Who is “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?”

By Chemi Shalev, HAARETZ

kbKerry and Netanyahu at a press conference in Jerusalem, January 2, 2014. Photo by Reuters

The admonishing tweets sent out over the past 24 hours by National Security Adviser Susan Rice in the wake of Israel’s recent verbal offensive against Secretary of State John Kerry are meant to convey a similar sentiment: that his Israeli insulters have crossed the red line of diplomatic etiquette – a word for which here is no Hebrew translation.

The U.S. Administration, to quote the sterner Howard Beale from the movie Network, is “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”.

Because recently, the steady trickle of insults and invective from Jerusalem seems be evolving into a tempestuous torrent. Tempers had hardly calmed down after Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon described Kerry as “obsessive” and “messianic”, when Bayit Yehudi MK Motti Yogev – from the ruling coalition – described Kerry as an anti-Semite; and only a few hours after Yogev asserted that the epithet was “not personal”, Kerry spoke in Munich about the dangers of boycott and the entire Israeli leadership subjected him to a sustained and indignant barrage, accusing him of “trying to pressure us with threats”, “holding a gun to our heads” and serving as “trumpet (shofar, actually) for the anti-Semitic boycott.”

Now, abusing U.S. presidents and their ministers is hardly a new concept, especially at times when the peace process seems to be going forward. From the days that Gush Emunim stood outside the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1974 and shouted “Jew boy” at Secretary of State Henry Kissinger all the way to the title “anti-Semitic Pharaoh” that the settlers affixed to Obama before the settlement freeze of 2010, the Israeli right wing has always reacted with unbridled ferocity to what it considers to be U.S. efforts to seize its God-given estate.

The difference now is in the frequency of the flare-ups, in the seniority of the Israeli disparagers – from the prime minister on down – and mainly in the deep mutual resentment from which the altercations stem. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that in securing the interim nuclear agreement with Tehran, Kerry and the Administration operated behind his back and stuck a knife in it while they were there. Obama and Administration officials were subsequently astounded by what they saw as Bibi’s brazen enlistment of the Jewish establishment in support of the now-stalled Senate sanctions bill, which they view as an overt attempt to undercut Obama’s foreign policy.

And the intensity of the bilateral clashes is further fueled by the suspicions and bad chemistry that have characterized the relations between Obama and Netanyahu from the day they both took office in 2009. In the eyes of the White House, one Administration insider told me this week, a direct line connects Netanyahu’s public reprimand of Obama at their White House meeting in May 2011 to his barely disguised support for Mitt Romney in 2012 to his “over the top” reactions to the Iran accord to the current campaign against Kerry.

But in Netanyahu’s favor, he added with a smile, stands the fact that he usually distances himself from his own insults even before he’s finished dishing them out.

The Americans are well aware, of course, of the coarse, confrontational and in-your-face nature of Israeli political discourse – they just don’t think it should be levelled at them. True, Obama and Kerry are often subjected to the same kind of vilification by their political rivals, but that’s the whole point: for some reason, the Administration does not expect Israeli ministers to sound like Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh, especially when the U.S. remains, by all accounts, Israel’s biggest and perhaps only international ally.

Israel used to complain about the disingenuous of Arab leaders who “speak to their own people in one language and to international audiences in another.” Now they are finding out that it’s not always such a great idea to speak to your friends abroad with the diatribe usually reserved for your enemies and rivals at home.

Small wonder that the Administration would like nothing better than to revert to the diplomatic niceties of yesteryear, with Washington old-timers fondly recalling the days when the only face of Israel on the international stage belonged to a sophisticated and urbane foreign minister named Abba Eban.

February 5, 2014 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. Obama is vying with Erdogan for buffoon of the year. both are managing to alienate friend and foe alike at a remarkable pace. Insults hurled at this ludicrous US admins incompetence, bumbling and corruption are much too kind. Only foreign paid media stooges like those employed at haaretz would believe that the Obama clown show is undeserving of insult. This article is the dribbling of a robotic parrot media clone and undeserving of any serious attention. Kerry properly completes the picture of a useless fool opportunist seeking a run in 2016. he should take a lesson from hillary who is hoping that everyone forgets her debacles before 2016. The electorate memory is short so she will likely take the dem primary by a landslide. Fool Jews will quickly forget how quickly she mimicked the anti semitism of the Obama crew. Now is the time to put good intelligence to work and leak the incriminating evidence to foil the Obama agenda. All Obamas undertakings have been collosal failures. It is only the incredibly short memory retention of the electorate that keeps Obama in office. if one writes a list of all his scandals and failures it probably surpasses all past admins added together.
    A bumbling fool like Kerry should keep his mouth shut and not draw more attention to his repetitive idiocy.

  2. “[F]for some reason, the Administration does not expect Israeli ministers to sound like Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh, especially when the U.S. remains, by all accounts, Israel’s biggest and perhaps only international ally.”

    “By ALL accounts”? — says who?

    If the U.S. is Israel’s ‘ally,’ then where is the Treaty formalizing that commitment?

    The NATO powers are all INDEED mutual allies.

    — The Charter of the North Atlantic TREATY Organization confirms that.

    Notwithstanding the perennial blather, however, GOI & USA are not ‘allies.’

    The actual relationship is one of a kept woman. . . . and her keeper:

    “Whenever Israel’s existence was endangered —- the American [govt’s] attitude was denial, disavowal and renunciation. And there are no indications that this pattern of behavior is likely to change in the future…

    “Remarkably, even during the years of close American-Israeli military cooperation [essentially, the two decades of the 70’s & 80’s], the U.S. [presidential admin’s] never ceased pressuring [the respective govts of] Israel to accept Arab political demands. There was a clear dividing line: Strengthening Israel’s military power, in order to curb Soviet infiltration into the Middle East —- yes. Support of Israel in the struggle against its neighbors —- no! If the arms Israel received also served to strengthen it in relation to the other states in the region —- this was no more than an unavoidable and even undesirable side effect…

    “[T]here was never a real marriage between [the govts of] the United States and Israel. There was no unconditional support of one another, only close relations restricted to certain matters. The American attitude was reminiscent of the way one would behave towards a concubine or kept woman.

    “Everything she needs to fulfill her task is financed: a cozy apartment, nice furniture and a comfortable bed. She is provided with modern and attractive clothing and cosmetics —- of course on these one tries to economize —- but her true well-being and her future are matters of lesser concern…” [emph add — dw]

    from: Prof Ezra Sohar, A Concubine in the Middle East: American-Israeli Relations, trans. from the Hebr, Laurence Weinbaum (Gefen Books, Newlett, NY, 1999).

  3. Note that this article comes from the notorious Haaretz of the very far left. For too long American officials could betray and insult Israel while Israel feared to push back. This time Obama and his gang have gone too far. Insults, lies betrayals and finally tying Israel’s hands while enabling Iran to pose an existential threat to a loyal ally. Israel has NO choice but to respond. Obama is losing support around the world and is even mocked by the Iranians whom he supports. I wish that Israel would respond to threats by building more homes for Israelis in Judea and Samaria.

  4. The epithets hurled at American leaders for the most part are description of their actual attitudes and behaviors, not merely ad hominem deprecations. The Israelis have actually constrained their remarks to an astounding degree, since there are entire fields of US duplicitous actions that they have not publicly characterized. I refer to the well recognized Iran sellout of Israeli interests. We may further include the US’ special victimization of Jonathan Pollard and the American intelligence infiltrations of Israeli institutions, both political and military, as though Israel was the equivalent of Mao’s China or the old Soviet Union. Indeed, it might be quite fair and balanced to say that the US government views Israel as an enemy of the US, though of course the American people do not.

  5. When the US insults and betrays Israel at every turn – Israel should just sit there, smile and bear it?

    The US Administration can dish it out but it can’t take it? Cry me a river.