You needn’t be a body language expert to realize US President Barack Obama does not like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Apparently, it is enough that you be within earshot (via Gateway Pundit).

obama netanyahuShortly after the photo-op meeting and “working lunch” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one that saw President Obama openly chastised by the Prime Minister for Obama’s earlier public comments regarding wanting to see Israel return to its 1967 borders, the president verbally “went off” on Richard Daley in the private study area that adjoins the Oval Office. President Obama’s verbal attack was clearly heard by numerous staff up and down the West Wing hallways.

The essence of the president’s rage and embarrassment can best be summed up with him yelling out very loudly, “What the f-ck was that!?” That phrase was apparently repeated a number of times in the span of about five minutes, a time period in which Obama’s voice became “louder and louder” and culminating in Obama exclaiming, “Never again! Do you understand me? Never again!” Any response by Bill Daley back to the president, if given, was not overheard.

Sounds like Obama could have do with a chill pill. Or even something else.

Unless I am reading into things, and his reference to “Never again” meant to convey his disapproval of the notion he would ever suggest Israel return to the Auschwitz lines.

33 thoughts on “Barack Attack”

  1. Yes. Never again!

    That Israel hating antisemite will be lost in the fog of time like all our other enemies.

    Thank you for sharing this information. I’ve not read it elsewhere but it fits perfectly with that oily man who pretends to be our friend whilst always picking fights with and undermining Israel.

  2. Jim from Iowa

    I have to agree with my president on this one. Bibi's obnoxious lecturing of President Obama at the White House was offensive. At least I know now that Obama has real human emotions and is not always super-controlled as he presents himself. This spark of anger actually gives me some encouragement for the 2012 campaign.

    1. Glad Obama was offended. Well deserved in return for Obama's disgusting behavior toward Netanyahu and Israel.

      Worst American President ever. With apologies to Jimmah Cahtahr.

      1. Jim from Iowa

        The prime minister's behaviour doesn't serve the interests of good Israeli-American relations. He should save that crap for domestic policy disputes with his political enemies in the Knesset. Bibi acted like a jerk at the White House.

        1. Obama's behavior doesn't serve the interest of godd Israeli-American relations. He should save the crap for domestic policy disputes with his political enemies in Congress and the Senate. Obama acted like a schmuck in the White House. In fact, he acts like a schmuck everywhere he goes and, other than yourself, the idiot Americans who allowed him into the White House are that much smarter today from the collapses befalling the US on every front.

          Obama can take his Saudi plans for Israel's annihilation and shove them down his mom pants.

          1. Unfortunately, there isn't a really good alternative option that has stepped to the forefront for many of us moderates and those who lean to the left slightly. Lets be clear too; it matters more that Congress is pro-Israel than Obama. And Congress is very pro-Israel. There is legislation now that (I personally lobbied on too) will force the President into changing his policy on the Middle East.

          2. Jim from Iowa

            Really, what do you expect Obama to do in response to Bibi's antics, break out in song and start singing: "Thank You For Being A Friend"?!!?

            1. Why are you so astute on Israel in general, but blinded by Obama? Screaming the F-word in the White House may be "real" but not very awe-inspiring. For some reason you don't want to see Obama as we see him. That's okay, but all Bibi did was stand up for his people, which is what you would expect an elected official to do. If he made "our" president look bad, that's "our" president's problem, not his.

        2. I'm sorry Jim you are wrong.

          Obama pulled the rug out from under the Israeli people when he made the stupid demand for them to go back to the 67 lines.

          All Bibi did was tell him how he and most Israelis see it and he did so in the most civil way possible.

          The fact is he gave the Israeli side of the argument, one seldom heard and he did it in front of the world.
          He did so because Obama thinks he can simply make demands and that Israel will comply, Bibi correctly believes that that is not the way you will get peace in the Middle East and it certainly isn't how a healthy relationship should work.

          Now the Israeli position is clear and whether or not Obama feels embarrassed doesn't concern anyone except him.

          1. Jim from Iowa

            There are a whole lot of Americans who care deeply about Israel and value our long-standing close relationship with the Israeli people who see no value in what Netanyahu did. Hectoring and lecturing any American president in the White House is an act of a third-rate politician who needs to shore up his shaky far-right political base at home; it is not an act of a world statesman.

            1. You mean Netanyahu should have bowed as Obama did to Saudi prince?
              Whats wrong in standing up for your own people?
              I had no ilusion about Obama after his Cairo speach even if I had hopes when he was elected.

            2. What, so the main representative of of a democratic nation should always act meekly and with utmost "politeness" in front of other nations, even when confronted with lies and threats? No. Frankly, politicians SHOULD be more blunt, honest and to the point. Bibi did good, and I'd like to see Israel's politicians follow this first step away from meekness. This is the only way anyone will take us seriously; we must break away from this patronage, and from foreigners who know nothing about Middle Eastern reality…

            3. Netanyahu's comments were not for Americans they were for Israelis. Hectoring is a mischaracterisation of what really happened.

              The fact is that Obama when he made his statement decided that he would ignore Israels long standing position that they will not go back to the 67 lines.

              He thinks that he can just bully Israel into accepting the situation he wants to throw them into just to appease some Arabs.

              Netanyahu made the right decision in giving the Israeli position to Obama infront of the media. That way he can't ignore, he is forced to hear it. It needed to be done.

              Netanyahu is more of a world statesman than Obama will ever be, he isn't some newby who is going to stand by and let some amateur dictate what the direction of the future of Israel is going to be. Netanyahu has lived the conflict his entire life, there is virtually nobody in a better position than him to talk about the Middle East's problems.

              You shouldn't talk about 3rd rate politicians when you have a bloody community organiser in the White House who was only voted in because he can give a speech.

              1. Jim from Iowa

                OK, we'll agree to disagree. You've got your take on things and I've got mine. I think we can agree that it is vital that Israeli-American friendship endures whoever is leading our countries. I didn't even bring this event up when it occurred, even though I found it irksome. Of much greater significance to me is the triumph of "The Book of Mormon" at last night's Tony Awards. That and the fact that the relaunch of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" is only a week away. It's like waiting for Christmas when I was a kid.

                1. That and the fact that the relaunch of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" is only a week away. It's like waiting for Christmas when I was a kid.

                  So, you're a big fan of fiction, I understand.

                  1. Jim from Iowa

                    Scoff if you must. OK, so Olbermann isn't exactly promoting civility in American politics nor is he a voice for bi-partisan problem solving. But he is a welcome counter-balance to the right-wing drones disseminating their own distorted reality at Fox News and the vast array of conservative talk radio. No more Mr. Nice Guy until after the 2012 election!

        3. Jim,

          Obama's ME policy speech amounted to an ambush. The People of Israel do not deserve to have their negotiation-red-lines trampled over by anyone, least of all by the President of the country to which we have only ever shown extreme loyalty. The fact that no commensurate demands were made of the Palestinian negotiating position was just icing on the cake.

          The speech was also a disaster – it added yet more fuel to Palestinian Intransigence. Until Obama's speech they would not negotiate until we stopped all building. Now, they will not negotiate unless we agree to the '67 lines up front.

          Bibi had plenty of time to consider how to respond. His response was to reject Obama's dismissal of Israel's rights in kind, as soon and as publicly as possible, so that they would not gain traction in the Arab world and so that Obama would witness first hand the support Bib has among the majority centre of Israel, not just the "extreme right".

          Obama forced Bibi's hand. If Obama had been more even handed, if he had trodden more carefully through the negotiation minefield, Bibi would have been far more diplomatic. But given Obama's ME policy speech, Bibi was in damage-control mode and he had to speak out the way he did.

          Obama gambled that Bibi would have to capitulate, at least partially, and then O could run to the Palis crowing "look what I have achieved!" It was a gamble that did not pay off.

          1. Jim from Iowa

            Be honest. Bibi doesn't want a Palestinian state on the West Bank under any circumstances. Any movement in that direction would destroy his ruling coalition. Obama never gets a lasting political bump for anything he does on the Middle East. No American president does, really. So Bibi was a big hit back home. Good for him. The World still goes round

            1. There's a difference between what Bibi wants, and what he is willing to accept pragmatically. I agree he doesn't want a Palestinian state. But if the Palestinian leadership were to suddenly capitulate and agree to changed borders, no right of return to Israel proper and an end to hostilities, Bibi would not be able to refuse and he would probably get broad support for such a deal.

              Ironically, I think the holdouts would NOT be Lieberman etc. – it would be Balad, Hadash etc. (all the Israeli Arab parties). These politicians have staked everything they have on delegitimizing Israel and Zionism in all its forms. An agreement that falls short of their 100% demands would kill them politically and undermine everything they have proclaimed for the last 40 years or so.

              However, we've been dreaming of (and attempting to negotiate with) the fiction of a moderate, pragmatic Palestinian leadership for well over a decade, with zero results. This won't happen in our lifetime, I reckon.

              What are the alternatives? I see at least three:

              1. Strongarm: Become the monsters they accuse us of being, expel all the Palestinians from Jerusalem and build a real border around the PA. REALLY retaliate for EVERY attack, like for like (but with greater accuracy). Let them sue for water, power, food, and demand peace and quiet in exchange. Unlikely that the world would sit idly while we do this, though.

              2. Capitulate: Why do this piecemeal? Just withdraw to the '67 borders, dismantle all the "settlements" and let any Arab who claims that an ancestor set foot in Palestine before 1946 come and live here. In other words – commit suicide.

              3. Status Quo: Palestinians live in relative peace, Jews live in relative peace. Sustainable? More so than the other two options, at any rate!

              No contest.

              In the meantime we can politely suggest they drop the hate-education from their schoolbooks and come back to the negotiating table in 20 years or so. Politely suggest to the UN that they dismantle UNWRA since all it does is perpetuate refugeedom, instead suggest that Arabs born in Lebanon be called Lebanese, those born in Jordan be called Jordanian, Syria Syrian, etc. and let the "Refugee Problem" run the natural course of refugee problems the world over – i.e., they cease to be problems within two generations.

              1. Jim from Iowa

                We can agree on some things. The Palestinians have been, and continue to be, the principle roadblock to any American-brokered peace negotiations. It is only fair and reasonable to expect any Israeli government to act in the best interests of its own citizens (ie no "right of return;" no "indefensible borders;" no establishment of a neighboring "terrorist state.") Of the three alternatives you list, only the Status Quo is viable. But for how long? Demographics, changes in the political environment in the Middle East, world opinion (even from friendly countries to Israel), and just plain bone-weariness of the conflict are all factors working against the status quo.

      1. Juvanya, I am (primarily) criticizing Netanyahu's behavior, not defending Obama's. If you value continued strong relations between America and Israel, you really shouldn't defend Netanyahu's antics at the White House. And isn't "mass murderer" a little over the top when referring to Obama?

        1. Relations have nothing to do with a present spat. Obama is the only one who is involved in this. Everyone else in government is ok with Israel. Also, Oblahblah can criticize Netanyahu and insult him and his office, but the reverse cannot occur? Come on.

          Whats a few hundred dead soldiers and thousands of dead Afghanis among presidents?

  3. I read some of these comments and wonder how anyone can defend Barak Hussein Obama. I admit, I voted for him and now will use this forum as a cathartic respite from my despair regarding my vote and his administration. In a nutshell, he has enabled and empowered our enemies and weakened our allies. He has visited Cairo but never been to Jerusalem. He has played his fiddle (Nero reference) as Syria commits mass murder but always finds time to admonish the Israeli’s, thus further inspiring her enemies and ours. He ignores popular opinion (close to 80% of Americans support Israel) and yet uses eye opening terms such as 67 borders, etc. thus negating any leverage the Israelis might enjoy. Isn’t it revealing that anti-Semitism has increased exponentially, world-wide since his inauguration? Despite his oratorical flourish his lack of character and moral compass has weakened the USA while providing comfort to our enemies.

    1. "… his lack of character and moral compass has weakened the USA while providing comfort to our enemies."

      Amen! I assume by "our" you mean USA and Israel's enemies.

    2. I dont regret it really. It was the right choice at the time. But my views have sharply changed since then.

      1. Jim from Iowa

        If present trends continue, we'll all need to brush up on "The Book of Mormon" to better understand our new President Romney. I like the part where ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America the best.

            1. No doubt. They already are promoting him as front runner, which is partially true since he was 2nd place last go. But they said he won the last debate, despite all the polls saying Ron Paul and Herman Cain won.

              Who are you backing if any?

                1. Jim from Iowa

                  It's guys like you who give Obama supporters hope. Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty could beat Obama with a bad economy like it is now. Bachmann/Palin or Perry/Santorum or Gingrich/Larry the Cable Guy are all sure losers. Social conservatives make Republicans look unserious as any kind of realistic alternative to Obama.

  4. Jim from Iowa

    You don't think gay, liberal atheists like me don't have a system of beliefs? Think again, my friend.

    I believe in government as a means to improve people's lives.

    I believe in a tax system that fairly taxes the very rich along with everyone else and generates enough revenue to avoid massive deficits.

    I believe in promoting democracy throughout the world by providing moral and economic support to democratic movements not through military adventurism.

    I still believe in hope and change.

    I am a Liberal–and I just believe!

    (Sung to the tune of "I Believe" from the hit musical "The Book of Mormon")

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top