This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/world/middleeast/white-house-antagonism-toward-netanyahu-grows.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| White House Antagonism Toward Netanyahu Grows | White House Antagonism Toward Netanyahu Grows |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The White House is stepping up its antagonism toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despite his victory in this week’s elections, signaling that it is in no rush to repair a historic rift between the United States and Israel. | WASHINGTON — The White House is stepping up its antagonism toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despite his victory in this week’s elections, signaling that it is in no rush to repair a historic rift between the United States and Israel. |
| In a congratulatory call to Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday that Mr. Obama waited two days to place, the president took the prime minister to task for his pre-election declaration that no Palestinian state would be established on his watch. Although Mr. Netanyahu has since tried to backpedal on those comments, Mr. Obama said that they had nonetheless forced his administration to reassess certain aspects of its policy toward Israel, according to a White House official who offered details of the call only on the condition of anonymity. | In a congratulatory call to Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday that Mr. Obama waited two days to place, the president took the prime minister to task for his pre-election declaration that no Palestinian state would be established on his watch. Although Mr. Netanyahu has since tried to backpedal on those comments, Mr. Obama said that they had nonetheless forced his administration to reassess certain aspects of its policy toward Israel, according to a White House official who offered details of the call only on the condition of anonymity. |
| For the second consecutive day on Friday, the White House publicly questioned Mr. Netanyahu’s sincerity about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, suggesting that Mr. Obama did not trust him to support Palestinian statehood, a central element of United States policy in the Middle East. | |
| Asked why the president did not take the prime minister at his word about his support for a two-state solution, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, quickly shot back: “Well, I guess the question is, which one?” | |
| “The divergent comments of the prime minister legitimately call into question his commitment to this policy principle and his lack of commitment to what has been the foundation of our policy-making in the region,” Mr. Earnest said. | |
| He said Mr. Netanyahu had raised questions about his “true view” on a two-state solution. “Words matter,” Mr. Earnest said. | |
| On the call between the two leaders, the president also discussed the prime minister’s Election Day comments about Israeli Arabs’ going to the polls in “droves,” which were interpreted widely as an attempt to suppress the Arab vote and prompted outrage in Mr. Obama’s administration and around the world. | |
| The tense conversation came on the same day the White House announced that Denis R. McDonough, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, would deliver the keynote address on Monday to the annual conference of J Street, a pro-Israel group aligned with Democrats that has been fiercely critical of Mr. Netanyahu. | The tense conversation came on the same day the White House announced that Denis R. McDonough, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, would deliver the keynote address on Monday to the annual conference of J Street, a pro-Israel group aligned with Democrats that has been fiercely critical of Mr. Netanyahu. |
| The moves suggested that instead of moving quickly to smooth over tensions with Mr. Netanyahu that burst to the fore in the weeks running up to the Israeli elections, the White House is stoking the acrimony. | The moves suggested that instead of moving quickly to smooth over tensions with Mr. Netanyahu that burst to the fore in the weeks running up to the Israeli elections, the White House is stoking the acrimony. |
| What is less clear is whether the approach represents a lasting foreign policy shift or merely a round of diplomatic venting after Mr. Netanyahu’s win. | What is less clear is whether the approach represents a lasting foreign policy shift or merely a round of diplomatic venting after Mr. Netanyahu’s win. |
| “You have a dysfunctional and unproductive relationship which is being played out publicly, and you’re now at the point where there are two options, meltdown or dial-down,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations who is now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. | “You have a dysfunctional and unproductive relationship which is being played out publicly, and you’re now at the point where there are two options, meltdown or dial-down,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations who is now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. |
| “It’s clear that the administration is deeply disappointed with the outcome of this election, and the champagne has to go back in the refrigerator,” Mr. Miller added. | “It’s clear that the administration is deeply disappointed with the outcome of this election, and the champagne has to go back in the refrigerator,” Mr. Miller added. |
| So far, the White House has stopped short of aggressive moves to challenge Mr. Netanyahu, such as calling on him to remove his ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. An American-born former Republican operative, Mr. Dermer angered the administration when he helped congressional Republicans arrange, without the White House’s knowledge, the prime minister’s speech to Congress this month denouncing Mr. Obama’s efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. | So far, the White House has stopped short of aggressive moves to challenge Mr. Netanyahu, such as calling on him to remove his ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. An American-born former Republican operative, Mr. Dermer angered the administration when he helped congressional Republicans arrange, without the White House’s knowledge, the prime minister’s speech to Congress this month denouncing Mr. Obama’s efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. |
| While some current and former administration officials and people close to the White House argue that his removal could be a productive symbolic move by Mr. Netanyahu to show that he wants to repair his ties with Mr. Obama, few believe that the prime minister is likely to abandon one of his closest confidants just after being vindicated at the polls. | While some current and former administration officials and people close to the White House argue that his removal could be a productive symbolic move by Mr. Netanyahu to show that he wants to repair his ties with Mr. Obama, few believe that the prime minister is likely to abandon one of his closest confidants just after being vindicated at the polls. |
| “In his actions, he’s not actually doing anything to repair the wound or to heal the wound that was opened by his and the ambassador’s actions,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, who said he did not know a single Democrat on Capitol Hill or at the White House who believed that it was helpful for Mr. Dermer to remain in his job. | “In his actions, he’s not actually doing anything to repair the wound or to heal the wound that was opened by his and the ambassador’s actions,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s executive director, who said he did not know a single Democrat on Capitol Hill or at the White House who believed that it was helpful for Mr. Dermer to remain in his job. |
| At the same time, Mr. Ben-Ami added, the division in the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu “is built on policy and substantive disagreement, and there’s no erasing that.” | At the same time, Mr. Ben-Ami added, the division in the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu “is built on policy and substantive disagreement, and there’s no erasing that.” |
| Administration officials have suggested that they may now agree to passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution embodying the principles of a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders and mutually agreed exchanges of territory, a step that would be anathema to Mr. Netanyahu. | Administration officials have suggested that they may now agree to passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution embodying the principles of a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders and mutually agreed exchanges of territory, a step that would be anathema to Mr. Netanyahu. |
| But Mr. Obama assured Mr. Netanyahu in the congratulatory phone call on Thursday that the United States placed a high priority on its security cooperation with Israel, which receives more than $3 billion a year in American military aid. On Friday, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the reassessment of policy that Mr. Obama referred to did not threaten that aid. | But Mr. Obama assured Mr. Netanyahu in the congratulatory phone call on Thursday that the United States placed a high priority on its security cooperation with Israel, which receives more than $3 billion a year in American military aid. On Friday, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the reassessment of policy that Mr. Obama referred to did not threaten that aid. |
| But after Mr. Netanyahu’s pre-election comments on the prospect of a Palestinian state, Mr. Earnest said, he “indicated a weakness in his commitment” to a two-state solution, “and I think that’s putting it charitably.” | But after Mr. Netanyahu’s pre-election comments on the prospect of a Palestinian state, Mr. Earnest said, he “indicated a weakness in his commitment” to a two-state solution, “and I think that’s putting it charitably.” |
| The schism has exacerbated tension between the White House and the most powerful American pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, with which sitting presidents have traditionally been in lock step. Aipac, which like Mr. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran, on Friday said the onus was on the White House to repair the breach. | The schism has exacerbated tension between the White House and the most powerful American pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, with which sitting presidents have traditionally been in lock step. Aipac, which like Mr. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran, on Friday said the onus was on the White House to repair the breach. |
| “Unfortunately, administration spokespersons rebuffed the prime minister’s efforts to improve the understandings between Israel and the U.S.,” the group said in a statement. | “Unfortunately, administration spokespersons rebuffed the prime minister’s efforts to improve the understandings between Israel and the U.S.,” the group said in a statement. |
| “In contrast to their comments,” the statement continued, “we urge the administration to further strengthen ties with America’s most reliable and only truly democratic ally in the Middle East. A solid and unwavering relationship between the U.S. and Israel is in the national security interests of both countries and reflects the values that we both cherish.” | “In contrast to their comments,” the statement continued, “we urge the administration to further strengthen ties with America’s most reliable and only truly democratic ally in the Middle East. A solid and unwavering relationship between the U.S. and Israel is in the national security interests of both countries and reflects the values that we both cherish.” |