Obama leaves Netanyahu humiliated

[The Original Nex]

Didn't see this posted yet (don't think this violates IvP):

The Times UK

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'


For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

RELATED LINKS
Israeli press rounds on Netanyahu
Netanyahu flies home amid media blackout
New Israeli construction plan undermines talks

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

Glad that the administration is finally calling out Israel on it's intransigence. If only Congress weren't more loyal to Israel than they are to their own government we might actually get some real pressure...

[Ace Pace]

One of the downsides that the U.S. is probably not expecting is that this will make Netanyahu even more ineffectual and weak than he was before and might just make the entire Israeli government even more irrelevant to actions in the field. The Israeli government is already shaky and torn by internal politicals. This won't make any decision making easier.

[Covenant]

As was stated many times in the lead-up to this, the Israelis are apparently very sensitive to matters of political power, and Obama was until recently seemingly only the leader of half of the country, and too tied up to seriously engage them.

A slap like this that knocks a peg off of Netanyahu, but more importantly would probably strengthen America's hand further on down the line when dealing with possible hardliners. This kind of back and forth is infantile, but it's hard to avoid it when the serious talks about "do this or we cut off aid" are impossible to actually approach head-on.

[wolveraptor]

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

That pisses me off. "Stand up to Washington"? As if we're oppressing them somehow with our billions of dollars in aid, which we manage to set aside despite being literally buried in our own financial problems.

[cosmicalstorm]

Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel's defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.

According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.

The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel's defense industry.
Advertisement
The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

America and Israel have still not reached an agreement regarding the purchase of the Lockheed F-35 war plane. It is still not clear when that deal, which is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, will finally be sealed and carried out.

If that deal is signed in the near future, Israel will likely receive its first F-35 in 2014.

[Covenant]

Eh. I mean, at least they're buying them. As far as I understand it--and this is a very limited understanding--settlements and other territorial issues are more upsetting to America and Europe's middle east policy than a sale of transport planes or even F-35's. The C-130J isn't the Spectre gunship (AC-130) so this is hardly something to weep about. Complete withdrawal of ties would weaken bargaining positions, wouldn't it? If what you're trying to do is create leverage towards peace, causing panic doesn't seem to help. But like I said, I don't know all that much. Just offering a perspective.

[wolveraptor]

^Do we actually make money on these deals, when all is accounted for? There's some other thread floating around saying the US military is one of the most cost-inefficent in the world, because all of our R&D is, for lack of a better word, "in-house"? Militaries that purchase exports from the international market supposedly get decent equipment for a better price (this is just my recollection of that thread, I can't seem to find it right now).

EDIT: here it is.

[Covenant]

I wasn't concerned about profit. Selling weapon systems for a profit is still ethically dubious, so it's not about money made or lost as much as it is maintaining a relationship with a nation while avoiding full collaboration or complete breaks in relations.

My comment "at least they're buying them," was meant to put emphasis on buy rather than give. It sounds like a professional, contractual relationship and not a blood-brothers in-this-together kind of thing. I was trying to paint both events, the spurning of Netanyahu and the continuing of commercial transactions, as part of a cogent (if not brilliant) line of reasoning.

[Chris OFarrell]

*Are* they buying them though? Or is this being brought out of the yearly budget the US sets aside for the IDF to go shopping in the gift section after blasting the Gaza strip again, ala Wheel of Fortune...

[Edi]

*Are* they buying them though? Or is this being brought out of the yearly budget the US sets aside for the IDF to go shopping in the gift section after blasting the Gaza strip again, ala Wheel of Fortune...

No, they aren't buying them. American taxpayers would be paying for them. This was directly stated by a conservative writer in Time Magazine, either last week's issue or this week's.

[Ace Pace]

Or the fucking article quoted in this exact page.

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

Does no one read?!

[Anguirus]

So if I'm paying for Israel's toys, why the fuck shouldn't I expect them to kowtow to our desires?

(Keep in mind that I'm talking about Israel in a foreign policy sense, not picking on anyone that's from there).

[eyl]

The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.

That pisses me off. "Stand up to Washington"? As if we're oppressing them somehow with our billions of dollars in aid, which we manage to set aside despite being literally buried in our own financial problems.

You don't know just how far gone some of these idiots are - I actually read an opinion column where the author proposed Israel "punish" the US by refusing to buy American weapons until they "relent", at which point we might be gracious enough to resume our support of the US defense industry (and no, while I may not have the wording exactly right, I'm not adding hyperbole).

OTOH, I agree with Ace in that too much pressure may essentially cause Netanyahu to become paralyzed due to coalitional dissension, which wouldn't help matters much.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

OTOH, I agree with Ace in that too much pressure may essentially cause Netanyahu to become paralyzed due to coalitional dissension, which wouldn't help matters much.

Wasn't the guy pretty ineffectual as well the last time he was Prime Minister? Basically he stymied to death the peace process to the point everyone was waiting for the next PM.

[eyl]

OTOH, I agree with Ace in that too much pressure may essentially cause Netanyahu to become paralyzed due to coalitional dissension, which wouldn't help matters much.

Wasn't the guy pretty ineffectual as well the last time he was Prime Minister? Basically he stymied to death the peace process to the point everyone was waiting for the next PM.

Well, yes and no. Basically, Netanyahu seems dead-set on repeating the errors of his previous term (bungled assassination included, apparently).

What many people - both his supporters and detractors - prefer to forget is that Netanyahu did make moves to advance the peace process (most notably the Wye Accords). The problem is each time he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that point, so Israel suffered the diplomatic damage of his instransigence while ending up with the same result (or possibly even a worse deal than could have been reached if he'd approached the issue more willingly earlier).

[Knife]

Isn't his coalition government a bunch of different fundie groups? Why wouldn't we, the US and others, want to have his government fall and gamble on a more moderate one coming to power?

[Ace Pace]

Isn't his coalition government a bunch of different fundie groups? Why wouldn't we, the US and others, want to have his government fall and gamble on a more moderate one coming to power?

1) You just wasted 4 months (atleast) on having a completely ineffectual government in power while Israel spends another few dozen millions (of which it doesn't have) on running yet another election schedule.

2) This election would probably lead to an even more right wing group, Israel has no left wing parties. It has 2 corrupt and spineless moderate parties. You'd basically elect an even more strident group that is more willing to antagonize the U.S.

3) The current government for all it's flaws has some large pragmatists in it. The fundies are relatively irrelevent to foreign affairs calculus.

[eyl]

Isn't his coalition government a bunch of different fundie groups? Why wouldn't we, the US and others, want to have his government fall and gamble on a more moderate one coming to power?

There's a distinct possibility that a new government will be more to the right (especially if it's publicly perceived that the government was brought down by foreign pressure) - that's hardly an improvement.

BTW, just for accuracy, it should be noted that "fundie" isn't really an accurate description of the coalition's largest players. Likud and Israel Beitenu, while they're right-wing and somewhat insane respectively , are secular parties (the latter is actually pushing to basically allow civil marriage in Israel) while Labor is secular and center-left.

This election would probably lead to an even more right wing group, Israel has no left wing parties. It has 2 corrupt and spineless moderate parties. You'd basically elect an even more strident group that is more willing to antagonize the U.S.

I think you should qualify that as no large left-wing parties. Besides, it depends how you define "left".

[Falkenhayn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8591714.stm

US 'threatens Israel on building'
The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report.

It is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure, and a UN resolution would be one way, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.

The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel.

But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.

The move prompted the Palestinians to pull out of the US-brokered indirect "proximity talks" that had only just been agreed in a bid to revive the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.

Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

Guarantee sought

The reported exchange between the US official and Qatar's foreign minister came to light during a meeting at an Arab League summit in the Libyan town of Sirte.

A diplomatic source told the BBC that Qatar's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani - who is also the prime minister - had recently met an official high up in the Obama administration during a visit to France.

During their talks, Sheikh Hamad asked the US official whether Washington would guarantee not to veto a UN Security Council resolution that was critical of Israel's ongoing settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

The diplomat said the US official had replied that the current feeling in Washington was that they would "seriously consider abstention".

An Egyptian official is said to have confirmed his knowledge of the US position during a meeting at the Arab League summit, which was held behind closed doors.

The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Paris last week to hold talks with Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas.

The US is one of five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power and has a history of blocking any resolution condemning Israel.

The BBC's Rana Jawad, in Sirte, says that many people will see the comments as yet another sign of Washington's recent dispute with Israel.

In November, Israel announced a 10-month suspension of new building in the West Bank. But it considers areas within the Jerusalem municipality as its territory and thus not subject to the restrictions.

POINTS OF TENSION IN JERUSALEM
1 Gilo: 850 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Nov 2009
2 Pisgat Zeev: 600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Jan 2010
3 Sheikh Jarrah: Municipality approves the building of 20 new apartments on the site of an old hotel
4 Ramat Shlomo: 1,600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Mar 2010
5 Silwan: Demolition orders on 88 Palestinian homes built without difficult-to-get permits - Israel planning controversial renewal project
6. West Bank barrier: Making Palestinian movement between West Bank and Jerusalem harder - Israel says it is for security

[Spyder]

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

"All heads of state visiting the White House deserve to be treated with the respect befitting any foreign dignitary, except the President of Equatorial Guinea. Fuck that guy, he's a dick."

[Sea Skimmer]

President for Life Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea declared himself to be a god more the once. I'd say he's a good example of a dick, even before you count such awesome moves as transferring the entire contents of the national treasury into his personal bank accounts.