Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumScenes from a Marriage
The worst relationship between a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister everas autopsied by the people closest to them.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/bibi-obama/
Very long piece.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Still, if Netanyahu wasnt actually meddling, why didnt he make any real effort to dismiss the accusations? In the months leading up to the election, say two former aides to the prime minister, Ron Dermer repeatedly presented Netanyahu with polls showing that Obama was vulnerable. Multiple senior Israeli and American officials testify that Dermer's analysiswhich Netanyahu highly appreciatedwas that Obama would likely end up a one-term president. And on Election Day, one former staffer says, Netanyahu and Dermer "were in a complete euphoria. Even hours before the exit polls, Dermer was still explaining to people in the office why Romney was going to win." (Dermer denies this.)
Netanyahu, this staffer adds, doesnt understand what motivates Hispanic voters in the United States. Henrique Cymerman, a Portuguese-born Israeli journalist, says that he once talked to Netanyahu about Israel's failure to connect to the Hispanic community, and Bibi replied: "I'm aware of this problem, and it's keeping me up at night.
When the election results finally came in, Netanyahu and Dermer were genuinely taken aback. It wasnt just that Obama had won, it was how. He beat Romney in almost every swing state and received almost 70 percent of the Jewish vote, despite the unprecedented effort to portray him as anti-Israel.
Suddenly, all those accusations about Netanyahus interference in the electionsaccusations he had done so little to downplaywere causing real panic in the prime minister's office. The morning after the election, Netanyahu invited Shapiro, now the U.S. ambassador to Israel, over for hamburgers. Shapiro, an Illinois native who is fluent in Hebrew and very popular in Israel, had worked for Obama since 2007 and was close with both Netanyahu and Dermer. Netanyahu used to ask him to join him in first class on flights to the U.S., even if he and his aides were conducting sensitive discussions. Netanyahu believed that a positive meeting with the ambassador was a necessary first step in restoring his relationship with the White House.
When Shapiro arrived, Netanyahu asked his official videographers to film the two of them congratulating the president. On camera, Netanyahu found all the right words. He explained that "the security cooperation between our countries is rock-solid." And then there was Shapiro standing by Netanyahus side, saying little, smiling awkwardly. His White House colleagues called it "Dan's Hostage Video.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Netanyahu informed Kerry that, as far as he was concerned, the photo opportunity was still happening. "Wait right here, he snapped at the secretary before going out in front of the cameras alone to slam the Obama administration for offering Iran "the deal of the century. His face red from anger and his voice off-kilter, Netanyahu declared that Israel is not obliged by this agreement (no agreement had yet been signed) and that Israel will do everything it needs to protect itself.
When Netanyahu returned, Kerry asked if he wanted the discussion to be in the presence of senior aides or not. I dont care, Bibi muttered. Do whatever you want. Kerry told everyone to leave the room. "It was the worst meeting between an Israeli leader and an American secretary of state I've seen in decades," said a veteran of such discussions.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But the tactic backfired. In fact, all the things that Netanyahu saw as helpful to his cause were used against him. The speech before Congress may have looked like a sign of strength to Netanyahus supporters, but it allowed the Obama administration to portray his opposition to the nuclear deal as politically motivatedpart of a ploy to make Bibi look tough in advance of Israels upcoming elections. Netanyahus opponents also recirculated an old video of him testifying before Congress in support of the Iraq War. Back in 2003, Bibi had used his testimony to show the Israeli public how much influence he had in Washington. Now, his appearance seemed to prove Obama's point that the opponents of the Iran deal were "the same people who got us into Iraq."
In early September, the Iran deal passed Congress, and the geopolitical dynamic in the Middle East was fundamentally reconfigured. For the first time in decades, Iran was no longer the most isolated country in the region. It was internationally recognized and powerful. Netanyahu's office tried to claim that he "never believed the deal could be stopped through Congress, but even some of his allies believe he was convinced his speech would have more of an impact.
"Netanyahu comes from a home environment that admired power. His world is one of strong and weak, where everything is measured on a power scale," says a former Israeli minister who was close to him for decades. Obama's victory on the Iran deal was a personal humiliation for Netanyahu. Not only did he appear weak by losing the battle, but he also lost his partnership with the American presidentthis time for good.
When the two met at the White House earlier this week, both sides tried to pretend that things were copacetic. Netanyahu brought up the possibility of a two-state solution. Obama promised to boost security aid to Israel. But a U.S. official told us not to have any illusions: "The president and Bibi are never going to be friends. We're never going to get over Iran."
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)leave a passing remark..the piece deserves better than that.
Will post later, thanks.
I will say, if we can ever significantly reduce the power of lobbies, all of them, what a wonderful world
this could be....and all that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Nor is it a given that Netanyahu would fare much better with a Republican president, as is widely assumed. After all, both Bush administrations were quite tough on Israel when it came to their policy on settlements, and in 1990, Secretary of State James Baker banned Netanyahu from entering the State Department after he publicly claimed the first President Bush's Middle East policy was "based on lies and distortions." A new Republican in the White House wouldnt give Bibis government carte blanche, says Michael Koplow, the policy director at the Israel Policy Forum. A GOP president would still put pressure on Netanyahu, just in a less public way than Obama did.
Now that the US has disengaged from the Israel/Palestinian dispute, and the Iran deal is water under the bridge, there's not likely to be much reason for there to be any fighting with Israel.
Clinton will have plenty of staffers who are inclined against disagreeing with Israel and Bibi--Ann Lewis, Dennis Ross, etc. And Clinton has been politically boxed into a corner over Israel.
Republicans wouldn't pressure/disagree with Israel because they reject the two-state solution like Bibi, and Bibi is a Republican in any event.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/05/13/rubio-no-two-state-solution-in-mideast
"I don't think the conditions exist for that today," the Florida Republican and presidential candidate said during a question-and-answer session at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. "That's the ideal outcome, but the conditions for a two-state solution at this moment do not exist."
Rubio blamed a disorganized and irresponsible Palestinian government for the stalemate with Israel on statehood. He also said the Palestinians had scuttled two prior offers for peace with their Jewish neighbors.
"They teach their children that it's a glorious thing to kill Jews," he said
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)there should be no public disagreements with Israel.
The OP confirms what I have read over the last many months, the deal put
forth would have been a win win for Israel, not so for the Palestinians. That
is not the shocker, as our political dynamic would not allow for much more.
But the stickler is that even when an agreement favors Israel heavily, Bibi
would not agree..he has to know this conflict can only end with a political
agreement but he put his fear of losing his base supporters ahead of everything,
they're crazier than he is.
Whoever wins the WH, even a Republican may not ever trust Bibi, not b/c
of any concern over the Palestinians but more about the level of maneuvers
he was willing to employ behind a US presidents back.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But a Republican president wouldn't need to.