Israel Matzav: A 'new low'?

A 'new low'?

A Washington Post headline on Saturday, since changed, described the current state of affairs between Israel and the United States as a 'new low.' Whether it is a 'new low' or not, it is clear that relations between Israel and the Obama administration are at the lowest point they have been since James ("F**k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway") Baker gave the White House switchboard number at a press conference and said that Israel should call when it is serious about peace during the George H.W. Bush administration twenty years ago.

Jennifer Rubin points out that what is now the biggest obstacle to peace is not mistrust between Israel and the 'Palestinians,' but mistrust between Israel and the United States.

Actually, it is the mistrust between Israel and the U.S. that is at the nub of the problem. We hear that the Obami intend to use this incident to pressure Israel to “something that could restore confidence in the process and to restore confidence in the relationship with the United States.” And it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Obami are escalating the fight — making relations more tense and strained — to achieve their misguided objective, namely to extract some sort of unilateral concessions they imagine would pick the lock on the moribund “peace process.”

It’s mind boggling, really, that after this public bullying, the Obami expect the Israelis to cough up more concessions and show their faith in the American negotiators. And if by some miracle they did, what would that change? Where is the Palestinian willingness or ability to make a meaningful peace agreement?

As Jennifer points out in another post, a lot of Israel supporters' pent up frustration with the Obama administration is coming out this weekend. Here's the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman - when was the last time you heard him speak without mentioning anti-Semitism?

We are shocked and stunned at the Administration’s tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem. We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States. One can only wonder how far the U.S. is prepared to go in distancing itself from Israel in order to placate the Palestinians in the hope they see it is in their interest to return to the negotiating table.

It is especially troubling that this harsh statement came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly and privately explained to Vice President Biden the bureaucratic nature in making the announcement of proposed new building in Jerusalem, and Biden accepted the prime minister’s apology for it. Therefore, to raise the issue again in this way is a gross overreaction to a point of policy difference among friends.

The Administration should have confidence and trust in Israel whose tireless pursuit for peace is repeatedly rebuffed by the Palestinians and whose interests remain in line with the United States.

Jennifer also points to this statement by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), which I am sure will only be the first of many:

“I call on President Obama to censure Secretary Clinton’s rebuke of Prime Minister Netanyahu and reaffirm our longstanding friendship with Israel. Past U.S. administrations have recognized the unique relationship between Israel and the United States and made support for Israel a cornerstone of our foreign policy. The United States has a moral and strategic obligation to support this beacon of democracy in the Middle East. For the Obama administration to question the internal decisions of one of our closest allies is both disrespectful and unhelpful. Prime Minister Netanyahu has the authority and responsibility to care for the people of Israel, and it is inappropriate for Secretary Clinton to openly question these decisions. I hope her statements do not weaken the vital U.S.-Israel relationship. Any attempt to cut or restrict military aid to Israel by the administration would severely damage both U.S. and Israeli security. And any effort to cut aid would lead to fierce resistance in Congress.”

Good luck with that Todd. Unfortunately, as Jennifer Rubin points out, the orders for this came straight from the White House.

Worse, says Noah Pollak, the hysterical reaction of the Obama administration is likely an attempt to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.

When we follow this logic chain to its conclusion, we find that Obama’s only option for restraining an Israeli attack is the one that we’re seeing unfold before our eyes: a U.S. effort to methodically weaken the relationship; provoke crises; consume the Netanyahu government with managing this deterioration; and most important, create an ambiance of unpredictability by making the Israelis fear that an attack on Iran would not just be met with American disapproval but also a veto and perhaps active resistance.

The Obama administration’s reaction to the Biden visit has been too eagerly petulant to simply be a response to an insult — especially when it is clear that Netanyahu didn’t know the housing announcement was coming, and when the U.S. had already accepted the terms of the settlement freeze, which allows for precisely such construction in Jerusalem. That said, the announcement was a sucker-punch of epic proportions that was sure to cause an angry reaction from an administration that has made criticism of Israel one of its most consistent policies. It seems to me that this reaction is intended to help solve one of its biggest problems in the Middle East — the possibility that Israel may attack Iran.

Read the whole thing.

While George W. Bush's treatment of Israel wasn't always perfect, it was certainly much warmer than what we're getting now. I hope that the 78% of American Jews who couldn't bring themselves not to vote for a Democrat are happy with what they have wrought.

Israel Matzav: A 'new low'?