Article Image

Alleged Obama - Netanyahu Rift

Written by Subject: Israel - Palestine
Alleged Obama - Netanyahu Rift - by Stephen Lendman

After Obama's May 18 speech called for establishing a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, world headlines suggested a rift with Netanyahu, misinterpreting what he meant. More on that below.

On May 17, in fact, New York Times writers Mark Landler and Helene Cooper headlined, "As Uprisings Transform Mideast, Obama Aims to Reshape the Peace Debate," saying:

Ahead of his speech, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he'd offer "some specific new ideas about US policy toward the region."

Unidentified officials also suggested he might endorse a Palestinian state within 1967 borders. Doing so, however, would represent "less of a policy shift than a signal" that Washington wants Israel to make concessions to restart peace talks - a gesture, whether or not substantive with teeth.

On May 17, after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah, Obama said:

"Despite the many changes, or perhaps because of the many changes that are taking place in the region, it's more vital than ever that both Israelis and Palestinians find a way to get back to the table and begin negotiating a process whereby they can create two states that are living side by side in peace and security."

Moreover, his May 22 AIPAC speech affirmed his unwavering support for a "strong and secure Israel."

As a result, "I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It's why we've increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It's why we're making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it's why, despite tough fiscal times, we've increased foreign military financing to record levels."

Moreover, current regional events and realities motivated his peace proposal some call radical and unacceptable. In fact, "(t)here was nothing particularly original in (it). This basic framework....has long been the basis for discussions....including (for) previous US administrations (within) the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps...."

It's for "the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - (to) negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," taking into account the "new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples," no matter his agreeing to all key Israeli demands, excluding what Palestinians most want, assuring no possibility for peace, reconciliation and true Palestinian self-determination.

In fact, Washington and Israel both endorse an Oslo type agreement, a shameless betrayal amounting to another Palestinian Versailles, benefitting Israel, not them, what no legitimate Palestinian leader will accept.

On May 19, Times writer Cooper headlined, "Obama and Netanyahu, Distrustful Allies, Meet," saying:

Ahead of their meeting, both "men are facing a turning point in a relationship that has never been warm. By all accounts, they do not trust each other." Obama told aides he doesn't think Netanyahu will yield enough for peace. "For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained that Mr. Obama has pushed Israel too far...."

In fact, under present and past leaders, both countries abhore peace. For example, in the 1980s, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir admitted that Israel's 1982 Lebanon war was waged because of "a terrible danger....not so much a military one as a political one."

So a pretext was created for war like Washington's done repeatedly since WW II, pursuing its permanent war agenda against one country, then others without letup to satisfy its imperial/military-industrial complex appetites.

On May 19, Times writer Ethan Bronner headlined, "Netanyahu Reponds Icily to Obama's Remarks," saying:

He responded "testily" to Obama's endorsing a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, in contrast to Haaretz saying he "granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory" by leaving undefined the size or locations of a Palestinian state. It also quoted Netanyahu saying:

"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," adding that he expects him to refrain from demanding Israel withdraw to "indefensible (1967 borders) which will leave a large population of Israel in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."

He did, in fact, at AIPAC's annual conference, showing that those calling his position radical are wrong. They misstate unchanged Washington policy, affirming rock-solid support for Israel, agreeing on all core issues.

Moreover, key Israel/Palestinian ones remain to be negotiated, no matter that Washington and Israel spurn diplomacy and concessions over major ones, including the inviolable right of return and Jerusalem as Palestine's capital. It's why decades of peace talks were stillborn and remain so, regardless of political rhetoric, urging their resumption.

On May 20, Times writer Steven Myers headlined, "Divisions Are Clear as Obama and Netanyahu Discuss Peace," saying:

"Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel would not accept a return to the (pre-1967) boundaries....calling them indefensible." In fact, Obama doesn't want Israel to relinquish its settlements, home to about 500,000 West Bank and East Jerusalem Jews.

Moreover, on February 18, Washington vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. The vote was 14 yes, America the sole no, isolating the US and Israel on this long festering issue. The measure had 120 co-sponsors, an overwhelming endorsement for what Obama rejects.

Nonetheless, headlines keep suggesting a growing rift, including from Haaretz writers Natasha Mozgovaya and Barak Ravid's May 22 article headlined, "Obama to address AIPAC in wake of tense meeting with Netanyahu at White House," saying:

"Senior officials (from both countries) expressed a sense of great tension and profound mutual insult following the meeting." At AIPAC, Obama "is expected to try to stave off further deterioration in US-Israeli relations."

In fact, Netanyahu "left the (White House) more satisfied than he went in" after Obama pledged America's longstanding rock solid support, leaving Palestinians out of their equation entirely.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by TL Winslow
Entered on:

No, U.S.-Israeli relations aren't rock solid. They're the worst ever, thanks to Pres. Obama, who clings to the fantasies that there are a "Palestinian" people, that Israelis are persecuting them, and that they deserve their own permanent state on Israeli land, which rightly stretches from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Why did Obama insist on saying that Israel should be able to defend itself, BY ITSELF? Maybe he's thinking of having the U.S. support the other side?

Instead of his recent lame proposal, Obama should be pushing Jordan, Syria, Egypt et al. to resettle these phony Muslim Arabs far away from Israel and leave it alone. Clearly, his Saudi puppetmasters want to get the U.S. to force Israel into relinquishing its territorial gains won in war in order to win the past three wars for Islam instead without firing a shot, resetting the calendar preparatory to the final attack, probably long after Obama leaves office, in which the outnumbered surrounded abandoned Israelis are exterminated like cockroaches while the Saudi-greased world looks the other way. Not over my dead body.

We should know after all these decades and in the era of Palestinian rockets not to mention Iranian nukes that a secure safe Israel is only possible after its territory is greatly enlarged and cleared of Muslim Arabs, who are all potential enemy combatants. According to Wiki, there are 3.8 million Palestinians, give or take a few non-Muslim ones. Let's say the Saudis pay $10K a head to resettle them. That comes to $38 billion, about the amount they spend on gambling and hos in Monte Carlo and propaganda money for journalists like Lendme Your Ears.

So why why why don't they? Answer: ISLAM, the world's most intolerant and supremacist ideology, whose god Allah declares that the entire world is his mosque, and any land conquered in his name is his forever, while all Muslims are expendable cannon fodder to get it back.

Too bad that Lendman is in Saudi-greased lalaland. You can't believe anything he says, because he won't tell us who pays him to say it.

Yes, to Allah Muslims are nothing but his cannon fodder. Islam is about darkness and elimination of freedom. Christianity is about light and increase of freedom. No matter how bad you think Islam is, believe me, it's far worse. See this lecture by an ex-Muslim who knows both sides intimately:

Scope Israel's history free with the Historyscoper and see why Jews not Arabs have all the historical rights to a state there, and this is regardless of the Jewish holy books and in spite of the Muslim ones:

Fly with the eagles by reading the Historyscoper's Islam Watch Blog daily:

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: