President Obama is laying the blame for historically dismal relations between the United States and Israeli governments squarely at the feet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
That critique, however, ignores Obama’s own role in escalating the fight with Netanyahu, which became even more apparent after his administration accused Israel of spying on nuclear negotiations with Iran and leaking details of the closed-door talks to lawmakers.
And some see Obama’s showdown with Netanyahu as a clear attempt to marginalize the Israeli leader, perhaps weakening opposition to an Iran deal that the president views as central to his legacy.
The White House did not dispute or seem to take issue with the Israeli spying Tuesday — Obama refused to comment on the allegations publicly during a joint press conference with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani — instead airing complaints about the findings being shared with Congress.
Some conservatives argued that such rhetoric undermined Obama’s attempts to play the victim in the latest standoff with Israel.
“It’s strange that this White House is so outraged about apparently being unable to keep us in the dark,” a House GOP leadership aide told the Washington Examiner. “First of all, we don’t know what they’re talking about with the ‘spying.’ Secondly, it looks like they are somehow trying to make us look like the bad guy here. What kind of message does that send?”
Obama attempted to limit the damage on Tuesday, insisting that he was not excluding Congress — or Netanyahu — from the process.
“We have not just briefed Congress about the progress or lack thereof that’s being made, but we also briefed the Israelis and our other partners in the region and around the world,” he said.
“I have a very businesslike relationship with the prime minister,” Obama went on. “This can’t be reduced to a matter of somehow let’s all, you know, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.”
The current dispute between Obama and Netanyahu was many years in the making, and to a certain extent, by design. A few months into his presidency, in a private meeting with Jewish leaders later recounted by the Washington Post, Obama criticized his predecessor for having too cozy of a relationship with Israel. “During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that?” he was quoted as saying. “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”
The “low points” in the Obama-Netanyahu years have been so frequent that it’s almost impossible to diagnose a singular root cause behind the fissure.
Just last year, an unnamed administration official publicly called Netanyahu “chickens–t,” one of many times this White House has questioned the Israeli leader’s trustworthiness.
Certainly, Netanyahu has also stoked tensions, addressing Congress earlier this month without first consulting the White House and virtually endorsing Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential contest.
Obama’s focus on the Israeli prime minister has continued even after Netanyahu’s decisive re-election last week dashed the president’s hopes for a more tractable negotiating partner. It is likely that Obama will attempt to use this latest quarrel for his political advantage.
The White House has focused exclusively on Netanyahu’s pre-election dismissal of a Palestinian state, rather than his more recent suggestion that he could accept a two-state solution, with conditions.
“What we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there,” Obama said Tuesday. “And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years.”
However, Netanyahu’s current stance largely mirrors the position he has routinely adopted on a two-state solution.
“I think that anyone who intends to create a Palestinian state today and to give up land is giving radical Islam a launching ground against Israel,” Netanyahu said recently. “This is the reality that was created here in recent years. Anyone who ignores this has his head buried in the ground.”
The Obama administration has openly suggested it could support a United Nations Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood, or at a minimum, drop previous opposition to such a move.
Obama declined on Tuesday to discuss whether he backed that development, but Republicans argued he was clearly going down that path.
“President Obama has left everyone with the impression that the United States could change its course and abandon Israel at the U.N.,” Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill., said from the House floor on Tuesday. “I can’t think of a worse message to send to our friends in Israel and a better gift to the anti-Israel factions of the international community. The days of this administration challenging and undercutting Israel’s prime minster, regardless of who that prime minster may be, must stop.”
Since Netanyahu’s re-election, Obama’s most-trusted aides have brought the fight to the prime minister rather than look for common ground. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough earlier this week said Israel must abandon its “occupation” of Palestinian territories.
Obama’s defenders privately say the current tone from the White House is deliberate rather than purely a sign of outrage with Netanyahu over recent events.
“He knows he’s not getting anything out of Bibi during the next two years,” said a former senior administration official who worked extensively on Middle East issues. “It would be foolish for the president not to explore different options. The main difference now is how much of this is playing out in public.”
