President Obama is known for his cool. Some of his associates call him “No Drama Obama.” And certainly in the realm of foreign policy, his response to events has been phlegmatic. The Iranian government sent its thugs into the streets to beat and murder democratic demonstrators, and President Obama stayed aloof. The Iranians arrested three American hikers, held them for months in prison, and now accuse two of spying — and President Obama remains calm. A Muslim American opened fire on U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, and the president initially warned the nation not to jump to conclusions.
But there was one outrage that provoked the president’s ire — when Israel announced a permit for the construction of 1,600 new apartments on Jewish-owned land in a Jerusalem neighborhood. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately apologized to the then-visiting vice president, Joe Biden, about the timing of the announcement (by which Netanyahu was apparently blindsided), the reportedly “livid” Obama was unsatisfied.
Advertisement
On presidential instructions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Israel’s prime minister and delivered a 45-minute harangue about Israel’s decision to build apartments for Jews in the Jewish capital. Details of the irate phone call were immediately released to the press, with then–State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley offering that Clinton had told Netanyahu that “the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship.”
In the choreographed world of diplomacy, that amounted to a fierce rebuke. But President Obama wasn’t finished. A few days later, presidential adviser David Axelrod appeared on a Sunday talk show and repeated the administration line that the Israeli announcement was an “affront” and an “insult.” Later, when Netanyahu visited the White House, President Obama delivered the final slaps — declining to pose for pictures or take press questions with the prime minister; delivering a list of steps Israel would have to take to restore trust; and then pointedly walking out on the prime minister with the parting words, “Let me know if there is anything new.”
On March 11, Palestinian terrorists entered the home of Udi and Ruth Fogel in the town of Itamar on the West Bank. It was the Sabbath, and most of the family was sleeping. The terrorists first slit the throats of Udi and his three-month-old daughter, Hadas. Ruth was in the bathroom but was attacked and killed as she emerged. Two more sons, Yoav, eleven, and Elad, four, were also killed by knives to the heart. Their throats were slit as well. There were three more Fogel children. Two other boys, ages eight and two, asleep on the sofa, were apparently missed by the murderers. Twelve-year-old Tamar, who had been spending Shabbat with friends, returned home to discover two-year-old Yishai standing over the bodies of his parents and begging them to wake up.
In Rafah, Palestinians celebrated the news of the massacre by dancing, singing, and handing around sweets.
The Obama administration issued a pro-forma condemnation. “There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home,” it read. Secretary Clinton called the murders “inhuman” and reportedly coaxed a more robust denunciation of the atrocity from Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas than he had at first offered.
Dear President Obama;
Thank you for staying with us here at the White House and thank you again for pulling the duties of POTUS for us on such short notice. We're sorry you can't stay longer and we understand you have other, more pressing matters to attend to.
It's with heavy heart that we have to say goodbye this way but we're confident somewhere in this wide world, you'll find new employment where your skills and experiences are better served.
You've certainly moved the bar of expectations for those who would follow you and we want to be the first to tell you how much we've appreciated your efforts here.
Again, good luck in the future, now get the hell out and never come back...
This has to be one of the most incoherent columns Ms. Charen has ever written. With everything going on in the world, Obama is at fault for not scolding all Palestinians for the crimes of the few? Absurd.
Israel is treated this way partly because Israel responds to criticism. It can be coerced by an argument. Reasoned with. It can be shamed, publicly. Ghandi understood this about the British. That empire or no, your basic Englishman is really a decent guy.
Imagine for a moment if Israel's government wasn't a Western style democracy. That it was just a jewish version of Hamas or Baath Party. That elections, if held at all, were fradulent one-party affairs covered by the state media. All headed by a dictator-for-life in the mold of a Mubarak or Hussein. And all of it with the military prowess Israel now has.
But Israel is none of those things. The people on the other side of the argument ARE...but we choose to snub the democratic country most like ourself in values and norms.
Sorry, SmithersJones, but when The Boy Wonder can take the time to scold a Boston cop over nothing, he could certainly take the time to express outrage at something truly outrageous, couldn't he? Or should he vote, "Present!"
You gotta love how Miss Charen plays loose with the facts: "Jewish-owned land"? What part of disputed land does she not understand? What part of international law does she (or most neo-cons) not believe should be followed? Israel does not HAVE to expand its settlements. It does so, as a show of strength. It knows that it is not HELPFUL to any peace process going forward, but it does so anyway.
And why does everyone seem to think that the Israeli form of government is the same as the US's? Even if Netanyahu wanted to make the best peace possible with the Palestinians, he couldn't because of the extreme elements in his coalition (that he had to take on to gain a ruling majority). This would be like the Democrats forming a government with the most leftist of lefties, or the Republicans forming a coalition with the Tea Party (oh sorry, that's already happening!).
The Neo-Cons are so enamoured with Israel, End Times and converting Jews to Christianity, that they lose sight of how they govern.
As for the massacre, I'd like to personally bomb whomever's responsible!
Cïtïzen C, you certainly get it -- except for the snub part. It's Israel's settlements that are the snub. There's no excuse for them -- except that the orthodox crowd demands them.
I guess umlauts are hard to do on computers, easy to do on my phone.
I won't say that everything Israel does is right, but I know which side of the argument I fall on. And I did not say their government is "like" ours. It is parliamentary, but with real, honest elections. Multiple parties. A free press. And Arab muslim Israeli citizens get to vote in them (so much for apartheid...).
And I believe in a limited form of the concept of "weregild". Since 1948, israel's neighbors have waged aggressive wars of territorial conquest against them. They lost those wars they instigated. As a consequence they had some of their land taken in turn. This is fitting, and a good reason not to start aggressive wars for territorial conquest.
Sorry MikeyJ, but the Jews do own that land. They have for 60 years. For the most part, the palestinians trying to claim ownership of the land arrived after the Jews they are now trying to kill.
The Jews took posession of the land through the time honored method. The same method used for every square inch of land in the world today.
As far as the UN determining law and morality. Don't make me laugh.
hitormiss45: Beyond that, even the original borders of Israel were the result of Muslims getting involved in wars over territory and losing.
That whole region was once part of the Ottoman empire. The Ottomans entered WWI on the side of the Germans for the express purpose of capturing land. They lost. As a result of the peace treaty, they lost a lot of land. Some of that land the British gave to the Jews. The British owned the land by right of conquest and could do with it as they pleased. The rest of that land became the other Middle Eastern countries that we know and suffer with today.
MarkW: yes "law and morality" outside of the UN's jurisdiction. I think it's called "pre-emptive war" and has led to the deaths of over 5000 US servicemen and women, and countless Iraqis.
Yes, the "time-honored method". So you'd be OK if Mexico took over part of south Texas, and then imported a load of "Mexicans" in from Russia or Brooklyn called "settlers"?
Most of the individuals who are such outspoken critics of Israel don't know the history of how the land was provided for the Israeli state, that the land was paid for (and sold by Palestinians who may not have even had claim to it), that the Palestianians were offered their own state when Israel was founded and turned it down. Further, the Palestinians are really Jordanians, but the other Arabs don't want them which is why they are still in refugee camps. I just wish some of those on the left would read the history of the state of Israel. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so quick to criticize.
You write, "The Fogels were not killed by two men. They were the victims of the death cult that Palestinian society has bred."
But you would not say the same thing about Timothy McVeigh (?). You would not say the same thing about the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords and many other innocent victims (?). The man who shot George Tiller while he was in church?
When you single out ONLY muslim terrorists as being "representative" of their culture, you create an us/them mindset that helps to encourage the very worst and most violent behavior on the part of the people you disagree with. "What's the point" is the feeling you would have if someone took every crime that someone of your race and religion had done and used it to club you over the head, to demonize you and to demonize your parents, your siblings, and ever person you know.
Would you think it fair if every person who opposes abortion in the U.S. is associated with the "culture of death" that caused George Tiller to be murdered in a church?
When Tiller was murdered, were there denunciations by leading conservatives or were there more subtle forms of dancing?
All humans have the capacity to do bad things. But when you look at criminal acts as representative only when they come from races and cultures different than your own--you're creating more injustice in the world, not less. The housing settlements--and anyone's response to it--can't be even in the same paragraph with the brutal murders of civilians.
To try to hold them against one another and to measure the response in those terms seems like a twisted way to try to score political points against a president you don't respect.
On the international stage, President Obama has repeatedly revealed himself as impudent, unlearned, and in over his head. One wonders if he even knows that "In the choreographed world of diplomacy, that amounted to a fierce rebuke."
MikeyJ: Are you even capable of constructing a valid analogy?
If the US were massing troops on the Mexican border and telling the whole world that we were getting ready to invade Mexico, then Mexico would be justified in striking first. Then if they won, they would be justified in holding any territory that they captured during the fighting.
That's the way the world works.
As to Iraq, if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, none of this would have ever happened. If he had abided by the cease fire that he signed, then none of this would have happened. If hadn't tried to convince the entire world that he was trying to build a nuclear bomb, then none of this would have ever happened.
Are there any other murderous thugs you want to try and defend?
@MarkW well done Sir. Good work all around on the comments.
SmithersJones: Obama picks and chooses his fights like any other president. He has certainly kicked up more dust over things that could easily be characterized as less important than this.
For instance the core of the Palestinian complaints about settlements is that Israel is avoiding negotiations and grabbing land by building, especially in Jerusalem. Therefore when a construction project in the middle stages of being approved is announced it is embarrassing and speaks to the heart of the peace process in Israel.
So Obama's response makes sense on some level. (I personally disagree with his reaction and his methods of negotiation but I think this is the case that can be made for Obama's very robust rebuke of Israel)
The core Israeli concern is that by giving away the West Bank they will open themselves up to being murdered in their beds while they sleep. The Palestinians do this very deed and then CELEBRATE it. This shows that the Israelis are right about the real desires of the Palestinian people. They would rather see all the Jews dead then have their own state.
One would have thought the Obama administration would take at LEAST as much care about the murder of a family as they did at mid-level zoning hearing about a potential building project.
Mona Charen just points out that Obama will go to town on the Israelis for thinking about building some houses but just sort of shrugs at the murder of innocent Jews. This is not a strategy that will lead to peace in the region. It certainly does not make Mona Charen incoherent...better label the Obama Administration with that.
Follow
