Wednesday
Jun102009
Israel Exclusive: Netanyahu Staff Launch Attack on Obama White House
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 16:03
Related Post: US Envoy Mitchell Talks, Netanyahu Tries to Seize Control
In our analysis of the first US-Israeli talks after President Obama's Cairo speech, posted separately, we claim that Israeli Prime Minister is trying to take control of the Palestine issue from Washington.
How can we dare to be so bold? Because of Netanyahu's own officials.
Just after Netanyahu met Obama in mid-May, stories started circulating that the US President wanted an Israel-Palestine settlement by the end of July. Just like the claim that Obama had set a limit of the end of 2009 for an outcome from US-Iran talks, the rumours rang strangely: the President's notion of "engagement" is not one that has rested on deadlines but on opening up possibilities for results.
On Monday, the source and reason for the claim emerged: Benjamin Netanyahu's office wants to put the White House in a corner. So they are attacking the President and his staff through leaks to the Israeli media.
Their summary emerged in Ha'aretz on Monday: "Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel....an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world....the president will present positions that will not be easy for Israel to accept."
That on its own should be sufficient to raise eyebrows in Washington about the Israeli Prime Minister's readiness to deal with the US President. However, Netanyahu's aides went further, launching a personal attack on Obama's advisors. "Under Obama, the White House has become the main problem in relations....White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant David Axelrod are behind the clash between the administration and Israel."
This is far from the first occasion that the Netanyahu camp has followed diplomatic talks by turning, in far from diplomatic terms, against the Obama Administration. Within 72 hours of the Netanyahu-Obama discussions in May, they were briefing the press that US policies were "childish" and "juvenile".
Still, it is striking that as Obama envoy George Mitchell tries to keep the diplomatic temperature low, avoiding any challenge in public statements or leaks of discussions, Netanyahu's staff are raising the heat by doing exactly the opposite. In preparation for the Prime Minister's own major speech next week, they''ve said:
Bring it on.
In our analysis of the first US-Israeli talks after President Obama's Cairo speech, posted separately, we claim that Israeli Prime Minister is trying to take control of the Palestine issue from Washington.How can we dare to be so bold? Because of Netanyahu's own officials.
Just after Netanyahu met Obama in mid-May, stories started circulating that the US President wanted an Israel-Palestine settlement by the end of July. Just like the claim that Obama had set a limit of the end of 2009 for an outcome from US-Iran talks, the rumours rang strangely: the President's notion of "engagement" is not one that has rested on deadlines but on opening up possibilities for results.
On Monday, the source and reason for the claim emerged: Benjamin Netanyahu's office wants to put the White House in a corner. So they are attacking the President and his staff through leaks to the Israeli media.
Their summary emerged in Ha'aretz on Monday: "Barack Obama wants a confrontation with Israel....an open controversy with Israel would serve the Obama administration's main objective of improving U.S. relations with the Arab world....the president will present positions that will not be easy for Israel to accept."
That on its own should be sufficient to raise eyebrows in Washington about the Israeli Prime Minister's readiness to deal with the US President. However, Netanyahu's aides went further, launching a personal attack on Obama's advisors. "Under Obama, the White House has become the main problem in relations....White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's senior political consultant David Axelrod are behind the clash between the administration and Israel."
This is far from the first occasion that the Netanyahu camp has followed diplomatic talks by turning, in far from diplomatic terms, against the Obama Administration. Within 72 hours of the Netanyahu-Obama discussions in May, they were briefing the press that US policies were "childish" and "juvenile".
Still, it is striking that as Obama envoy George Mitchell tries to keep the diplomatic temperature low, avoiding any challenge in public statements or leaks of discussions, Netanyahu's staff are raising the heat by doing exactly the opposite. In preparation for the Prime Minister's own major speech next week, they''ve said:
Bring it on.
Reader Comments (3)
Apparently from Obama's point of view, Israel is the reason for his failure to reign in Iran. For him, settlement activity is the main factor. The Palestinians can't reach a deal with Israel. As a consequence, the US loses Arab support as well as European, Chinese, and Russian support for tougher sanctions on Iran. So it's all Israel's fault.
Where is the Sec. of State in all this? She felt fine playing the uber Zionist as a Senator for New York and in galvanizing Jewish support for her Presidential campaign run. She must have shedded her spine now that she has sold out to Obama.
Dave,
Israel is...Obama's failure to reign in Iran? Where are you getting that from? Obama wasn't going to "reign in" (whatever that means) the Iranians A, in the middle of a national election in which future leadership is unclear, and B, in his first 5 months in office (impatient much?). However, there are plenty of positive signs of rapprochement, including negotiations on Afghan supply routes and the release of the American spy last month.
Regarding Secretary Clinton, she serves at the pleasure of President Obama now and is therefor carrying on HIS foreign policy, not whatever obligations she had to her New York constituency. And as far as her "galvanizing Jewish support for her Presidential campaign," that was never actually true, remember? The "Obama's Jewish problem" talking point is sooo March 2008, brother.
I think Obama is turning Israel on because he thinks he can get Arab support for US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in return. But all that for getting Israel to freeze settlement growth?
I thought Obama was going to allow Clinton to call at least some of the shots. I knew it wasn't going to be anything like the free reign Nixon gave Kissinger on the Middle East, but I thought she'd have the power to exercise some degree of discretion in foreign affairs. I guess I was wrong. And where are David Axelrod and Rahmbo in all this?