Netanyahu at U.S. Congressional Podium – and at the Precipice?

Netanyahu publically breaks with Obama

By Jeff Rutherford

It’s beginning to feel like we’ll continue witnessing momentous, deadly events for many years to come in the Middle East.  When you stop and view the Iran nuclear weapons negotiations through the eyes of Israel — the lone oasis of liberty in a vast surrounding desert of anti-Jewish theocracies — the arrogance and callous disregard that President Obama and his State Department are showing towards the safety of Israel defy rationality.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will explain eloquently next week before Congress, it is ridiculous for Obama to be bypassing Israel to make deals with Iran that invest a totally unfounded level of trust in Iran’s future good behavior, and all done from the geographically distant North America — half an earth orbit away from any fledgling ICBM launch attempt that Iran might someday try.

Morally speaking, Israel’s interest in survival should trump Obama’s exercises in narcissism and dreamy utopianism, not be subordinated to them.  Obama is audaciously gambling to secure a lofty legacy for himself, while recklessly placing the Israelis’ lives at risk – and no longer bothering to consult with them or even inform them of his high-stakes dealings.

David IgnatiusWashington Post opinion columnist David Ignatius wrote a column last week under the no-spin headline “Why Netanyahu Broke Publicly with Obama over Iran.”  Ignatius is no conservative — he’s a mainstream D.C. Beltway liberal.  But in this instance he shows himself to be fair and pragmatic.  I give him credit for writing a straightforward analysis of the valid concerns that Israel has about the Obama administration’s naive strategy with the Iran nuclear weapons negotiations.  Ignatius’ op-ed piece reads more like a hard news story than 90% of the alleged “news” articles in the New York Times.  Here is an excerpt.  The bracketed phrases are mine, to provide context.

The public rift between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear issue is often described as a personality dispute. But a senior Israeli official argued this week that the break has been building for more than two years and reflects a deep disagreement about how best to limit the threat of a rising Iran.

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence, outlined his government’s view in an interview Wednesday.  […]Steinitz said the Israeli government understands the U.S. goal of a 10- to 15-year duration for the agreement, which would constrain Iran into what’s likely to be the next generation after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is 75. But here again, he [Steinitz] dissented.

“I understand the logic, but I disagree,” Steinitz said. What the United States is saying to Iran, in effect, is “if you agree to freeze [uranium enrichment efforts at 6500 active centrifuges] for 10 years, that’s enough for us.” But that won’t work for Israel. “To believe that in the next decade there will be a democratic change in leadership and that Iran won’t threaten the U.S. or Israel anymore, I think this is too speculative.”

Steinitz concluded the conversation with an emphatic warning: “Iran is part of the problem and not part of the solution — unless you think Iran dominating the Middle East is the solution.”

People who think that a nuclear deal with Iran is desirable, as I [David Ignatius] do, need to be able to answer Steinitz’s critique.

It sounds like Ignatius might actually welcome Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Tuesday March 3rd.  Too bad more liberal intellectual elites won’t make a similar effort to shut their traps and open their ears and minds for a moment to the tenuous plight of Israel.  Ideological leftists claim to be for world peace.  So why are most liberal politicians and pundits watching – and even encouraging – President Obama to throw Israel to the wolves?

Israel surrounded by Islamic theocracies


About Necessary and Proper

Jeff believes in the Individual's ability to excel when liberty and freedom of choice are protected. Also believes in the Community's ability to take care of the vast majority of its own issues and needs when the federal government leaves the Community's resources and sphere of control alone. State and local choice produce better results than centralized federal control.
This entry was posted in Politics in Practice, Progressive Paradoxes and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Netanyahu at U.S. Congressional Podium – and at the Precipice?

  1. It is perfectly rational….Obama is a Muslim

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Much as I’ve tried, I can’t seem to come up with a satisfactory answer for your final question, Jeff. After all, Israel and the US have been allies since Israel’s founding in 1948. I’m not surprised at Obama himself, but some of the liberal politicians – I just don’t get it. Blind loyalty to Obama, perhaps?

    I have some hope left because not all of the Democrats are boycotting Netanyahu’s speech. Let’s just hope there are enough who really care about Israel, along with the Republicans, to nullify any bad deal Obama may insist on. Obama is really forcing Israel’s hand over this deal, and if it goes through, it’s not going to be pretty any way you look at it. Very worrisome.


  3. Bullright says:

    “Dreamy utopianism” is a good term for it. Strategically it makes no sense that their premise is some optimistic speculation about Iran’s future ….ah leadership. When he had the chance to back the voice of freedom, and dissent, in Iran he ran away fast. So that leaves us with one conclusion. Good writeup. Now Obama has destroyed any illusion of an “honest broker”.

    Of course I blame much of it on Jarrett, but Obama has both hands in it up to his ears. As to why, there must be lots of reasons. However it makes me wonder what difference it would make if they had their dream of an ideologically liberal Israel like their own administration? Would they care any more about her? I’ve read that it seems to be more about Iran than it ever was about Israel. All I can come up with, as to the liberal positioning, is that it makes everything so much easier for them if they just don’t have to defend Israel.


  4. tannngl says:

    Jeff, I came up with almost the same label that Froggy did! Only mine was ‘Utopian Dreamers’. LOL Shocked when I saw his comment!

    “So why are most liberal politicians and pundits watching – and even encouraging – President Obama to throw Israel to the wolves?”

    I think the reasons are many, including my term, Utopian Dreamers.
    Let’s list a few more:
    Liberal hate
    Liberal blindness
    Short sighted political strategy
    And of course, Utopian Dreamers

    There’s probably more but you get the idea.

    (Still amazed that we came up with the same label!)

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Steve Lister says:

    I’ve been hoping that Obama’s behavior is due to inexperience and incompetence. But I fear that he may be more clever than we imagine and is accomplishing exactly what he intends. Dividing the American public to the point of inaction and weakening America’s influence in the world. I don’t think he cares much for American exceptionalism..He is breaking us.


Chime in! Leave Jeff a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s