Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Benjamin Netanyahu Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on January 04, 2016 8 Comments
Two ongoing news stories that broke this past week show the Obama administration's contrasting styles towards America's top Middle East ally and a rogue nation that continues to flout international law. Obama and his top officials have no problem playing hardball with Israel, but become like Rex the dinosaur in Toy Story, who doesn't like confrontations, when dealing with  Iran. First, last Tuesday The Wall Street Journal (Google link) reported that the administration excluded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from the list of foreign leaders it would not spy on after Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA regularly spied on friendly heads of state. Quoting current and former U.S. officials the spying on Netanyahu was deemed by Obama to be a “compelling national security purpose.” Of course the reason for this was Netanyahu's objections to the Iran nuclear deal. The fear was that Netanyahu would leak sensitive information he had been told by the United States in order to torpedo the deal. (Israel insisted that the secret details that it learned came from spying on Iran.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 09, 2015 62 Comments
This should be interesting. When two over-sized personalities collide, neither of whom is known for backing down. On Twitter and Facebook, Benjamin Netanyahu just released the following statement: https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/674653302852816896
Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump's recent remarks about Muslims. The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world.

Posted by David Gerstman on November 12, 2015 17 Comments
In a look at the history of the tensions between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, The New York Times several days ago started with an interesting anecdote.
For President Obama, it was a day of celebration. He had just signed the most important domestic measure of his presidency, his health care program. So when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel arrived at the White House for a hastily arranged visit, it was likely not the main thing on his mind. To White House officials, it was a show of respect to make time for Mr. Netanyahu on that day back in March 2010. But Mr. Netanyahu did not see it that way. He felt squeezed in, not accorded the rituals of such a visit. No photographers were invited to record the moment. "That wasn't a good way to treat me," he complained to an American afterward. The tortured relationship between Barack and Bibi, as they call each other, has been a story of crossed signals, misunderstandings, slights perceived and real. Burdened by mistrust, divided by ideology, the leaders of the United States and Israel talked past each other for years until the rupture over Mr. Obama's push for a nuclear agreement with Iran led to the spectacle of Mr. Netanyahu denouncing the president's efforts before a joint meeting of Congress.
It's interesting because this is not at all how I remembered it. I remember that the lack of attention to the meeting was perceived as an intentional slight of Netanyahu. A quick check of the contemporaneous reporting confirmed this.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 10, 2015 2 Comments
This week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington for his first meeting with President Barack Obama since the passage of the Iran nuclear deal. It was their first face-to-face conversation in over a year, and while DC journalists largely pitched the meeting as a welcome relief to the normally-tortured U.S.-Israel relations, I wrote yesterday that both leaders appeared almost too careful during the limited time they appeared together before the press. During this week's meeting, Netanyahu reportedly spoke at length with Obama over concerns regarding instability in Syria, and the uncertain (in international relations terms) status of the Golan Heights. This territory is important to Israel---especially now, since Islamic jihadists have gained significant control in bordering, war-torn Syria. Both former Ambassador Michael Oren and former cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser have publicly called for American recognition of Israeli sovereignty of the Golan, saying that it would help stabilize the region. More from the Times of Israel:
Israel claims the western Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and took steps to formally annex in 1981. The plateau is considered a critical strategic asset for Israel because it overlooks the towns and villages of much of the Galilee.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 09, 2015 10 Comments
Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama at the White House to discuss ISIS, tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, and the continuing scandal that is the Iran nuclear deal. It was the first time the two men have met face to face in over a year, and the first time they have spoken since the passage of the Iran deal. During a private session with the press, Obama emphasized that both leaders are looking for "common ground," and condemned the latest wave of Palestinian violence perpetuated against Israelis; he backed the right of Israelis to defend themselves, but pushed Netanyahu for ideas on how to relieve the tension. Netanyahu continued his public support for a two-state solution, but insisted that a solution would only come when the Palestinians relent and recognize Israel as a Jewish state---which the Palestinians continue to reject. You can see the press briefing here:

Posted by David Gerstman on November 04, 2015 10 Comments
Former President Bill Clinton's said last week in Israel in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, that peace is up to Israel. As the Associated Press reported:
"He refused to give up his dream of peace in the face of violence," Clinton, who formed a close bond with Rabin when both were in office, said to roars of applause. "The next step will be determined by whether you decide that Yitzhak Rabin was right, that you have to share the future with your neighbors ... that the risks for peace are not as severe as the risk of walking away from it. Those of us who loved him and love your country are praying that you will make the right decision."
Even last year, Clinton indicated that he didn't believe that Netanyahu could make peace. But this is false history, as Jonathan Tobin at Commentary pointed out, "if there is anything that the last 22 years have taught us it is that it clearly not up to the Israeli people."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 01, 2015 20 Comments
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before the U.N. General Assembly today. It was a powerful speech -- one of, if not his best. The full speech is at the bottom of the post. The full text is here. Here are some highlights. Too bad neither John Kerry nor Amb. Samantha Power were present to hear it, and as a show of solidarity. Netanyahu had a powerful 45 seconds of silence shaming the U.N. for its silence on Iran's threats to destroy Israel. In the face of repeated Iranian threats and U.N. anti-Israel resolutions, Netanyahu declared "Israel will do whatever it must do to defend our state and to defend our people."

Posted by Amy Miller on August 05, 2015 11 Comments
Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted a webcast with American Jewish participants urging them to oppose the Iran nuke deal. His message reached an estimated 10,000 people, and served as a counter to propaganda spread by pro-deal activists plying the media with misinformation about the motive behind Israel's opposition. From the Washington Examiner:
"The deal that was supposed to end nuclear proliferation, will actually trigger nuclear proliferation. It will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," contended Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister, who spoke Tuesday afternoon on a video conference organized by the Jewish Federation of North America, pled with the nearly 10,000 participants to actively speak out against the deal. "The days when the Jewish people could not or would not speak up for themselves, those days are over," he said. "Today we can speak out. Today we must speak out. And we must do so together." Netanyahu, who has been an ardent critic of the deal argued that the agreement would bring Tehran closer to producing a nuclear weapon. "The nuclear deal with Iran doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb," he charged. "It actually paves Iran's path to the bomb." In the prime minister's estimation, if Iran upholds the agreement it could obtain a nuclear weapon within 15 years.
Watch:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 17, 2015 14 Comments
The Obama administration and its supporters try to paint opposition to the Iran nuke deal as a Bibi Netanyahu problem. That's a convenient excuse, because it allows Obama to play the Democrat loyalty card among members still upset about Bibi's appearance in Congress. It also plays into "Israel Lobby" demonization, the bogeyman of the left. The opposition to the Iran nuke deal, however, is bringing together usual political enemies. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic interviews Isaac Herzog, Bibi's primary domestic political opponent, Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East:
Last December, when I interviewed the leader of Israel’s left-leaning Labor Party, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum, he said, in reference to nuclear negotiations with Iran: “I trust the Obama administration to get a good deal.” In a telephone call with me late last night, Herzog’s message was very different. The deal just finalized in Vienna, he said, “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 29, 2015 10 Comments
At least no one got hurt this time. But Gaza Flotilla III was a complete flop. Meant to break Israel's perfectly legal naval blockade of Gaza (more on legality here), designed to stop Iranian shipments of weapons, the flotilla avoided the disaster of Gaza Flotilla I, in which 9 people were killed when they attacked Israeli commandos boarding a ship. This time, when it appeared Israel would prevent the flotilla from getting to Gaza, three of the boats called it off. The main boat, from Sweden but bearing an Israeli Arab lawmaker and the former President of Tunisia, proceeded, and was boarded by Israeli commandos. The IDF posted the following announcement:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 06, 2015 5 Comments
When the Israeli elections were held in March, the result widely was seen as a huge win for Benjamin Netanyahu, because his Likud Party outperformed. But that was Part 1. The second part has taken several weeks to play out -- the formation of a governing coalition of at least 61 seats in the 120-seat Knesset (parliament). That took time, and almost didn't happen. Late last night Israel time Netanyahu put the final piece together, as reported in The Times of Israel:
Less than two hours before his deadline was set to expire on Wednesday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hammered out a deal with Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett, allowing him to inform President Reuven Rivlin that he had successfully cobbled together a 61-seat coalition — the narrowest of Knesset majorities.... In a meeting with Bennett in the Knesset Wednesday night, Netanyahu thanked the Jewish Home party leader for his “efforts during the negotiations and throughout these last weeks.” He also asserted that Israel would have a “strong, stable government,” which he hoped would exceed 61 seats by Wednesday. “’61 seats is a good number. 61-plus is a better number. But it starts with 61, and we will begin with that,” Netanyahu said. “We have a lot of work ahead of us. Good luck to us and to the Israeli nation.” “We support you,” Bennett told Netanyahu. “We will assist you with all of our strength for the sake of the country and the government, because we have no other land. This government can complete its term in office. We will work hard to make sure of that.” Bennett said that the two parties’ negotiating teams would “work all night” in order to finalize the fine points of the deal. Netanyahu was understood to have capitulated to the demands of the Orthodox-nationalist Jewish Home, the final recalcitrant coalition partner, and agreed to appoint Bennett as education minister, MK Ayelet Shaked as justice minister, and another Jewish Home member, Uri Ariel, as agriculture minister.
David Horvitz, Editor-in-Chief of The Times of Israel, notes the disappointment at such a thin margin:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 09, 2015 27 Comments
Back in 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the body of the United Nations with a piece of poster board and a red marker. During the two weeks prior to that moment, he had been waging a public battle with the Obama Administration over the dangerous progression of Iran's nuclear program---sound familiar---and made the decision to cut through the rhetoric in hopes that a visual aid might wake up the rest of the world. So, he picked up his marker and drew a literal red line that served as an ultimatum: “At this late hour there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs, and that is by placing a clear red line on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” Remember? NATIONS-articleLarge Yesterday, the Obama paid passive-aggressive homage to Netanyahu's famous "bomb" with one of their own:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 07, 2015 24 Comments
There is no Iran nuke "deal," but whatever there is to the framework, even Obama now admits it paves Iran's path to the bomb, albeit on a delayed fuse, as AP reports, Obama says Iran could cut nuke time to near zero in 13 years:
Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years. Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material. "What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.
It's not at all clear that 13 years is the correct number, as opposed to 10. But regardless, the point is that at the end of this process Iran is ready to produce a bomb. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Netanyahu: Nuke Deal 'Paves Iran's Path to the Bomb':

Posted by Amy Miller on April 06, 2015 24 Comments
Last week's "nuke deal" with Iran has drawn criticism both at home and overseas as being less of a "deal" and more of a capitulation to a belligerent enemy of freedom. (I wouldn't argue with those criticisms one bit.) It has caused many to call into question President Obama's motives for making such a deal, and forced discussions about what a nuclear Iran would mean for the future of the Middle East as we know it. Of course, the elephant in the room is Israel, a country whose future depends on the efforts of more powerful allies to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Not only have we have failed to do so, we have also set Benjamin Netanyahu up as the chief fall guy in the event of a breakdown in negotiations. CNN's Jim Acosta interviewed Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, and spent a lot of time focusing on the breakdown of the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 03, 2015 38 Comments
Well that "Framework" negotiation was fun. For the Iranians, who got a great deal at least as far as a Framework goes. As this WaPo editorial points out, the Obama administration gave up on key parameters:
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
In his speech after the announcement, Obama took care not only to repeat the false rhetorical device of the only choice being between this deal and war, he blamed that choice on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Horvitz at The Times of Israel writes, Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil:

Posted by Anne in Petah Tikva on March 19, 2015 21 Comments
In case you missed the latest news, the final results of the Israeli elections are in, and here are the numbers: Likud (Netanyahu): 30 Zionist Union (Yitzchak Herzog): 24 Joint Arab List: 13 Yesh Atid (Yair Lapid): 11 Kulanu (Moshe Kachlon): 10 Bayit Yehudi (Naftali Bennett): 8 Shas (Sephardi haredim): 7 Yisrael Beitenu (Avigdor Liberman): 6 United Torah Judaism (Ashkenazi Haredim): 6 Meretz: 5 I'm sure many of you have been wondering what the average Israeli thinks of the general elections and the Likud's surprising win. The answer will depend on whom you ask. [caption id="attachment_120458" align="alignnone" width="480"]israeli-elections-cards [Israeli voting slips, with the parties' letter-codes rearranged to spell out: "The truth is, they're all liars.][/caption] As an avowed rightist I was both delighted and highly relieved at the result, though as a Naftali Bennett and Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) voter, I admit to some disappointment that the party lost several seats, going down from 12 to 8.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 19, 2015 31 Comments
The distortion of Benjamin Netanyahu's pre-election statements on a two-state solution and Arab voting was a classic Obama and media distortion. If you take the actual text of Netanyahu said, he never ruled out a two-state solution and never discouraged Arab voting. But those were the headlines and the foaming-at-the mouth hyperbole, fomented by the Obama administration in numerous anonymous statements to the media. Schmuel Rosner has the analysis, from earlier today, Is Obama getting ready to throw Israel under a UN bus?:
Prime Minister Netanyahu has no "newly declared opposition to a Palestinian state". If the White House wants to use a badly framed statement by Netanyahu as an excuse for a change in American policy – if it wants, as the WH hinted, to "turn to the U.N. to help force a deal" with the Palestinians on Israel – it should not come as a great surprise. But Netanyahu's words are the excuse, not the reason, for the change. The reason is Netanyahu's victory and the administrations' vindictive mood toward him and toward the country that elected him.... Netanyahu said a couple of regrettable things in the last, desperate days of his brilliant campaign. ... The second statement was just a poor call for action for the right-wing voters. Netanyahu's record when it comes to policies aimed at integrating Arab Israelis into society is not bad. The first statement was merely an assessment of the situation. Netanyahu did not say that he opposes the two state solution – he said that under current circumstances he doesn't see a Palestinian State established in his coming term as Prime Minister. And he is probably right in this assessment.
The Times of Israel reports on an interview Netanyahu gave today, in which he explained that nothing had changed:
Accessibility by WAH