A report on the substance and tone of the conversation between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu surfaces. Against the statements today by White House Spokesperson, Josh Earnest, the report outlining the conversation appears accurate.
There is no doubt President Obama is angry Netanyahu not only won his election, but won re-election with a considerable margin.
President Obama, John Kerry, and the rest of the anti-Isreal ideologues in the administration had leveraged considerable effort toward Netanyahu’s defeat. They are all now visibly gnashing their teeth and making threats.
To understand the current threats now made by Obama -toward Israel via the U.N- everyone must remember the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power (wife of Cass Sunstein) has spent her professional career both as an academic, and as a governmental policy advisor, advocating the position that Israel “is an occupying force”.
U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power has formerly (and publicly) advocated the proposition the U.N. could be leveraged against Israel as an occupying force, and U.N. Blue Helmets (including U.S. boots on the ground) could be utilized to force Israel to accept international rules on borders drawn by the U.N body.
This has been her consistent message to President Obama since her time as White House “foreign policy advisor”.
So when you see President Obama threatening to change position on Israel’s interests, through the U.N, he is essentially expressing to Netanyahu a willingness to allow Samantha Power’s ideas to be pushed. This is the backdrop for yesterday’s phone call.
The possible ramifications to allowing Power’s free reign on U.S. Israeli policy through the U.N are:
#1) The U.S. may refrain from vetoing resolutions against Israel relating to settlement building and Palestinian statehood.
#2) The U.S. might engage in drafting and/or supporting resolutions setting out the parameters for a Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders and with a divided Jerusalem.
#3) The U.S. might even support sanctions against Israel for failure to comply with such resolutions.
If Samantha Power was allowed to go ‘all-in’, and if you accept her prior positions as actual goals, she would add #4: Put U.N. Troops on the ground to enforce #2 and #3 and make Israel comply with borders drawn by the United Nations.
As the Times of Israel points out in their article quoting sources close to the phone call between Netanyahu and Obama:
[…] During the 30-minute conversation, described as “difficult” by Channel 2, Obama made clear to the prime minister that the US was reconsidering its support for Israel at the UN as well as its approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace in light of Netanyahu’s pre-election comments rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state. (link)
The mantra of Netanyahu “changing positions” on the two-state solution is an argument of semantics. Netanyahu has always said a two-state solution would require a “demilitarized Palestinian state”. Absent of weapons being stopped from entering GAZA and/or the West Bank, it would be impossible for security of Israel to co-exist with a two-state solution.
This is not a change in position, this is the same position Netanyahu has held throughout discussions. This is not a flip-flop. If the PA is allowed weapons, Israel will not commit to a two state solution. If the PA is not allowed weapons, a two-state solution is possible.
However, President Obama, having lost the fight to unseat Netanyahu, is now playing the politically “wounded Indian routine”.
Obama is accusing Netanyahu of a policy shift -which doesn’t exist- to try and regain political support for his own anti-Israel ideology which has existed throughout his tenure.
The Times Article of the Obama/Netanyahu conversation is HERE.