed and
dangerous. It's also believed to have a potent
chemical and biological weapons arsenal. If
threatened, it won't hesitate using them. Perhaps Washington prioritizes
reigning in this menace. At the same time, US military
field commanders have tactical nuclear weapons and
other WMDs. In combat situations, they're authorized
to use them at their discretion. Both countries threaten their own
people and humanity. That bottom line counts most. To meet or not to meet! Mossad-connected
DEBKAfile said "Obama's refusal….to see (Netanyahu in
New York) because 'the president's schedule will not
permit that' left Jerusalem thunderstruck - and
Washington, too." In late September, both leaders
will address the UN General Assembly on different
dates. Meeting there or in Washington was thought to
be one way to resolves differences over Iran. "By rebuffing Netanyahu," Obama
showed he opposes unilateral Israeli action.
Netanyahu's bluster doesn't make things easier. He's
his own worst enemy. He wants a firm commitment and
timeline on Iran. Sparring between the two leaders
"reached a point of no return." Perhaps they'll meet
after all. Finding common ground won't be easy.
Repairing strained relations may take precedence. Who
knows what's possible dealing with a prime minister
who won't take no for an answer. Some officials in both countries
believe relations between them are deteriorating.
Netanyahu's foot-in-mouth disease explains why. A US
president's refusal to meet an Israeli prime minister
is unprecedented in recent memory. The last time both leaders met,
Netanyahu was overbearing, demanding and offensive.
Obama likely deplores a repeat. Netanyahu has more
than Iran in mind. After his last White House visit,
his popularity soared. It was temporary. He needs all
the help he can get. Israeli sources believe he'll get
the meeting he wants. Expect another White House one
replete with favorable photo-op publicity. He'll get
more in New York. He'll meet with Hillary Clinton. Obama officials deny strained
relations with him. White House sources say it.
They're paid to lie. So are ambassadors. Dan Shapiro,
Washington's Israeli envoy, said both men agreed by
phone to continue their "close cooperation and
conversations." Some wonder. Netanyahu goes out
of his way to alienate people. Even America's media
and some Democrats are less supportive. The New York Times reported what
it called "unusually harsh public comments about
Israel's most important ally." Its September 13
article headlined "Obama Rebuffs Netanyahu on Setting
Limits on Iran's Nuclear Program." An unnamed US official said
Washington's red line is an Iranian nuclear weapon.
There is none, of course, nor plans to build one. Netanyahu demands more. Relations
with Obama reflect "frequently crossed wires."
Netanyahu's bluster doesn't help. Saying Obama has no
"moral right" to restrain Israel fuels resentment. Israeli officials are offended.
Netanyahu "faces deep divisions within his own
country." His own deputy prime minister for
intelligence and atomic affairs, Dan Meridor, told
Israeli Army radio: "I don't want to set red lines or
deadlines for myself." Others share his view for good
reason. Senator Barbara Boxer posted a
letter on her web site headlined "Boxer Expresses
Disappointment Over Israeli Prime Minister's Remarks."
Calling herself one of Israel's
strongest supporters, she said Netanyahu's comments
are "utterly contrary to the extraordinary United
States-Israel alliance…." "In light of this, I am stunned
by the remarks that you made this week regarding U.S.
support for Israel. Are you suggesting that the United
States is not Israel's closest ally and does not stand
by Israel?" "Are you saying that Israel,
under President Obama, has not received more in annual
security assistance from the United States than at any
time in its history, including for the Iron Dome
Missile Defense System?" In New Yorker editor David
Remnick's Neocon Gambits article, he said: "It is hard to overestimate the
risks that Benjamin Netanyahu poses to the future of
his own country. As Prime Minister, he has done more
than any other political figure to embolden and
elevate the reactionary forces in Israel, to eliminate
the dwindling possibility of a just settlement with
the Palestinians, and to isolate his country on the
world diplomatic stage." "Now Netanyahu seems determined,
more than ever, to alienate the President of the
United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney's
campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012
election - one no less pivotal than the most super
Super PAC." He added that Netanyahu's most
trusted US allies are hardliners going along with him
no matter what he says, does, or wants. Other US media critics call him
"brazen," "disgusting," "overbearing," and
"over-the-top." It's hard remembering any previous
Israeli leader taken to task this way. Netanyahu remains his own worst
enemy. He's so obstinate, single-minded, unyielding,
and tantrum-prone, he'll likely muddle on, do little
to sooth relations, leave fences unmended, and
alienate growing numbers of Israeli supporters. Peace
advocates for sure hope so. Stephen Lendman lives in
Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is
titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized
Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his
blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio
Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour |
Add Comments