Today, “Less than 24 hours after some say that President Obama virtually spat in the face of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of America’s closest ally in the Middle East arrived at the White House, ” reported Sean Hannity, this evening. Hannity added that, “tensions ran high as the two leaders came face-to face for the first time since the president shocked the world yesterday by calling on Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. “
Described by Hannity as “very strong words,” following is the message Netanyahu had for Obama following their meeting:
While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. [long pregnant pause] Because these lines are indefensible. Before 1967 Israel was all of nine miles wide; it was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars.”
Hannity explains that the meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu comes amid details of a highly contentious phone call between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton have leaked to the public, a phone conversation described by the New York Times as one in which Netanyahu’s fury peaked during the discussion, claiming that President Obama has pushed Israel to far.
Karl Rove, Hannity’s guest, agreed with Hannity’s viewpoint that Obama’s misguided demands on Israel was “one of the most embarrassing moments” he had seen for an American President in his lifetime. Rove made several pointed observations about Obama’s diplomatic blunders and misuse of the power of the Oval office, while praising Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “poise and sublety and strength” as Netanyahu soundly rejected Obama’s proposal. Hannity agreed that Netanyanhu left Obama looking emotionally “tight and defensive” :
Was he hoping to sorta cow Prime Minister Netanyahu into silence in the Oval Office? This goes to show the difficulty of the United States trying to impose a settlement on its timetable and its terms in the Middle East. By doing so, we cause stresses and strains within the Israeli political system and the Palestinian political system, making it difficult to actually get an agreement.
Hannity agreed that Netanyanhu left Obama looking emotionally “tight and defensive.” Though Rove was quick to acknowledge that Obama was “thin-skinned,” he felt Obama had “no one to blame but himself for putting himself in that place.”
If Obama’s goal was to pressure Israel into doing this, it was poor judgment on Obama’s part to invite the Prime Minister over for a little chat the next day after such an inflammatory speech, posited Rove.
Although, in Rove’s opinion, Obama miserably failed to forward any hope of an American negotiated peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, Rove ticked off on his fingers several “good things in that speech” pointing out that after “dissing it in the 2008 campaign, ignoring it in ’09 and ’10 – remember he was nowhere to be seen for five weeks when the Iranian elections were stolen, he actually cut aid to the Democratic opposition in Egypt – finally he said, ‘I believe in Democracy in the Middle East.'”
Rove described this as an Obama flip-flop, but a good one, in which Obama was forced to embrace the principles of the Bush Doctrine, which include the “spread of Democracy” as sound and effective.