No American president ever had so strained a relationship with Israel as Barack Obama. As Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said in 2010, “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions.” Author and scholar Dennis Prager concurred, “Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory.” In the spring of 2011, David Parsons, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, said: “There’s a traditional, special relationship between America and Israel that Obama is basically throwing out the window in a sense.” David Rubin, a U.S.-born Israeli author and expert on the Middle East, put it this way: “President Obama is very harmful for Israel and very dangerous for the future of Judeo-Christian civilization.” The author and economist Thomas Sowell asserted that Obama’s relationship with Israel had been consistent with the president’s pattern of “selling out our allies to curry favor with our adversaries.” Political analyst Charles Krauthammer observed that Obama had “undermined” Israel as a result of either his “genuine antipathy” toward the Jewish state or “the arrogance of a blundering amateur.” In October 2012, Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international outreach branch, said that Obama had “not been a friend of Israel,” and that the President’s policies had been “catastrophic.”
Meanwhile, the Israeli populace remained jittery. According to a 2010 poll commissioned by The Jerusalem Post, only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that the Obama administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian.
What was the root of these deep concerns about President Obama’s relationship with Israel and his commitment to protecting the Jewish state’s welfare? These questions are explored and answered in this report, which lays out Obama’s words, actions, and key affiliations vis à vis Israel not only during his time in the White House, but during the two decades preceding his presidency as well.
Obama’s longtime association with the anti-Semitic Jeremiah Wright:
For nearly two decades, Barack Obama was a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright‘s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor,” his “mentor,” and “one of the greatest preachers in America.” Moreover, Obama contributed large sums of money to Wright’s church, and he chose Wright to perform his wedding ceremony and to baptize his two young daughters.
Wright has long been a vocal critic of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for inflicting “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinian people. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of “white racism.” Likening Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct any business in, or with, Israel. He has referred to Israel as a “dirty word,” asserting that “ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity.”
At a May 18, 2009 anti-Israel rally in a Chicago suburb, Wright and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers jointly addressed a crowd of more than 400 people just prior to participating in an annual walk designed to call attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Asked by an interviewer in June 2009 whether he had spoken to President Obama since the latter had taken his oath of office five months earlier, Wright replied: “Them Jews aren’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me…. They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is…. I said from the beginning: He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.”
Wright went on to condemn Israel, saying: “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s [supposedly] anti-Israel.”
On December 4, 2007, Wright was named as a member of the Obama presidential campaign’s newly created African American Religious Leadership Committee. But Wright was compelled to step down from the Committee three months later, after videotapes of his many hate-filled sermons ignited fierce public debate and criticism. For further information about Wright and his anti-Semitism, click here.
Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi and the the Arab American Action Network:
During his Illinois state senate years in the mid- to late 1990s, Barack Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, where he became friendly with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home.
Characterizing Israel as a “racist” state and “basically an apartheid system in creation,” Khalidi during the 1980s so strongly identified with the aims of Yasser Arafat‘s PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department at the time, that he repeatedly referred to himself as “we” when expounding on the PLO’s agenda. In the early 1990s, Khalidi was involved with the PLO’s so-called “guidance committee.” In 1995 Khalidi and his wife Mona founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), noted for its contention that Israel’s creation in 1948 was a “catastrophe” for Arab people. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, with Obama serving on its board, made grants totaling $75,000 to the AAAN.
In 2003 Obama attended a farewell party in Khalidi’s honor when the latter was preparing to leave Chicago to embark on a new position at Columbia University. At this event, Obama paid public tribute to Khalidi as someone whose insights had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.” Khalidi later told the largely pro-Palestinian attendees that Obama deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat, stating: “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.”
Obama’s ties to Ali Abunimah, former vice president of the Arab American Action Network:
Onetime AAAN vice president Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada (a website that, like AAAN, refers to Israel’s creation as a “catastrophe”) told interviewer Amy Goodman in 2008: “I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator — when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”
In June 2007 Abunimah recalled: “When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel’s security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the ‘Israeli-Palestinian’ situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: ‘The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace,’ Obama was quoted as saying.”
Also in 2007, Abunimah said: “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribunecritical of Israeli and U.S. policy, ‘Keep up the good work!’”
Candidate Obama publicly criticizes Israel’s conservative Likud Party:
In February 2008, then-U.S. Senator (and presidential candidate) Barack Obama told an audience in Cleveland: “There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you’re anti-Israel.” When Obama made that assertion, Likud had already been out of power for two years, and the country was being led by the centrist Kadima government (of Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres) which had been pursuing territorial compromise of unprecedented magnitude. Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal points out: “It was under Likud that Israel made its largest territorial compromises—withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza.”
Candidate Obama’s reluctance to publicly refer to terrorism against Israel:
When running for President, then-Senator Obama referred, in his July 2008 speech in Berlin, to the need to “dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.” He made no mention of Israel.
President-elect Obama chooses the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group to recite a prayer during his January 2009 inauguration:
Obama selected Ingrid Mattson — then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had previously been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-funding case — to recite a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies in January 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological forebear of both Hamas and al Qaeda, openly promotes the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate and is bitterly hostile towards Israel. Not only did Obama fail to ask Mattson to explain ISNA’s links to the Brotherhood and Hamas, but he sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention later that year.
President Obama’s first call to a foreign leader was to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas:
Two days after his inauguration, President Obama placed his first phone call to a foreign leader — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas had repeatedly emphasized the importance of “implementing the principles of Yasser Arafat,” the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolf Hitler; he had praised the terrorist group Hezbollah as a shining example of “Arab resistance” against alleged Israeli oppression; he had lauded Palestinian terrorists as “strugglers” and “martyrs” whom “Allah loves”; he had steadfastly refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist; he was the head of the Fatah Party, a movement whose Charter continued to advocate terrorism against, and the annihilation of, Israel; he had authorized lump-sum payments of $2,200 apiece to the surviving family members of Palestinian shahids (martyrs) — including suicide bombers; and he had exhorted Palestinians to “unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the Intifada.”
Obama’s ties to the International Crisis Group, and their implications for Israel:
Barack Obama has long had a high regard for the political acumen of Robert Malley, Mideast Director of the International Crisis Group (ICG). Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In 2007 Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer, became a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. But in mid-2008, the Obama campaign was forced — out of political necessity — to sever its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that he had secretly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.
Notwithstanding Malley’s fall from grace, Obama’s foreign policies have been, from the outset of his presidency, very much aligned with the recommendations of Malley and the ICG. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network, where he stated: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and to negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran — even as as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
Obama’s ties to J Street:
President Obama has also demonstrated an ideological compatibility with J Street, an organization which believes that peace between Arabs and Israelis depends wholly upon the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own”—where Palestine and Israel exist “side-by-side in peace and security.” Toward this end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” “multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution,” and “dialogue over confrontation.” Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.” In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”
The foregoing J Street positions are largely indistinguishable from those of President Obama, who likewise favors a two-state solution whereby Israel and “a sovereign Palestine” would live “side by side—in peace.” To achieve such a resolution, he says, initiatives to construct additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank “have to be stopped.” In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street’s agendas when he sent national-security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.
Obama appoints a DHS official with ties to Islamic extremists:
In April 2009, President Obama appointed Los Angeles deputy mayor Arif Alikhan as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security. Two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihadist terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”) had participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which, like ISNA, is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Alikhan had previously served as deputy mayor of homeland security and public safety for the City of Los Angeles. There, he was responsible for derailing the LAPD‘s efforts to monitor activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) were known to exist, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.
Obama appoints a pro-Sharia adviser:
Also during the early part of his presidency, Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed— a pro-Sharia Muslim — as his chief adviser on Islamic affairs.
According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, in 2007 Mogahed “appeared to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a peaceful alternative to jihadists.”
In a 2007 interview, Mogahed was asked to comment on the harsh punishments (like stonings, canings, and dismemberment) associated with Sharia Law. She replied that Muslims generally tend to view Sharia as a framework for achieving “a more just society,” “protection of human rights,” and “rule of law.”
Mogahed has consistently defended radical Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, both of which have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. At the Religion Newswriters Association’s annual conference in Washington, DC in September 2008, she stated that it would be unfair for those groups to be “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” about their affiliations to Islamic radicals. “[T]here is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution-building among Muslims,” said Mogahed. “And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it’s kind of a witch hunt.”
Together with such luminaries as Feisal Abdul Rauf, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and diplomat Dennis Ross, Mogahed was a leading voice in the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement, which in September 2008 had issued a 154-page recommendation paper — a number of whose suggestions (on how to improve America’s relationship with Muslims globally) were eventually adopted by the Obama administration. The paper specifically called on the U.S. to engage opposition parties (including the Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt, and to use intermediaries to engage Hamas — in hopes of moderating the terror group.
In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by ShariaLaw. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions. Instead she stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,” and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associated Islamic Law with “gender justice.” “I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media,” she said.
Obama goes to Cairo to address the Muslim world:
On June 4, 2009, President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt to deliver a much-anticipated address to the Muslim world. During the weeks prior to the speech, he made sure to invite Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend. During the speech itself, the President stated that “anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.” But he made no mention of the Arab anti-Semitism of the World War II era (and beyond), even though he was speaking in the very country that had made a national hero of Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin as Hitler’s guest, helping the fuehrer facilitate the Final Solution. Nor did Obama once mention the word “terrorism.”
Drawing a moral equivalence between the historical experiences of the Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs, Obama said: “The Jewish people were persecuted.… [A]nti-Semitism … culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…. Six million Jews were killed…. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
Obama also made reference to the “pain” of the “dislocation” experienced by some 600,000 Arabs during the 1948 war — a war that began when five Arab armies united to attack Israel in an effort to destroy the nascent Jewish state on the very day of its birth. But he said nothing of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly expelled from regions all over the Arab Middle East, where they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds, even thousands, of years.
“There has been a stalemate,” Obama elaborated. “Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history…. It’s easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks.”
Obama said of the Palestinians: “They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”
Professor and Hudson Institute fellow Anne Bayefsky observed: “Calling the Israeli-Arab conflict a ‘stalemate’ represents an abysmal failure to acknowledge historical reality. The modern state of Israel emerged after an internationally approved partition plan of November 1947 that would have created two states, one Jewish and one Arab; this plan was accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. One people has always been prepared to live in peace, and the other has chosen war in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and 1973 and 1982, and renewed terrorism after its every loss.”
Added Bayefsky: “Obama [in the Cairo speech] analogized Palestinian ‘daily humiliations …that come with occupation’ to the ‘humiliation of segregation’ of black slaves in America and the ‘moral authority’ of ‘people from South Africa.’ His Arab audience understood that the president of the United States had just given a nod to the single most potent defamation of the Jewish state today — the allegation that Israel is a racist, apartheid state.”
Obama urges Jewish leaders to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel:
In July 2009, President Obama hosted American Jewish leaders at the White House and informed them that he sought to put “daylight” between America and Israel. “For eight years [i.e., during the Bush administration], there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished,” Obama said. In that same meeting, the President told those in attendance that Israel would need “to engage in serious self-reflection.”
Obama says he will “absolutely not” give permission for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities:
In July 2009, Obama told CNN that he would “absolutely not” give Israel permission to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Obama’s first address to the UN General Assembly:
In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, President Obama devoted five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his remarks, Obama boasted that under his administration, the U.S. had already joined the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). He did not mention that, as of that point in time, the UNHRC had adopted more resolutions and decisions against Israel than against all the other 191 UN member states combined. Moreover, many of those member states are themselves notorious human rights abusers.
Regarding the Mideast conflict, the President drew a moral equivalence between the suffering of the Israelis and of the Palestinians. Most notably, he rejected the legitimacy of Israeli “settlements” and he referred to Israel as an “occup[ier]” of Palestinian territory:
Obama laments that Israel has been unwilling to make any “bold gestures” for peace:
In a January 2010 interview, President Obama said — despite Israel’s acceptance-in-principle of a Palestinian state, its readiness to negotiate, and its commitment to an unprecedented ten-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria — that Israel theretofore had made no “bold gestures” for peace.
Obama opposes Israel’s plan to build houses in a settlement near Jerusalem:
In November 2009, President Obama expressed displeasure over Israel’s approval of a plan to build 900 new homes in Gilo, a settlement of 40,000 Israelis situated in a part of the West Bank that Israel had captured in 1967 and annexed to Jerusalem. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to limit new construction in West Bank settlements, he stated that the Jerusalem municipality would be excluded from any settlement limits sought by Washington. Said Obama: “I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.”
The Obama administration again criticizes Israeli settlements:
During Vice President Joe Biden‘s visit to Israel in March 2010, a Jerusalem municipal office announced plans to build some 1,600 housing units for Jews in a section of that city. In response, Biden reportedly told Prime Minister Netanyahu: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.” The Wall Street Journal describes what happened next:
“The president launched an unprecedented weeks-long offensive against Israel. Mr. Biden very publicly departed Israel.
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a now-infamous 45-minute phone call, telling him that Israel had ‘harmed the bilateral relationship.’ (The State Department triumphantly shared details of the call with the press.) The Israeli ambassador was dressed-down at the State Department, Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy canceled his trip to Israel, and the U.S. joined the European condemnation of Israel.
“Moments after Mr. Biden concluded his visit to the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority held a ceremony to honor Dalal Mughrabi, who led one of the deadliest Palestinian terror attacks in history: the so-called Coastal Road Massacre that killed 38, including 13 children and an American. The Obama administration was silent. But that same day, on ABC, [Obama adviser David] Axelrod called Israel’s planned construction of apartments in its own capital an ‘insult’ and an ‘affront’ to the United States. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went on Fox News to accuse Mr. Netanyahu of ‘weakening trust’ between the two countries.
“Ten days later, Mr. Netanyahu traveled to Washington to mend fences but was snubbed at a White House meeting with President Obama—no photo op, no joint statement, and he was sent out through a side door.”
Washington Post columnist and Middl East expert Jackson Diehl wrote that “Netanyahu is being treated [by Obama] as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator.”
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, received “the same message of American disapproval and outrage” from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—it being clear by now that the anger was being “managed” from the top, that is, by President Obama himself. Ambassador Oren called the incident “the worst [for Israel] with the U.S. in 35 years.”
It should be noted that, contrary to the Obama administration’s insistence that Israel was jeopardizing peace by encroaching on negotiable terrain, the construction site in Jerusalem was anything but disputed territory. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and the construction site was in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood where housing construction had been underway since the early 1990s. By its insistence that Israel cease all building in East Jerusalem, it was the Obama administration, and not Israel, that was breaking with precedent.
Obama refuses to intervene in an Israeli dispute with Turkey and Egypt:
In April 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu withdrew from an Obama-sponsored Washington summit on nuclear proliferation after it became apparent that Turkey and Egypt intended to use the occasion to denounce Israel’s nuclear program; Obama chose not to intervene in this dispute.
Obama chooses not to explicitly make reference to an act of murderous Islamic terrorism against an American:
In May 2010, when President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter, had been beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew. Nor did the President mention that Pearl, in the video recorded of his gruesome murder, had been forced to state specifically that he was an American Jew. Instead, Obama euphemistically referred only to Pearl’s “loss.”
The Obama administration’s response to Israel’s interception of a terrorist-laden flotilla headed for Gaza:
In early 2010, a Turkish organization known as the IHH — which has known ties to Hamas, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood — collaborated with the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) to organize a six-ship flotilla of Muslim and anti-Israel activists who would sail (from various points in the Mediterranean region) to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel’s naval blockade (which had been established to prevent Hamas from importing weaponry from Iran and other allies abroad).
IHH owned and operated the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla’s lead ship. The flotilla embarked on its journey toward Gaza in late May of 2010. For several days, Israel issued warnings that the ships would not be permitted to dock in Gaza without first submitting to an inspection of their cargoes. But the crews of the vessels refused to comply; thus Israeli commandos intercepted the flotilla in the early morning hours of May 31. The IHH-affiliated activists responded violently, attacking the commandos with knives, clubs and pistol fire. In the melee that ensued, nine activists were killed and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded. (For comprehensive details pertaining to FGM’s agendas and the flotilla incident, click here.)
In the wake of the flotilla incident, MSNBC reported that the Obama administration “wants to see a new approach that would allow more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area while guaranteeing Israel’s security”; that there was “a growing consensus within the administration that U.S. and Israeli policy toward Gaza must change”; that “White House officials said they had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to use ‘caution and restraint’ before the raid on the aid convoy”; that Vice President Joe Biden was in favor of putting “as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow [the Palestinians] to get building materials and other designated humanitarian aid into Gaza”; and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a Security Council statement condemning the “acts” that had cost the lives of the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
In remarks he subsequently made during a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama urged Israel to put a stop to its settlement activity and called on the Palestinians to avoid inciting further confrontation. He also called on Israel to reassess its blockade on Gaza, adding that “the way to solve this problem” would, by necessity, involve the “creation of the Palestinian state.”
$400 Million in aid for Palestinians:
In an effort to contain the political fallout from the Mavi Marmara incident (see above), in June 2010 President Obama offered to send an extra $400 million in “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. (This was to be above and beyond the $600+ million in aid which the U.S. was already sending to the Palestinian Authority each year.) In remarks he made during a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama urged Israel to put a stop to its settlement activity and called on the Palestinians to avoid inciting further confrontation. He also called on Israel to reassess its blockade on Gaza, while conceding that “[t]here should be means by which we will be able to stop flow of arms that endanger Israel’s security.” Added Obama: “If we can get a new conceptual framework, we should be able to take what is a tragedy [the recent flotilla incident] and create an opportunity so the lives of people of Gaza are improved. But in the long run, the way to solve this problem is creation of the Palestinian state and ensuring Israel’s security.”
The Obama administration allows the Palestinian flag to fly at the PLO office in DC:
On July 25, 2010, JTA News reported that “[t]he Obama administration will allow the PLO office in Washington to fly the Palestinian flag and assume the title of ‘delegation’”; that this decision had “symbolic value” but had “no meaning under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”; and that the White House “suggested the [measure] would help spur the Palestinians toward direct peace talks with Israel.”
A stark contrast between Obama’s holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims:
In his Rosh Hashanah message in 2010, President Obama only once referred to “Jews”; made no reference at all to “Judaism’; promoted the creation of a Palestinian state; and never mentioned the monumental contributions Jews had made to the United States.
By contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to “Muslims” six times and to “Islam” twice; he stated that “American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country”; and he praised “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings … a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.” Moreover, the President made no reference to what Muslims might need to do differently in order to achieve peace with Israel.
Obama criticizes Israeli settlements yet again:
On November 9, 2010, The New York Times issued the following report regarding the increasingly strained relations between the U.S. and Israel: “President Obama’s criticism of new Israeli housing plans for East Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s even sharper retort, have thrown the Middle East peace talks into jeopardy, with the dispute over Jewish settlements looming as a seemingly insuperable hurdle…. [T]he brusque exchange between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu reflected again the gulf between Israel and the United States over settlements — an issue Mr. Obama initially made the centerpiece of his Middle East diplomacy…. When asked about Israel’s plans for 1,000 housing units [in] a contested part of East Jerusalem, Mr. Obama said, ‘This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.’ … A few hours later, Mr. Netanyahu’s office responded with a statement, saying that ‘Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.’”
Obama and the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt:
In early 2011, as masses of Egyptian protesters forced their longtime president Hosni Mubarak to step down from power, Barack Obama declared that all opposition groups in Egypt should have some representation in the country’s next government. He made no mention of the fact that such a development would essentially ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood — Egypt’s largest opposition group — would be in a position to steer the new regime toward adopting Sharia Law and increasing its hostility toward the U.S. and Israel.
Throughout the weeks of Egyptian rioting, the Obama administration repeatedly shifted its posture, initially expressing confidence in Mubarak’s government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid to that regime, and finally pressing Mubarak to loosen his grip on power. “We want to see free, fair and credible elections,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on February 2. “The sooner that can happen, the better.”
Obama and his administration took the foregoing positions even though the Muslim Brotherhood had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel; even though the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, had stated that his organization would never recognize Israel’s legitimate right to exist; and even though Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, had told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel.”
On February 3, 2011, Israeli lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently had been a cabinet minister, criticized President Obama for having called on Mubarak to allow open elections in Egypt, a prospect that undoubtedly would spell the end of Mubarak’s long reign — a reign which, despite all its faults, was reliably pro-West and reasonably friendly toward Israel. Stating that Obama was repeating the mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East had backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power, Ben-Eliezer said: “I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into. If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament. It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam.”
Three decades earlier, President Jimmy Carter had urged another staunch American ally — the Shah of Iran — to loosen his own grip on power, only to see the Shah’s autocratic regime replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini‘s Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections had strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and anti-American radicals in Iran. “Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran,’” analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz. “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu similarly warned that “if extremist forces [in Egypt] are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals — as has happened in Iran and elsewhere — the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy.”
In June 2012, the high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi won the first free presidential election in Egyptian history. After being sworn into office on June 30, he announced that Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel would eventually have to be “revise[d].”
Obama expresses his belief that the Palestinians sincerely want peace with Israel:
In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders, Obama contended — against all historical evidence — that “Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement.” Meanwhile, he asked his Jewish interlocutors to “speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace … Israelis think this peace process is overrated.”
Implying that Jerusalem is not part of Israel:
In May 2011, the Obama State Department issued a press release declaring that its No. 2 official, James Steinberg, would be visiting “Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank” — thereby implying that Jerusalem was not part of Israel.
Obama calls for an Arab-Israeli land swap based on pre-1967 borders:
On May 19, 2011 — just a few hours before Prime Minister Netanyahu flew from Israel to Washington — President Obama delivered his “Arab Spring” speech at the State Department. After saying that “Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist,” he called for the establishment of a Palestinian state — even though neither Hamas nor Fatah had ever acknowledged Israel’s right to exist; nor did Obama make such an acknowledgment a precondition of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Obama also urged Israel to understand that it would never be able to achieve genuine peace if it persisted in seeking “permanent occupation.”
In issuing his call for the existence of “two states,” Obama said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He was referring to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
Obama was not calling for a return to the 1967 borders per se; rather, he advocated the creation of a “sovereign and contiguous state” for the Palestinian Arabs — not precisely along the 1967 lines, but along new borders “based on” those lines. But as Islam scholar Robert Spencer pointed out:
“There were … no 1967 lines in which Palestinian Arab territory was contiguous. For the territory of Palestine to be contiguous, that of Israel will have to be substantially reduced. Israel’s 1967 borders were indefensible, and Obama is calling for Israel to be reduced even further so that a contiguous Palestinian state can be established.
“What’s more, Obama specified that the new Palestinian state should have ‘borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,’ while Israel should have ‘borders with Palestine.’ The implication was that Israel, in Obama’s vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt — only on ‘Palestine.’ Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt. Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.”
In response to Obama’s speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state based on the borders of 1967 would leave the Jewish state “indefensible.” “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” the Israeli leader said.
Obama Administration Opens Talks with the Muslim Brotherhood
In early July 2011, it was announced that the Obama administration had formalized ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing, for the first time, State Department diplomats to deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo, where the international organization is based.
Obama chooses not to make public reference to terrorism directed against Israel:
In early September 2011, the Obama administration issued talking points for the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In those talking points, the administration referred to terrorism’s many victims around the world, “whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.” Conspicuously absent from the President’s remarks was any mention of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or Sderot, which had been hit by Islamist terrorists innumerable times.
Moral equivalence regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict:
On November 2, 2011, the Obama administration sharply criticized Israel’s decision to accelerate construction of Israeli housing in various communities in and around Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank. The apartments that PM Benjamin Netanyahu sought to build would not be on Palestinian land, but rather in suburbs or even neighborhoods of Jerusalem, none of which were on the agenda for land swaps in a peace agreement.
The administration also had some harsh words about Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmud Abbas’ renewal of efforts to wrest recognition for his “Palestinian State” from the UN Security Council, in which endeavor he may have made some progress with UNESCO’s October vote to accept “Palestine” as a member. It is important to recall that Mr. Abbas’ maneuvers in the UN were actually part of the PA’s political and propaganda war against Israel, which, as Abbas had told the world back in May 2011, would not stop once the UN recognized the state of “Palestine,” but rather would be ratcheted up for a more effective assault against Israel.
Yet the White House and State Department used identical language to express the President’s disappointment with both Netanyahu and Abbas. The State Department spokesperson went on to chastise Netanyahu for Israel’s temporary suspension of the transfer of millions of tax dollars that Israel collects on behalf of the PA.
By using the same language for both Israel’s housing construction and Abbas’ diplomatic saber rattling, Obama created a moral equivalence between Israel’s efforts to accommodate its own population growth, and the PA’s efforts to ultimately destroy that population. Further, by demanding that Israel continue to lavish the PA with millions of dollars, the State Department was promoting the absurd notion that the PA leadership and its partners (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) would use that money for state-building and economic development.
Israel scholar David Meir-Levi placed the Obama administration’s positions in context:
“Dozens of Arab terrorist organizations, includingHamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP, the PFLP-GC, Fatah, the PLO, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Ansar al-Islam, Jayyish Allah, Sayyif al-Jihad, al-Jama’a al-Islamiyeh, el-Qaeda and others, all unabashedly proclaim their intentions to destroy Israel, a close, loyal and strong ally of America. In the context of that commitment to Israel’s destruction, they also emphasize their intention to exile or murder all of Israel’s Jews….
“The endless Arab diatribe of destruction and relentless rhetoric of annihilation (thoroughly documented during decades of Arab hate-speech and hate-preach here and here) have gone on unimpeded and unabashed, broadcast throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world since before the creation of the State of Israel. And Arab deeds have matched their words for almost seventy-five years, with equally relentless terrorism punctuated by full-scale wars when Arab leaders thought they would easily win.
“Countless times, Arab confrontation states and their terrorist proxies have violated international law, the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, with terror attacks on Israeli women and children, mistreatment, torture and slaughter of Israeli prisoners, and incitement to genocide.
“On the other hand, every action by Israel to seek a peaceful resolution, thirty one attempts since 1937, has been rebuffed by the Arab side with war or terrorism or vociferous threats of the same….
“One should not have much trouble recognizing the moral differences between the two parties in the Arab-Israel conflict. But our State Department wants Israel to provide the PA with millions of dollars, even as the PA continues its incitement and rejects every invitation to negotiate a peaceful settlement, even as the PA’s partner, Hamas, continues shooting qassam rockets into Israeli schools, synagogues, busses and homes.”
(This section above is adapted from: “Obama Continues His War on Israel,” by David Meir-Levi (November 7, 2011).
Obama is caught on live microphone, blasting Israeli PM Netanyahu:
On November 3, 2011, President Obama conducted what he thought was a private conversation about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the aftermath of a G20 summit. However, the microphones which the two men were wearing from their earlier press conference had not been turned off. What ensued was a major public embarrassment after both Obama and Sarkozy disparaged Netanyahu. In the exchange, Sarkozy told Obama: “I cannot stand him [Netanyahu]. He is a liar.” Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
Obama administration reveals Israel’s secret relationship with Azerbaijan:
In March 2012, Foreign Policy magazine reported that “several high-level sources” in the Obama administration had made public information regarding Israel’s secret relationship with Azerbaijan, where Israeli planes would be able to refuel on their way to or from an air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Those Obama sources revealed this information because the administration feared “the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran” and thus sought to undermine such a measure. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell puts it, “This leak was one of the historic and unconscionable betrayals of an ally whose very existence is threatened.”
Obama Overrides Congress to Fund the Palestinian Authority:
On April 28, 2012, Andrew McCarthy reported that President Obama had decided to waive the Palestinian Accountability Act’s freeze on U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA). That freeze had been imposed after PA president Mahmoud Abbas attempted, in September 2011, to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood — in violation of the PA’s treaty commitments. This move by Obama would provide $192 million to the PA. Wrote McCarthy:
“White House spinmeister Tommy Vietor stated that President Obama made the decision to pour American taxpayer dollars into Palestinian coffers in order to ensure ‘the continued viability of the moderate PA government.’ He added the claim that, as the report puts it, ‘the PA had fulfilled all its major obligations, such as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting the Road Map for Peace.’
“In the real world, the very immoderate PA has reneged on all its commitments. In addition to violating its obligations by unilaterally declaring statehood, the PA has also agreed to form a unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization that is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The PA continues to endorse terrorism against Israel as ‘resistance.’ Moreover, the PA most certainly does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Back in November, for example, Adil Sadeq, a PA official writing in the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, declared that … ‘this state [Israel], based on a fabricated [Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist…’”
State Department official refuses to identify Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel:
In June 2012, Obama State Department official Victoria Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem, which had been the capital of Israel since 1967, was even a part of Israel. When asked whether it was “the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel,” she replied: “You know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed …. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.”
A follow-up question was: “Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy — the location of the U.S. embassy?” Nuland replied: “We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.”
As journalist Ben Shapiro observed at the time:
“[This] position actually undercuts Israel’s ability to negotiate. Land-for-peace negotiations have been a dismal failure — the last twenty years have proved that the Oslo strategy of appeasement was destined for disaster from the start. But if land-for-peace were going to work, as Los Angeles Jewish Journal publisher David Suissa has pointed out, the Arabs would have to see Israel as making valuable concessions, not disowning territory to which they never had a right….
“Leaving aside the practicalities of why the United States should acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is the moral imperative here. Israel’s legitimacy did not spring from a UN resolution (rejected by the Arabs, accepted by the Jews); it did not come from the British Mandate (which allowed settlements throughout Israel, Judea and Samaria, and even Jordan). It came from the Jews’ eternal ties to the land of Israel. If Jerusalem is not a part of Israel, neither is Haifa or Tel Aviv.
“And yet the State Department maintains that Jerusalem isn’t a part of Israel. Which means that, effectively speaking, Israel has no claim to any part of the land. If Israel is a creation of the UN, it can be uncreated; if Israel is a holdover of colonial British administration, the left’s hatred of colonialism demands Israel’s extermination.
“President Obama seems to buy into this. That’s why in Cairo, he suggested that Israel had been created because of the Holocaust — a leftist and Arabist conceit that implies that Israel’s creation is artificial, a pity party for the Jews.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney likewise refuses to identify Jerusalem as the undispiuted capital of Israel:
At a July 26, 2012 press briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney refused to state directly which city is the capital of Israel. In response to a female reporter’s question asking whether the Obama administration considered Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to be Israel’s capital, Carney replied, haltingly: “I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed.” The reporter then repeated, “What’s the capital?” Carney responded, “You know our position.” The exchange grew more tense when World Net Daily’s Lester Kinsolving, who was also in attendance, interjected: “She doesn’t know, that’s why she asked…she does not know, she just said she doesn’t know — I don’t know! … Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? … Could you just give us an answer …?” Carney, however, would not elaborate any further. “You know the answer … Our position hasn’t changed,” he repeated again. For video of this exchange, click here.
Pro-Israel language is removed from the Democratic Party platform:
On September 4, 2012, FreeBeacon.com reported the following:
Several pro-Israel sections of the 2008 Democratic Party platform have been removed from the 2012 platform—on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and Hamas. The new platform represents another shift by the Obama Democrats toward the Palestinian position on key issues in the peace process.
For Jerusalem, the new platform has been brought into line with the Obama administration’s policy of not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and supporting its division. Jerusalem is unmentioned in the 2012 document, whereas the 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms declared “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel…It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” The Obama administration’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem has been a point of significant controversy in recent months.
On the issue of Palestinian refugees, the new document has removed language from the 2004 and 2008 platforms specifying that Palestinian “refugees” should be settled in a future Palestinian state, not in Israel.
The 2004 platform: “The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.”
The 2008 platform: The peace process “should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.”
The 2012 platform contains no language on the matter.
Previously, Obama has incorporated the Palestinian positions on Jerusalem and borders into his administration’s policies. It appears that with his party’s new platform, he is also doing so with refugees.
Gone as well is the language from 2008 on the terrorist group Hamas, which currently controls the Gaza Strip. That platform declared, “The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”
The 2012 platform contains no mention of Hamas.
Previous platforms also contained promises to maintain Israel’s “qualitative military edge” in the region. The 2008 platform, for example, spoke of a “commitment which requires us to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative edge for its national security and its right to self-defense.” The 2012 platform mentions only that “[t]he administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region,” with no commitment to doing so in the future.
Democrats reinstate mentions of Israel and God in party platform, after public outcry:
On September 5, 2012, following much public criticism of the fact that the Democratic Party platform had failed to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Democrats amended the platform to restore the reference to Jerusalem. Party delegates meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, approved the amendment after three voice votes and over the objections of many people on the convention floor. The passage of the amendments required a two-thirds majority. But each of the three voice votes seemed to indicate that the two sides were about evenly split, perhaps even that those opposed to the amendment outnumbered those in favor. The lack of a clear two-thirds majority was what caused the Democratic Convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to call for the second and third voice votes. In each instance, it was clear that a two-thirds majority did not exist. Nonetheless, following the third voice vote Villaraigosa announced that the amendment had been passed. (Click here for video of the vote.)
Obama administration refuses to draw “red line” on Iran:
In response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement that the U.S. would set no deadlines for negotiations with the Iranian government regarding its nuclear ambitions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the following on September 11, 2012: “The world tells Israel: ‘Wait. There’s still time.’ And I say: ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
Obama says he will not meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York:
On September 11, 2012 (as Israel’s concern over Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities had reached new heights), the White House announced that President Obama would not be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter’s visit to New York later in the month for the UN General Assembly session. According to an official in Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s office had sent the White House a message stating that the Prime Minister would be willing to travel to the Washington, DC to meet with Obama, so as to accommodate the President’s schedule. However, said the official, the White House had rejected the request and had indicated that Obama’s schedule would not allow for a meeting. On the same day that Obama stated he would not be meeting with Netanyahu, he announced that he would be appearing on the late-night David Letterman Show the following week. Moreover, on the same day that Obama delivered his speech to the UN General Assembly, he appeared on the television program The View (the episode was recorded the previous day).
Obama excludes Israel from counterterrorism group:
On September 20, 2012, Deborah Weiss reported the following in the Washington Times:
Recently, a high-level conference on the Victims of Terrorism was held in Madrid. The sponsoring organization, the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) is the brainchild of the Obama administration and one of its “signature initiatives” on counterterrorism. Its purported purpose is to increase global cooperation in fighting terrorism worldwide. Yet, despite Israel’s interest in joining the alliance, the GCTF, under the leadership of the Obama administration, has excluded Israel from all participation.
The GCTF is intended to “provide a multilateral platform to identify civilian counterterrorism needs, mobilize the necessary expertise and resources to address such needs, and to enhance global cooperation,” according to its website. Its mission is to help countries defend themselves against threats within their borders and to deny terrorist groups new recruits. However, the forum is applying none of this to Israel, America’s closest friend and ally in the fight against terrorism.
Israel fought hard to become involved with the GCTF. Nevertheless, it was precluded from joining as a founding member, and it has been denied the opportunity to attend or participate in any of its three conferences held thus far. Obama administration officials even have omitted Israel from mention during conference speeches when listing countries affected by terrorism. It’s as though Israel is nonexistent….
A glimpse into the forum’s membership might provide insight into the reason for its rejection of Israel. The GCTF is co-chaired by the United States and Turkey. It has 29 members, 11 of them also members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt.
Reports indicate that the United States excluded Israel in capitulation to Turkey, which also recently pushed to keep Israel out of NATO. Apparently, the Obama administration has decided to turn a blind eye to the fact that Turkey supports Hamas, a state-designated terrorist organization that seeks to wipe Israel off the map.
Indeed, the OIC countries are united in their hatred of Israel and share a common vision of a world where Israel does not exist. In fact, all of the countries subscribe to the 1999 OIC Convention on Combating International Terrorism. This document states that armed struggle against “foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” The OIC’s definition of terrorism is aimed at exempting terrorism against Israel and recasting it as “resistance” or “liberation.” Not surprisingly, all member countries support both Hamas and Hezbollah.
The OIC countries are also the reason the United Nations has been unsuccessful in achieving an anti-terrorism convention. The 56 OIC member countries refuse to define terrorism in any way that provides protection to Israel, instead legitimizing terrorism against it….
Israeli Knesset leader criticizes Obama’s “naive leadership”:
After Barack Obama’s November 2012 re-election as U.S. President, Likud Party member Danny Danon, deputy speaker of Israel’s Knesset, said the following: “Obama’s victory demonstrates that the state of Israel must take care of its own interests. We cannot rely on anyone but ourselves. Obama has hurt the United States by his naïve leadership in foreign policy, which prefers the Arab world over the Western world, along with Israel. The state of Israel will not capitulate before Obama. ”
Hamas and Syria Step up Attacks against Israel Shortly after Obama Re-election:
On November 6, 2012, Barack Obama was re-elected as U.S. President. Four days later, Hamas began a new wave of rocket attacks on Israel’s southern cities in a new wave. The day after that, Syria began shelling Israeli positions in the north. And on November 13, the Palestinian Authority announced its plan to make another bid for statehood at the United Nations.
Administration Criticizes Israel’s Dealings with Palestinians:
Speaking at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, DC on December 7, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “… I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.”
Clinton also criticized Israel’s newly announced plan to build 3,000 new housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank: “In light of today’s announcement, let me reiterate that this administration — like previous administrations — has been very clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace.”
Obama Says Israeli Settlement Policies Are Leading Towards “Near-Total Isolation”:
In January 2013, President Obama stated that Israel’s expansion of settlements was driving the Jewish state towards “near-total isolation,” adding: “Israel doesn’t know what its own interests are.”
In response to those remarks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “No one decides for the citizens of Israel. I think that President Obama knows that the ones determining Israel’s vital interests are the citizens of Israel, and they will be the ones to choose who will protect those interests in the best possible way.”
Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas said the following about Obama’s remarks: “Barack Obama said, simply and clearly, what he thinks about Israel’s prime minister and where he is leading Israel. These are grave, alarming statements, which are without precedent.”
Obama Alludes to the “Legitimate Frustration” of Palestinians:
In March 2013, President Obama expressed his personal frustration over the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. According to one source, he said: “The only people more frustrated than me [are the] Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza—it’s a legitimate frustration.”
Obama says Palestinians “deserve a state of their own”:
During his March 2013 visit to Israel, President Obama said: “I’ve been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leadership. We do not consider continued [Israeli] settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace.” He added that the Palestinians deserved an end to Israeli “occupation” and the “daily indignities that come with it.” And he declared that the “Palestinians deserve a state of their own.”
Obama pressures Israel to apologize to Turkey
Before departing Israel for Jordan on the last leg of his March 2013 trip to the Middle East, President Obama arranged for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to submit to Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s demand for an apology regarding the deaths of eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish-American citizen resulting from Israel’s interdiction of the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship that was part of an anti-Israel activist flotilla attempting to break Israel’s lawful naval blockade of Gaza in 2010. Israel also agreed to pay several million dollars in compensation to the victims’ families.
“In light of the Israeli investigation into the incident, which pointed out several operational errors,” said an Israeli government statement issued following the apology, “Prime Minister Netanyahu apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation.” In reality, the violence was instigated entirely by several dozen Turkish jihadis aboard the Mavi Marmara, who refused to allow Israel to inspect their Gaza-bound cargo.
Prime Minister Erdogan accepted the Israeli apology on behalf of the Turkish nation. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Netanyahu’s apology, and his offer of compensation and to further ease restrictions along the Gaza border with Israel, satisfied all of Turkey’s demands. Erdogan himself, in a call to Hamas leader Khaled Mesha’al, reportedly delivered the message that Israel had acceded to his conditions.
But Erdogan did not wait long to draw back from his reciprocal promises to restore normal diplomatic relations and put an end to the legal proceedings against the Israeli soldiers who took part in the 2010 operation (which Ergodan himself helped precipitate) involving the Mavi Mamara. Just a day after receiving Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan told Turkish reporters that it was too early to talk about dropping the Mavi Marmara case against the Israeli soldiers, and that normalizing diplomatic relations would come gradually. “We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If they move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution. Then, there would be an exchange of ambassadors,” Erdogan said.
Moreover, Erdogan failed to offer any apology of his own for his recent speech at a United Nations-sponsored Alliance of Civilizations conference in Vienna, where he equated Zionism with fascism and characterized Jews’ quest for their own nation in their historic homeland as a “crime against humanity.” In fact, just days before Netanyahu’s apology, Erdogan had declared that he stood by his remarks in Vienna, although he claimed they had been misunderstood.
Secret Negotiations with Iran: Israel Is Outraged
In early November 2013, it was reported that the Obama administration had begun softening U.S. sanctions against Iran (vis a vis the latter’s nuclear program) soon after the election, five months earlier, of that country’s new president, Hassan Rouhani. This move set the stage, in turn, for the United States — in conjunction with Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany — to propose a short-term “first step agreement” with Iran at a November meeting in Geneva. The deal, which sought to freeze Iran’s nuclear program for approximately six months in order to create an opportunity for a more comprehensive and lasting bargain to be negotiated, included four key provisions, as outlined by the London Telegraph:
1) Iran would stop enriching uranium to the 20 per cent level that is close to weapons-grade – and turn its existing stockpile of this material into harmless oxide.
2) Iran would continue enrichment to the 3.5 per cent purity needed for nuclear power stations – but agree to limit the number of centrifuges being used for this purpose. There would, however, be no requirement to remove or disable any other centrifuges.
3) Iran would agree not to activate its plutonium reactor at Arak, which could provide another route to a nuclear weapons capability, during the six-month period. Iran may, however, continue working on the facility.
4) Iran would agree not to use its more advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which can enrich uranium between three and five times faster than the older model.
“In return,” said the Telegraph, “America would ease economic sanctions, possibly by releasing some Iranian foreign exchange reserves currently held in frozen accounts. In addition, some restrictions affecting Iran’s petrochemical, motor and precious metals industries could be relaxed.”
On November 8, 2013, the Israeli government, which the Obama administration had not informed of the negotiations, was stunned to learn of the seemingly imminent deal with Iran. According to The DailyBeast.com, news of the agreement led to the canceling of a joint media appearance between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “and prompted, instead, a bitter exchange between them before Kerry headed off to the Swiss city” to take part in the multinational talks.
One Israeli official was quoted saying that “the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering…. Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, outraged at the prospect of this agreement with Iran, said: “I understand that the Iranians are walking around very satisfied in Geneva, as well they should be, because they got everything, and paid nothing, they wanted. They wanted relief from sanctions after years of a gruelling sanctions regime.” Added Netanyhau:
“The deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal–a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”
“Israel utterly rejects it [the deal],” Netanyahu emphasized, “and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly…. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people.”
“Over the weekend I spoke with President Obama, with [Russian] President Putin, with [French] President Hollande, with [German] Chancellor Merkel and with British Prime Minister Cameron. I told them that according to all the information reaching Israel, the impending deal is bad and dangerous.
“It is not only dangerous to us; it is dangerous for them, too. It is dangerous for the peace of the world because in one fell swoop it lowers the pressure of the sanctions which took years to build, and conversely, Iran essentially preserves its nuclear uranium enrichment capabilities as well as the ability to advance on the plutonium enrichment path….
“I asked all the leaders what the rush is. And I suggested that they wait…. It is good that this was ultimately the choice that was made but I am not fooling myself—there is a strong desire to strike a deal….”
A number of days later, the U.S.—along with Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany—resumed negotiations with Iran. And on November 24th an interim agreement was reached, wherein Iran agreed that for six months it would:
In exchange, the U.S. and its bargaining partners assured Iran that for the same six-month period:
But the agreement gave Russia, a staunch ally of Iran, the right to oversee whatever future actions the Western powers might wish to take regarding Iran. Moreover, the deal kept sensitive sites such as the Iranian military base at Parchin, where researchers were busy weaponizing enriched uranium, off-limits to inspectors. And the same immunity from inspections would apply also to any new nuclear sites that Iran might open up subsequent to the signing of the accord.
By John Kerry’s telling: “The deal is the beginning and first step. It leads us into the negotiation—so that we guarantee that while we are negotiating for the dismantling, while we are negotiating for the tougher positions, they will not grow their program and their capacity to threaten Israel. Israel will actually gain a larger breathing space in terms of the breakout capacity of Iran. It’s just clear.”
President Obama was equally optimistic, saying the agreement would ensure that “Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon”—an assertion that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described as “a funny joke.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was deeply disturbed by news of the agreement with Iran. The day after the deal had been finalized, he said: “What was agreed last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”
Netanyahu lamented that for the first time, the world’s leading powers had agreed to permit uranium enrichment in Iran while suspending effective sanctions — in exchange for merely “cosmetic Iranian concessions that are possible to do away with in a matter of weeks.” Declaring, further, that “Iran is committed to Israel’s destruction,” Netanyahu emphasized that his country “has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat,” and thus “is not bound by this agreement.” “It becomes [increasingly] clear,” he added, “how bad and dangerous the agreement is to the world, the region and Israel.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, who likewise condemned the accord, said: “We are in a new reality that is different from yesterday, and it requires us to reevaluate the situation with good judgment, responsibly and with determination. We will do what we must and will not hesitate for a minute—and there is no need to add another word.”
Yet another Israeli official stated that his government was particulary upset by the fact that the U.S. had not even informed Israel that the negotiations were taking place.
Obama Tells Israel to Acept Mahmoud Abbas As Peace Partner
In a February 2014 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama warned that if Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu failed to “make peace” soon with the Palestinians, Israel would be rendered “more isolated internationally.”
Turning a blind eye to every existing piece of polling data about the Palestinians’ opinions regarding Israel’s right to exist, Obama said: “The Palestinians would still prefer peace. They would still prefer a country of their own that allows them to find a job, send their kids to school, travel overseas, go back and forth to work without feeling as if they are restricted or constrained as a people. And they recognize that Israel is not going anywhere…. The voices for peace within the Palestinian community will be stronger with a framework agreement.”
With regard to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama said: “I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue…. You’ve got a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously, who does not engage in some of the wild rhetoric that so often you see in the Arab world when it comes to Israel, who has shown himself committed to maintaining order within the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and to cooperate with Israelis around their security concerns — for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake.”
Suggested that Netanyahu should make a deal as soon as possible, even if he found it emotionally difficult to do, Obama said: “One of the things my mom always used to tell me and I didn’t always observe, but as I get older I agree with — is if there’s something you know you have to do, even if it’s difficult or unpleasant, you might as well just go ahead and do it, because waiting isn’t going to help. When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?”
Added Obama: “if he [Netanyahu] does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”
But in fact, there was no reason to believe that Abbas actually wanted peace. He had consistently characterized Palestinian terrorists as heroes; he continued to spend fortunes on paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists, including many Hamas members who had murdered civilians after peace negotiations began; and he controlled only the West Bank (not the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip), and thus could not promise that Gaza would abide by whatever agreements he himself might negotiate. And, as political analyst John Podhoretz subsequently noted: “In 2008, offered a peace deal by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that involved Abbas actually drawing a new West Bank map giving the Palestinians something between 92 and 95 percent of the territory, Abbas basically fled the table and didn’t return.”
Netanyahu, for his part, subsequently addressed the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the remarks Obama had made:
“I mean, we [Israel] vacated cities in Judea and Samaria. We left entirely Gaza. We’ve not only frozen settlements, we’ve uprooted entire settlements. We’ve released hundreds of terrorist prisoners, including dozens in recent months. And when you look at what we got in return, it’s been scores of suicide bombings, thousands of rockets on our cities fired from the areas we vacated, and just incessant Palestinian incitement against Israel. So Israel has been doing its part, and I regret to say that the Palestinians haven’t.
“Now, I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but it’s the truth. And the people of Israel know that it’s the truth because they’ve been living it. What they want is peace. What we all want fervently is peace. Not a piece a paper — although that, too — but a real peace; a peace that is anchored in mutual recognition of two nation states that recognize and respect one another, and solid security arrangements on the ground.
“… The Palestinians expect us to recognize a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, a nation state for the Palestinian people. I think it’s about time they recognize a nation state for the Jewish people. We’ve only been there for 4,000 years.”
Obama Administration Tells Israel to Stop Assassinating Iranian Nuclear Scientists and Focus on the Palestine Peace Process
On March 3, 2014, the Associated Press reported:
U.S. officials have reportedly told Israel to stop killing off Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel’s Moussad spy agency has supposedly taken out [mostly with car bombs] at least five top Iranian nuclear experts in an attempt to slow the country’s nuclear program and continues to do so despite recent agreements reached to end the country’s nuclear ambitions….
Israel has never publicly acknowledged the program,… but it was designed to slow the rogue nation’s nuclear progress, as well as “deter trained and educated Iranians from joining their country’s nuclear program.” …
An unidentified U.S. official disclosed the program to CBS while claiming the Obama administration is leaning on its Middle Eastern ally to stop the targeted killings and wait for the current deal to disarm to play out.
Obama Administration Says Palestinians Do Not Need to Commit to Recognizing Israel’s Legitimate Existence
On March 8, 2014, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, stated in an interview with the Al-Quds newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”
Israeli Foreign Minister Says Israel Cannot Depend on U.S., Which Projects “Weakness”
On March 18, 2014, Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon cited the recent crisis in Ukraine (where the Russian military had seized control of Crimea) as an example of the Obama administration “showing weakness.” He also said, “We had thought it would be the United States that would lead the campaign against Iran” and its nuclear program. But Yaalon lamented that although “people know Iran cheats,” the United States and other nations had elected to negotiate with Tehran. “Therefore, on this matter, we have to behave as though we have nobody to look out for us but ourselves,” Yaalon said.
The Obama Administration Recognizes the Palestinians’ New “Unity Government” Uniting Fatah and Hamas
On June 2, 2014, the Palestinians formed a new “government of national unity” led by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and backed by Hamas. The Washington Post described the move, which effectively united Fatah and Hamas, as “a significant step toward ending a seven-year feud between the Palestinian political factions that separately control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
Within five hours of the Palestinians’ announcement that a new unity government had been established, the U.S. State Department declared its willingness to work with it. This contradicted Obama’s assertion during his 2008 presidential run, when he called Hamas a “terrorist organization” and said that “we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements.” Israel’s reaction to the Obama administration’s new position was one of bitterness and anger:
Obama Official Makes Speech Critical of Israel
On July 9, 2014 in Tel Aviv, Philip Gordon — the White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region — delivered the keynote address at the Haaretz Conference on Peace—a speech described by The Times of Israel as “a blistering attack on Israeli foreign policy.” Earlier that day, and throughout the preceding several days as well, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists had been busy launching hundreds of rockets from Gaza into a number of Israeli cities—including Tel Aviv—setting off air-raid sirens and driving millions of residents into bomb shelters.
Against this backdrop, Gordon appealed to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises necessary for a permanent peace agreement. He stated, for example, that Israel’s government in Jerusalem “should not take for granted” the “opportunity” it had to negotiate such a treaty with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, “who has shown time and again that he is committed to nonviolence and coexistence with Israel.” “While walls and missile defense systems can help protect against some threats,” Gordon expanded, “true safety for both sides will only come with a comprehensive negotiated settlement” resulting in the creation of “two states” with “permanent” borders “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Echoing Secretary of State John Kerry‘s and President Obama’s previously articulated assertions that Israel would find itself increasingly isolated by the international community if it failed to make peace with the Palestinians, Gordon drew a moral equivalence between the two warring parties: “[W]e have no interest in a blame game. The unfortunate reality is that neither side prepared their publics or proved ready to make the difficult decisions required for an agreement. And trust has been eroded on both sides. Until it is restored, neither side will likely be ready to take risks for peace, even if they live with the dire consequences that resolve from its absence.” “[T]here has clearly been far too much recrimination and some reprehensible examples of racism on both sides,” Gordon added.
Moreover, Gordon lectured Israel on its duty to “confront” the “undeniable reality” that “it cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely”; that “doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability”; and that such a course of action “will embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israel’s democratic fabric, and feed mutual dehumanization.”
Building upon that theme, Gordon reiterated the Obama administration’s position that Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank were “illegitimate and an impediment to progress on peace negotiations.” “Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland,” he explained, “Palestinians have a right to be a sovereign, free, and secure people in their own land” as well, and to thereby “reach their full potential.”
Gordon also said that the U.S., as an ally of Israel, had some basic, yet difficult, questions for the Jewish state: “How will Israel remain democratic and Jewish if it attempts to govern the millions of Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank? How will it have peace if it’s unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security and dignity? How will we prevent other states from supporting Palestinian efforts in international bodies, if Israel is not seen as committed to peace?”
Obama Urges Israeli Restraint Against Hamas Terrorists
On July 20, 2014 — while Israel was in the midst of a miltary operation designed to destroy the massive network of underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels that Hamas had created throughout Gaza — President Obama called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to a statement from the White House, Obama “reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself [but] also raised serious concern about the growing number of casualties, including increasing Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and the loss of Israeli soldiers.”
Obama Administration Delays Assisting Israel’s Effort to Find the Remains of Dead IDF Solder
On October 21, 2014, Israel scholar Caroline Glick wrote:
[I]n an article published [on October 14] in The Jerusalem Post, terrorism analyst and investigative reporter Steven Emerson revealed how the highest echelons of the administration blocked the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office from assisting Israel in finding the remains of IDF soldier Oron Shaul. Shaul was one of seven soldiers from the Golani Infantry Brigade killed July 20 when Hamas terrorists fired a rocket at their armored personnel carrier in Gaza’s Shejeia neighborhood. As Emerson related, after stealing his remains, Hamas terrorists hacked into Shaul’s Facebook page and posted announcements that he was being held by Hamas.
Among other things it did to locate Shaul and ascertain whether or not he was still alive, the IDF formally requested that the FBI intervene with Facebook to get the IP address of the persons who posted on Oron’s page. If such information was acquired quickly, the IDF might be able to locate Oron, or at least find people with knowledge of his whereabouts.
Acting in accordance with standing practice, recognizing that time was of the essence, the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office began working on Israel’s request immediately. But just before the US Attorney secured a court order to Facebook requiring it to hand over the records, the FBI was told to end its efforts. In an order that senior law enforcement officials told Emerson came from Attorney General Eric Holder’s office, the FBI was told that it needed to first sign an “MLAT,” a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Israel, a procedure that would take weeks to complete, and is generally used in cases involving criminal prosecutions and other non-life threatening issues.
As a result of these delays, Israel was unable to even begin negotiating with Hamas for the return of Shaul’s body parts until at least the third week of October 2014.
Obama Administration Condemns Israel’s Shelling of a UN School
On July 30, 2014 — with Israel still conducting its anti-terror campaugn in Gaza — the Obama administration condemned Israel’s deadly shelling (killing 17 people) of a United Nations school in Gaza which was sheltering displaced Palestinians. “We are extremely concerned that thousands of internally displaced Palestinians who have been called on by the Israeli military to evacuate their homes are not safe in UN designated shelters in Gaza,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House’s National Security Council. She also condemned “those responsible for hiding weapons in the United Nations facilities in Gaza” — a nod to Israel’s contention that Hamas was storing arms in those facilities.
On July 31, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said:
“The Israeli military can and should do more to protect the lives of those innocent civilians. There is a difference in approach between what Hamas is perpetrating on the Israeli people and what Israel is doing to defend their country. But the shelling of a U.N. facility that is housing innocent civilian who are fleeting violence is totally unacceptable and totally indefensible. It is clear that we need our allies in Israel to do more to live up to to the high standards that they have set for themselves….
“We have steadfastly defended Israel’s right to take the actions that they feel necessary to protect their people and to defend their turf. The steps that they have taken have also been taken with the standards that they put in place to protect the lives of innocent civilians. That stands in pretty stark contrast to the approach adopted by Hamas that is actually using their military might to target innocent Israeli civilians.
“The observation I think many across the globe have made is despite those high standards, there are innocent Palestinian lives being lost. What we are simply asking the Israelis to do, in fact urging the Israelis to do, is to do more to live up to the standards that they have set for their own military operations to protect the lives of innocent civilians.”
Obama Administration Condemns Israel’s Shelling of Another UN School
In early August 2014, after 10 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli shelling outside a United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) school in Rafah, wherein some 3,000 displaced persons were being sheltered, the Obama administration called the incident “totally unacceptable and totally indefensible.” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki demanded that Israel do “more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties.” Added Psaki: “The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which at least 10 more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed.” Addressing the Israeli military’s assertion that it was responding to mortar bombs that had been fired from near the school by Palestinians, Psaki said: “The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”
Netanyahu Tells U.S. Not to “Second-Guess” Him on Hamas
Also in early August 2014, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu advised the Obama administration “not to ever second guess me again” on the matter of dealing with Hamas.
State Department Says Israel Must “Do More” to Avoid Civilian Casualties
On August 4, 2014, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that there was “more that Israel can do to hold themselves to their own standards” in terms of not harming civilians in the battle against Hamas. “Every day,” she explained, “the world is watching as innocent civilians are killed, as children are having shrapnel pulled out of their back. I think we can all look to make an evaluation that there’s more that can be done.”
Obama Withholds Weapons Shipments to Israel
In August 2014 — in the midst of an Israeli war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip — President Obama issued a directive stipulating that any Israeli request for weapons, however large or small that request might be, must not be fulfilled without his personal prior approval. In accordance with that order, Obama canceled at least two arms shipments to Israel that the Pentagon had previously approved (in July), and he suspended the transfer of AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles to the Israeli Air Force. These were vital weapons whose sophisticated guidance systems enabled the Air Force to destroy missile-launchers in Gaza with a minimum amount of collateral damage.
Israel scholar Caroline Glick explained that the Obama administration “didn’t reject Israel’s request,” but “just added a level of bureaucracy to the handling of the request that made it impossible for Israel to receive assistance from the US government in real time.” Or, as State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf put it at the time: “We’re not holding anything. A hold indicates, technically, that you are not moving forward on making a decision about a transfer…. These requests are still moving forward; there’s just additional steps in the process now, and there’s been no policy decision made to not move forward with them…. They’re just going to take a little while longer.”
A U.S. official stated with displeasure: “It is unprecedented that the president approve every item in a military-to-military relationship, but this is exactly what has been decided.” “The president felt that his efforts to achieve a ceasefire was being undermined by U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel,” said a White House official. “Now, nothing moves without his approval, and that means everything will be slowed down.”
A Wall Street Journal analysis said: “Today, many administration officials say the Gaza conflict — the third between Israel and Hamas in under six years — has persuaded them that Mr. Netanyahu and his national security team are both reckless and untrustworthy. The White House and State Department have sought to regain greater control over U.S.-Israeli policy.”
The Hellfire missiles, along with other ammunition Israel requested during the war, eventually arrived in September 2014 — a month after a cease-fire had been agreed upon and implemented.
Obama Says Israel Must “Find a Way” to “Recognize” the “Legitimate Claims” of the Palestinians
In an August 2014, interview with New York Times Op-Ed columnist Thomas Friedman, Obama said: “[B]ecause Israel is so capable militarily,I don’t worry about Israel’s survival…. I think the question really is how does Israel survive? And how can you create a State of Israel that maintains its democratic and civic traditions? How can you preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those who founded Israel? And, in order to do that, it has consistently been my belief that you [meaning Israel] have to find a way to live side by side in peace with Palestinians…. You [meaning Israel] have to recognize that they have legitimate claims, and this is their land and neighborhood as well.”
Obama Says “Too Many Israelis” Are “Ready to Abandon the Hard Work of Peace”; Draws Moral Equivalence Between Israeli and Palestinian Deaths
In a September 23, 2014 address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama said: “The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace. And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel. Because let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza.” Notably, he made no mention of the fact that Hamas, in its recently waged war against Israel, had forced its own civilians, against their will, to serve as human shields. Nor did he mention that Hamas routinely used schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods as storehouses and launching pads for its missiles and other weaponry — thereby greatly increasing the likelihood of civilians in those places being killed in the course of battle.
Obama Administration Rejects Netanyahu’s Assessment of ISIS
In late September 2014, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki indicated that Israel and the United States were not on the same page regarding the scope of Islamic terror. The rift centeed around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s September 29 speech at the United Nations, during which he insisted that terrorist groups such as ISIS, Hamas, the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram all shared the same vision. “Some are radical Sunnis, some are radical Shi’ites.” Added Netanyahu: “Some want to restore a pre-medieval caliphate from the 7th century. Others want to trigger the apocalyptic return of an imam from the 9th century. They operate in different lands, they target different victims and they even kill each other in their quest for supremacy. But they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance, where women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.”
When Psaki was subsequently asked if the Obama White House agreed with Netanyahu’s argument, she replied: “We would not agree with that characterization, no.” Pressed on Netanyahu’s contention that ISIS and Hamas were cut from the same cloth, Psaki once again balked. She conceded that both groups were U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, but insisted that ISIS “poses a different threat to Western interests and to the United States. And that’s just a fact.” Psaki continued: “We don’t believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu or anyone else from Israel is suggesting that the United States launch a military campaign against Hamas, so we certainly – they are both designated terrorist organizations under the United States designations, but certainly we see differences in terms of the threat and otherwise.”
Obama Draws Moral Equivalence Between Israeli and Palestinian Deaths in the Recent Israel-Hamas War
In an October 1, 2014 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama — referencing the recent six-week war between Israel and Hamas — said that Israeli and Palestinian leaders must “find ways to change the status quo so that both Israel citizens are safe in their own homes, and schoolchildren in their schools, from the possibility of rocket fire, but also that we don’t have the tragedy of Palestinian children being killed as well.”
Obama Administration Sharply Rebukes Israeli Housing Project
On October 1, 2014, the Obama Administration — in what ABC News described as “a striking public rebuke” — condemned Israel’s plan to build a new, 2,500-unit housing project in east Jerusalem. “This development will only draw condemnation from the international community,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “It also would call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.” Morever, the Administration condemned what it called the “provocative” occupation in recent years, by several hundred Israeli settlers, of residential buildings in Silwan, an Arab neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Earnest warned that this occupation would “escalate tensions at a moment when those tensions have already been high.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was “baffled” by the Obama Administration’s rebuke. “It’s against the American values,” stated Netanyahu. “And it doesn’t bode well for peace. The idea that we’d have this ethnic purification as a condition for peace, I think it’s anti-peace.”
Obama Administration Expresses Condolences over Death of Hamas Terrorist; Refuses to Call Him a Terrorist
On October 24, 2014, a Palestinian teenager was shot and killed by an IDF soldier while attempting to throw a Molotov cocktail at Israeli civilians. The youth was subsequently buried wearing a green Hamas headband, and the Obama administration quickly released a statement (that same day) expressing its “deepest condolences to the family.” Three days later, at an October 27, 2014 State Department briefing, Associated Press reporter Matt Lee asked spokesperson Jen Psaki the following: “There are reports … that [the Palestinian teenager] was throwing Molotov cocktails at cars on a highway, and I’m wondering, if that is the case, would you still have been so speedy in putting out a statement and offering your condolences to the family? The argument that is being made by some in Israel is that this kid was essentially a terrorist, and you don’t agree with that, I assume.”
Psaki replied: “Correct, we don’t. I don’t have any more details on the circumstances, though.”
Lee then asked whether the fact that the teenager was buried wearing a Hamas headband was “of concern at all.”
Psaki responded, “I just don’t have any more on this particular case,” and then abruptly turned to take a question from another reporter.
Top Obama Official Calls Netanyahu “Chickensh**”
On October 28, 2014, The Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that a senior Obama administration official had recently spoken to him in the most disparaging manner about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu, saying: “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit…. [H]e won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”
“I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly,” added Goldberg. “This official agreed that Netanyahu is a ‘chickenshit’ on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a ‘coward’ on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat.” “Over the years,” Goldberg wrote as well, “Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery.’ (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.)”
Moreover, Goldberg spelled out the dire implications of such rhetoric vis a vis U.S.-Israeli relations: “This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively ‘unbreakable’ bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.”
Israeli officials reacted angrily to the remarks of the anonymous Obama senior official. Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said that “severe curse words against the Israeli prime minister are harmful to millions of Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide.” Former Israeli United Nations Ambassador Dan Gillerman described such name calling as “shameful,” “abusive,” and “counter-productive.”
Netanyahu, for his part, said: “I have been on the battlefield many times. I have risked my life for the country and I am not prepared to make concessions that will endanger our state…. It must be understood that our supreme interests, with security and the unity of Jerusalem first and foremost, are not among the top concerns of those anonymous elements that are attacking us and me personally, because the attack on me comes only because I am defending the State of Israel…. If I did not defend the State of Israel, if I did not vigorously uphold our national and security interests, they would not attack me. And despite all the attacks against me, I will continue to defend our state.”
When a reporter asked State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki whether Obama administration officials were trying to learn who had made the comments quoted in Goldberg’s article, she said simply, “No,” and then abruptly turned toward another questioner. But the aforementioned reporter immediately followed up by asking, “Why not?” To this, Psaki replied: “There are anonymous sources in all of your stories every single day. If we spent all of our time focused on that effort, we wouldn’t be working on diplomacy.” (Click here for video of the exchange.) Rejecting also the notion that the U.S. should apologize to Israel for the smear against Netanyahu, Psaki added: “If this issue comes up, [Secretary of State John Kerry] would make clear this isn’t the position of the administration.”
State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Should Have Done More to Limit Palestinian Civilian Casualties
At a November 8, 2014 press conference, an Associated Press reporter asked State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki to comment on the International Criminal Court’s decision that Israel could not be charged with having committed war crimes during its seven-week war against Hamas during the preceding summer. In her reply, Psaki issued the following remarks: “As we made clear throughout the summer’s conflict, we supported Israel’s right to self-defense and strongly condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks that deliberately targeted civilians, and the use of tunnels, of course, of attacks into Israel. However, we also expressed deep concern and heartbreak for the civilian death toll in Gaza and made clear … that we believed that Israel could have done more to prevent civilian casualties, and it was important that they held their selves to a high standard. So that remains our view and position about this summer’s events…. [I]t remains the broad view of the entire Administration that they [the Israelis] could have done more and they should have taken more — all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.”
After Palestinian Terror Attack, Obama Draws a Moral Equivalence Between the Two Sides
After a November 18, 2014 attack where two Palestinian terrorists — wielding meat cleavers, an ax, and a gun — murdered five people (including three U.S.-born rabbis) who were praying in a Jerusalem synagogue, President Obama said: “Too many Israelis have died; too many Palestinians have died. At this difficult time I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence. We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace.”
Reports That the Obama Administration Is Considering Sanctions Against Israel
In early December 2014, the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz reported that the Obama administration, which was vigorously pushing Congress to refrain from imposing any new sanctions against Iran, had recently held secret internal meetings to discuss the possibility of imposing sanctions on Israel as punishment for the continuing construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions from reporters regarding the matter. “I’m obviously not going to comment one way or another on reported internal deliberations,” she said. “We’ve made clear our position on settlement activity publicly and that hasn’t changed.” When pressed further to comment, Harf said she would not “address hypotheticals.”
Obama Administration Leaks to the Press About Israel
* 2010: The Obama administration leaked information of a covert deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, whereby the Saudis would allow Israel to use their airspace in order to wage an attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities.
* March 22, 2012: the Obama administration leaked to the New York Times the results of a classified war game which predicted that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead to a wider regional war and result in hundreds of American deaths.
* March 29, 2012: An ABC News story said: “Two reports today about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks. The first report in Foreign Policy quotes anonymous American officials saying that Israel has been given access to airbases by Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan from which Israel could launch air strikes or at least drones and search and rescue aircraft. The second report from Bloomberg, based on a leaked congressional report, said that Iran’s nuclear facilities are so dispersed that it is ‘unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be…’”
The Foreign Policy report quoted an intelligence officer saying, “We’re watching what Iran does closely…But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”
Institute for National Security Studies analyst Yoel Guzansky explained that the deal with Azerbaijan “totally changes the whole picture,” making it far easier for Israel to strike Iran quickly and forcefully, rather than having to fly more than 1,000 miles over Iraqi airspace.
Guzansky interpreted the motives behind the Obama leaks as follows: “It seems like a big campaign to prevent Israel from attacking. I think the [Obama] administration is really worried Jerusalem will attack and attack soon. They’re trying hard to prevent it in so many ways.”
In a May 29, 2012 Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper column titled “Obama Betraying Israel?”, longtime defense commentator Ron Ben-Yishai condemned the leaks, writing: “In recent weeks the administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. The campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.”
* April 8, 2012: The New Yorker reported that according to information leaked by Obama administration officials, the Israeli intelligence ageny Mossad was helping to fund and train the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK).
Breitbart.com analyzed the motives behind the leak as follows: “So what would be the purpose of the leak this time? The same as the last time: it’s supposed to tip off the Iranians to efforts against them, and it’s supposed to dissuade the Israelis from doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program…. This leak is just the latest in a pattern of leaks from the Obama administration … The Obama administration is desperate to prevent any sort of aggressive Israeli action on Iran before the election. That’s because Obama knows it would put him between a rock and a hard place – his leftist base hates Israel, and yet the American people love Israel overall.”
* Early May 2013: Two unnamed Obama administration officials leaked classified information to the media indicating that Israel was behind a May 3rd airstrike against a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles at the airport in Damascus, Syria. Israeli security analysts suggested that the leak could not only endanger any Israeli agents still on the ground in Syria, but would also increase the likelihood that Syrian President Bashar Assad would retaliate against Israel. As Global Research in International Affairs Center director Barry Rubin explained, “It requires the Syrians to react officially rather than deny that it happened or that it was an accident. It forces Syria and Hezbollah and Iran to react officially and say they want to seek revenge, which makes things more dangerous for Israel. Can you imagine if things were reversed and somebody did that to the U.S.?”
* Early November 2013: An Obama administration official leaked to CNN that Israeli warplanes had attacked a Syrian base (in the port of Latakia). The planes were targeting “missiles and related equipment” — specifically, Russian-made SA-8 Gecko Dgreen mobile missiles — to prevent their delivery to Hezbollah.
* January 2015: the Obama administration — which opposed the notion of imposing any new sanctions against the Iranian regime — leaked information indicating that a Mossad official had recently stated that such sanctions would surely cause negotiations with the Islamic Republic to collapse entirely. Secretary of State John Kerry elaborated: “One of the top intelligence personnel within the Israeli intelligence field – I won’t name names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that visited there over the weekend, what the effect of sanctions would be, and this person answered, that would be like throwing a grenade into the process.”
Approximately 12 hours later, however, that unnamed official stepped forth to publicly identify himself. It was the head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, whose office released the following statement: “On January 19, 2015, the head of the Mossad, Tamir Pardo, met with a delegation of U.S. senators at their request and with the approval of the prime minister. Contrary to what has been reported, the head of the Mossad did not say that he opposes imposing additional sanctions on Iran…. Regarding the reported reference to ‘throwing a grenade,’ the head of the Mossad did not use this expression regarding the imposition of sanctions, which he believes to be the sticks necessary for reaching a good deal with Iran. He used this expression as a metaphor to describe the possibility of creating a temporary crisis in the negotiations, at the end of which talks would resume under improved conditions.”
Obama Is Enraged by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Acceptance of John Boehner’s Invitation to Address Congress
On January 21, 2015, House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was strongly oposed to the emerging U.S. agreement with Iran regarding the latter’s nuclear program, to speak on February 11 to a joint session of Congress about the security threat posed by Iran. (The date of the speech was subsequently changed to March 3.) Boehner reportedly did not consult with President Obama before extending the invitation.
In response to Boehner’s action, an outraged Obama administration accused the House Speaker of having violated “protocol” by extending the invitation on his own initiative instead of asking the executive branch to extend an invitation. A senior administration official also derided Netanyahu, saying: “We thought we’ve seen everything. But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don’t do…. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half [actually two years] left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”
When it was subsequently announced that Obama would not be meeting personally with Netanyahu during the March 3 visit, the president offered this explanation: “We don’t meet with any world leader two weeks before their election. I think that’s inappropriate.” “As a matter of long-standing practice and principle,” added White House officials, “we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections,” so as to “avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country.”
The Obama administration also instructed members of the Congressional Black Caucus not to attend Netanyahu’s speech, and to speak out against it publicly as well. Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to skip the speech.
In early February 2015, it was learned that the White House’s tale of having been blindsided by Boehner and Netanyahu was a lie. This was made evident by a correction added to a New York Times article that stated: “Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.”
On February 8, 2015, it was learned that the Obama administration’s claim that its decision not to meet with Netanyahu in Washington was based on its desire to avoid “inappropriate[ly]” influencing the upcoming Israeli election, was also a lie. This was evidenced by the fact that during the weekend of February 7-8, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry went to Munich, Germany to meet with Israeli Labor leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s opponent in the election.
In early 2015, the One Voice Movement (OVM), which held Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in extreme contempt, bankrolled the Israeli group V-2015 and its effort to defeat Netanyahu’s bid for reelection. Toward that end, OVM flew a team of five former campaign operatives of Barack Obama—including Jeremy Bird, who served as a national field director for Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns—to help run V-2015’s activities out of a Tel Aviv office building. As part of this anti-Netanyahu effort, OVM paid for hundreds of people to go door-to-door and try to influence voters throughout Israel. Notably, OVM had received funding not only from private donors and charitable foundations, but also $349,276 from the U.S. State Department (from September 2013 through November 2014).
As the Daily Caller observed at the time: “There’s lots of evidence that Obama wants Netanyahu defeated, in part, because Obama thinks Netanyahu is making it difficult for him to strike a peace deal between Israel and the Jew-hating Islamist dictators and theocrats that surround Israel. … Obama’s aides were sharply critical when Netanyahu recently accepted an invite to speak to a joint House and Senate session just prior to the March election.”
In July 2016, it was reported that:
“A State Department official deleted emails that included information about a secret campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the country’s last election, according to a Senate investigatory committee that determined the Obama administration transferred tax funds to anti-Netanyahu groups.
“The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations disclosed in a massive report on Tuesday that the Obama administration provided U.S. taxpayer dollars to the OneVoice Movement, a liberal group that waged a clandestine campaign to smear and oust Netanyahu from office.
“OneVoice, which was awarded $465,000 in U.S. grants through 2014, has been under congressional investigation since 2015, when it was first accused of funneling money to partisan political groups looking to unseat Netanyahu. This type of behavior by non-profit groups is prohibited under U.S. tax law.
“The investigation determined that OneVoice redirected State Department funds to anti-Netanyahu efforts and that U.S. officials subsequently erased emails containing information about the administration’s relationship with the non-profit group.”
Obama Says Islamic Attack on Kosher Deli Was “Random” Violence
In a February 2015 interview with Vox, President Obama said the following about the four Jews who had been killed the previous month by Islamist gunmen who attacked a kosher deli in France:
“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris…. [I]t is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our country safe.”
Obama said this even though one of the killers had called a French television station and stated emphatically that the deli was targeted because it was a Jewish establishment.
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest, in a press conference, stuck to the notion that the murders in the kosher deli were random acts:
Question: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli though, they were in a kosher deli?
Earnest: John, these individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point.
Question: Not by name, but by religion, were they not?
Earnest: Well, John, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki advanced a similar narrative:
Psaki: Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically there were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically but the individuals who were impacted. (Psaki was wrong; all four of the victims were Jewish.)
Question: Does the administration believe this was an anti-Jewish or an attack on the Jewish community in Paris?
Psaki: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here.
Question: Yeah, but if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, you don’t – he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?
Psaki: Well again, Matt, I think it’s relevant that obviously the individuals in there who were shopping and working at the store….
Question: Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher deli? I mean I might but you know… an attacker going into a store that is clearly identified as being one of, as identified with one specific faith, I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say this was a targeted attack.
Psaki: I just don’t have more for you, Matt. It’s an issue for the French government to address.
Later that afternoon, in response to public criticism of the administration’s “random violence” theme, both Psaki and Earnest completely reversed their position and pretended that they had been characterizing the attacks as targeted, anti-Semitic actions all along. Psaki tweeted: “We have always been clear that the attack on the kosher grocery store was an anti-semitic attack that took the lives of innocent people.” Forty-one minutes after that, Earnest tweeted: “Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn’t intend to suggest otherwise.”
Netanyahu Cites “Profound Disagreement” with the U.S. on Iran Deal
On February 10, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.” He added: “…[W]e do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival. …It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.”
Netanyahu Accuses U.S. of Abandoning Its Pledge to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
On February 25, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuffed criticism in Washington of his plans to speak to a joint session of Congress on March 3, saying: “I respect the White House and the President of the United States but on such a fateful matter, that can determine whether or not we survive, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger for Israel.” Noting that the U.S. and its fellow P5+1 negotiating partners had pledged to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Netanyahu said that “from the agreement coming together it appears they have given up on this commitment.”
Obama Threatened to Shoot Down Israeli Fighter Jets That Sought to Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities
On February 28, 2015, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported that in 2014, not long after Israel had discovered that the U.S. and Iran had been involved in secret negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program, the Netanyahu government prepared a military operation designed to destroy that program. According to the report: “Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.” Moreover, the report claimed that when an unnamed Israeli minister revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
Obama Criticizes Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress
Shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had delivered his March 3, 2015 speech on the Iranian nuclear program to Congress, President Obama said:
“I did not have a chance to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech. I was on a video conference with our European partners with respect to Ukraine. I did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. And as far as I can tell, there was nothing new….
“[O]n the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives….
“Now, the deal that we are trying to negotiate that is not yet completed would cut off the different pathways for Iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. It would roll back some elements of its program. It would ensure that it did not have what we call a breakout capacity that was shorter than a year’s time. And it would subject Iran to the most vigorous inspections and verifications regimes that have ever been put in place. The alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing. And without constraint.
“And his essential argument is if we just double down on sanctions, Iran won’t want to do that. Well, we have evidence from the past decade that sanctions are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. And if, in fact, does not have some sense that sanctions will not be removed, it will not have an interest in avoiding the path that it’s currently on.
“So the bottom line is this. We don’t yet have a deal. It may be that Iran cannot say yes to a good deal. I have repeatedly said that I would rather have no deal than a bad deal. But if we’re successful in negotiating, then, in fact, this will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Nothing else comes close. Sanctions won’t do it. Even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward….
“And Prime Minister Netanyahu has not offered any kind of viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanisms to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
But as Jennifer Rubin wrote in the Washington Post: “In his very odd response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, Obama did not dispute he is making these huge concessions and he did not argue they are wise. Instead, he argued Netanyahu said nothing new (well, Obama knew he had bargained away an awful lot, but many Americans did not, which is why Obama had to put it out there in an interview on the eve of Netanyahu’s speech). And Obama groused that Netanyahu did not provide an alternative…. [But] the speech did contain an alternative: Hold firm and increase sanctions.… He’s demanding that Iran change its behavior, just as Obama was supposed to be demanding that Iran give up its quest for nuclear weapons.”
Obama Administration Expresses Agreement with Broadcaster’s Smear of Netanyahu
In response to Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3, 2015 speech to Congress, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria wrote an opinion piece stating that Netanyahu’s predictions regarding Iran had been consistently wrong for 25 years. Zakaria likened the Prime Minister’s proposed alternatives to a nuclear deal with Iran, to a “never-never land” fantasy “utterly divorced from reality.” In response to Zakaria’s piece, the White House National Security Council tweeted a link to the piece and stated: “Interesting take.”
Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether he was offended by the White House tweet, Netanyahu replied: “I think it’s useful to remember who your ally is and who your enemy is.” Moreover, he tweeted: “If I had to choose, I would retweet something that relates to Iran and that’s the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s recent tweet in which he cites nine ways and reasons that Israel should be destroyed.”
Obama Administration Criticizes Netanyahu for Seeming to Abandon Support for two-State Solution
The Obama administration was angered in March 2015 when Israeili Prime Minister Netanyahu, late in his reelection campaign, told the Israeli news outlet Maariv that he would not allow the creation of a Palestinian state on his watch — a position the administration interpreted as a shift away from Netanyahu’s ptrvious assertion (in a major address in 2009) that his “vision of peace” included “two free peoples” — i.e., Israelis and Palestinians — living in separate, independent, adjacent states. Said the Times of Israel: “The White House … pointedly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s successful reelection campaign and suggested his newly declared opposition to a Palestinian state could jeopardize America’s unwavering support for Israel at the United Nations.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the U.S. would “reevaluate our approach” based on Netanyahu’s “change in his position.” And State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: “The prime minister’s recent statements call into question his commitment to a two-state solution. We’re not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action” — implying that the U.S. might depart from its customary practice of vetoing United Nations Security Council resolutions opposed by Israel.
The Obama administration remained angry even after Netanyahu clarified that he remained open to a two-state solution, but only after “the Palestinian leadership [agreed] to abandon their pact with Hamas and engage in genuine negotiations with Israel.” Earnest stated that “[w]ords matter” and that there could be “consequences” for Netanyahu’s initial remarks in this instance. “Everybody who’s in a position to speak on behalf of their government understands that that’s the case, and particularly when we’re talking about a matter as serious as this one,” he added.
Obama Administration Accuses Netanyahu of Racism Against Arabs
In March 2015, White House spokesman Josh Earnest criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for having issued, during his recent reelection campaign, a videotaped message exhorting his supporters to make sure they voted because “Arab voters [who largely opposed Netanyahu] are streaming in droves” to the polls. According to Earnest, the United States was “deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens. It undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together.”
Obama Administration Reacts Coolly to Netanyahu’s Election Victory, in Contrast to Its Reaction Following Recent Elections in Other Countries
After Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election as Israeli Prime Minister on March 17, 2015, the White House was careful not to congratulate him personally. As the Weekly Standard reported: “On CNN this morning [March 18], White House aide David Simas avoided congratulating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the Israeli elections. Instead, he would only congratulate the Israeli people on having an election. ‘We want to congratulate the Israeli people for the democratic process for the election that they just engaged in with all the parties that engaged in that election.’”
Obama himself waited two full days before calling Netanyahu to recognize his victory; during those two days, he received much criticism in the media for his failure to call the Prime Minister. According to radio broadcaster Mark Levin, Obama and Netanyahu spoke for half and hour, during which the president demanded that the prime minister remove Ron Dermer as Israel’s Ambassador to the United States. Netanyahu refused.
The Obama administration’s cool response to Netanyahu’s re-election was in stark contrast to the effusive congratulations it offered to other victorious world leaders, including those from nations hostile to the U.S. and/or Israel – and those where it was widely believed that the vote counts were highly corrupted. Below are excerpts from a PJ Media compilation of some examples:
* On August 12, 2014, Reuters reported that President Obama had congratulated Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan for winning the presidential election in that country:
“U.S. President Barack Obama congratulated Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday for his victory as the country’s next president, the White House said…. ‘The president praised the prime minister’s speech on Sunday and noted that as Turkey’s first directly elected president, the prime minister has an historic opportunity to further move Turkey forward,’ the White House said in a statement…. The call lasted 45 minutes, according to Turkish sources. Erdogan last month acknowledged strains in his relations with Obama, saying he no longer spoke directly to the U.S. president as he had in the past. Erdogan’s leadership style, from his bombastic rhetoric on Israel to his crackdown on anti-government protests last summer, has raised increasing concern among Western allies in recent years.”
* On September 27, 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Obama breaks three decades of silence with call to Iranian president”: “… Obama began by congratulating Rouhani on his June election. He referred to the long mistrust between the two sides but said he believed the talks were already making progress. Israeli leaders and senior U.S. lawmakers, some of whom remain wary of Iran’s intentions, were notified of Obama’s plans ahead of time. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor blasted Obama for failing to press the Iranian leader on terrorism, Syria and other issues.”
* On March 9, 2012, the Weekly Standard reported that Obama had called Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on winning the presidential election in Russia:
“… CBS’s Mark Knoller reports: Pres. Obama phoning congratulations from AF-1 to Pres-elect Vladimir Putin of Russia. As the New York Times reported earlier in the week, there are serious charges that Putin rigged the election: ‘A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin on Monday faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term.’ Even the State Department called for an investigation into the election earlier in the week. Yet with President Obama reportedly calling to congratulate Putin, apparently the White House isn’t too concerned with the fraudulent election–or even its worrisome outcome.”
* On September 21, 2014, the Washington Examiner reported that Obama had congratulated the newly elected leaders of Afghanistan:
“President Obama on Sunday made a congratulatory call to Afghanistan’s newly elected president, Ashraf Ghani, and the runner-up, Abdullah Abdullah, who have agreed to a power-sharing deal…. The country’s election commission on Sunday named Ghani the winner of the election. An audit of vote tallies conducted by the United Nations was not disclosed, fueling criticism of the election process.
* On November 15, 2012, the Weekly Standard reported: that Obama had congratulated a top Chinese Communist on his new government position:
“A report in the Chinese state-run Xinhua outlet claims that President Barack Obama congratulated Xi Jinping on his ‘election’ to be the top Communist in China. Jinping will be the next president of China, and now controls the Chinese military.”
“The White House congratulated Islamist candidate Mohammed Morsi on his election as Egypt’s first freely elected president, calling it a milestone in the country’s transition to democracy…. In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney also addressed another major U.S. fear of an Islamist victory, saying the Obama administration believes Mr. Morsi and his new government ‘have both the legitimacy and responsibility of representing a diverse and courageous citizenry.’ ‘We believe in the importance of the new Egyptian government upholding universal values, and respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens – including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians,’ Mr. Carney said.”
* On June 18, 2012, the Chicago Tribune reported on Obama congratulating the Saudis for their king’s recent revelation of who his successor would one day be:
“U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday congratulated Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah for naming Prince Salman as heir apparent and said he was looking forward to continuing to deepen the U.S.-Saudi partnership. ‘I had the pleasure of receiving him at the White House this April and know that he is a man of deep faith who is committed to improving the lives of the people of Saudi Arabia and to the security of the region,’ Obama said in a statement released by the White House.”
Obama Declassifies Document Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program
On March 26, 2015, it was reported that in early February — when the Obama administration was enraged by the recent announcement that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would be addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3 regarding Iran’s nuclear program — the Pentagon had quietly declassified a top-secret, 386-page Defense Department document from 1987 containing extensive details of Israel’s nuclear program. The document was entitled “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations.” As Israel National News (INN) explained, Israel’s nuclear program was “a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the U.S. until now has respected by remaining silent.”
“[B]y publishing the declassified document from 1987, the U.S. reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.”
“The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.
“Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel’s sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.”
Top Iranian Commander Says “Erasing Israel off the Map” Is “Non-Negotiable”
At the end of March 2015 – as the P5+1 countries prepared to issue a general statement agreeing to continue nuclear negotiations with the ultimate goal of reaching a comprehensive accord by the end of June – Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said that “erasing Israel off the map” was “non-negotiable.” The previous year, Naqdi had said: “Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region…. The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back.”
Obama Says Iran Deal Will Not Include Requirement That Iran Recognize Israel’s Right to Exist
In an April 6, 2015 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Obama shut down the idea of requiring, as part of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran’s recognition of Israel and its right to exist. Below is an excerpt of his comments:
“So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment…. We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can’t bank on the nature of the regime changing. That’s exactly why we don’t want [it] to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself into Germany or Sweden or France, there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure. So, you know, the key here is not to somehow expect that Iran changes — although it is something that may end up being an important byproduct of this deal — but rather it is to make sure that we have a verifiable deal that takes off the table what would be a game-changer for them if in fact they possess nuclear weapons”
Earlier in the interview, Obama was asked how the deal with Iran could be a good one if Iran was not “capable of changing its ways.” Obama answered by essentially arguing that whether or not Iran was trustworthy did not matter: “Let me flip the question, Steve: I would argue that this deal is the right thing to do for the United States, for our allies in the region and for world peace regardless of the nature of the Iranian regime. So — so I would actually argue you’re right. People are focused on that. But this is a good deal if you think Iran’s open to change; it’s also a good deal if you think that Iran is implacably opposed to the United States and the West and our values …”
On April 8, 2015, White House spokesman Josh Earnest echoed Obama, saying: “Specifically incorporated into the Corker legislation [a proposal by Republican Senator Bob Corker stating that Iran must renounce terrorism as a condition of any deal] is a provision that essentially makes the agreement contingent upon Iran renouncing terrorism. Now, that’s an unrealistic suggestion because we’ve been very clear that this agreement is focused on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that it is not going to succeed in resolving the long list of concerns that we have with Iran’s behavior…. We want to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and inserting a provision like this, that essentially is intended to undermine the agreement in the first place, is why we so strongly oppose – or at least have significant concerns and oppose – the current form of the Corker bill.”
Six days later, Earnest reiterated: “[W]e’ve had I think what I could describe as four specific concerns with the way the Corker legislation was introduced. The one that I have talked the most frequently about in public is the requirement for the administration to certify that Iran has not backed terrorism against Americans. And this idea that we could essentially get Iran to renounce terrorism is unrealistic. We’ve acknowledged on the front end that this nuclear agreement — if we can reach one — will not in any way resolve all of the concerns that we have with Iran’s behavior and, in fact, one of the reasons we’re trying to reach an agreement that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is because we know they are a backer of terror activities around the globe.”
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf likewise dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pleas that the Iran nuclear agreement include “a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” “This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue … [and] doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it,” said Harf.
State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, “The American position is clear, Israel is a Jewish state. However, we do not see a need that both sides recognize this position as part of the final agreement.”
Russia Announces Shipment of Powerful Missile Air-Defense System to Iran
On April 13, 2015, the Kremlin announced that it would soon sell (for $800 million) and deliver to Iran a powerful S-300 surface-to-air missile system that would make it virtually impossible for Israel or the U.S. to carry out airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities if necessary in the future. A senior U.S. Marine Corps aviator said that the delivery of the S-300 system to Iran would be “a complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it.” A senior U.S. Air Force commander said: “[It] essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country without fifth-gen [stealth fighter] capabilities. In other words, Iran, with the S-300, can continue to do what they want once those systems are in place without fear of attack from anyone save the U.S. Brilliant chess move…”
TheDailyBeast.com noted, “The Kremin’s decision now sends a signal to Tehran that the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table are done—even before a final nuclear agreement is signed.” And Heather Conley, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said: “Clearly, this is the sanctions regime already starting to crack and fall apart in anticipation there will be an agreement [on nuclear issues with Iran] on June 30. This is the first major signal that regime is coming to an end.”
On April 17, President Obama downplayed the significance of Russia’s deal with Iran. Said Obama: “With respect to the Russian sales, I will tell you this is actually a sale that was slated to happen in 2009, when I first met with then-Prime Minister Putin. They actually stopped the sale, paused or suspended the sale, at our request. And, I’m frankly, surprised that it held this long, given that they were not prohibited by sanctions from selling these defensive weapons. When I say I’m not surprised — given some of the deterioration in the relationship between Russia and the United States, and the fact that their economy’s under strain and this was a substantial sale.”
Netanyahu Furious Over Russian Sale of Anti-Aircraft System to Iran
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu angrily protested Russia’s planned sale of the advanced anti-aircraft systems to Iran, and he phoned Vladimir Putin in an effort to persuade him to reconsider, but was rebuffed.
Iran Parades New Weapons Systems, Declares “Death to Israel”
On April 18, 2015, Iran celebrated Army Day with a military parade featuring the display of new weapons systems as well as a massive banner reading “Death to Israel.” Cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” were repeated throughout the festivities. During Iran national television’s airing of the parade, the announcer stated: “If Israel makes a mistake, those in Tel Aviv and Haifa will not sleep at night, not one person.”
Obama Administration Draws a Moral Equivalence Between Palestinian Terrorism and Alleged Israeli Transgressions
During the first two weeks of October 2015, Palestinian Muslims carried out hundreds of unprovoked terrorist attacks against Israeli Jews. As Breitbart.com put it, “The ‘third intifada,’ as some are calling this new wave of unprovoked Palestinian terrorism, all started when a Hamas-sponsored terrorist slaughtered a Jewish couple as they were driving around in the West Bank. On the morning of October 13 alone, said Breitbart: “[O]ne individual was killed and sixteen wounded when two terrorists got on a Jerusalem bus and proceeded to go on a stabbing spree. At around the same time, in the same city, a Muslim terrorist killed one person and injured several others when he rammed his car into a group of Jews. After crashing his vehicle, he proceeded to chase down other Jews with his knife and went on to stab them until the terrorist was finally subdued. Fifty miles away, in Ra’anana, two separate stabbing attacks occurred simultaneously with the Jerusalem jihadi mayhem.”
In response to this spree of violence, the Obama administration drew a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Moreover, the administration diluted its criticism of the Palestinian actions by simultaneously accusing Israel of engaging in provocative transgressions. Following the October 13th terrorist attacks, State Department spokesman John Kirby released a statement saying: “The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, which resulted in the murder of three Israelis and left numerous others wounded. We mourn any loss of innocent life, Israeli or Palestinian. We continue to stress the importance of condemning violence and combating incitement. We are in regular contact with the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. We remain deeply concerned about escalating tensions and urge all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and prevent actions that would further escalate tensions.”
Secretary of State John Kerry, for his part, suggested that the new wave of Palestinian violence could be attributed to the fact that “there’s been a massive increase in [Israeli] settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”
Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas continued his policy of issuing false claims that Israel was “desecrating” the Al-Aqsa mosque (an Islamic holy site). He also incited his people to “protect” that mosque, and he paid large sums of money to the families of suicide terrorists. In the days immediately preceding the Palestinian terror campaign, Abbas had said: “Aach drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood as long as it’s for the sake of Allah. Every martyr will be in heaven and every wounded person will be rewarded by Allah’s will.”
Reports of Deep Mistrust Between Israel and the Obama Administration
On October 22, 2015, the Wall Street Journal, in a story based on “interviews with nearly two dozen current and former senior U.S. and Israeli officials,” reported that in 2012, “The U.S. closely monitored Israel’s military bases and eavesdropped on secret communications …, fearing its longtime ally might try to carry out a strike on Fordow, Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear facility.” Painting a portrait of deep mistrust between Israel and the Obama administration, the piece added:
Nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site. Worried that Israel might ignite a regional war, the White House sent a second aircraft carrier to the region and readied attack aircraft, a senior U.S. official said, “in case all hell broke loose.”
The two countries, nursing a mutual distrust, each had something to hide. U.S. officials hoped to restrain Israel long enough to advance negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that the U.S. had launched in secret. U.S. officials saw Israel’s strike preparations as an attempt to usurp American foreign policy.
Instead of talking to each other, the allies kept their intentions secret. To figure out what they weren’t being told, they turned to their spy agencies to fill gaps. They employed deception, not only against Iran, but against each other. After working in concert for nearly a decade to keep Iran from an atomic bomb, the U.S. and Israel split over the best means: diplomacy, covert action or military strikes….
Suspicions grew during the 2008 presidential race after Mr. Netanyahu spoke with some congressional Republicans who described Mr. Obama as pro-Arab, Israeli officials said. The content of the conversations later found its way back to the White House, senior Obama administration officials said.
Soon after taking office in January 2009, Mr. Obama took steps to allay Israeli concerns, including instructing the Pentagon to develop military options against Iran’s Fordow facility, which was built into a mountain. The president also embraced an existing campaign of covert action against Iran, expanding cooperation between the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.
Mossad leaders compared the covert campaign to a 10-floor building: The higher the floor, they said, the more invasive the operation. CIA and Mossad worked together on operations on the lower floors. But the Americans made clear they had no interest in moving higher—Israeli proposals to bring down Iran’s financial system, for example, or even its regime….
The first Oval Office meeting between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in May 2009—weeks after Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister—was difficult for both sides. After the meeting, Mr. Obama’s aides called Ron Dermer, Mr. Netanyahu’s adviser, to coordinate their statements. Mr. Dermer told them it was too late; Mr. Netanyahu was already briefing reporters….
In 2010, the risk of covert action became clear. A computer virus dubbed Stuxnet, deployed jointly by the U.S. and Israel to destroy Iranian centrifuges used to process uranium, had inadvertently spread across the Internet. The Israelis wanted to launch cyberattacks against a range of Iranian institutions, according to U.S. officials. But the breach made Mr. Obama more cautious, officials said, for fear of triggering Iranian retaliation, or damaging the global economy if a virus spread uncontrollably.
Israel questioned whether its covert operations were enough, said aides to Mr. Netanyahu. Stuxnet had only temporarily slowed Tehran’s progress. “Cyber and other covert operations had their inherent limitations,” a senior Israeli official said, “and we reached those limitations.”
Mr. Netanyahu pivoted toward a military strike, raising anxiety levels in the White House.
The U.S. Air Force analyzed the arms and aircraft needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded Israel didn’t have the right equipment. The U.S. shared the findings, in part, to steer the Israelis from a military strike.
The Israelis weren’t persuaded and briefed the U.S. on an attack plan: Cargo planes would land in Iran with Israeli commandos on board who would “blow the doors, and go in through the porch entrance” of Fordow, a senior U.S. official said. The Israelis planned to sabotage the nuclear facility from inside.
Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission. They pressed the Israelis to give the U.S. advance warning. The Israelis were noncommittal….
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, was moving toward diplomacy. In December 2011, the White House secretly used then-Sen. John Kerry to sound out Omani leaders about opening a back channel to the Iranians.
At the same time, the White House pressed the Israelis to scale back their assassination campaign and turned down their requests for more aggressive covert measures, U.S. officials said.
The president spoke publicly about his willingness to use force as a last resort to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—“I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in March 2012—but some of Mr. Netanyahu’s advisers weren’t convinced.
In early 2012, U.S. spy agencies told the White House about a flurry of meetings that Mr. Netanyahu convened with top security advisers. The meetings covered everything from mission logistics to the political implications of a military strike, Israeli officials said.
U.S. spy agencies stepped up satellite surveillance of Israeli aircraft movements. They detected when Israeli pilots were put on alert and identified moonless nights, which would give the Israelis better cover for an attack. They watched the Israelis practice strike missions and learned they were probing Iran’s air defenses, looking for ways to fly in undetected, U.S. officials said.
New intelligence poured in every day, much of it fragmentary or so highly classified that few U.S. officials had a complete picture. Officials now say many jumped to the mistaken conclusion that the Israelis had made a dry run.
At the time, concern and confusion over Israel’s intentions added to the sense of urgency inside the White House for a diplomatic solution.
The White House decided to keep Mr. Netanyahu in the dark about the secret Iran talks, believing he would leak word to sabotage them…. Mr. Netanyahu would get briefed on the talks, White House officials concluded, only if it looked like a deal could be reached.
The first secret meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, held in July 2012, was a bust. But “nobody was willing to throw it overboard by greenlighting Israeli strikes just when the process was getting started,” a former senior Obama administration official said.
Israeli officials approached their U.S. counterparts over the summer about obtaining military hardware useful for a strike, U.S. officials said.
At the top of the list were V-22 Ospreys, aircraft that take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes. Ospreys don’t need runways, making them ideal for dropping commandos behind enemy lines.
The Israelis also sounded out officials about obtaining the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. military’s 30,000-pound bunker-busting bomb, which was designed to destroy Fordow.
Mr. Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who served for four years as Mr. Obama’s White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction. “The message from the Obama administration was: ‘We think this is a big mistake.’ ”
White House officials decided not to provide the equipment.
Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu spoke in September 2012, and Mr. Obama emerged convinced Israel wouldn’t strike on the eve of the U.S. presidential election.
By the following spring, senior U.S. officials concluded the Israelis weren’t serious about a commando raid on Fordow and may have been bluffing. When the U.S. offered to sell the Ospreys, Israel said it didn’t have the money.
Former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who championed a strike, said Mr. Netanyahu had come close to approving a military operation against Iran. But Israel’s military chiefs and cabinet members were reluctant, according to Israeli officials.
While keeping the Omani talks secret, U.S. officials briefed the Israelis on the parallel international negotiations between Iran and major world powers under way in early 2013. Those talks, which made little headway, were led on the U.S. side by State Department diplomat Wendy Sherman….
U.S. spy agencies were monitoring Israeli communications to see if the Israelis had caught wind of the secret talks. In September 2013, the U.S. learned the answer.
Yaakov Amidror, Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser at the time, had come to Washington in advance of a Sept. 30 meeting between Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama.
On Sept. 27, Mr. Amidror huddled with White House national security adviser Susan Rice in her office when she told him that Mr. Obama was on the phone in a groundbreaking call with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani.
Mr. Amidror had his own surprise. During a separate meeting in the Roosevelt Room, he told several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers that Israel had identified the tail numbers of the unmarked U.S. government planes that ferried negotiators to Muscat, Oman, the site of the secret talks, U.S. officials said.
Mr. Amidror, who declined to comment on the White House discussions, said that it was insulting for Obama administration officials to think “they could go to Oman without taking our intelligence capabilities into account.” He called the decision to hide the Iran talks from Israel a big mistake.
U.S. officials said they were getting ready to tell the Israelis about the talks, which advanced only after Mr. Rouhani came to office. During the Sept. 30 meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, the president acknowledged the secret negotiations. The secrecy cemented Israel’s distrust of Mr. Obama’s intentions, Israeli officials said.
Mr. Samore, the former White House official, said he believed it was a mistake to keep Israel in the dark for so long. Mr. Einhorn said: “The lack of early transparency reinforced Israel’s suspicions and had an outsize negative impact on Israeli thinking about the talks.”
Israel pushed for the U.S. to be more open about the Iran negotiations. Ms. Rice, however, pulled back on consultations with her new Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, who took over as Mr. Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
In exchanges with the White House, U.S. officials said, Mr. Cohen wouldn’t budge from demanding Iran give up its centrifuges and uranium-enrichment program. Israeli officials said they feared any deviation would be taken by the U.S. as a green light for more concessions….
In November 2013, when the interim agreement was announced, Mr. Samore was in Israel, where, he said, the Israelis “felt blindsided” by the terms. U.S. officials said the details came together so quickly that Ms. Sherman and her team didn’t have enough time to convey them all. Israeli officials said the Americans intentionally withheld information to prevent them from influencing the outcome.
As talks began in 2014 on a final accord, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted White House officials that Israelis were spying on the negotiations. Israel denied any espionage against the U.S. Israeli officials said they could learn details, in part, by spying on Iran, an explanation U.S. officials didn’t believe.
Earlier this year, U.S. officials clamped down on what they shared with Israel about the talks after, they allege, Mr. Netanyahu’s aides leaked confidential information about the emerging deal.
When U.S. officials confronted the Israelis over the matter in a meeting, Israel’s then-minister of intelligence said he didn’t disclose anything from Washington’s briefings. The information, the minister said, came from “other means,” according to meeting participants.
Ms. Sherman told Mr. Cohen, Israel’s national security adviser: “You’re putting us in a very difficult position. We understand that you will find out what you can find out by your own means. But how can we tell you every single last thing when we know you’re going to use it against us?” according to U.S. officials who were there….
But it is unclear how the White House will respond to any covert Israeli actions against Iran’s nuclear program, which current and former Israeli officials said were imperative to safeguard their country.
One clause in the agreement says the major powers will help the Iranians secure their facilities against sabotage. State Department officials said the clause wouldn’t protect Iranian nuclear sites from Israel.
Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA, said the U.S. and Israel could nonetheless end up at odds. “If we become aware of any Israeli efforts, do we have a duty to warn Iran?” Mr. Hayden said. “Given the intimacy of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, it’s going to be more complicated than ever.”
Obama Supports European Union Requirement for Labeling Products Manufactured in West Bank “Settlements”
In November 2015 the European Union issued a ruling that banned the “Made in Israel” label on goods produced in Israeli communities in the West Bank. Instead, the labels would have to tell consumers that the products came from a “settlement” in the disputed West Bank territories. The Obama administration supported the EU’s decision. “We do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. “And as you know, we do not consider settlements to be part of Israel. We do not view labeling the origin of products as being from the settlements as a boycott of Israel.” Groups advocating “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” (BDS) against Israel have spearheaded efforts to require separate labeling of Israeli goods from the West Bank and the Golan Heights as a step toward a complete boycott of Israeli exports.
In January 2016, Obama’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), joined the EU and issued new mandates requiring that West Bank products not be marked “Israel.” According to U.S. Customs, “goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be subject to an enforcement action.”
Obama Administration Spied on Netanyahu’s Conversations with US Lawmakers and Jewish Groups
On December 30, 2015, National Review reported the following:
According to a bombshell Wall Street Journal article by Adam Entous and Danny Yadron,… the National Security Agency provided the White House with intercepted Israeli communications containing details of private discussions between Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. lawmakers and American Jewish groups on the Iran nuclear deal. If true, this could be the biggest scandal of the Obama presidency.
The Journal article explains that President Obama decided to stop NSA collection against certain foreign leaders after the backlash against Edward Snowden’s disclosure that the NSA had eavesdropped on German chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone and monitored communications of the heads of state of other close U.S. allies.
According to the Journal story, President Obama did not halt NSA spying against Netanyahu. This is not a surprise, given the president’s chilly relations with the Israeli leader and Israel’s aggressive spying against the United States. It’s also not a surprise that the Obama administration sought intelligence on Netanyahu’s efforts to undermine the nuclear deal. But it is stunning to learn that NSA sent the White House intelligence on private discussions with U.S. congressmen on a major policy dispute between the White House and Congress.
According to the Journal article, to avoid a paper trail that would show that they wanted the NSA to report on Netanyahu’s interactions with Congress, Obama officials decided to let the agency decide how much of this intelligence to provide and what to withhold. The article cited an unnamed U.S. official who explained, “We didn’t say, ‘Do it.’ We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’”
This suggests major misconduct by the NSA and the White House of a sort not seen since Watergate. First, intercepts of congressmen’s communications regarding a dispute between Congress and the White House should have been destroyed and never left the NSA building. The Journal article said a 2011 NSA directive requires direct communications between foreign intelligence targets and members of Congress to be destroyed, but gives the NSA director the authority to waive this requirement if he determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence.”
Netanyahu’s discussions with members of Congress on a policy dispute between Congress and the president do not qualify as foreign intelligence. Destroying this kind of information should not have been a close call for NSA. Congress should immediately ask NSA director Michael Rogers and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to verify the Journal story and explain why intercepts of private discussions of members of Congress were provided to the White House. If this did happen, both officials should resign.
Second, the White House bears significant responsibility for this scandal. By encouraging and accepting this intelligence, the White House used the NSA as an illegitimate means to undermine its legislative opponents. This represented a major abuse of presidential power, since it employed the enormous capabilities of an American intelligence service against the U.S. Congress. It also probably violates the U.S. Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles and the Fourth Amendment, since surveillance may have been conducted against U.S. citizens without a warrant.
The claim that Obama officials did not directly instruct the NSA to collect this information but simply accepted what the NSA sent them is preposterous. If the Journal article is accurate, Obama officials knew they were receiving intelligence on the private conversations of U.S. congressmen on a major policy dispute. These officials knew they were not supposed to have this intelligence but did not cut it off, because they wanted to use it to defeat efforts by Netanyahu and Congress to derail the Iran nuclear deal. This story is another indication of how desperate the Obama administration was to get a nuclear deal with Iran.
It is truly bizarre that Obama officials would be parties to such a gross misuse of U.S. intelligence after the controversy caused by NSA collection of phone records under the metadata program and so-called warrantless wiretaps by the Bush administration. These initiatives might have pushed the envelope of the law and intelligence charters, but they were carried out to defend the nation against terrorism and targeted terrorist suspects. By contrast, the Journal article discusses domestic intelligence activities that clearly are prohibited: targeting U.S. citizens over a policy dispute, and targeting the legislative branch of government.
Congress should be outraged over this story, especially in light of how narrow the votes were in September to disapprove the Iran deal. The Obama administration won these votes because it did a better job than the congressmen and American Jewish groups who opposed the Iran deal of persuading Democratic members to support it. The Journal story suggests that NSA collection against American opponents of the deal may have helped the Obama administration win this battle for Democratic support.
Congressional anger over the Journal story might force intelligence officials to resign. However, I believe there is no chance anyone in the Obama White House will be held accountable, since the Obama Justice Department will refuse to investigate and Obama officials probably will feign ignorance. …
Obama Administration Urges Israel to Exercise “Restraint” in Wake of Palestinian Terror Attack
In the immediate aftermath of a June 7, 2016 terrorist attack in which two Palestinian gunmen shot nine Israelis (killing four) in a Tel Aviv shopping complex, the U.S. State Department cautioned the Israeli government to “exercise restraint” in carrying out its vow to increase security control over the West Bank and its residents. “We understand the Israeli government’s desire to protect its citizens after this kind of terrorist attack,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “We would just hope that any measures that Israel takes would be designed to not escalate tensions any further, but we certainly respect their desire to express outrage and to protect the safety of their people.” In particular, Toner made reference to Israel’s decision to constrict ease of travel for Palestinians moving in and out of the Gaza Strip.
Condemning Israeli “Settlements”
On August 5, 2016, author and columnist Caroline Glick wrote:
Why did the Obama administration decide to escalate its attacks against Israel last week? What was the purpose of the State Department’s shockingly hostile assault last Wednesday following the Israel Land’s Authority’s announcement that it is publishing tenders to build 323 apartment units in Jerusalem’s Gilo, Har Homa, Pisgat Zeev and Neveh Ya’acov neighborhoods? The statement needs to be seen to be believed.
“We are deeply concerned by reports today that the government of Israel has published tenders for 323 units in East Jerusalem settlements. This follows Monday’s announcement of plans for 770 units in the settlement of Gilo,” it began. “We strongly oppose settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. These steps by Israeli authorities are the latest examples of what appears to be a steady acceleration of settlement activity that is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.” The Americans then attacked Israel for advancing plans to build in Judea and Samaria. The projects now on the table involve building apartments in the city of Ma’aleh Adumim and in Kiryat Arba and authorizing the already constructed Amona neighborhood in Ofra. The statement attacked Israel for enforcing its land laws toward non-Jews. “We are also concerned about recent increased demolitions of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children….” Finally, it concluded, “This is part of an ongoing process of land seizures, settlement expansion, legalizations of outposts, and denial of Palestinian development that risk entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict. We remain troubled that Israel continues this pattern of provocative and counter-productive action, which raises serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.” …
[I]t is important to recognize that the positions expressed in last week’s statement weren’t altogether new. In January, then-defense minister Moshe Ya’alon announced the inclusion of a 10-acre plot of land adjacent to Route 60 south of Jerusalem within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The plot in question was lawfully purchased eight years ago from the Presbyterian Church by the late Irving Moskowitz and his wife, Cherna Moskowitz. The State Department reacted with rage to Ya’alon’s announcement. Condemning the decision, spokesman John Kirby called settlements, “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace.” Kirby continued, “Actions such as this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a twostate solution.” Irving Moskowitz, who passed away in June, and his widow, Cherna Moskowitz, are Americans, not Israelis. The American couple privately purchased the 10-acre plot, along with eight buildings located on the plot from the Presbyterian Church – a private entity. The sale took place not in the US, but in foreign territory.
US law does not bar US citizens from buying land in Judea and Samaria. In fact, in other cases, the administration actually encourages US citizens to purchase and develop land in the areas. For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the Binyamin district is Bashar al-Masri. Masri is a US citizen. Far from condemning Masri, or the Palestinian Authority which is expanding Rawabi with him, the US government is funding Rawabi. The administration upholds Masri as a hero. Legally, there is no difference whatsoever between the Moskowitzes and Masri. The only difference between them is their religion. The Moskowitzes are Jews. Masri is a Muslim. And while the State Department condemned the lawful purchase of land by the Moskowitzes, and Israel’s incorporation of that land, in accordance with their wishes, within the boundaries of Gush Etzion, the administration celebrates land purchase, appropriation and development of Rawabi by Masri. There is a name for this type of behavior. It is called discrimination. It is also called anti-Semitism.
Last week’s State Department condemnation was no different. To understand why this is the case it is important to bear in mind that a few weeks before last Wednesday’s announcements about construction tenders in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, Israel Lands Authority announced it is issuing tenders for 600 apartments in Jerusalem for Arabs-only in Beit Safafa and additional housing for Arabs-only in Beit Hanina. Whereas the State Department harshly condemned last week’s announcement, it said nothing about the previous ones. In other words, it distinguishes between building for Jews and building for non-Jews. It seeks to trample Jewish civil rights while championing those of Arabs. Indeed, it defends Arab lawlessness. This too is a policy predicated on bigotry, on anti-Semitism. There is one more component to Obama’s actions, which, like his anti-Jewish rationale, has spanned the length of his presidency.
In 2010, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton shocked Israeli society by screaming at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the telephone for 45 minutes. Clinton upbraided Netanyahu for a decision by a Jerusalem municipal planning board’s to approve a stage in the planning process toward building apartments in Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem. Israelis – and many Americans – were shocked by her behavior, because no previous administration had ever treated neighborhoods in Jerusalem as controversial. Everyone, including Obama, acknowledged that like the major population centers in Judea and Samaria, these neighborhoods will remain part of Israel in perpetuity. Yet suddenly in 2010, Clinton and Obama began castigating them as “illegitimate settlements.” In other words, they expanded the meaning of “settlement” to include all Jewish communities located in areas that had been under Jordanian occupation between 1949 and 1967.
Last week’s State Department’s statement made clear, yet again, that it is official US policy to view Gilo, a neighborhood of 40,000 people, and Ma’aleh Adumim, a city of 40,000 people, as indistinguishable from a few mobile homes in the middle of nowhere with a dozen 20-somethings camped out in them. For the past seven years, the US has viewed these residential areas all as equally evil, equally “corrosive” and equally “illegitimate,” despite the fact that their only shared quality is that they all house Jews. To be clear, none of this has any connection to international law. This is why the administration prefers the meaningless term “illegitimate” to the term “illegal.” …
Last week’s statement demonstrates that shaping the US’s future policy toward Israel is a major component of the legacy he is building. And what is the shape he is giving to that policy through his actions? By openly employing anti-Jewish policy rationales, Obama shows that the legacy he intends to pass on to his successors is a US policy toward Israel based neither on US interests nor on American values. Rather, it is predicated on unabashed anti-Jewish discrimination. In other words, Obama’s presidential legacy is the promotion of anti-Semitism as the guiding principle shaping and informing US Israel policy. This is, to be sure, a stunning – indeed shocking – conclusion. It points to the depth of Obama’s hostility to Jewish national and civil rights. But as his administration’s statements make clear, the conclusion that anti-Semitism is the guiding principle of his policies is unavoidable….
Obama Abstains on UN Vote Regarding Israeli Settlements
On December 23, 2016, the Reuters News Agency reported:
The United States intended to allow the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building, two Western officials said on Thursday, a major reversal of U.S. practice, which prompted Israel to ask President-elect Donald Trump to apply pressure.
In a day of intense diplomatic wrangling on one of the thorniest Middle East conflicts, Egypt, which had proposed the draft resolution, abruptly put off a vote that had been scheduled for Thursday afternoon. Diplomats said Cairo had acted under pressure from Israel and to avoid alienating Trump, who spoke to the Egyptian president and urged the [Obama] White House to use its veto.
By late Thursday, four Security Council members had given Egypt an ultimatum and threatened to put the draft resolution to a vote.
The two Western officials said President Barack Obama had intended to abstain from the vote, a relatively rare step by the United States to register criticism of the building on occupied land that Palestinians want for a state.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has had an acrimonious relationship with Obama, believes the Obama administration had long planned the council vote in coordination with the Palestinians, the senior Israeli official said. “It was a violation of a core commitment to protect Israel at the U.N.,” the official said….
U.S. officials [under Obama] have voiced growing fears that a “two-state” solution is imperiled by Israeli settlement building and have been more willing to voice open criticism, including, the two Western officials said, via Thursday’s planned vote. A U.S. abstention would have been seen as a parting shot by Obama, who has made the settlements a major target of his – ultimately futile – peace efforts.
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, which in 1979 became the first Arab nation to make peace with Israel, called Trump on Thursday, a Trump transition official said, saying they spoke broadly about laying the ground for Middle East peace….
The resolution would demand Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” and said the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”
Egypt, currently a Security Council member, worked with the Palestinians to draft the text.
The senior Israeli official said Israel remained concerned the resolution could still go ahead with another sponsoring country. New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia and Senegal asked Egypt to clarify by midnight whether it planned to call a vote. “In the event that Egypt decides that it cannot proceed to call for vote on 23 December or does not provide a response by the deadline, those delegations reserve the right to table the draft … and proceed to put it to vote ASAP,” the four states wrote in a note, seen by Reuters.
They said “the proposal for other delegations to take the lead … would also help Egypt by relieving it of the burden of carrying this draft alone.” They plan to meet on Friday morning to decide how to proceed, diplomats said….
Netanyahu took to Twitter in the dead of night in Israel to make the appeal for a veto. Hours later, Trump backed fellow conservative Netanyahu on one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the pursuit, effectively stalled since 2014, of a two-state solution.
The State Department declined to comment immediately on reports of the planned abstention…. A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the United States, France, Russia, Britain or China to be adopted. The United States has vetoed dozens of Security Council resolutions on Israel and it is rare for it to abstain.
The last time the Security Council adopted a resolution on Israel and the Palestinians was in January 2009, when Washington abstained on a resolution calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
In 1979 the United States abstained on a resolution, when the council said Israeli settlements “have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” …
On December 24, the U.S. did in fact abstain from voting, and thereby allowed the UN Security Council resolution to pass.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized the abstention as a “shameful betrayal.” “From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed,” he said.
Journalist P. David Hornik placed Obama’s abstension in its full context:
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 … whose passage was made possible by the U.S. abstention ordered by President Obama from Hawaii, is not just shameful, unfair, unbalanced, or destructive. It’s barbaric.
Only in one clause—which is in the preamble, which has less force than the body of the text—does the resolution explicitly call on Palestinians to do anything. The preamble calls on “the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities.”
In contrast, five full clauses in the body of the text portray Israel as a rogue state engaged in endemic criminality.
These clauses call “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem…a flagrant violation under international law” and demand “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”
But if even “East Jerusalem” is off limits to Israeli Jews, then—as pointed out by Alan Dershowitz, who was for years a center-left supporter of Obama: “Under this resolution, the access roads that opened up Hebrew University to Jewish and Arab students and the Hadassah Hospital to Jewish and Arab patients are illegal, as are all the rebuilt synagogues—destroyed by Jordan—in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City.”
And … “illegal,” too, are the Chanukah candle-lighting ceremonies at the Western Wall—another “East Jerusalem” site that Israel has extensively refurbished.
Then comes the “balance.” The sixth clause “Calls…to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror…and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism.”
Terrorism and acts of violence by whom? It doesn’t say. The only reasonable inference is that both sides engage in violence and terror.
In reality, Israel’s security forces report that in 2016 they thwarted 180 Palestinian shooting attacks in the West Bank alone.
The resolution’s seventh clause is more explicit; it “Calls upon both parties…to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.”
To sum up, then, five clauses excoriate Israel as a usurper and land thief; one clause calls for an end to terror without naming anyone as responsible for it, indicating that both sides must be; one clause calls on “both parties” to put an end to incitement.
The resolution, in other words, goes far beyond the longstanding practice of drawing moral equivalence between Palestinian terror and Israeli “settlements.” Apart from one allusion in the preamble, it gingerly sidesteps the issue of Palestinian terror and incitement to terror. It seems not to want to offend the Palestinians. It openly delivers, however, a broadside against Israel for building homes, hospitals, synagogues, schools, and so on in land that the resolution wants to be Judenrein.
Nowhere does the resolution mention that, according to international documents to which the United States is a signatory—including UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the Oslo accords—the land in question is designated as disputed land subject to final-status negotiations.
According to the resolution, there would be nothing to negotiate about. It’s all “occupied Palestinian territory”—including Judaism’s most sacred sites.
Netanyahu Says Israel Has “Unequivocal Evidence” That The Obama Administration Led the UN Initiative of December 23
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017, CNS News reported:
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday ratcheted up the dispute with the outgoing administration over last month’s U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel, saying Israel has “unequivocal evidence” that it had led the initiative. “We have unequivocal evidence that the Security Council resolution passed in the U.N. against Israel was led by the administration,” Netanyahu told a visiting AIPAC delegation. “There’s no question whatsoever about that – none whatsoever.”
The [Obama] administration has adamantly denied that it drafted or played a key behind-the-scenes role in getting resolution 2334 presented for a vote.
Adopted by the council on December 23 – after the administration chose to abstain rather than use its veto – the measure condemns Israeli settlements in areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, and claimed by the Palestinians for a future independent state. It declares eastern Jerusalem, including Judaism’s most sacred site, to be “Palestinian territory” and “occupied Palestinian territory,” and calls Israeli presence there “a flagrant violation under international law.” …
The Israeli government has indicated it will hand over “evidence” of the administration’s involvement to the incoming Trump administration.
Kerry and other administration officials have repeatedly rejected the argument that the decision to abstain and allow resolution 2334 to pass marked a shift in U.S. policy. “Previous administrations of both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of Israel to pass, including on settlements,” Kerry said in a controversial Mideast speech late last month. Kerry told CNN last week that “previous [Security Council] resolutions have historically referred to the land that was taken in the 1967 war … as occupied territory.”
Netanyahu on Tuesday disputed the claim that resolution 2334 “just reformulates the things that were said by all previous administrations.” On the contrary, he said, it marked a “major break with U.S. policy.” Netanyahu then quoted a statement from the last Democratic administration, clearly rejecting on behalf of the U.S. government the notion that territory concerned is “occupied Palestinian territory.” At a Security Council session considering a resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in March 1994, then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (later secretary of state) Madeleine Albright said: “We oppose the specific references to Jerusalem in this resolution and will continue to oppose its insertion in future resolutions.” “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as ‘occupied Palestinian territory,’” Albright said.
Obama Sends $221 Million to Palestinians on His Final Day As President
On January 23, 2017, the Associated Press reported:
Officials say the Obama administration in its waning hours defied Republican opposition and quietly released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority that GOP members of Congress had been blocking.
A State Department official and several congressional aides said the outgoing administration formally notified Congress it would spend the money Friday morning.
The official said former Secretary of State John Kerry had informed some lawmakers of the move shortly before he left the State Department for the last time Thursday.
The aides said written notification dated Jan. 20 was sent to Congress just hours before Donald Trump took the oath of office.
In addition to the $221 million for the Palestinians, the Obama administration also told Congress on Friday it was going ahead with the release of another $6 million in foreign affairs spending, including $4 million for climate change programs and $1.25 million for U.N. organizations, the congressional aides said.
The aides and the State Department official weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.
Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers – Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee – had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations.
Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.
The Obama administration had for some time been pressing for the release of the money for the Palestinian Authority, which comes from the U.S. Agency for International Development and is to be used for humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza, to support political and security reforms as well as help prepare for good governance and the rule of law in a future Palestinian state, according to the notification sent to Congress
Obama’s Response to Deadly Hamas Attack Against Israel
At daybreak on Saturday, October 7, 2023 — which was the major Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah — the Islamic terror group Hamas carried out a massive, multi-front, surprise attack against Israel, firing thousands of rockets from Gaza into the Jewish state, while dozens of Hamas fighters infiltrated the Israeli border in a number of locations by air, land and sea. “In an assault of startling breadth,” reported CBS News, “Hamas gunmen rolled into as many as 22 locations outside the Gaza Strip, including towns and other communities as far as 15 miles from the Gaza border. In some places they gunned down civilians and soldiers as Israel’s military scrambled to muster a response.” By Sunday, October 8, at least 600 Israelis had been killed and 1,800 wounded, making it the deadliest day Israel had seen in decades. Also by October 8, more than 300 Palestinians had died in retaliatory Israeli airstrikes against Gaza. Moreover, Hamas took hundreds of Israelis hostage, including dozens who were American citizens, and moved them to the Gaza Strip. The terrorists also paraded Israelis’ mutilated bodies in Gaza to cheering crowds of Palestinians.
On October 8, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that officers from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, along with agents of Hamas and three other Iran-sponsored terrorist groups, had recently attended meetings in Beirut to plan the operation. Said the Journal: “Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, another Iran-backed militant group.”
On October 24, 2023, Obama published an op-ed titled “Thoughts on Israel and Gaza,” an expression of moral equivalency which read as follows:
It’s been 17 days since Hamas launched its horrific attack against Israel, killing over 1,400 Israeli citizens, including defenseless women, children and the elderly. In the aftermath of such unspeakable brutality, the U.S. government and the American people have shared in the grief of families, prayed for the return of loved ones, and rightly declared solidarity with the Israeli people.
As I stated in an earlier post, Israel has a right to defend its citizens against such wanton violence, and I fully support President Biden’s call for the United States to support our long-time ally in going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities, and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families.
But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear that how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters. In particular, it matters — as President Biden has repeatedly emphasized — that Israel’s military strategy abides by international law, including those laws that seek to avoid, to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations. Upholding these values is important for its own sake — because it is morally just and reflects our belief in the inherent value of every human life. Upholding these values is also vital for building alliances and shaping international opinion — all of which are critical for Israel’s long-term security.
This is an enormously difficult task. War is always tragic, and even the most carefully planned military operations often put civilians at risk. As President Biden noted during his recent visit to Israel, America itself has at times fallen short of our higher values when engaged in war, and in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government wasn’t interested in heeding the advice of even our allies when it came to the steps we took to protect ourselves against Al Qaeda. Now, after the systematic massacre of Israeli citizens, a massacre that evokes some of the darkest memories of persecution against the Jewish people, it’s understandable that many Israelis have demanded that their government do whatever it takes to root out Hamas and make sure such attacks never happen again. Moreover, Hamas’ military operations are deeply embedded within Gaza — and its leadership seems to intentionally hide among civilians, thereby endangering the very people they claim to represent.
Still, the world is watching closely as events in the region unfold, and any Israeli military strategy that ignores the human costs could ultimately backfire. Already, thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, many of them children. Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. The Israeli government’s decision to cut off food, water and electricity to a captive civilian population threatens not only to worsen a growing humanitarian crisis; it could further harden Palestinian attitudes for generations, erode global support for Israel, play into the hands of Israel’s enemies, and undermine long term efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region.
It’s therefore important that those of us supporting Israel in its time of need encourage a strategy that can incapacitate Hamas while minimizing further civilian casualties. Israel’s recent shift to allow relief trucks into Gaza, prompted in part by the Biden administration’s behind-the-scenes diplomacy, is an encouraging step, but we need to continue to lead the international community in accelerating critical aid and supplies to an increasingly desperate Gaza population. And while the prospects of future peace may seem more distant than ever, we should call on all of the key actors in the region to engage with those Palestinian leaders and organizations that recognize Israel’s right to exist to begin articulating a viable pathway for Palestinians to achieve their legitimate aspirations for self-determination — because that is the best and perhaps only way to achieve the lasting peace and security most Israeli and Palestinian families yearn for.
Finally, in dealing with what is an extraordinarily complex situation where so many people are in pain and passions are understandably running high, all of us need to do our best to put our best values, rather than our worst fears, on display.
That means actively opposing anti-semitism in all its forms, everywhere. It means rejecting efforts to minimize the terrible tragedy that the Israeli people have just endured, as well as the morally-bankrupt suggestion that any cause can somehow justify the deliberate slaughter of innocent people.
It means rejecting anti-Muslim, anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian sentiment. It means refusing to lump all Palestinians with Hamas or other terrorist groups. It means guarding against dehumanizing language towards the people of Gaza, or downplaying Palestinian suffering — whether in Gaza or the West Bank — as irrelevant or illegitimate.
It means recognizing that Israel has every right to exist; that the Jewish people have claim to a secure homeland where they have ancient historical roots; and that there have been instances in which previous Israeli governments made meaningful efforts to resolve the dispute and provide a path for a two-state solution — efforts that were ultimately rebuffed by the other side.
It means acknowledging that Palestinians have also lived in disputed territories for generations; that many of them were not only displaced when Israel was formed but continue to be forcibly displaced by a settler movement that too often has received tacit or explicit support from the Israeli government; that Palestinian leaders who’ve been willing to make concessions for a two-state solution have too often had little to show for their efforts; and that it is possible for people of good will to champion Palestinian rights and oppose certain Israeli government policies in the West Bank and Gaza without being anti-semitic.
Perhaps most of all, it means we should choose not to always assume the worst in those with whom we disagree. In an age of constant rancor, trolling and misinformation on social media, at a time when so many politicians and attention seekers see an advantage in shedding heat rather than light, it may be unrealistic to expect respectful dialogue on any issue — much less on an issue with such high stakes and after so much blood has been spilled. But if we care about keeping open the possibility of peace, security and dignity for future generations of Israeli and Palestinian children — as well as for our own children — then it falls upon all of us to at least make the effort to model, in our own words and actions, the kind of world we want them to inherit.
In a November 3, 2023 interview with Pod Save America, Obama said:
“If there’s any chance of us being able to act constructively to do something, it will require an admission of complexity and maintaining what on the surface may seem contradictory ideas that what Hamas did was horrific, and there’s no justification for it. And, what is also true is that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable. And what is also true is that there is a history of the Jewish people that may be dismissed unless your grandparents or your great-grandparents, or your uncle or your aunt tell you stories about the madness of antisemitism. And what is true is that there are people right now who are dying, who have nothing to do with what Hamas did….”
On November 10, 2023, Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz characterized Obama as a “villain” who was adept at “pouring gas on the fire” of Jew hatred. “He’s never been supportive of Israel,” said Dershowitz. “And finally, his true feelings have come out now that he’s no longer president and doesn’t have to be elected. He has contributed enormously to the problem because he is respected among young people. And if he says the occupation is unbearable and that anything can be done to stop it, he is encouraging people to engage in their antisemitic, anti-Israel and anti-American attitudes. He should be ashamed of himself. He should apologize, but he won’t.” “I think he always had a deep hatred of Israel in his heart,” added Deshowitz. “He hid it very well. He called me to the Oval Office and he said to me, ‘Alan, you’ve known me for a long time. You know I have Israel’s back.’ I didn’t realize he meant to paint a target on it.” “Although he [Obama] said that the attacks by Hamas are not justifiable,” Dershowitz continued, “he made them justifiable because if life really is unbearable, as it’s not, then you can do anything you want.”
Obama and the War Against the Jews
By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
A Complete Timeline of Obama’s Anti-Israel Hatred
By Ben Shapiro
March 20, 2015
The 20 Ways Obama Used His Presidency to Set Israel up for Destruction
By Steve Baldwin
December 29, 2016
By Stanley Kurtz
May 26, 2011
Barack Obama’s Anti-Israel Alliances
By Rachel Neuwirth
October 24, 2008
Barack Obama and Israel
By Ed Lasky
July 28, 2011
A Statement on the Crisis in the U.S.—Israel Relationship
By The Editors of Commentary
March 1, 2015
Obama Administration’s Threefold Slap in Israel’s Face
By P. David Hornik
December 5, 2011
Obama’s Spectacular Failure
By Caroline Glick
July 24, 2012
Obama’s War on Israel
By Daniel Greenfield
February 13, 2014
What Obama Did to Israel
By Charles Krauthammer
May 26, 2011
Obama’s Anti-Israel Islamic Pals
BY Israel National News
October 31, 2008
Obama: The Anti-Israel President
By The David Horowitz Freedom Center