Obama, Natanyahu, and narcissism
One of the most disturbing things about the Obama administration’s reaction to the prospect of Netanyahu’s addressing Congress isn’t just the discord it reveals between Obama and Israel; that’s old, old news.
For example, as early as May of 2009 I wrote that, although it was hard to tell at that point how Obama was going to treat Israel, “the preponderance of evidence points in the ominous Jimmy Carteresque direction.” I added:
How deep is Obama’s belief that Iran can be reasoned with? How far is he willing to go, how patient is he willing to be, how much is he willing to risk, to find out? And how much time is Netanyahu willing to give Obama before he takes matters into his own hands to stop Iran from acting out on what appears to be an existential threat to Israel’s existence?
That’s still the issue, and it’s more urgent than ever.
As for the personal enmity between the two heads of state, by March of 2010 Obama was already treating Netanyahu with unprecedented rudeness and hostility. In case you’ve forgotten, let me refresh your memory about the magnitude of the insult:
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.
After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.
“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.
Obama is not just a petulant, angry man, he is one who is operating on a juvenile level that degrades the very presidency itself.
But the most bizarre thing about Obama’s hissy fit at the prospect of Netanyahu’s proposed address is his outrage at Netanyahu’s supposed rudeness, and his taking it as a very personal affront. Forget the larger geopolitical aspects; forget the fact that Israel is in an existential crisis (and I don’t mean that in the philosophical sense, I mean it in the sense of its existence being threatened): nobody disses Obama! That’s unforgivable. Obama can mistreat you with impunity (with the help of his compliant press), but if you mistreat him in any way—or merely fail to treat him with sufficient awe and reverence—woe unto you.
The stakes here are actually much higher than Obama’s pride. But to Obama, there are no higher stakes possible in the world.
Did you know the in Obama’s big 33 minute speech in India he used the word “I” the equivalent of every 17 seconds?
He had to beat the NBA shot clock.
Historic.
There is writing already on the wall. Read it for yourselves, since the ClownDisaster, PresIVotePresentAndWonPenPhone surely will not.
Obama’s a black man with a strong Muslim “affinity.” Not a surprise he should hate Jews. Especially the number one Jew in the world.
The good news is neither Boehner or Netanyahu have caved to the temper tantrum coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Best of all, once Bibi gives his speech anyone with two functioning brain cells will see Obama for the vacuous moral abyss he is leading the world into.
Socialized medicine, check
Get US out of Iraq, check
End Bush’s War on Terror, check
Open the borders, check
Normalize relations with Cuba, check
Whether it involves Israel or not, one can’t help but wonder what else Obama has left on his checklist. What’s he been saving up to do for his presidential swan song? His big-splash legacy-maker? Between his agenda and his narcissism, it could be epic, one way or another.
Has it occurred to anyone else that Obama is doing all the work for the Islamic jihadists and all the radical Muslims have to do is sit back, sharpen their swords and wait.
Obama being offended about Netanyahu’s “rudeness” is not that surprising in my experience. Offensive people are easily offended. You think that people who treat other people badly would at least have the decency to develop a thick skin. But the opposite is usually true.
“how much time is Netanyahu willing to give Obama before he takes matters into his own hands to stop Iran from acting out on what appears to be an existential threat to Israel’s existence?” neo
Netanyahu’s hands are fairly effectively tied both by logistics and geopolitical realities. Israel lacks the conventional resources needed to conduct a conventional air campaign that would be needed to knock out Iran’s nuclear program.
Which leaves a preemptive nuclear first strike against Iran as the only means Israel has for independently stopping Iran. But such an attack by Israel is a political non-starter because of the predictable geopolitical repercussions.
The UN would immediately declare Israel a ‘rogue state’ and subject to international sanctions, which Obama would welcome. As Israel attacking Iran with nukes is the perfect excuse for Obama, Congressional democrats, the Left and the MSM to paint Israel as having ‘gone rogue’ and for the US to now participate in the reining in of Israel. Obama would have the excuse to cut off all aide to Israel and vote for UN sanctions. An international embargo would certainly follow.
Then there’s the commonly hed view that Israel cannot survive without US support, the ‘lesson’ it took from the Yom Kippur war of 1973.
For all these reasons, the options available to Netanyahu and Israel are quite limited. They’re caught between a malevolent enemy an an ally controlled by another enemy.
“one can’t help but wonder what else Obama has left on his checklist” G Joubert
There’s a number of things still on his plate, for one POV, see my comment on neo’s post below this one for some of the entirely predictable items on Obama’s ‘checklist’. And I didn’t even mention China or Russia.
Beth,
Yes, it’s occurred to many people. But it bears repeating.
Matthew,
Yes, how many times have we been rudely cut off in traffic, manage to catch the eye of the offender, protest with raised hands and a WTF expression and invariably, they get mad at you…
“The world is divided into two races – the decent and the indecent.” Victor Frankl
I think there is a great amount of jealousy on the part of Chairman O. He has not, and never will, have the leadership abilities of Bibi.
The thought of him in uniform, let alone a uniform of a commando, as the Prime Minister had is beyond unimaginable. A “community organizer” just doesn’t measure up, on any level.
sdferr,
Regarding your link;
“Israel must establish [a] powerful deterrence before Iran gets the bomb”.
What “powerful deterrence” might that be? Neither Iran nor Hezbollah have the conventional military resources to credibly threaten Israel’s control of the Golan. Iran directly attacking Israel with nuclear missiles is suicidal, but despite the rhetoric, the Mullahs are not suicidal, they let the cannon fodder sacrifice themselves. They’ll opt for Hezbollah smuggling in a nuke and targeting it on greater metropolitan Tel Aviv.
Nor can Israel alone stop Iran from getting nukes, she lacks the conventional logistical resources to conduct an air campaign, which would be needed to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While a preemptive nuclear first strike is a geopolitical non-starter. UN sanctions would follow, even potentially including an international embargo. Obama would be handed the perfect excuse to declare that Israel had “gone rogue” and of necessity must be reined in with him cutting off all US aide to Israel and, in the UN, the US voting for sanctions against Israel.
A nuclear first strike by Israel might also loosen Pakistan’s grip on its nukes.
Israel is caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” with a malevolent enemy in front and an ally (the US) controlled by another enemy (Obama).
Einstein, (a good Jewish boy) observed that a problem cannot be solved at its own level. As long as the conventional wisdom remains that Israel cannot survive without US support, Israel will be constrained by current circumstance.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results” Albert Einstein
Beth is correct, that is, “good news”.
Hussein Obola is what it is. No matter what title you choose to present him with, evil corrupts all it touches.
but if you mistreat him in any way–or merely fail to treat him with sufficient awe and reverence–woe unto you.
The primary and often only reason Democrats said US allies were “puppets” of American Imperialism is generally because the Democrats can think of no other way to treat America’s protectorates than as subordinate protectorate puppets. That is how they see the world and their own rule as its rulers. They’re not criticizing Bush making Afghanistan into a puppet regime, they’re criticizing Bush for not allowing Democrats to rule Afghanistan, basically.
Bill Clinton suffered by the same comparison with Netanyahu. Bill knew he didn’t measure up and their relationship was the less for it.
Geoffrey Britain writes:
“Neither Iran nor Hezbollah have the conventional military resources to credibly threaten Israel’s control of the Golan.”
_______________________________________
That you miss it is excusable. After all it is indeed challenging to keep up with lunatics, ideologues, and the mullahs.
Iran is okay with engaging the 1.5 billion muslims in a much greater, massively larger war. Iran nukes Israel (for deceptively generated reason).
Iran gets attacked.
Iran yells and screams that all of Islam is under attack.
Muslims around the globe become mobilized.
Let the fans flame the outrage and the war begin…
Anyone ignorant enough to put it past Iran to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this goal is, well, just not keeping up.
And putting it past them to conjure up a diabolical, perhaps even creative way in which to achieve this outcome is equally naé¯ve.
Iran wants Israel destroyed.
Iran wants for Jews to be eradicated.
If they can accomplish this at the risk or expense of potential “suicide”, well then, they are that much closer to being serviced by, “72 virgins”.
I know, its pretty complicated for the mind of a westerner. To wrap one’s arms around this barbaric, medieval savagery is…..well, nasty business.
Unfortunately, that is the evil we face.
That is the version of barbarism lurking around the corners of our small planet.
Think I’m off base? Okay. You too are entitled to your own opinion.
Geoffrey Britain,
About whether Israel can take out Iran’s nuclear program on its own, a security analyst last year over at The National Interest website wrote:
The full article goes on to discuss just how a surprise attack could be pulled off.
Clarityseeker,
Thank you for acknowledging my right to have my own opinion;-)
I assure you, I am ‘keeping up’.
If Iran directly nukes Israel (for deceptively generated reason).
Iran does indeed experience nuclear retaliation.
But… there will be no one left alive in Iran to yell and scream that all of Islam is under attack. (Samson option)
And once Israel is nuked, if any other Muslim countries start to prepare to invade Israel, they get nuked too. Estimates are that Israel has upwards of 200 nukes in its nuclear inventory.
Iran’s Mullahs do indeed want Israel destroyed and want all Jews to be eradicated. But the few statements that a few Mullahs have made of their willingness to suicidally sacrifice themselves and Iran are rhetoric for the Muslim rubes and the proof of this, (perhaps you missed it) is that the Supreme Ayatollah greatly enjoys his luxuries.
Such a man may well encourage others to suicide but men of luxury do not themselves commit suicide.
Nor is he alone, in fact he’s the norm. When was the last time you read of an Imam or Mullah blowing themselves up in a suicide bombing?
Note well the words of perhaps the most fanatical of Mullahs; “Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam– begging to have their blood shed for Islam.” -Ayatollah Khomeini
If any Mullah might be imagined to be willing to die for the advancement of Islam it would that fanatic but note that he said NOTHING to indicate that the Mullahs should lead the charge. Nor is it just words, in the Iran-Iraq war, they sent children to clear Iraq’s mine fields, not themselves.
No, I don’t think it’s “pretty complicated for the mind of a westerner” lots of Americans share our general point of view regarding Islam and the nature of Islam’s threat to the West. Nor do I think you’re ‘off base’ but based on your comment, I do think you haven’t thought it through as deeply as you think you have.
Beth wrote (1/31 @1:30):
Best of all, once Bibi gives his speech anyone with two functioning brain cells will see Obama for the vacuous moral abyss he is leading the world into.
I wish it were so. Unfortunately, even the greatest speech ever given, one that described the threat posed by a nuclear Iran with perfect clarity, would not, IMHO, penetrate the ideological shells encasing the minds of the overwhelming majority of those on the left.
Many of these people are so impervious to reason they would not acknowledge a nuclear threat until they were shaken by a massive blast followed by the sight of a giant mushroom cloud on the horizon.
Ann,
Thank you for the link to an interesting article. Unfortunately, several key omissions by the author leave me unpersuaded. He states, “Iran’s nuclear program offers two potential routes to a nuclear weapon–enrichment of uranium in centrifuge facilities or the production of plutonium in a yet-to-be-operational heavy-water reactor.” but fails to mention that Iran has more than 7000 uranium enrichment centrifuges that we know of… there are almost certainly more than that.
No way does Israel have the capability or time overhead to destroy enough of those 7000 centrifuges to significantly derail Iran’s nuclear program in ONE mission. Which is why I spoke of a campaign being needed. And, he consistently talks of a “singular mission”, as though that would be enough. “Nonetheless, Israeli jets can’t spend too much time in Iranian airspace before the mission itself is in jeopardy. Engaging Iran’s air force in dogfights must be avoided. Therefore, surprise will be a necessary element in a successful Israeli mission.”
The author also fails to discuss the probable reaction of the Obama administration. Which would not be favorable and which would predictably interfere with any planned followup missions by Israel.
Since followup missions would be essential, a failure to discuss the much greater difficulties in conducting them is telling. The bottom line is that for Israel to successfully destroy the Iranian nuclear program through conventional ordnance requires at least cooperation if not participation by the US and any Muslim country’s airspace over whom the Israel attacking force would of necessity have to pass through.
Here’s a map showing the complexity of attacking and destroying Iran’s nuclear program.
Then for the coup de gré¢ce (“finishing blow”) there’s this; “Good-bye Dubai? Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Facilities would leave the Entire Gulf States Region virtually Uninhabitable”
Fighting the Nazis should have demonstrated to the world the price that must be paid to eliminate fanaticism and that the longer the delay, the higher the price.
People are greatly underestimating Obama. I don’t see Obama throwing a juvenile hissy fit at all. Instead I see Obama deliberately humiliating Netanyahu with the intent to intimidate the rest of the Israelis. He is hoping that he can convince the Israeli electorate that Netanyahu’s relationship with him is so toxic that they must elect a different prime minister who is more compliant to Obama’s wishes. Ironically, the worse Obama acts the higher the probability that the Jewish electorate will give him exactly what he wants.
This all reminds me of the very good relationship Romney had with Netanyahu. Huge sigh about what might have been.
It is simply breathtaking for anyone with a true grasp of 20th century history to watch Obama parade his idiotic weakness, wishful thinking and massive ignorance on a planet which witnessed the coming of World War ll within living memory of many. My God.
Yes, N-Neo, it’s narcissism on the rampage. But, something else as well: Evil.
The reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W60cq-T02yk
When the smoke clears over the ruins, some will have much to answer for:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/some-chicago-jews-say-obama-is-actually-the-first-jewish-president-1.257204
Same game prior and during WWII but they skated that time ….
This all reminds me of the very good relationship Romney had with Netanyahu. Huge sigh about what might have been.
How difficult it is to treat a Prime Minister as a foreign dignitary rather than as a US Governor that needs to submit to the Presidential throne?
And why does it matter what Romney’s personal relationship with a head of state is? Statesmen are about looking beyond personal likes or dislikes.
Our Great Emir, Baraq al-Hawaii, peace be unto him, is, for the umpteenth time, NOT an idiot, not weak, not ignorant.
He is evil.
Humanity has not in the past thousand years faced such an awful situation. Baraq and his running dogs can initiate a rain-reign-rain of death at a moment’s notice. Who’s to stop him?
“Baraq and his running dogs can initiate a rain-reign-rain of death at a moment’s notice. Who’s to stop him?”
If need be, the US Military. A recent poll of the military revealed that only 15% support Obama. No coup by the Left can succeed without the support of the US Military.
Dennis:
You are correct when you write “People are greatly underestimating Obama. I don’t see Obama throwing a juvenile hissy fit at all. Instead I see Obama deliberately humiliating Netanyahu with the intent to intimidate the rest of the Israelis.” Both things are true; they are not mutually exclusive.
However, at the moment it does NOT appear that “the Jewish electorate will give [Obama] exactly what he wants.” See this.
But the most bizarre thing about Obama’s hissy fit at the prospect of Netanyahu’s proposed address is his outrage at Netanyahu’s supposed rudeness, and his taking it as a very personal affront.
It would be fantastic if, after Obama leaves office, he tries to go to Israel again in a private capacity and is denied entry.
“For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of.”
Now, imagine if a Republican President had treated an ally that way? We would have a whatever-gate scandal non-stop 24/7 on he airwaves about how bad a president that Republican was. But, with Obama – crickets from the newsmedia.
Beth: “Best of all, once Bibi gives his speech anyone with two functioning brain cells will see Obama for the vacuous moral abyss he is leading the world into.”
And, there is the problem, Beth, our news media and Obama voters do NOT have TWO functioning brain cells; not even collectively.
The news media will go along with Obama and many will treat this as if Congress and Bibi have, in fact, done something wrong to offend the anointed one. We don’t have an independent news media, we have Pravda.
“But the most bizarre thing about Obama’s hissy fit at the prospect of Netanyahu’s proposed address is his outrage at Netanyahu’s supposed rudeness, and his taking it as a very personal affront.”
Good. It seems to me that he’s getting a dose of his own medicine. Obama has seen fit to go around the Congress. Well, Congress is now going around him. Political gamesmanship works both ways. He doesn’t like it? Too bad.
Neo said:
“However, at the moment it does NOT appear that “the Jewish electorate will give [Obama] exactly what he wants.” See this.”
God bless the Israeli people and give them courage. Haman lives once again – in the White House.
A recent poll of the military revealed that only 15% support Obama.
When that 15% is the NCO and officers, senior and junior, the military will obey their orders. The ones that refuse, will merely try to request endless clarifications on the orders.
They will not do what Egypt’s military did, however.
Here’s to Netanyahu putting one over the fence and exposing this Potus (P for Petulant in this case) as the simpering incompetent he is.
vanderleun,
I don’t think Obama has an affinity for Muslims. I think he has a very peripheral view of what life is like in various Muslim countries. Rather, he has identified Muslims as a new victim group. As Community Organizer, he is ready to lead them to their rightful place in the world and be praised.
This is no different from what happened with blacks in America. He even admiited that Michelle’s family had showed him about the black experience in America. He takes one tiny aspect of a whole complicated picture and convinces himself that only ge can fix things.
He is convinced that Bibi is the main obstacle to his bringing utopia to the Muslim world.
“But the most bizarre thing about Obama’s hissy fit at the prospect of Netanyahu’s proposed address is his outrage at Netanyahu’s supposed rudeness, and his taking it as a very personal affront. ”
It seems to me that this is a pattern for fatherless boys. They are more prone to presuming that any objectionable action by another is intended to disrespect them. Why that is I’m not sure. Any thoughts?
So, if Obama is a child prone to temper tantrums–yes on both counts–how would we describe the people who re-elected this child to the highest office in the country?
J. Randolph