Israel Matzav

Gates blasts Netanyahu: Why now?

Jeffrey Goldberg reports that at one of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' last National Security Council meetings before retiring, Gates blasted Prime Minister Netanyahu for being 'ungrateful' for all the Obama administration has done for us.

In a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee held not long before his retirement this summer, Gates coldly laid out the many steps the administration has taken to guarantee Israel’s security -- access to top- quality weapons, assistance developing missile-defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing -- and then stated bluntly that the U.S. has received nothing in return, particularly with regard to the peace process.

Senior administration officials told me that Gates argued to the president directly that Netanyahu is not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank. According to these sources, Gates’s analysis met with no resistance from other members of the committee.

Goldberg notes that this is not the first time that Gates has blasted Netanyahu.

Gates has expressed his frustration with Netanyahu’s government before. Last year, when Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel was marred by an announcement of plans to build new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem, Gates told several people that if he had been Biden, he would have returned to Washington immediately and told the prime minister to call Obama when he was serious about negotiations.

Gates’s frustration also stems from squabbling with Netanyahu over U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies. In an encounter in Israel in March, according to U.S. and Israeli sources, Netanyahu lectured Gates at length on the possible dangers posed to Israel by such sales, as well as by Turkey and other regional U.S. allies. Gates, a veteran intelligence officer, resented Netanyahu’s tone, and reminded him that the sales were organized in consultation with Israel and pro-Israel members of Congress.

Gates also advocated a softer approach to Iran than Netanyahu advocates - even Liberal Alan Dershowitz has gone after Gates for that. And in all fairness, Netanyahu is not the only one who worries about US arms sales to the Arab regimes. 198 members of the House expressed the same concern - at a time when the majority of the House was still controlled by the Democrats. So Netanyahu is not the only one who disagrees with Gates on these issues, and Gates' tantrum seems out of place, and in light of his retirement, irrelevant. But not to Goldberg.

Goldberg makes a big deal out of Gates' hostility to Netanyahu.

The reason the administration’s hard feelings toward Netanyahu matter now -- and the reason several officials spoke to me on this subject last week -- is that the U.S. is once again going to the mat for Israel at the United Nations, where Palestinians intend to seek recognition of an independent state in September.

The White House plans to contest this resolution in the General Assembly (where the move already has majority support), and the U.S. would most likely veto it in the Security Council. The Obama administration is right to oppose this ploy, which would undermine the chances of reconciliation and could lead to an explosion of violence on the West Bank. But they’ll oppose it in spite of Netanyahu, not to help him.

Dislike of Netanyahu has deepened in a way that could ultimately be dangerous for Israel. Time after time, the White House has taken Israel’s side in international disputes -- over the UN’s Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza; over Israel’s confrontation with the pro-Hamas Turkish “flotilla,” in which nine people were killed; and on many other issues.

Yet the Netanyahu government does little to dispel the notion among its right-wing supporters that the Obama administration is at best a wavering friend. This is self- evidently foolish, especially at a time when Israel faces an existential threat from its menacing neighbor Iran.

Either the administration is deluding itself about the extent of its support for Israel, or Goldberg has allowed himself to be taken in by their rhetoric. Let's start with the Mavi Marmara incident, the fallout of which is still before us. The Obama administration did not go to the mat for Israel. Despite knowing that the Palmer Commission report largely vindicated Israel, the Obama administration attempted to pressure Israel into apologizing to Turkey so that the Palmer Commission report would never see the light of day. Is that 'going to the mat' for Israel?

Goldberg discusses the battle over the 'Palestinians' UDI, which is due to take place in two weeks. Note that the Obama administration still has not committed to veto the 'Palestinian' resolution in the Security Council (go back and read the previous excerpt from Goldberg if you missed that). What if the Obama administration had announced six months ago or a year ago that it would veto the 'Palestinian' resolution in the Security Council, that it would cut off all aid to the 'Palestinian Authority,' and that it would penalize any UN agency that upgraded the 'Palestinians' status? THAT would have been going to the mat for Israel. And if Obama had done that, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today. But Obama's concern at the UN isn't supporting Israel - it's avoiding the exercise of the US veto. He tried all he could to avoid using it in February and then his ambassador - who actually showed up for that meeting - blasted Israel after using the veto. So I don't see where the Obama administration has gone to the mat for us at the UN either.

Although Netanyahu is careful not to say it, the consensus in Israel (and Tzipi Livni - with whom Goldberg is enamored - probably believes this as well, but it's politically expedient for her to say otherwise) is that the Obama administration is the most hostile administration to Israel ever. No amount of coordination between the IDF and the US Armed Forces is likely to change that perception.

But there are two things that bother me greatly about Gates' comments and the way in which Goldberg presented them. First, assuming that his words were accurately portrayed, Gates presupposes that Israel is a client or vassal state to the United States. As much of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will tell you and as many Congresspeople and Senators will tell you, we are not. I will not pretend that this is an equal alliance - it is clear that the US is much larger and more powerful than we are and that yes, it probably gives more than it gets. But to treat Israel as if it gives nothing of value to the relationship - which is how I read Gates - is unfair and condescending. And to pretend that Israel should rely wholly on the US to protect its security and just do whatever the US tells it do - particularly with this administration in power - is something that no Israeli can or should accept.

Second, I have to wonder about the timing of Goldberg's article. This happened in July. It's now September. Why is this coming out now? (And clearly someone among Gates' confidantes' decided that it should come out now, and called Goldberg and offered him a story). I think when you put it together with Stanley Greenberg's orchestration of the #J14 social protesters, one cannot help but wonder whether the Obama administration has decided to try to undermine Netanyahu's position and his government.

We've seen this before. George H.W. Bush succeeded in pushing Yitzchak Shamir out of the Prime Minister's office with the help of a fractured Israeli Right (the Left won the 1992 election because the Right split too much of its vote among too many small parties). And Bill Clinton succeeded in pushing Netanyahu out of office during Netanyahu's first term, again with the help of a fractured Israeli Right (Netanyahu's first government fell because the Right voted no confidence in him).

But there are huge differences between what Bush and Clinton did and what Obama is trying to do. Bush had a 90% popularity rating when he tried to push Shamir out, and Shamir had a very fragile coalition. Clinton was three years into his second term when he tried to push Netanyahu out and Netanyahu had a very fragile coalition.

Netanyahu this time around has a much more solid coalition. Surveys indicate that if elections were held today, parties on the Right would increase their majority. Meanwhile, Obama is in his first term (like Bush was) but has an approval rating the upper 30's or low 40's. That Obama would even consider trying to push Netanyahu out (and it is inconceivable to me that this sort of story was released to the media at this time without the White House approving it) shows how obsessed Obama is with Netanyahu and Israel and how dangerous a second Obama term would be for the Jewish state.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, Robert Gates, US-Israel relationship

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:27 AM