Click on WORD or PDF for full content
We looked back to Pickings March 28th 2010 to find a post by Nile Gardiner about Obama’s insult to Netanyahu during his last visit to Washington. It is worth remembering this episode now as we watch our president again act in execrable fashion towards the Israeli Prime Minister.
I wrote recently about Barack Obama’s sneering contempt for both Israel and Great Britain. Further confirmation of this was provided today with new details emerging regarding the President’s appalling reception for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House earlier this week. As Adrian Blomfield reports for The Telegraph:
‘Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.
… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.
When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.” As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.” ‘
This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.
The ritual humiliation of the Israelis is an absolute disgrace, and yet another example of how the Obama administration views its allies with indifference, contempt, and at times outright hostility. It is extraordinary how far the Obama team has gone out of its way to grovel to state sponsors of terrorism, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar Gaddafi, while kicking America’s friends in the teeth. …
Bret Stephens thinks all of this is fine as long as we understand the president is anti-Israel.
Say what you will about President Obama’s approach to Israel—or of his relationship with American Jews—he sure has mastered the concept of chutzpah.
On Thursday at the State Department, the president gave his big speech on the Middle East, in which he invoked the claims of friendship to tell Israelis “the truth,” which to his mind was that “the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.” On Friday in the Oval Office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered his version of the truth, which was that the 1967 border proposed by Mr. Obama as a basis for negotiating the outlines of a Palestinian state was a nonstarter.
Administration reaction to this reciprocal act of friendly truth-telling? “That was Bibi over the top,” the New York Times quoted one senior U.S. official, using the prime minister’s nickname. “That’s not how you address the president of the United States.”
Maybe so. Then again, it isn’t often that this or any other U.S. president welcomes a foreign leader by sandbagging him with an adversarial policy speech a day before the visit. Remember when the Dalai Lama visited Mr. Obama last year? As a courtesy to Beijing, the president made sure to have the Tibetan spiritual leader exit by the door where the White House trash was piled up. And that was 11 months before Hu Jintao’s state visit to the U.S. …
Jennifer Rubin writes about AIPAC receptions for Harry Reid and Bibi Netanyahu.
Last night at AIPAC Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu delighted and engaged the crowd, while Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) raised some eyebrows. Reid made it perfectly clear, as House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) did on Sunday, that he wanted nothing to do with President Obama’s formulation of U.S. policy toward Israel.
Reid, looking more rickety than usual, isn’t a fabulous public speaker. But what he said pleased the crowd immensely. He was emphatic that any peace deal will be decided “by the parties at the center of the conflict and nowhere else.” If that weren’t direct enough, he continued, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or anything else.” Roaring ovation. And he assured the crowd, “The United States will not give money to terrorists bent on the destruction of the state of Israel.” Imagine if Obama had said all that — but then he’d have to believe all that and that the peace process is best served when America’s support for Israel is undiluted.
Netanyahu is quite a presence in a room. And the room last night was brimming with affection and enthusiasm. Let there be no doubt: If Obama’s reception was polite, Bibi’s was effusive. …
Even before Bibi’s speech yesterday before a joint session, Jonathan Tobin knew Netanyahu was going to go home a winner in the recent kerfuffle started by the kid president.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today will illustrate a fact that was largely obscured by the controversy over President Obama’s Middle East policy speech. The Jewish state enjoys overwhelming and bipartisan support in this country.
Cynics will ascribe the support to the “Israel Lobby”—a.k.a. AIPAC—which has been holding its annual conference in the capital the last couple of days — or some other pro-Zionist force. But what conspiracy theorists like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (authors of The Israel Lobby) and their media ilk never seem to understand is that the cabal they believe manipulates U.S. policy is so large it encompasses both major political parties and an overwhelming majority of the American people. …
Jennifer Rubin was at the speech to Congress and says Bibi did not disappoint.
It was simply the most extraordinary and clever speech given by an Israeli prime minister. Bibi Netanyahu did several critical things: demonstrated that he and members of Congress from both parties are entirely in sync; refocused the world on Iran; publicly stated he would give up land considered by Jews to be part of their historic homeland; left no doubt that the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize a Jewish state is the sole reason there is no Palestinian state; and implicitly made a mockery of President Obama’s fixation on settlements. I will take each in order.
The genuine expression of warmth and respect, but more important, agreement from Congress was undeniable. On each key point, whether on Hamas or the right of return or the U.N., there was a full standing ovation from every attendee I could spot. Netanyahu is a uniter — is there ANY issue on which the Congress is so totally united? And Netanyahu made a key point to lawmakers weary about demands form unstable regimes. “No nation building is needed. Israel is already built. There is no need to export democracy.We already are one.” And there’s no need for U.S. troops because “we defend ourselves.”
When a single heckler interrupted, Congress stood in unison to show solidarity. In one of his best lines, Netanyahu said, “You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments of Tehran or Tripoli. This is real democracy.”
Jonathan Tobin posts again, after the joint session speech.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu basks in the glory from his triumphant speech to a joint meeting of Congress, it’s a moment to consider that he is the only Israeli leader who could have pulled off such a tour de force. His eloquent summation of Israel’s case was not only to the point, it was delivered in a manner that was singularly insightful in its ability to speak straight to the concerns of Americans.
That is not to say that Netanyahu is the wisest or the most adroit of Israeli politicians. He isn’t. His is a flawed character that has often been rightly described as Nixonesque. He combines a simmering resentment against enemies with deep suspicion of his friends. No happy warrior, Netanyahu is a prickly and often unpleasant man. And yet it must be understood that, for all of his shortcomings, Netanyahu is uniquely equipped to handle what must be considered the most important task of any Israeli prime minister: the alliance with the United States. Having spent much of his childhood in the United States (he’s the second most famous graduate of Cheltenham High School in Pennsylvania after baseball Hall-of-Famer Reggie Jackson), he speaks fluent American English. More than that, unlike most Israelis, including many who have immigrated here, he has an intuitive understanding of American culture. …
Closing today’s coverage of the speech is Toby Harnden.
… It was also notable that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, a liberal Democrat and a Mormon, effectively slapped down Obama in a speech at AIPAC in which he said: “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or anything else.”
As Jennifer Rubin notes, Obama is out of step with his own party on Israel. To talk of his “growing irrelevancy”, as Rubin does, may be overstating things. But he is certainly beginning to look isolated.
Here’s 33 year old video of Netanyahu on a U. S. TV show The Advocate, For this he had anglicized his name to Benjamin Nitay.
For a change of pace, John Steele Gordon writes on the future of the printed book.
Amazon, by far the largest bookseller in the country, reported on May 19 that it is now selling more books in its electronic Kindle format than in the old paper-and-ink format. That is remarkable, considering that the Kindle has only been around for four years. E-books now account for 14 percent of all book sales in this country and are increasing far faster than overall book sales. E-book sales are up 146 percent over last year, while hardback sales increased 6 percent and paperbacks decreased 8 percent.
Does this spell the doom of the physical book? Certainly not immediately, and perhaps not at all. What it does mean is that the book business will go through a transformation in the next decade or so more profound than any it has seen since Gutenberg introduced printing from moveable type in the 1450s.
Physical books will surely become much rarer in the marketplace. Mass market paperbacks, which have been declining for years anyway, will probably disappear, as will hardbacks for mysteries, thrillers, “romance fiction,” etc. Such books, which only rarely end up in permanent collections either private or public, will probably only be available as e-books within a few years. Hardback and trade paperbacks for “serious” nonfiction and fiction will surely last longer. Perhaps it will become the mark of an author to reckon with that he or she is still published in hard copy.
As for children’s books, who knows? Children’s books are like dog food in that the purchasers are not the consumers, so the market (and the marketing) is inherently strange. …