SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Bibi and Barack: A History in Snubs

PLANK SEPTEMBER 17, 2012

Bibi and Barack: A History in Snubs

BY THOMAS STACKPOLE

When the media reported last week that President Obama had turned down a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu—which was followed, according to the New York Times, by a reverse-snub when Bibi insisted that he hadn’t also been denied a meeting in Washington, because he never even wanted one in the first place—it was only the latest uncomfortable chapter in the two leaders’ cringing pseudo-courtship. For four years, their encounters have been playing out with all the grace of a star-crossed, seventh-grade romance. To catch you up, we here at TNR compiled a brief history, in snub form, of the Bibi-Barack relationship:

The Original Snub: 
The relationship has pretty rocky from the start. In the spring of 2009, while Barack was still in the glowing honeymoon phase of his presidency, he called on Israel to place an immediate halt on settlement construction before a meeting with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. This was a bit of a shift from the preceding administration, which had diplomatically dubbed the settlements “unhelpful.” To which Bibi reportedly said something to the effect of, “Really dude? Seriously? Not a chance. And by the way, not cool for you to ask, bro. Not cool.” 

The “Thanks for Coming All This Way” Snub: 
Like any well-delivered diplomatic “screw you,” this was a snub in (at least) two acts. Two weeks for Netanyahu’s 2010 Oval Office meeting, Biden went to Israel to lay the groundwork for reopening the peace process and reaffirm the United States’ “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.” On the second day of his trip, he was blindsided by the announcement of a new expansion of settlements—a point of stark contention between the U.S. and Israel—that Biden took as an affront to his goodwill mission. Not only did he condemn the timing and content of the announcement, he showed up an hour and a half late to dinner with Netanyahu that night, just to drive the point home. 

The “Would You Mind Waiting” Snub: 
How did Obama handle the 2010 tête-à-têtemeant to repair frayed relations between the U.S. and Israel? Somewhere along the lines of: “Oh, great, you’re here! That’s wonderful. The thing is, dinner is almost ready. Would you mind waiting while I eat with Michele and the girls? I’ll be an hour, max. No more than an hour-and-a-half. Promise. And I’ll see if an aide can scrounge up some oyster crackers somewhere to tide you over. Back in a jiffy!” Only he left a list of 13 demands before walking out. 

The “I Didn’t Hear a Word You Just Said” Snub: 
At their Oval Office sit-down in 2011, Bibi used the opportunity to look Obama in the eyes, open his heart, and reject everything that the president had laid out in public comments the day before. What had Obama said? Employing the “Let Me Tell You How This Is About to Go Down” Snub, Obama had explained that the pre-1967 borders should be the baseline for renewed peace talks—a subtle but obviously important evolution of the U.S. stance.

The Imaginary Snub: 
One of the things that Obama has been taking heat over, often from Bibi’s longtime friend-cum-presidential contender Mitt Romney, is the supposed slight of not having visited Israel. (As Bill Keller noted, the two share not only a past, but a diplomatic gift for the light touch “of cattle on loco weed.”) In reality, most presidents, including George Bush, haven’t made the trek until their second term—which is probably exactly what Obama would plan on doing, if Bibi would just stop asking him to make ultimatums in the middle of his presidential campaign.

The most recent flare up, like its predecessors, is unlikely to push the U.S.-Israeli relationship over the brink into outright hostility. (Netanyahu has already walked back his comments demanding from Obama a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program.) But if there’s little doubt that these two countries will maintain an alliance, it’s equally clear that their two political leaders, if given the chance, will continue to find ways to find new diplomatic lows. Given the way their love affair has gone so far, I wouldn’t count on them patching it up anytime soon.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 58 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

58 comments

Making policy by snubs, a President Obama skill and his special contribution to the august institution of the American presidency. A leader for all seasons.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 8:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least one difference between Obama and Netanyahu is that the US needs Israel for exactly nothing. It is a tax upon us and our interests, not an asset. Thus, even if Obama were merely childishly indulging his distaste for Netanyahu, the US can afford it. On the other hand, whether it chooses to admit it or not and despite its bravura, Israel is completely dependent on the US for its security. The only thing that stands between Israel and a sanctions regime that would in short order oust Israel from the West Bank is the US veto at the UNSC. Netanyahu indulges his distaste for Obama by compromising the strategic posture of his country. Such a boor and a moron is Netanyahu, that it never even occurs to him to track the American election polls sufficiently to understand that an Obama victory is highly likely (all you have to do is read Nate Silver, not too tough for someone who supposedly has a degree from MIT). Interfering, as he is attempting to do, in our election in order to defeat Obama (my Israeli brother-in-law wrote the other day that "Bibi is off in American campaigning for Romney on TV.") is certainly not going to help Israel's position once Obama is re-elected. Maybe Netanyahu is so grandiose he imagines he is going to change the outcome of the election. I have one right-wing cousin who is constantly sending me e-mail about how the Jews are abandoning Obama (not). To which I respond, "So what? Obama cannot lose New York and he does not depend on Florida (that he might in any case win). In no other place in the US does the vote of the Jews mean a thing in a presidential election." Or maybe Netanyahu is such an obnoxious, self-important clod that he cannot help himself. I think that is quite likely.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

memo to Biden etal: Ramat Shlomo is NOT a settlement. It is a neighborhood in North Jerusalem built on a rocky hillside previously used for goat grazing. Let it rip TNR. Call for regime change in Israel. Maybe a drone strike on Prime Minister Netanyahu on Yom Kippur will satisfy Obama's disdain for a democratically elected head of government of a "major non-NATO ally"??? Exiting, stage right.

- K2K

September 17, 2012 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The nerve! Never before has the head of Israeli's defense forces refused to meet with the Israeli President. Obama should be kicked right the hell out of Bibi's cabinet.

- Tristan

September 17, 2012 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is amusing to see the manner in which Bibi thinks he should be able to lead around by the nose the "democratically elected head of the United States," a country more than 40 times Israel's size, vastly more powerful and wealthy. He also seems oblivious to the reality that even Americans who don't like Obama often resent such behavior and that it probably works in Obama's favor. I imagine that it is only because we are in the midst of an election campaign and Obama doesn't need to take on unnecessary political risks that Bibi is not yet feeling the lash. More substantively important, Bibi seems not to understand that his past behavior gives Obama and the United States zero reason to believe and trust a single word he utters. Not helpful for Israel. Of course, there is not much reason to trust our supposed "non-NATO ally" Israel generally, as to which see the op-ed in today's NYT about the manner in which Begin and Sharon misled the US about Israeli actions in Sabra and Shatila in 1982. And then there is the Jonathan Pollard affair, in which Israel has never made good its promise of cooperation with the United States. And then there are the multiple broken promises regarding the settlements, and on, and on. Despite its real power, military and economic, Israel refuses itself to accept that it is a bona fide state that can and should act as a state. In its diplomacy, it plays cat and mouse games, as if it is the still the Yishuv, the United States is the marginally legitimate British mandatory authority, and every action on its part is dictated by the necessities of Jewish survival.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So hard for some to understand that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel are not exactly peers on the world stage.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...as called for under a long-stalled peace "road map." "The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don't think that anyone here at this table accepts it," Netanyahu told his cabinet..." So, Obama pressed for a halt in "settlement activities" as called for under the road map, and Netanyahu said no. I don't see this as "a snub", and this attempt to make it into a vast chasm between Obama and Israel is a great concern. Certainly, I think Obama has demonstrated quite a bit of naivete in his relationship with Netanyahu. He's been much too willing to take Palestinian claims and demands at face value, and request (as everyone does) that Israel be the first to take steps. But this was only true early in Obama's administration. As time and negotiations have proceeded, I believe he has learned better that naieve demands upon Israel would not advance peace. But this doesn't mean that Romney or the Republicans are "great friends of Israel", despite their posturing. And this doesn't mean that Obama is not a friend to Israel either. Such transparent posturing is an attempt to convince the Jewish vote in America to go Republican, and vote against their own best interests. I'm surprised to see such transparent propaganda parrotted in TNR.

- AllanL5

September 17, 2012 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama was naïve indeed for not having a plan as to what he would do in response to a Netanyhau no. If he is paying attention, he has learned that Netanyahu will not advance peace and any expectation that he will do so is forlorn.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It wasn't that long ago that Republicans were wringing their hands in a propaganda push claiming the influence of "AIPAC" dictating policy to the Democratic Party. But now that they need Jewish votes, Republicans are claiming Obama to be an enemy of Israel. Well, which is it? And how short is TNR's attention span to fall for it?

- AllanL5

September 17, 2012 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So, Obama pressed for a halt in "settlement activities" as called for under the road map, " Where in the road map does it say that?

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All we need now is for treasonous "best friend" Wikileaks to post their exchanges online and it will be like a real contemporary high school romance.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, comments here confirm a theory of mine about Obama's popularity in some circles. His diplomacy by snubbing is well taken, as a healthy sign of proper thinking. Thus the same fans find nothing unusual in his snub to the British when he insisted the bust of Churchill be returned to their owners rather then simply moved away from his office to some obscure corner in the WH. The British absolutely deserve that snub, as we all know. Or his astonishing gift to the queen when he first visited her of a collection of his speeches. The queen really needed to be taught a lesson in good thinking and oratorical skills, I guess. Or his snub to Sarkozy when he refused a dinner invitation when he was on state visit there. (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/snubbed-sarkozy-to-make-up-with-obama-over-dinner-2116803.html) Obviously, a diplomacy that works. Fawn upon those who hate you. Snub your traditional friends and allies. And there are people here who can actually find plenty of rational explanations for such irrational behaviour.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really think Bibi is outta his gourd. This is going much too far. Roid is right. The American people will turn against Israel so fast - there is already considerable discussion about "cabals," antisemitism per se is always just under the surface - and the last thing we want or need is another war. The impression that Bibi is trying to interfere in our political processes we don't need, as Americans, as Jews, and especially if we're supportive of Israel. This is a really, really bad move. And, on the subject of war: if you start one you most definitely have one. And PS Romney/Ryan would be a catastrophe for the American people - the world really - so give us a break.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for the settlements: so? What do you guys have to say about that - Noga? Is there a "red line?" Where? This is not a minor issue.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AllanL5 you're right. The GOP isn't above using both AIPAC and antisemitism to get votes. That's why this situation cannot be good and playing it cool would be smart on Bibi's part.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't get your question, Sophia. Are you comparing the genocidal Iran regime's nuclear bomb with Jews living in neighborhoods in Jerusalem? Please do explain how the two equate in the mind of a "liberal' thinker.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two Jews stand in line to the gas chamber. One Jew asks the other: "Shouldn't we do something?" "Shhh," says his friend, "don't make waves". Not "never again", but rather "never mind".

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

09/17/2012 - 11:17am EDT | noga1 "So, Obama pressed for a halt in "settlement activities" as called for under the road map, " Where in the road map does it say that? ___________________ See below, quoted verbatim from the Roadmap, with citation: The roadmap: Full text "Settlements GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2989783.stm ____________________________ How does one explain Israeli amnesia about its repeated broken promises regarding the settlements, not to mention the fact that, with or without Israeli promises, they are flatly illegal under international law, repeatedly denounced by the UNSC as a violation thereof? And how should one take Israel's professions to want peace while it engages in this constant provocation, notwithstanding its legal obligations and multiple promises to desist? I personally don't believe a word uttered by the government of Israel, about anything.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And that includes any claims it may make about Iran.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nevertheless, despite all these ostensible "slights," the president appears to be very popular in the UK and France. Sarkozy couldn't win a second term from the French voters. And Romney is now identified in the British popular mind as the guy who got off the plane in London and started to carp about the Games. But I guess ordinary people don't count.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right, ironyroad. I infer from your comment that, unlike the British and the French, it is odd that Israelis actually mind these snubs to their elected PM. How can they be so obtuse? How can they not join the throngs of people who actually see Obama for the exceptionally gifted and competent leader that he is? What's WRONG with them?

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right you are, roi. That condition was at the conclusion of the part in the Roadmap that starts with: "In each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated. Phase I: Ending terror and violence, normalising Palestinian life, and building Palestinian institutions (present to May 2003" The title of Phase I, as you can see, is "Ending terror and violence, normalising Palestinian life, and building Palestinian institutions (present to May 2003" Here is how the PA complied: 30 Apr 2003 3 killed, 60 injured in suicide bombing at pub in Tel Aviv 5 May 2003 1 killed, 2 injured (1 child, 1 soldier) in shooting on vehicle near Shvut Rachel, Samaria 11 May 2003 1 killed in shooting near Jerusalem 17 May 2003 2 killed by suicide bombing in Hebron 18 May 2003 (0530) 7 killed, 20 injured by suicide bombing on bus in Jerusalem 18 May 2003 (0600) suicide bombing in Jerusalem caused no casualties except terrorist 19 May 2003 3 soldiers injured by suicide bomber on bicycle near Kfar Daron, Gaza Strip 19 May 2003 3 killed, 70 injured by suicide bomber at Amakim Mall, Afula 22 May 2003 9 injured by bomb near bus near Netzarim, Gaza Strip With the suicide attacks full speed ahead I'm sure the Israeli government (Kadima in the driving seat, NOT Netanyahu) was in a really good position to impose settlement freeze on neighbourhoods in Jerusalem. NOT. But it did make a radical settlement removal in 2005, a move that has been relegated to the attic of Obama's highly selective memory. And let's not forget the following: http://www.meforum.org/3265/israeli-settlements-american-pressure "The Sharon government reached an understanding with the Bush administration to ban outward geographic expansion of established settlements, while reserving the right to continue expansion inside the "construction line" of existing houses. The New York Times reported on August 21, 2004, "The Bush administration... now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward." Almost all the construction that the Netanyahu administration has allowed is either in Jerusalem or in the settlement blocs, the two categories that Israel had thought were protected by understandings with the Americans. From the Israeli point of view, then, Obama violated an Executive Agreement that Sharon had negotiated with President Bush. Elliott Abrams, who negotiated the Bush administration's compromises on the natural growth of settlements, wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "There were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation...the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza....There was a bargained-for exchange." Israelis were bitterly disappointed by the Obama administration's refusal to acknowledge agreements with a prior U.S. government that the Israelis considered vital and binding. Sharon aide Weissglas said, "If decision-makers in Israel...discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges."

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't claim to know what Israelis think or why they think it, but I do agree with this comment: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/netanyahu-must-set-red-lines-on-his-malice-toward-obama-and-soon.premium-1.464324 In particular, I would very strongly suggest that Netanyahu's boneheaded megaphone diplomacy is, in one word, stupid. In respect of Israel's interests, most of all.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There were no such agreements between the United States and Israel. None can be found and no one with any authority at the time acknowledges the existence of any such side agreements. They never existed except in the mind of Elliot Abrams (whether contemporaneously or, just as likely, as an after-the-fact invention as Elliot Abrams is a proven liar). Israel asked and never got a response from anyone in authority, which certainly did not include Elliot Abrams who claims to have been the one to have made this agreement. If you thought you had an agreement with some subaltern, wrote to the boss to confirm, and never received a response, what would you think? In any case, the Roadmap was not just an understanding between Israel and the United States, to be modified in secret at their whim. There were other parties who certainly never agreed to any such modification. As far as these Palestinian violations go, Israel insists on holding the PA responsible for any terrorist acts. The hypocrisy is breathtaking because Israel, with a much more powerful central state and government by far than the PA, fails or refuses to enforces its own laws with respect to settlements that even the government of Israel regards as illegal. Too politically difficult for the Israeli government to enforce the law against right-wing fanatics who are far less threatening than Palestinian terrorist groups. So, the PA, weak though it is, is expected to control armed terrorists that Israel cannot, but Israel will not enforce its laws against settlers in order to comply with its responsibilities. Was there ever even a moment in time upon acceptance of the Roadmap when Israel actually froze settlement (including "natural growth")? I do not believe there was. In any case, with or without a Roadmap, the settlements are illegal and a constant provocation. One would have to be terribly naïve indeed to believe that Israel would stop violating the law in order to achieve peace. To the contrary, it violates the law to frustrate peace so that it can continue to claim the lack of peace as a justification for violating the law. But it isn't.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In answer to noga's question, "What's WRONG with them?" What's wrong with them is that Israelis enjoy the delusion that Israel is strategically important to the United States and have a very inflated view of their importance. This serves the further delusion that this strategic importance will indefinitely allow Israel to defy the world and frustrate peace in order to continue colonizing the West Bank. What ought to concern Israelis vastly more than perceived snubs of Netanyahu are Netanyahu's perceived snubs of Obama. That's kind of how it works when you are a dependent client state. Britain and France are not similarly deluded about their status relative to the United States. Leaving aside the technical issues, attacking Iran and provoking a regional conflict that almost certainly affects the flow of oil would be about the stupidest thing that Netanyahu could do given his commitment to achieving Israeli sovereignty over pieces of the West Bank. For the most part, Israel and the Palestinians bump along as in irritant in international affairs, but one that the United States can afford to ignore for long stretches of time. It is one thing for Israel to fight with or in Lebanon or Gaza. Doesn't really have that much impact. But, if there is a regional war involving Iran and Israel that powerfully affects us and our economy, you can bet that the US, and thence the Security Council, are going to wake up and decide that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved right quickly, with an enforced settlement if necessary. Given the dependence of Israel on its external trade, there can be no serious question about the power of the UNSC to impose a settlement if it has the will. In light of the unbroken record of UNSC declarations of the illegality of Israeli settlement and annexation of land occupied in 1967, what do you suppose the terms of that settlement will be, if it comes?

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know what you were aiming at in your previous comment. I was only explaining what I inferred from it. And Burston's view, which would appear in Haaretz, (the paper that provides regular space to Gideon Levi and Amira Haas, both anti-Zionists who never see anything right in any Israeli or Israeli event), is just one view and hardly representative of how Israelis regard Netantahyu's policies. Israelis in general, BTW, do NOT like Netanyahu, for his economic programmes and his appeasement of the Charedi sectors and for his wife's behaviour. But they do respect his judgment on foreign policy. They are not likely to vote anybody else into office in any foreseeable future. I'm also bemused by the quality of such advocacy of Obama as " Nevertheless, despite all these ostensible "slights," the president appears to be very popular in the UK and France. Sarkozy couldn't win a second term from the French voters. And Romney is now identified in the British popular mind as the guy who got off the plane in London and started to carp about the Games." Isn't it an example of what roi would call the oh-look-cows fallacy? But I guess ordinary people don't count.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Israelis are the least deluded people on this planet, roi. And your comments on this thread amount to fine examples of the "joke" I cited above: Not "Never again". But "Never mind", again and again. Your opinions and loathing of Israelis are well known and well documented on these pages. You have not been able to utter one new, original thought in years now. To me you sound like a true believer. In other words, a waste of time.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: Many thanks for the link. Unusually lucid analysis. I am not entirely sure about the conclusion - but that does not detract from the cogency of the argument. I was struck by this paragraph:

Some scoff at Iranian preparations for attack. These are the same people who are most alarmed by supposed Iranian acumen in developing nuclear weapons. If a country can develop nuclear weapons, there is no reason it can't develop hardened and dispersed sites and create enough ambiguity to deprive Israeli and U.S. intelligence of confidence in their ability to determine what is where.
I note also McConnell's article: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/joe-kleins-courage-iran-and-the-prospect-of-reset/ And especially this line:
Klein gave the kind of understated, lucid and factual answer that is so far removed from our present fevered discourse that it should probably be understood as an example of unusual courage: “It would provide protection for Iran against an Israeli attack or an American attack.”

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From malahat's link: "Rather than seeing Netanyahu as trying to force the United States into an attack, it is more useful to see Netanyahu's rhetoric as valuable to U.S. strategy." A similar view I heard from Joe Klein on Charlie Rose some 10 days ago.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy ... McConnell's article: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/joe-kleins-courage-iran-and-the-prospect-of-reset/ And this choice line from Klein:

Klein gave the kind of understated, lucid and factual answer that is so far removed from our present fevered discourse that it should probably be understood as an example of unusual courage: “It would provide protection for Iran against an Israeli attack or an American attack.”

- icarus-r

September 17, 2012 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They are not likely to vote anybody else into office in any foreseeable future." That's a fair point, Noga. But isn't it worth also considering that foreign policy and national security are an area where Obama has a distinct edge over Romney and that edge is likely to contribute to his potential win in November? Netanyahu's FP expertise seems to have missed that bit. It's always possible that some of what we're seeing is diplomatic theater for the Iranians to chew on, but assuming that's not the case, any ordinary observer would -- I believe -- say that Netanyahu's behavior looks like it's been predicated on an assumption that Obama was going to lose, and now he's wondering what the hell he's gotten himself into.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: the issue of the Palestinians and the lack of progress on the peace front gives Iran and Arab extremists their air. It's oxygen for the fires. Why don't you get that? Also, there's nothing right, in a moral sense, about the settlements. Period. Now: one can quibble about this one or that one - which ones can stay and which have to go - but - in general - they gotta stop. Finally, refusing to settle with the Palestinians keeps Israel in a constant state of war and insecurity.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As to Burston and Ha'aretz in general: so, I should ignore the WSJ because they have some right wing opinion? LOL WHY? Facts are facts, don't shoot the messenger. Finally you forget something important: the voices you don't want to hear nonetheless bear important messages. It's vital that they be heard especially by people with cotton wool in their ears. Xenophobia about Arabs, Palestinians in particular, isn't a virtue. It is, however, profoundly stupid.

- Sophia

September 17, 2012 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"any ordinary observer would -- I believe -- say that Netanyahu's behavior looks like it's been predicated on an assumption that Obama was going to lose, and now he's wondering what the hell he's gotten himself into." No. I think you allow your love for Obama to distort your view of Netanyahu. You actually have no respect for his intellect and too much respect for Obama's. That creates a distortion. Netanyahu is concerned about Israel's future as a viable safe state for the Jews. The fact that he is now openly and explicitly calling on Obama to declare his intentions is not dictated by his gambling on a Romney's win but by the fear that unless something is done now, January is going to be too late. He knows as everyone here knows that with the failure of sanctions to dissuade the Iranians, Obama is not going to do anything. And by that time it will be too late for Israel to do anything about it. Read icarus' breathless endorsement of the article he linked to and you may see how these things work. It is no longer a denial that Iran is going full speed ahead with its nukes but : So what? That's a position I totally identify with Obama's intentions. There is no other explanation for his prevarications and snubs and what not. Obama knows the nature of his beast (the American people), knows how easy it is to whip up a storm of loathing against Israel, knows how any attack on him is perceived and explained by his "liberal" supporters. I think he feels he is in a good place and things, as far as he is concerned, are going exactly according to plan. Israel has very little options and it is not going to entrust its existence to a feisty poker player who plays his cards so close to his chest. This is not a poker game and no one is excited about it except possibly Obama. But I may be wrong, of course. Perhaps YOU can cite an example where N. declares his trust in Romney?

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: You did not address my question. You simply repeated the statements that made me ask the question. Please explain how Jews living in Jerusalem neigbourhoods are equivalent to Iran regime's nuclearization. Don't evade the question. Explain. Aren't you being a little hysterical? Where, in this thread or anywhere have you encountered any mention of Palestinians that imply xenophobia? If by that you mean that I totally reject RoR, than yes, in that respect I am xenophobic.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, noga, as long as Israel keeps replaying the same tape, colonizing the Palestinians in violation of international law while professing its desire for peace, undertaking to do this, that or the other thing and promptly acting as though it had never undertaken any such thing, conducting its diplomacy with the US through congressional lobbying and on television rather than in respectful discussion with the president of the United States, the very person charged by our Constitution with the conduct of foreign policy, and his officers, there really is neither need nor occasion to express new thoughts about Israel, is there? As for its delusions, chief among them is that peace can be achieved by colonizing the Palestinians, in violation of multiple injunctions for the UNSC, and have them assent to their colonization in exchange for the statehood to which they are entitled with or without Israeli consent. That is a delusion and it will eventually be undone by events. Whether that makes Israelis the most or the least deluded people on earth, or somewhere in between, is of no importance. The national life of Israel is conducted on the basis of this fantasy. That is what is of consequence. Likewise, how I feel, or how you imagine I feel, about Israel is neither of any importance nor a relevant response to the problems that Netanyahu's blundering diplomacy creates for Israel, the United States, and the security of all of us. Your surmise is nothing. You have nothing relevant to say, so, as ever, you resort to specious ad hominem. So what? That doesn't even rise to the level of having an idea, even the same idea, only the same empty head.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: Shana Tova. A year of peace and friendship. Creed/ By Shaul Tcherichovsky Mock, mock my dreams It is I the dreamer who speaks Mock me for believing in man For still believing in you As long as my soul craves freedom I have not bartered it for the golden calf Because I believe in man In man’s valiant and abiding spirit Mock me for believing in amity I believe that I will find a heart Whose hopes are my hopes Who will feel my joy feel my pain I believe in the future Even if the day is yet far away When peace and blessings are carried from nation to nation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA9PPYv_z6s&feature=related

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 2:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think Netanyahu is smart enough to think through the consequences of his behavior and the impact of his campaigning on Israel if, as is likely, Obama is reelected. Obama made the mistake, early in his presidency, of publicly calling on Netanyahu to do something in the service of peace, something with a political cost but no tangible risk to Israel. He naïvely did not think through what he would do if Netanyahu said no. Now here is Netanyahu, this supposedly wise steward of Israeli foreign policy, publicly calling on the president to make public war policy towards Iran. Does this clod, this stupid, stupid man, think that the president of the United States is going to do so in response, as if he is Netanyahu's ward? What does Netanyahu then plan to do with the inevitable no? And if Obama was naïve at the outset of his presidency for conducting public diplomacy in this way, what does that make Netanyahu? A moron. That's what. Who is incapable of controlling his roiling emotions in order to fulfill his responsibilities as a head of state. Given the inevitable erosion of Israel's strategic posture -- the real reason for its public wailing about Iran -- do you think it might even occur to Netanyahu that securing peace might indeed be more important to the future of Israel than building a few more apartments in Jerusalem or the West Bank so that religious families don't have to move, god forbid, to another neighborhood upon the arrival of the 10th bundle of joy? How should we take Israel's professions that its survival is at stake when it won't stir itself for a moment out of the latest iteration of its Greater Israel reverie in order to address its deteriorating situation, other than with threats it cannot carry out? Netanyahu is not threatening Iran. He can't bomb Iran out of its nuclear program. He is threatening the world if it does not do the job for him, pushing himself and Israel into a corner where he might just have to carry out his threat, with likely terrible consequences for Israel.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if Israel's security is -- as it should be -- Netanyahu's prime concern above all else, then why is he engaging in adolescent megaphone diplomacy tactics with the US over "red lines" for Iran in such a clumsy way as to benefit one party only -- the regime in Teheran? It makes zero sense me, and the only explanation I can offer is that N. bet the store on Obama not winning a second term and now he's backed himself into a corner he doesn't know how to get out of.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not surprised by your interpretation, ironyroad. As I said earlier, you have no respect for his N's intellect and too much respect for Obama's. That creates a distortion. And the use of the favourite cliche du jour "megaphone diplomacy" makes it even clearer. There is a time to be quiet and a time to be loud. When the fate of a nation is on the agenda, quietism is the resort of the cowardly. I actually like the fact that Netanyahu is calling things by their proper name. “'Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde”, said Albert Camus. To call things by incorrect names is to add to the world’s misery. I wonder if YOU believe Obama when he says that a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable option and that he will do all that is necessary to prevent it. Can you answer honestly at least this one question?

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not surprised by your interpretation, ironyroad. As I said earlier, you have no respect for his N's intellect and too much respect for Obama's. That creates a distortion. And the use of the favourite cliche du jour "megaphone diplomacy" makes it even clearer. There is a time to be quiet and a time to be loud. When the fate of a nation is on the agenda, quietism is the resort of the cowardly. I actually like the fact that Netanyahu is calling things by their proper name. “'Mal nommer les choses, c'est ajouter au malheur du monde”, said Albert Camus. To call things by incorrect names is to add to the world’s misery. I wonder if YOU believe Obama when he says that a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable option and that he will do all that is necessary to prevent it. Can you answer honestly at least this one question?

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One ought to consider the simple explanation for what appears to be stupid behavior on Netanyahu's part -- that he is stupid, which includes being so besotted with his own histrionics that he is unable to act rationally notwithstanding his high office. There seems to a general notion that people who are capable of certain types of intellectual achievements, such as, for example, earning a business degree from MIT, cannot also be stupid. Not at all. There are plenty of people with certain types of intellectual capacity, even high intellectual capacity, who are none-the-less stupid and behave stupidly. I think there is abundant evidence that Netanyahu is such a person. It may be that the origin of this seeming contradiction lies with the emotional character of such people, their inability to put intellectual capacity properly to work because they are overcome by their emotions. This means only that it is their emotional incapacity or immaturity that renders them stupid -- much in the manner that we can observe smart children doing stupid things. The cause is neither here nor there. The end result is stupidity. Apart from Netanyahu's personal failings, there is no reason to expect rational behavior from a government dominated by religious nuts and right-wing zealots. Such is the government of Israel. Israel thinks that the government of Iran is so dominated by religious nuttery that it would commit national suicide by employing a nuclear device against Israel and subjecting itself to complete annihilation. I think even religious nuts draw the line there. But do we really have any reason to believe that Israel's religious nuts are any more rational than Iran's religious nuts? And if Iran's religious nuts are assumed not to be fully capable of rational behavior, why should we think any more highly of Israel's religious nuts? I don't. They are all nuts and all dangerous. It is a very dubious proposition that Israel's security is served by Netanyahu's behavior, whether he is naming things as they are or not. Correcting naming is all very lovely, but it really has not much to do with either successful diplomacy or successful warfare. It is the last resort of the completely powerless who can do nothing other than tend to their moral bona fides in the face of extreme threat.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think it's the prime minister's or the president's respective intellect that's at issue, Noga, but rather their capacity for making a judgement call on an important issue. I can't understand what Netanyahu thinks he's going to get out of this -- if what we're seeing is the whole truth. It seems to me -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that there has also been an increasing number of Israelis with genuine credentials from the intelligence and military sectors who are scratching their heads at N's approach. One can disagree on policy without appearing to count rhetoric as more valuable than planning and forethought. In any case, I believe that Obama will take all appropriate measures to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran in line with American national security interests. The Israeli leadership must, of course, act as they think best for Israel's security.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat -- that was a very interesting link and I agree with ick that it presents a cogent if somewhat too-neatly arranged argument. And that's why a small part of me continues to think that there may be something more going on with (or alongside) these Obama-Netanyahu spats -- nothing like a formal plan to confuse Teheran, but there is clearly a larger set of moves under way with the naval deployments in the Straits etc.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't think it's the prime minister's or the president's respective intellect that's at issue" Again you misunderstand. It is not the prime minister's or the president's respective intellects that I pointed to but YOUR relationship to them: too much respect for Obama's, none whatsoever for Netanyahu. THAT creates a distortion in your perception of what Netanyahu is or is not doing. You and roi seem to imagine that N acts is some cowboy like manner. I think he has probably considered every possible aspect of the matter very very carefully. It would also be instrumental to recall that N is sitting on top of mountains of information which neither you, nor roi, nor I have any access to. A little respect and a pause might come in handy. Unfortunately, when Obama is being criticized for his very obvious flaws, some people act as if all rational thought has flown out of the window. And that's what I meant when I mention Obama being very much acquainted with the nature of his beast (The American People). When I read the conclusion to your comment I thought: if the worst scenario happens this man is still going to find a multitude of justifications for this president's inaction. And Israel be damned. We have nothing to talk about any more. You stick to your friends and I'll continue alone in my corner. It is the most moral place to be, when crowds gather and start manufacturing history, demonizing an entire nation and acting like they have God's knowledge on their side.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry Noga but do you have a single, even a single comment on what George Friedman calls in the article linked by malahat, "the great Israeli debate that pits the Netanyahu government, which appears to regard Iran as irrational, against significant segments of the Israeli military and intelligence communities, which regard Iran as rational"? If significant numbers of people from Israeli defense and intelligence circles differ strikingly from Netanyahu in how they view the Iranian threat, are they saying "Israel be damned" too? Surely that would be a grotesque accusation. So, if I'm not saying anything other than what many highly informed Israelis are saying, why the rush to condemn me personally in lurid terms? And if one can reasonably assume that the president of the United States is also sitting on his own mountain of information to which we have no access, perhaps we are seeing "inaction" because we aren't seeing the whole picture? And what "action" do you want? Because if we're talking about unilateral military action here, that itself is subject to many uncertainties, dangers, and unwanted consequences.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: nothing rational about a Shi'a theocracy that celebrates martyrdom, and whose Ayotollahs have demonized Judaism and Jews since the 18th century. The more general fear is an Iran with a nuclear umbrella can do whatever they want to whoever they want without actually nuking Israel. The President of the United States ALWAYS has a military attache with the "nuke case" present. Always. I saw part of "Salt" again last night, and was reminded of that - always get a kick out of the Russian plot to use American nukes to destroy Teheran and Mecca. noga: thanks for trying. Not like one can expect anything different from educated people who think MSNBC is a news station, or so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that Israel is officially a "major non-NATO ally" of the USA. You can find an excellent, detailed pdf "Asset Test: How the United States Benefits from Its Alliance with Israel" at: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/asset-test-how-the-united-states-benefits-from-its-alliance-with-israel Here is Walter Russell Mead's version of this slanted post: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/17/white-house-silent-as-netanyahu-pleads-for-red-lines/

- K2K

September 17, 2012 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think, before you jump on the bandwagon of a quote from an article, you should try to acquaint yourself with the nature of the debate that is taking place within Israel and in what way do these voices differ from Netanyahu and Barak (everyone forgets that Barak is right there next to Netanyahu on this). And btw, when Israel was considering bombing Osirac, there were military and intelligence voices that opposed it, too. Either way, this is the decision of a lifetime for Netanyahu and in your derision for him you are not in any way equipped to pass judgment on whether he should use a megaphone or submit to Obama's hazy polices without a murmur. Where was I lurid in describing your positions as you propose them here? You never once voiced any doubt or scepticism that Obama might be wrong. But you seem very certain that Netanyahu is. "When someone is honestly 55% right, that's very good and there is no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it's wonderful, it's great luck, and let him thank God. But what's to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he is 100% is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal" (An old Jew of Galicia, from Czreslow Milosz's The Captive Mind)

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is key: "Nothing less than a truly serious threat to Israel’s existence could justify such a high risk move; we must assume that this underlines the sincerity of Netanyahu’s belief that the Iranian nuclear program is about to reach a point of no return." However, we have entered now an era of indifference. And history is being re-written even as we speak. (Just look at Sophia's clumsy attempts to link Jews residing in Jerusalem to the Iranian threat on Israel's existence. She did not make it up. It was cooked in Obama's oval kitchen).

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 7:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You were lurid in accusing me of entertaining an "Israel be damned" position, Noga. Apparently I can't disagree with you without being accused of some kind of absolute hostility or callousness that bears no relationship to anything I've ever said or written anywhere. As you mention equipment, I'd note that you don't seem in a great position to second-guess Obama on matters that involve a potential political and military crisis with consequences for the whole world. Nor do you, for your part, voice any doubt or skepticism that Netanyahu might be wrong. I'm just following your lead there. And, again, to take a step back: neither of us knows what the larger set of moving parts really looks like. But if you accuse someone of inaction, you have some kind of responsibility to say what kind of action you want to see. Until you lay that out honestly, nobody can know whether you're talking through your hat or not.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What kind of action? It's very simple. Israel should not be left alone to face the Iran menace. Obama's limp policies do not reassure anyone who cares one little bit about Israel that he means what he says. He plays poker and I think he is playing an extremely dangerous game with somebody else's chips. He should be able to reassure Israeli leadership but he doesn't do that. Why do you think he doesn't? You might also ponder how I got the impression of "some kind of absolute hostility or callousness " on your part. I'm not a very imaginative person. I follow cues, not fantasies.

- noga1

September 17, 2012 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the news now is China v Japan. always a pleasure when no one can blame the Jews for whatever is wrong, for at least one news cycle. China v Japan is far more consequential than Hezbollah's Nasrallah trying to upstage the Pope. "we have entered now an era of indifference" indeed. Obama looks at Netanyahu, and all Obama sees is Churchill (the 1930"s Churchill always nagging about Hitler). good night - back to reading Michael Lewis on Obama in Vanity Fair. So far, I am disturbed that ESPN is Obama's default "news" channel. Might want to try Bloomberg Business channel - at least Obama might spot his next SecTreas...as if anyone who could get confirmed would even take that job.

- K2K

September 17, 2012 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What kind of action? It's very simple. Israel should not be left alone to face the Iran menace." Fine. Israel is not being thus left alone. In no way that can be described in the real world. Fantasies? Really not? I get cues that you turn into a kind of arrogant twit at times, but I'm hoping it's just a fantasy.

- ironyroad

September 17, 2012 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bibi wants military action. That's the "action" he is publicly bellowing for. I'd love to know what made him believe that he could get that action by browbeating an American president in public. In the middle of a presidential campaign, no less. The problem for Bibi is that Obama, love or hate him for it, is not going to bomb Iran. That much is clear to any objective observer. Obama is not alone in his position. Top American military and national security brass, to a man, are very strongly opposed to bombing Iran. Even George W Bush, in his second term, refused to do it. Also, notice how those Conservatives that knock the president on Iran always stop short of demanding military action. The exception, of course, are the neocons. Except for the neocons and a few others like McCain and Lieberman, the American security establishment has determined that war with Iran at this time would be bad for everybody. I suspect they believe also that a nuclear Iran won't nuke Israel. And so, I think it has dawned on Bibi, hence his emotional outbursts lately. Why it took this long for him to realize it, I don't know. But he must, at least, have suspected all along, because it wasn't hard to notice that nobody with any influence on the American side is siding with Bibi on this one. Not even Obama's political enemies.

- scrubby

September 17, 2012 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That Netanyahu has better information than the US (even with what Pollard stole) about Iran and the likely success or failure of military action is highly doubtful. That Netanyahu has in intelligent strategy toward Iran is, in light of the commentary of prominent figures in or from the Israeli military/intelligence, also highly doubtful. But that Netanyahu is a diplomatic clod who is succeeding at nothing other than alienating any country in the world that might be of assistance to Israel, including the United States, is perfectly clear. And to what purpose? None. If he is chock full of secret intelligence, he is still a moron for being such an obvious diplomatic putz. Is it really that hard to understand that if Israel does not want to go it alone and bear the consequences that pissing on the shoes of every nation with which it might make common cause is ill-advised? How about those apartments in Jerusalem, folks? Aren't they great? Aren't they well worth Israel's diplomatic isolation? Would anyone other than a religious nut (of which Israel may have a higher percentage than Iran) think that the trade-offs Netanyahu has been making have been worth it? Netanyahu is running around with his hair on fire now because his fumbling of Israel's international relationships and stature are hitting a strategic wall, and he is responsible for that. He therefore hopes that his maladroit pressure on Obama will relieve him and Israel of the consequences of his go it alone, no one tells us what to do policy. He will be disappointed. The Israeli electorate ought to throw this bum out. If they won't, too bad for Israel.

- roidubouloi

September 17, 2012 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really, roi? Your faith in your president is so low that you actually believe he refuses to help Israel because his diktat on Jerusalem apartments was defied? Is that the stature, the breadth and depth of his leadership? This is who you are trying to push for re-election? Like you said before, just because someone has a PhD or working towards one does mean they are not stupid.

- noga1

September 18, 2012 at 6:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite the tone, that’s a very interesting question, because it requires a variety of answers that touch on all the critical aspects of the endless war in the Middle East. I don’t expect Obama, or any other president, to start a war with Iran in order to protect Israel from the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon, not now, not ever. If, and I consider this highly unlikely, the US goes to war against Iran (because that is what it would be), it will only be because the US believes that its own security requires it. That is exactly as it should be. I don’t think Bibi running around with his hair on fire being insulting and messing with the election campaign is going to change that calculus one iota. The wonder of it is that Bibi seems to think it will, which is only the latest behavior on his part that leads me to believe he really is stupid. What it will surely do is further alienate the Obama administration. You can take a very black and white view and say that nations act only out of interest anyway so that personal relationships between statesman don’t matter. I think that is overdrawn. Chuchill certainly thought personal relationships mattered which is why he cultivated a friendship with FDR so assiduously. There is a grey area where mutual trust engendered by a good, personal working relationship can alter perceptions and the mutually willingness to rely on the good faith of the other with national interests as the background. One would imagine that the prime minister of Israel, a client of the United States without whose patronage Israel would be extremely vulnerable, would regard it as an essential part of his job to cultivate a good relationship, worthy of trust, with the president of the United States, including a certain modest deference that acknowledges the vast difference in their stature and status. Not Bibi. Did someone say he has all the tact of a bull on locoweed in a China shop? It’s the stupidity again. As regards Israel’s ongoing construction in occupied territory, that is not at all a personal matter. The problem is not that Netanyahu ignores Obama’s diktat, but that Israel insists on being a rogue state rather than a member in good standing of the western community, and all for a few apartments for the wackos. This is such an astonishing inversion of any normal thinking about Israel’s future and security that it can only be attributed to the girp of the religious nuts on the government of Israel. Only fanatics behave this way. Friendly relationships between states are not the same as friendships between people, but they are similar in some respects, because human beings are at the heart of both. One of the characteristics of long-term friendships is that one or the other at times sacrifices its short-term interests for the more urgent interests of the other in order to cultivate trust and reliance and in the expectation that the shoe will be on the other foot some day. More generally, there cannot be enduring cooperation among states unless there is some subordination by each of them of its own immediate interest in favor of collective interest. Thus, while it may not be in the short-term interest of an ally to come to the defense of another, this may be necessary if a system of mutual reliance is to have credibility. The United States has come to Israel’s aid in the past, and assists its defense, because this serves the American interest in stable, reliable relationships amongst friendly states, “allies.” That does not, however, extend to compromising the world economy or starting a potentially destabilizing and escalating war with a large state for the sake of Israel. There is a limit to what one state can rationally expect another to do for it, and that is way over the line. The problem of “a few apartments in Jerusalem” and Israeli construction in occupied territory generally goes right to the heart of what makes for stable international relations and friendships. The great diplomatic project of the United States since the end of WWII is to try to create a stable world order that does not require the United States to exhaust itself in policing the whole world. The vehicle for this is international law, the creation of an international legal order that states can rely on and that states defer to so that we don’t have to apply massive force and threat of force in all corners of the globe. This is quite analogous to a system of domestic law in which the resources of government would be quickly overwhelmed if there were massive violation of law. The system depends on a certain level of threat – you individually risk punishment if you break the law, even though that is not a certainty – be more broadly on the consensus that the system is just and can be relied on so that people give faith be observing the law. Israel is a rogue state, a free-rider on the international system. It wants the protection of international law, lest it be surrounded and overwhelmed, but refuses to abide by the requirements of international law. It is in constant flagrant violation of a multitude of UNSC resolutions and the requirements of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Thus, it behaves like a free-rider. It will not respect the system, but it expects the system to protect it. As or more important, Israel taxes the United States because the system, even when it doesn’t work, is OUR system. It is the method by which the United States has been trying to manage the world. Because Israel is an ally of the United States and the United States, to keep faith with that ally, has condoned Israel’s constant violation of the system, the whole thing is cast into ill repute. The nations that we want to respect this system of law that we have created are hardly going to do so if what the whole thing means is one law for the US and its friends and another law for everyone else. If Israel taxes the US, does that compromise the willingness of the US to take risks and incur losses for Israel? Of course it does. How could it not? Rather than cooperate with the US on a matter that goes right to the heart of the international order we are trying to bring into being and maintain, Israel frustrates our purpose and drains our system of the credibility which is the only basis on which it can succeed, the belief by states that if they are law-abiding, their legitimate interests will be protected. Even forgetting that the system is our system and that Israel is a free-rider, partaking of our shelter while giving us the finger, Israel directly creates losses for us in the costs we bear for turmoil in the Middle East. Israel’s colonization of the Palestinians is a constant provocation that makes settlement impossible. It is as if Israel is poking an angry dog with a sharp stick. When we ask Israel to stop so that the dog will calm down and we can work out a solution, Israel says, “Oh, this is a mad dog. It is not angry because we are constantly poking it with a sharp stick. It would be angry anyway, the stick makes no difference.” On the occasions where the dog becomes exhausted and calms down for a while, Israel continues to poke it with a sharp stick. But then it says, “You see, things are calm. The dog doesn’t really mind that we are poking it with a sharp stick, the stick makes no difference.” It is utterly irrational to believe that Israel’s ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights do not inflame the situation and create opportunity for radical elements in the Moslem world. The stick does make a difference. When Israel ignores its obligations under international law, it not only gives the finger to the system, it taxes directly the ally upon whose security it depends. You had better believe that the rest of the world is just waiting until the US finally grows tired of the game and opens the door to collective action to enforce Israeli compliance. And you would do well to think that the US will forever endure these costs, not for the security of Israel, but so that Israel, sheltering behind US power, can continue to pursue a course of colonization that the entire world, including the US, regards as illegitimate. Obama asked Netanyahu to desist, in order to stop the provocation and create opportunity for peace that would relieve the security burdens and risks for both the Israel and the US. Netanyahu refuses. It is also irrational to believe that that does not compromise the lengths to which the US will go on behalf of Israel, particularly as it increases the costs to the US of doing so. That irrational belief is just like thinking the stick makes no difference. It is not a question of personal animosity, although that can have an effect on the relations between states. It is a matter of understanding the interests at stake. Netanyahu pisses on the system of international law. That creates an enormous vulnerability for Israel. Only the US protects Israel from the consequences even now, at a cost to the US that it will not bear indefinitely. There simply is not enough reason for the US to do so. If you want to frustrate your patron, you might at least try to be cordial in order to get the best of it. If you are going to be nasty, you might at least see to it that the favors and cooperation you provide are worth your patron putting up with your nastiness. Bibi is a putz, because he will not cooperate with the US as regards its interests -- the mutual interest in a secure and stable peace -- and he is nasty about it to boot. And all "for a few apartments in Jerusalem," as Peretz likes to say.

- roidubouloi

September 18, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I neglected to point out that Israel directly undermines the effort to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. The US is painstakingly building an international consensus against Iran based on its defiance of the UNSC, both to avoid military action and limit its cost should it be necessary in the end. That is much more difficult to do while the US is protecting Israel from the consequences of Israel's own defiance of the UNSC, defiance that ratchets up the tensions in the region and creates risks for all. Israel cannot expect much sympathy while it continues to pour gas on the flames in pursuit of an illegitimate goal that frustrates the security it claims to want.

- roidubouloi

September 18, 2012 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close