President Obama’s angry reaction to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election has sparked outrage and fighting talk from Republican lawmakers who see it as sinking US-Israeli relations to a new low.
The White House refused to back down Thursday from its threat to “rethink” its Israel policy in the wake of an election result that the administration regards with undisguised disappointment.
Administration officials are pointedly sticking to their threat to withdraw support for the Jewish state at the United Nations, even though Netanyahu clarified remarks interpreted to mean he would never accept a Palestinian state.
In fiery speeches on the Senate floor Thursday, two prominent Republicans demanded Obama think again and treat Israel better.
“Under no circumstances will I or this Congress allow the Obama administration to abandon Israel to the United Nations, or any other international institution, or to change fundamentally the terms of our relationship with Israel,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said, threatening to introduce legislation to withhold U.S. funding for the U.N. if that occurs.
He said the president’s “deep-seated and irrational antipathy” toward Netanyahu was damaging the alliance and seemed designed to affect the prime minister’s ability to form a governing coalition.
“The Obama administration … has gone off the deep end and let their personal bitterness toward the Israeli prime minister drive their public foreign policy toward our closest ally,” Cotton said.
Cotton’s remarks followed an equally forceful denunciation of Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a contender for the GOP presidential nomination.
They spoke following both public and anonymous comments from White House officials suggesting that the Washington would protect Israel less at the U.N. and other international organizations, such as the International Criminal Court, where Palestinians plan to pursue war crimes charges.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the re-evaluation was based on the feeling that Netanyahu had backed off Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution for Israeli-Palestinian peace, a widely-accepted principle that has been the basis of peace talks for decades.
“Now the prime minister of Israel says earlier this week, days before an election, that this is a principle that he no longer subscribes to, and that his nation no longer subscribes to. That means the United States needs to rethink our approach,” Earnest said.
“This principle has been the foundation of a number of policy decisions that have been made here. And now that that foundation has been eroded it means that our policy decisions need to be reconsidered.”
Obama did make a conciliatory gesture, calling Netanyahu on Thursday afternoon to congratulate him on his re-election, the White House said. The call followed widespread comment on the fact that the president was taking so long to contact the winner of the election, the result of which was known on Tuesday.
Netanyahu clarified his remarks in interviews with U.S. media, telling NPR that he was only noting that conditions were not ripe for establishment of a Palestinian state.
“I don’t want a one-state solution. But I certainly don’t want a zero-state solution, where Israel’s very existence would be jeopardized,” Netanyahu told NPR in the interview to be broadcast Friday.
He said the Palestinian Authority must break its power-sharing arrangement with Hamas before any movement is possible toward a state.
Rubio said, “I think Netanyahu is right. The conditions do not exist for a peace deal with a people who think killing Jews is a glorious thing.” He said Obama had emboldened Israel’s enemies and disrespected a key ally by airing his differences with the prime minister in public.
“He would not dare say the things about the supreme leader of Iran now that he’s saying about the prime minister of Israel. Because he wouldn’t want to endanger his peace deal or his arms deal that he’s working out with them.”
