WarSclerotic

Obama Israel Speech: A Big Breakthrough | New Republic.

Thursday’s speech may have singlehandedly repaired a rocky relationship

BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

Barack Obama came to Jerusalem to win over the Israeli people, and with a single speech he did. It happened when he addressed an audience of several thousand young people in Jerusalem and delivered what may have been the most passionate Zionist speech ever given by an American president.

Of course, his embrace had an explicit message for Israelis: Don’t give up on the dream of peace and don’t forget that the Palestinians deserve a state just as you do. But as the repeated ovations from the politically and culturally diverse audience revealed, these are messages that Israelis can hear when couched in affection and solidarity. After four years of missed signals, Obama finally realized that Israelis respond far more to love than to pressure.

Until that speech it was easy to be cynical about the visit. Everyone seemed to be trying too hard. “An Unbreakable Friendship,” proclaimed the government posters on the streets, sounding more anxious than celebratory. And Obama’s affirmation of Israel’s three thousand year history, delivered moments after he stepped off the plane, was a transparent attempt to get it right.

By contrast, his speech to the students was no string of sound bites but a sustained argument for Israel—its legitimacy, its faith, its fears. Obama acknowledged—no, he deeply affirmed—the well-earned right of Israelis to be skeptical of appeals to peace. You held out your hand in friendship and made a credible offer for peace and that was rejected, he told us. You withdrew from Gaza and got missiles in return. And when you look around the region, you see instability and wonder how peace can possibly come.

One could sense the gratitude—the relief—in the audience: Finally, an acknowledgment of the Israeli narrative for the absence of peace.

And when Obama urged us to nevertheless not despair of peace, he was appropriately cautious. No, there were no guarantees that peace will happen even if we resume negotiations, but we need to keep trying.

Yes we can—maybe.

Obama’s goal in coming to Israel was to establish a relationship of trust with the Israeli people—to enlist our support for a renewed peace process with the Palestinians. But for Israelis, the least credible part of his talk was when he tried to convince us that Mahmoud Abbas is ready to make peace—or that the Arab Spring has created an opening for reconciliation with the Middle East. That’s hardly the reality we see emerging around us. There was something deeply unsettling, almost cruel, in trying to reawaken our suppressed hopes for normalcy—for a new Middle East, in the language of the Oslo peace process.

In one sense Obama did succeed. Next time the Israeli government announces a settlement expansion, there will likely be widespread opposition, rather than indifference, among the public. Obama has reminded us that, even in the absence of peace, we have a responsibility not to take steps that will make an eventual peace all the more difficult.

Obama’s biggest misstep in the speech was urging Israelis to pressure their government. That was an ungracious and inappropriate moment. Worse, it was unnecessary. Many Israelis already got the point: When the President of the United States come here to demonstrate his friendship, we shouldn’t respond by expanding settlements.

Obama’s more subtle goal in trying to connect with the Israeli public was to convince us to trust him on Iran—to give up the option of a unilateral Israeli strike. But it’s doubtful whether Israelis will trust anyone with their security on an existential threat. When Obama said that he has our back on Iran, Netanyahu’s pointed response was that Israel can defend itself. That’s exactly what many of us want to hear from our prime minister.

Obama’s achievement is to have ended the debate here about whether or not he is a friend of Israel. But that was always the wrong question. The real question is whether Obama’s policies—on Iran, on Syria, on Egypt—are helping create a safer or more dangerous region. When the impact of Obama’s embrace inevitably fades, we will be left with the fear that, for all his affection for us, this President still doesn’t understand how to deal with the Middle East.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor of TNR and a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. His forthcoming book is Like Dreamers: The Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem in the Six-Day War and the Divided Israel They Created.

Poll: 64% of Americans would support U.S. strike to prevent Iran’s nuclear program – Diplomacy & Defense – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

New Pew Research poll, released ahead of Obama’s Israel visit, finds support for strike is higher among Republicans and lower among Democrats. A plurality among Americans believe Obama pursuing ‘balanced’ course in Middle East.

By Chemi Shalev | Mar.19, 2013 | 6:28 PM | 21

The Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. Photo by AP

By Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie | Mar.19,2013 | 6:28 PM | 6

A solid majority of the American public would support a U.S. military action against Iran in order to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, according to a new poll published in Washington on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

According to the poll, 64% of Americans believe it is “more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even it means taking military action” compared to only 25% who think that it is more important to “avoid military conflict, even if Iran may develop nuclear weapons.”

The poll, carried out between March 13-17 among 1501 American adults, finds that support for a military strike is strongest among Republican voters (80%) compared to Democrats (62%) and Independents (59%). The poll reflects a rise in American support for such a strike, if warranted, from 58% a year ago to 64% today.

The poll is one in a series of new polls released in advance of President Obama’s visit to Israel, which starts Wednesday. Though the absolute numbers vary, the polls point to a strong preference for Israel over the Palestinians. The polls also show that this support for Israel is stronger among older, conservative Republicans and weaker among younger, liberal Democrats.

In the Pew poll, 49% say that “in the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians” they sympathize more with Israel, compared to 12% who side with the Palestinians and 39% who either support neither or support both sides equally. The strongest support comes from white Evangelical Protestants (72%) and the weakest from Democrats (39%) and those aged 18-29 (36%).

The poll also finds that a plurality of 41% believe that Obama is “striking the right balance” in “the Middle East situation,” compared to 21% who maintain that the President is “favoring the Palestinians too much” and 9% who think that he favors Israel too much. 39% of Republicans believe that Obama favors the Palestinians, compared to only 7% of the Democrats.

Obama reassures Israel, while taking a step back from the Middle East – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

The region is still important to the United States, but less so than it was a decade or two ago; meanwhile, Israel’s dependence on the U.S. continues to grow.

By Aluf Benn | Mar.21, 2013 | 5:06 AM | 22

Obama, Netanyahu and Peres listen to the national anthem at Israel’s airport. Photo by AFP

By The Associated Press, Reuters and Barak Ravid

Mar.21,2013 | 5:06 AM | 28

U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday his visit to Israel was meant to be a reassuring one. He is here to make it clear to Israelis that America stands behind them and will ensure their security, even though the neighborhood has become tougher.

What President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to hear was Obama making a firm commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to cushion the shock waves that could result from Syria’s disintegration.

It is premature to assess whether Peres and Netanyahu were satisfied by the promises made by the visitor, who asked for time for diplomatic negotiations with Iran and demanded that Syrian President Bashar Assad guard his chemical weapons.

The visit comes at a time when the United States is withdrawing from its deep involvement in the Middle East, amid the growing fear of Israel and other regional allies that America will abandon them to radical Islamic forces.

America entered the region with all its might, as its dependence on oil imports increased. But following the development of new oil and natural gas production methods in North America, the United States is gradually freeing itself of reliance on external energy sources.

In a few years it will become an oil exporter. The Middle East is still important, but it is less vital than it was a decade or two ago.

America has tired of the wars in the Middle East that consumed its resources and robbed its attention in the past decade, without resulting in a decisive victory. Obama has already pulled the U.S. Army out of Iraq, and will take it out of Afghanistan this term. The old regional order, with its reliance on secular military dictatorships and pro-American monarchies, has collapsed under the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the strengthening of the region’s Islamic movements.

The United States has discovered it cannot control these upheavals, and it doesn’t want to get involved in civil wars like the one in Syria. It prefers to stand by and see who wins.

Under these circumstances, pressure on Israel will increase. Until now, Israel has benefited from American safeguards in the region that have bolstered its deterrence capability, helped to safeguard the peace accords with Egypt and Jordan, and protected it from distant regional powers like Iran and Iraq. And when Israel is worried, or when it feels that its security concerns are not being given the attention they deserve in Washington, it has a tendency to take risks and use military force to perpetuate the strategic status quo.

Obama is projecting very different images domestically and overseas: He is trying to draw his country inward while telling his allies in the Middle East that, despite what they may be witnessing, the United States is just as committed to them as ever.

This attitude is reminiscent of Richard Nixon. In 1969 Nixon laid out the American foreign policy strategy that came to be known as the Guam Doctrine or the Nixon Doctrine, which made it clear that Washington would no longer undertake the defense of the free nations of the world. That was the first step toward an eventual American withdrawal from Vietnam, and Nixon, who had to sell the idea to his allies in Asia, assured them that everything would be fine.

The best way for Israel to ensure that the Americans remain committed is to threaten some unilateral action that would drag in the United States. That’s exactly what Netanyahu did Wednesday in his public appearances with Obama. He kept on talking about Israel’s right to defend itself. In rough translation from diplo-speak, that means, “If you don’t take action to get Iran to thwart its nuclear project, we will be forced to act alone − and you’ll suffer the consequences as much as we will.”

In the meantime, Obama has no clear-cut solution to the Iranian problem, or to the disintegration of Syria. He’s also finding it hard to bring his influence to bear on the political crisis in Egypt and to assuage Israeli concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood is planning to annul the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. So he’s playing for time by reassuring Israel, by whispering sweet nothings of unconditional love and support into the ears of the Israeli people, and by publicly referring to the prime minister by his nickname.

And there’s a good chance it will work. With every passing day, Israel becomes less capable of taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities by itself, while its dependence on the United States for military superiority just keeps growing.

Barack Obama has a dream, and we should listen – Opinion – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

No American president or Israeli statesman has ever delivered a speech like this. It deserves to enter the history books – and Israel’s textbooks.

Obama in Jerusalem

By Debra Kamin | Mar.22,2013 | 4:12 PM | 1

It was worth it. It was worth listening to the first (and slightly embarrassing) part of the speech; it was worth the thousands of miles that were crossed to get here and the thousands of sweet words showered upon our heads; the removal of the suit jacket and the demonstration in Ramallah; the reference to “Eretz Nehederet;” Obama’s Hebrew declaration “Ah-tem lo lah-vahd” (you are not alone); Osher Twito; the Holocaust; the Seder night and Herzl, and all the other shtick. Every bit of it was worth it to get to the second part of this great speech.

It was the speech of justice. If there are still historical speeches, then this speech from Barack Obama’s can be classified as one of them. No American president has ever delivered a speech like this, nor has any Israeli statesman. American presidents and even Israel prime ministers have talked about two states; but no one spoke of natural justice the way Obama did, a concept that should be obvious; obvious to every decent citizen in the world today; and which should serve as a beacon for every Israeli citizen with a conscience.

What began as a speech that could have been given before AIPAC soon evolved into a speech by Martin Luther King. If Martin Luther Obama’s Cairo speech resonated deeply and sparked revolutions (which didn’t always start well), then maybe this speech at the Jerusalem Convention Center will also resonate deeply and spark revolutions. The president of the United States took a step toward the fundamental value: justice. Now it’s Israelis’ turn to do so.

It won’t happen immediately – Israeli society is too preoccupied with shallow things – but maybe the seed has been planted. Perhaps at the end of a busy day considering the “universal draft law,” Israelis will also listen to these powerful statements about occupation and deportation, Palestinian children and settlers, freedom for all and peace as the only path to true security.

Obama is back to being Obama, big time. The exciting promise he displayed on that election night in Chicago four years ago, that has since disappointed, was awakened last night last night to the sound of Israeli students’ applause. But in the aftermath of the applause, will people internalize what he said? Obama took the Zionist narrative – the one that Benjamin Netanyahu and his ilk tried to preach to him – and skillfully turned the tables completely. Passover reminded him of slavery in Africa, the Palestinian girls he met in Ramallah reminded him of his daughters, and the subtext is: No to slavery, no to apartheid, and no to the occupation. Maybe Israelis will finally – and not just fleetingly – put themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, just as their greatest friend in modern times exhorted them to do yesterday. Yes, Obama is a true friend, one that tells the truth, even when it hurts.

Obama’s visit put things in perspective. He showed the Israelis how feeble, insignificant and small their leaders were. Next to this great man, Netanyahu was tiny – and he dwarfed those so-called instigators of Israeli change, Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. This speech should have been made by one of them; but they will probably never make it. Now this speech should enter the history books, as well as Israel’s textbooks. Listen and make sure you pay attention: this is the voice of justice, and it is calling for change and for tikkun.

After two whirlwind days, Haaretz contributors weigh in on Obama’s visit – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

Remarking on a trip jam-packed with pomp, circumstance and one stirring landmark speech, Haaretz writers and columnists examine several angles of a very busy presidential visit.

President Barack Obama, left, puts his hand on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they walk out together following their joint news conference in Jerusalem, Israel,Wednesday, March 20, 2013

By Judy Maltz, Anshel Pfeffer, Barak Ravid and Haaretz

Mar.22,2013 | 3:26 PM | 7

Obama’s visit is a royal visit of love, says Ari Shavit, referencing the poem by Israel Pincas. Here the president displayed in his actions a heart yearning for peace, with perhaps a touch of naivete, while his speech in Jerusalem served as a softly admonishing wake-up call for Israelis to enact a promising future.

Sometimes it takes someone from the outside, says Yossi Verter, to tell it like it is. Leading up to the heart of his speech with narratives of sympathy for Israel’s plight, Obama changed tone to urge Israelis to recognize Palestinians’ equal right to freedom and a land to call their own. While he is undoubtedly a supporter of Israel, his words belied that he is no blind follower either.

After Obama’s visit, it will be more difficult for his rivals to claim that he has Israel’s worst interests at heart, says Chemi Shalev. Obama’s speech, delivered directly to Israeli citizens in a carefully crafted mix of support, concern and leveled calls for responsibility, might be seen as an attempt to wipe the slate clean for a new beginning, making way for better relations between the United States, Israel and her neighbors in the Middle East.

The diverse crowd of young students present for Obama’s speech reacted, to the surprise of many, with widespread positivity to his statements about ending Palestine’s occupation by Israel, says Ilene Prusher, though not all showed signs of support. Much of the crowd seemed to appreciate his honesty and willingness to see things from an Israeli perspective. One comment, which specifically cited the need to end counterproductive settlement activity, proved to be divisive however.

Debra Kamin recalls the emotion of being at Obama’s first presidential acceptance speech in Chicago in 2008. Now, as a dual Israeli-American citizen at his address to the public in Jerusalem, she ruminates on the personal meaning of nationhood and the pride, despite sometimes feeling like a stranger, in being able to sing the anthems and hear the leaders of two countries she can call her own.

Whether or not you agreed with Obama’s speech, it’s impossible to remain indifferent, says Barak Ravid. Obama’s chilling address touched all the right notes. He demonstrated an understanding of Israel’s heritage, culture and history. He spoke with an earnest desire to solve its current regional troubles and begin to pave the way for peace. The only question is if Israelis will get on board.

Elections are over, says Aluf Benn, and both leaders acknowledge the importance of working together at this point. Recognizing the threat Iranian nuclear power would impose, Obama is tasked with preparing a military option, the timetable for which he and Netanyahu do not agree on, while striving toward diplomatic negotiations. Getting closer on a personal basis will make relations easier, but doesn’t solve their dispute over the West Bank.

An expose released by The New York Times casts doubt on Iron Dome’s effectiveness, says Alan Dershowitz, with claims that its success rate is significantly lower than what has been said. Whether true or not, this will change the perception of the Iron Dome’s efficiency. The good news remains that Israeli and Palestinian leadership are closer to negotiations.

Tough love from the President who wants to ‘throw Israel under a bus’ – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

Obama’s challenge to Israel’s conventional wisdom was coated in support and sympathy. After this visit, it will be much harder for Obama’s rivals to claim that he has Israel’s worst interests at heart.

By Chemi Shalev | Mar.22, 2013 | 2:31 AM | 21

Obama speaks in the Convention Center in Jerusalem. Photo by AFP

By Judy Maltz, Anshel Pfeffer, Barak Ravid and Haaretz

Mar.22,2013 | 2:31 AM | 7

One can only speculate what history might have looked like if United States President Barack Obama had made his “Jerusalem Speech” on June 5, 2009, immediately after his “Cairo Speech”, and how the Middle East would have developed if his attempt to turn a page in U.S. relations with the Arab world had been accompanied by the kind of effort to touch the hearts of the Israeli public that Obama made in Jerusalem on Thursday.

Because there’s never been quite such a speech by any U.S. president: “dugri” and direct, admonishing words wrapped in thick layers of support and understanding, sympathy and concern, “tough love” as it was originally intended. The promos from the White House that had built up the speech as the centerpiece of the entire visit, turned out, in retrospect, to be grossly understated.

There wasn’t one Israeli button that Obama didn’t push during the speech and throughout his entire visit: from Holocaust to redemption, anxiety to bravery, victimhood to victory, ancient rights to start-up nation. He embraced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, complimented his wife, adopted his children and commemorated his hero brother, all in an effort to wipe the slate clean and start anew, as far as possible. He threatened Iran, warned Syria, denounced Hezbollah, criticized Hamas and even tried to get Mahmoud Abbas to come down from the tree of a settlement freeze (which Obama had caused him to climb in the first place).

And he did all of this only as a prologue, a warm up, a pregame show before the main event, which turned out be just a few paragraphs from a long speech that he made to a few hundred students in Jerusalem’s Binyanei Ha’uma. Iran’s nuclear weapons and Syria’s chemical arsenal may have topped the agenda behind closed doors, but the high point of Obama’s public visit, its rhetorical and emotional crescendo, was reached in his challenging words about occupation, settlements and peace with the Palestinians, without which, he suggested, Israel’s future, security, and wellbeing are at risk.

Obama posed the kinds of questions that are hardly asked aloud anymore in the Israeli mainstream, swamped as it is in a steady stream of jingoistic, right-wing rhetoric, associated as it has become with people who are portrayed as loony liberals and self-hating leftists. He confronted the conventional wisdom that time is on our side and the status quo is working in our favor. He asked, blasphemy indeed, that Israelis try and look at the world through Palestinian eyes. He conducted, how ironic, the kind of values-based peace campaign which so-called center-left parties were so afraid of in the recent election campaign, because they thought it was toxic.

In this regard, Obama pulled a Bibi on Netanyahu on Thursday: he played on his home field, but for the rival team. Just as conservative Republicans in America would anoint Netanyahu as their leader in an instant, so too Obama yesterday became the resolute and persuasive spokesman that the Israeli center-left so desperately needs; one who could convince the public that his – or her – support for a two-state solution “along the known parameters” does not contradict his great love for Israel, but quite the contrary.

This is the real Obama, his acquaintances say, no masks and no makeup. Obama, “the Jewish President” as Peter Beinart described him in The Crisis of Zionism, whose formative years in public life were spent alongside liberal Zionist Jews who taught him of the Jewish battle for civil rights and of the Jewish belief in a just and enlightened Israel, before the occupation started taking its toll.

This is the same Obama whose naïve assumptions and mistakes borne of inexperience served as fodder for the nefarious jihad of hate and venom and plain old bigotry that his rivals and enemies have waged against him since his first election campaign, a foul and sometimes deranged campaign that is without precedent in the annals of relations between Jews, both American and Israelis, and American Presidents. This is the man who is routinely compared to the worst Jew-haters and baiters in history, from Pharaoh to Haman to Ahmadinejad, who is hell bent on “throwing Israel under the bus” as Mitt Romney repeatedly and recklessly asserted during the recent election campaign.

In this regard, Obama will henceforth be a much tougher rival for his right-wing conservative critics. After this visit, they will be hard pressed to convince many Israelis – and many American Jews, for that matter – that Obama is a rabid Israel-hater and Muslim sympathizer who has the country’s worst interests at heart. His admonitions, even if rejected, will be categorized under the Proverbs saying of “faithful are the wounds of a friend”.

And contrary to all the learned projections and analyses, it turns out that the U.S. fully intends to try and reignite the peace process, as Obama made clear in his Ramallah press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, he said, “intends to spend significant time, effort, and energy in trying to bring about a closing of the gap between the parties”. This may not make much of an impression on cynical Israelis and Palestinians who expect nothing less than a full-court presidential press in a Camp David style summit, but in the real world, the announcement that America’s most senior cabinet secretary will personally engage in Middle East peace efforts amounts to a dramatic declaration of intent.

“I recognize that there are those who are not simply skeptical about peace, but question its underlying premise”, said Obama, in words that also apply to a large number of the ministers who have just taken up their seats around Israel’s cabinet table. Obama responded to the cynicism, frustration and resignation to eternal strife that have become the hallmark of modern Israelese with the American language of hope, optimism and belief in change with which he has won two elections.

It remain to be seen, of course, whether anything will be left of Obama’s brave efforts to confront Israelis with themselves after Air Force One takes off today, or whether he has indeed planted a seed of hope – or an illusion – that yes, we also can. Even if it’s 4 years too late.

Israel’s defense, political establishments understand Obama’s not bluffing on Iran – Obama visits Israel Israel News | Haaretz.

He has warmed hearts here and gained trust, making up for a sour first impression left during his previous term as president. But despite all the gains, Obama still has to convince Netanyahu on a timetable for attacking Iran, as well as on issues of the West Bank and settlements.

Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu on the tarmac at Ben Gurion International Airport. Photo by GPO

By Haaretz | Mar.22,2013 | 12:50 PM

Both the defense and the political establishments in Israel believe U.S. President Barack Obama when he promises he will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even by use of force. Obama is now perceived here as a tough leader who doesn’t get queasy when it comes to taking tough measures. In spite of mounting criticism hurled at him with regard to human rights infringements, he is relentless in using unmanned drones to eliminate enemies of the U.S.

Leaders such as these, who prefer issuing operational orders over considering the Geneva Convention, are beloved by those who shape Israel’s defense policies. Clearly, they would love to take part in the White House’s forum on operations and strike missions, and would gladly welcome the president to similar forums at Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv.

In the U.S. military preparations are now underway for a possible strike against Iran, and this has proved to people here that Obama is reliable. In Israel, the details of the plans against Iran are known. Senior officials say that Obama shares their assessment that a nuclear Iran will lead to an overturn in the balance of power in the region, one that cannot be tolerated. Such a development would pose real threats to vital American interests. Obama, therefore, is preparing a military option while all the while striving for diplomatic negotiations with the Iranians.

But the U.S. and Israel don’t agree on everything. The primary sticking point is on the timetable, based on the discrepancies in the two nations’ military capabilities, as well as their vulnerability. The window of opportunity in which Israel can do significant damage to Iran is closing – if it isn’t shut already. The Americans have vastly superior means and can operate for longer periods. Obama, therefore, is in no hurry and wants to fully exploit diplomatic channels first.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on the other hand, is concerned that Israel will stall so long that the opportunity will be missed, and at that point circumstances could change and Obama might no longer be able or willing to deliver on his promises. This is the core of their disagreement, which was evident in Obama’s public appearances while in Israel. Israel’s safety margins are considerably narrower, and it takes a lot of hugs and soothing remarks to keep the country quiet while Obama handles things.

Obama’s visit to Israel erased the bad impression he left here during his first term. His supportive speeches are similar to those made in the past by the greatest friends of Israel in Washington: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Obama has impressive rhetorical skills and is able to charm audiences, as he amply demonstrated on his visit. At the official state dinner at President Shimon Peres’ residence, Obama was relaxed, full of humor, easily speaking without the teleprompter used in his official speeches. This was not the sour-faced president, sticking to prepared talking points, who met Netanyahu in the Oval Office on earlier occasions.

One can assume that the public warmth Obama exhibited toward “my friend Bibi” was also evident behind closed doors. Both of these men understand politics and know that the election campaigns are behind them, requiring them to work together from now on. Getting closer on a personal basis makes the relationship easier, as does the increased understanding over Iran.

But this doesn’t resolve their fundamental dispute over the West Bank, the occupation or the settlements. Netanyahu, according to close associates, is angry with the settlers who rejected him and supported his rival Naftali Bennett. It is doubtful whether this will make him embrace Obama’s call for peace, liberty and justice for the Palestinians. This is why the president appealed directly to the Israeli public, calling on it to bring about political change from below.

Obama, Israel and cyber warfare | JPost | Israel News.

Hezbollah slams Obama call for terrorist label | JPost | Israel News.

Obama, Netanyahu grant Iran another three months’ grace.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 22, 2013, 9:34 AM (GMT+02:00)

Iran red line disappears under the red carpet

President Barack Obama persuaded Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in their talks in Jerusalem this week to give Tehran three more months to work through nuclear diplomacy with the P5+1 group of world powers (US, Russia, France, UK, China and Germany), debkafile discloses. After June, this format for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue will be judged to have run its course.

When the US president said “There is still time for diplomacy,” he added, “But Iran must know this. Time is not unlimited. Whatever time is left, there’s not a lot of time.”

When Netanyahu pointed out that the US and Israel might have different timetables and called for “a clear and credible threat of military action,” because “the clock is ticking,” Obama replied that all options were on the table and “We will do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the world’s worst weapons” – a pledge he repeated in his speech to Israeli students Thursday, March 21.
Talking to reporters Wednesday, the US president allowed, “Each country has to make its own decisions… when it comes to engaging in military action. And Israel is differently situated than the United States.”

This public exchange of views undoubtedly sparked Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s bellicose televised rejoinder Thursday: “At times the officials of the Zionist regime threaten to launch a military invasion,” he said. “But they themselves know that if they make the slightest mistake, the Islamic Republic will raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.”
In private, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources disclose, the American and Israeli leaders agreed to keep the diplomatic window open until after Iran’s presidential election on June 24. This does not necessarily mean that a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities – or a lone Israeli military strike – will go forward the next day; only that a timeline for bringing the military option forward ahead of the diplomatic track is now before Tehran.

Obama explained to Netanyahu that he owed Khamenei the freedom to conduct Iran’s presidential election campaign without a bludgeon hanging over his head, in return for the same courtesy the Iranian leader afforded him in the run-up to his own re-election last November. In the campaign for his candidate, said the president, Khamenei can’t afford to show weakness by making concessions on the national nuclear program. After that, Obama trusts he will be more flexible.
All in all, on one pretext or another, Tehran has been able to shake off any “credible threat of military action” to curb its nuclear program for a decade or more. And there is no guarantee that things will be different after June 24.