Despite pretentiously showing gestures of friendship and cordiality, the ideological gap between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly wider.
The contents of a recent would-be private conversation between President Obama and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy described Netanyahu as a “liar” infuriated the Zionist lobby in the West and once again underscored the growing conflicts between the U.S. and its client state, Israel.
According to Russia Today, the Frenchman told his American counterpart in what was supposed to be a confidential discussion on the sidelines of G20 summit in Cannes that “I can’t stand him,” referring to the prime minister of the Zionist regime. Obama’s reply was “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
According to the French website “Arret Sur Images,” the private conversation between the two was broadcast to a half-dozen-strong press crowd when microphones were accidentally left switched on.
The Russian network further adds that “the tensions between the Israeli leader and some of his Western partners, including Obama, are no big secret, but the differences have not been brought to the public eye in such blunt terms before.”
Although Obama has repeatedly talked of his commitment to the security of Israel and shattered the hopes of Palestinians for realizing statehood by saying that “there’s no shortcut to peace” and implying in his UN General Assembly address that the U.S. would veto any UNSC resolution demanding Palestine’s membership in the UN, he cannot withhold from the public his confrontations with the pigheaded prime minister of Israel who has ruled out any possibility of recognizing Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders and retreating from the Occupied Territories.
In May 2011, Reuters reported that a bilateral meeting of Obama and Netanyahu ended bitterly as the U.S. President insisted that in order to start peace negotiations, Israel should return to the pre-1967 war borders and concede the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) to Palestinians. The inflexible and stubborn Israeli prime minister, however, responded to Obama’s appeal disdainfully, saying that “peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality.”
Obama nervously stressed that the goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks has to be establishing “a secure Israeli state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state.” But the obstinate Netanyahu responded by saying that “we can’t go back to those indefensible lines,” indicating an unfriendly acrimony between the stalwart allies.
According to some Israeli officials, Benjamin Netanyahu was determined to react to Obama in a hard-hitting and unsympathetic manner because the reference to 1967 borders would be considered “a red flag that would attract more international pressure on Israel for concessions.” A senior Israeli official said Netanyahu felt he had to speak bluntly so he would be “heard around the world.”
“There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn’t understand what we face,” an official on board the plane taking Netanyahu to Washington told reporters.
So, it’s clear that Israel does not hesitate to embarrass its largest and most powerful supporter before the eyes of the international community, should it sense an iota of threat that it might be compelled to make concessions and abandon its expansionistic policies.
Now, the neoconservative pundits and right-wing politicians around the world are extremely frustrated with Barack Obama and believe that if he wants to secure a second term in the Oval Office, he should satisfy the demands of Israel and as the first step, block Palestine’s efforts to join the UN and other international organizations.
Extremist, right-wing journalists and politicians believe that Obama’s behavior toward the Palestinians is too lenient for a U.S. president and that he has failed to meet the interests of Israel as its number one political ally. Elliot Abrams, a Middle East expert in the George W. Bush administration, says that Obama’s short comment on Netanyahu in meeting with Sarkozy is not something to be gotten away with: “If this were only a matter of personal relations between Obama and Netanyahu, it could be left at that. But it is far more consequential, for by that comment—and especially as it was made in private and can be interpreted as his actual view—President Obama has joined the chorus of assaults on the Jewish State.”
At any rate, it’s clear that Obama has serious ideological differences with Netanyahu, even though he has assured AIPAC that “the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.”
Even if he wants to, Obama cannot tread a path which is not in accordance with the interests of the Israeli regime. As Naseer Aruri, a chancellor professor (emeritus) of Political Science from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth puts it, “no politician with an anti-Zionist mindset can even dream of living in the White House.”
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian independent, freelance journalist.
RSS
Open microphone tells tale of growing US-Israel gap
Posted on November 21, 2011 by Kourosh Ziabari
Despite pretentiously showing gestures of friendship and cordiality, the ideological gap between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is becoming increasingly wider.
The contents of a recent would-be private conversation between President Obama and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy described Netanyahu as a “liar” infuriated the Zionist lobby in the West and once again underscored the growing conflicts between the U.S. and its client state, Israel.
According to Russia Today, the Frenchman told his American counterpart in what was supposed to be a confidential discussion on the sidelines of G20 summit in Cannes that “I can’t stand him,” referring to the prime minister of the Zionist regime. Obama’s reply was “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
According to the French website “Arret Sur Images,” the private conversation between the two was broadcast to a half-dozen-strong press crowd when microphones were accidentally left switched on.
The Russian network further adds that “the tensions between the Israeli leader and some of his Western partners, including Obama, are no big secret, but the differences have not been brought to the public eye in such blunt terms before.”
Although Obama has repeatedly talked of his commitment to the security of Israel and shattered the hopes of Palestinians for realizing statehood by saying that “there’s no shortcut to peace” and implying in his UN General Assembly address that the U.S. would veto any UNSC resolution demanding Palestine’s membership in the UN, he cannot withhold from the public his confrontations with the pigheaded prime minister of Israel who has ruled out any possibility of recognizing Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders and retreating from the Occupied Territories.
In May 2011, Reuters reported that a bilateral meeting of Obama and Netanyahu ended bitterly as the U.S. President insisted that in order to start peace negotiations, Israel should return to the pre-1967 war borders and concede the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) to Palestinians. The inflexible and stubborn Israeli prime minister, however, responded to Obama’s appeal disdainfully, saying that “peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality.”
Obama nervously stressed that the goal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks has to be establishing “a secure Israeli state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state.” But the obstinate Netanyahu responded by saying that “we can’t go back to those indefensible lines,” indicating an unfriendly acrimony between the stalwart allies.
According to some Israeli officials, Benjamin Netanyahu was determined to react to Obama in a hard-hitting and unsympathetic manner because the reference to 1967 borders would be considered “a red flag that would attract more international pressure on Israel for concessions.” A senior Israeli official said Netanyahu felt he had to speak bluntly so he would be “heard around the world.”
“There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn’t understand what we face,” an official on board the plane taking Netanyahu to Washington told reporters.
So, it’s clear that Israel does not hesitate to embarrass its largest and most powerful supporter before the eyes of the international community, should it sense an iota of threat that it might be compelled to make concessions and abandon its expansionistic policies.
Now, the neoconservative pundits and right-wing politicians around the world are extremely frustrated with Barack Obama and believe that if he wants to secure a second term in the Oval Office, he should satisfy the demands of Israel and as the first step, block Palestine’s efforts to join the UN and other international organizations.
Extremist, right-wing journalists and politicians believe that Obama’s behavior toward the Palestinians is too lenient for a U.S. president and that he has failed to meet the interests of Israel as its number one political ally. Elliot Abrams, a Middle East expert in the George W. Bush administration, says that Obama’s short comment on Netanyahu in meeting with Sarkozy is not something to be gotten away with: “If this were only a matter of personal relations between Obama and Netanyahu, it could be left at that. But it is far more consequential, for by that comment—and especially as it was made in private and can be interpreted as his actual view—President Obama has joined the chorus of assaults on the Jewish State.”
At any rate, it’s clear that Obama has serious ideological differences with Netanyahu, even though he has assured AIPAC that “the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.”
Even if he wants to, Obama cannot tread a path which is not in accordance with the interests of the Israeli regime. As Naseer Aruri, a chancellor professor (emeritus) of Political Science from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth puts it, “no politician with an anti-Zionist mindset can even dream of living in the White House.”
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian independent, freelance journalist.