On May 20th of this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "publicly lectured" Barack Obama over the president's call for the tiny Jewish state to return to its pre-1967 borders. Netanyahu called the borders "indefensible" and flatly rejected the president's demands. Observers in legacy media were "stunned" that anyone had dared stand up to the president:
ABC's Christiane Amanpour declared she was "stunned" by his "public lecture" of the President and NBC's Andrea Mitchell hissed, "it was really rude," and charged he treated Obama "like a school boy."
Mitchell didn't reserve her criticism to Netanyahu as she even went after Republicans who dared to take his side, accusing them of "piling on the President."
During Netanyahu's statement, Obama's body language was imperious and withdrawn. According to an unverified report, once Netanyahu had departed, Obama flew into a rage over the perceived insult:
Shortly after the photo-op meeting and “working lunch” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one that saw President Obama openly chastised by the Prime Minister for Obama’s earlier public comments regarding wanting to see Israel return to its 1967 borders, the president verbally “went off” on Richard Daley in the private study area that adjoins the Oval Office. President Obama’s verbal attack was clearly heard by numerous staff up and down the West Wing hallways.
The essence of the president’s rage and embarrassment can best be summed up with him yelling out very loudly, “What the f*** was that!?” That phrase was apparently repeated a number of times in the span of about five minutes, a time period in which Obama’s voice became “louder and louder” and culminating in Obama exclaiming, “Never again! Do you understand me? Never again!” Any response by Bill Daley back to the president, if given, was not overheard.
In today's Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin ("Obama bullies Israel; so much for promises at AIPAC") describes how the president may be exacting his revenge for Netanyahu's perceived rebuke.
Since the president’s Arab Spring speech, friends of Israel have been nervous about at least two issues: the promise Israel would not have to sit down with those who seek its destruction and the negotiations based on the “1967 borders with land swaps.” This weekend it became apparent that there is much to worry about and that the Obama administration has been playing a game usually practiced by the Palestinians, namely telling its domestic audience one thing and the negotiating parties something different...
The White House is pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to publicly adopt President Obama’s view that Israel’s pre-1967 border should be the basis for future peace talks [stating it] was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.
Is the U.S. president pressuring Israel to adopt a position that is not its own and diminishes its bargaining position? And what happened to the statements in President Obama’s speech to AIPAC that Israel could not be expected to sit down with those who want to destroy it? After all Hamas has not yet agreed to the Quartet principles (recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by past agreements), nor has Mahmoud Abbas separated himself from the unity government.
...Is the administration now asking Israel to sit down with Abbas absent a commitment by Hamas or a break-up of the unity government? By gosh, that should be an easy answer (“No!”) , yet the administration won’t say.
...This is a very, very big deal. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams explained to me Friday evening: “I hope news reports of what the Obama White House is privately demanding of Israel are wrong. If the reports are right, the U.S. is now abandoning the Quartet Principles — and asking Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian side that includes Hamas without Hamas taking one single step away from terror.
...[And] what about the 1967 borders? Democratic defenders of the president have insisted that “1967 borders with land swaps” is nothing new. But it appears it certainly is. As the insider noted, “Yes, they are pressing for ’67 with swaps, not exactly ’67. But that’s not really the point — they’ve already adopted what was a Palestinian ‘goal’ as U.S. policy."
...And it is actually worse than that... Israel is being pressured to give up prior understandings that the Western Wall and the Jerusalem suburbs, for example, would never be part of a Palestinian state.
Rubin also spoke with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), "who plainly was angry over the continued effort to bully Israel ... 'President Obama never learns. His real instinct is to weaken Israel. You don’t treat an ally this way.' He said he has never seen this sort of behavior from any U.S. president [and] the current posture is 'shameful.'"
Shameful. Unprecedented. Destructive.
Just like the President's domestic policies.
I urge you to file this report under "Remember in 2012".
Linked by: Gateway Pundit and Flopping Aces. Thanks!