Who Won the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting? Who Cares!? We're Allies!

"Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu," A14, by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler

Straight from the title, the Times skews the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, writing as if the Obama-Netanyahu meeting was some sort of zero-sum game, rather than a reciprocal relationship. Need the Times be reminded that the U.S. and Israel continue to be strong allies, despite the Times frequent call for increased American pressure on Israel.

In the article, the Times creates the impression that Netanyahu “won” this round by securing from Obama a timetable for dealing with Iran, while Obama was unable to extract a settlement freeze from Netanyahu.

First of all, Obama’s declaration, “We’re not going to have talks forever,” does not really amount to much of a timetable. Does anybody believe that any administration would hold interminable talks with the unyielding regime in Iran? Secondly, was Obama’s goal to induce Israel to freeze settlement construction? His goal seemed more related to securing Netanyahu’s support for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Two-State Solution.

On this issue, a senior White House official contentedly comments:

The president was clear, both publicly and privately, that all parties, including the Israelis, have obligations as they relate to settlements, as they relate to Gaza, and as they relate to two states.

Another administration official importantly notes that “Mr. Obama’s timetable on Iran was not predicated on a quid pro quo from Israel.” President Obama and his staff are intelligent enough to know that Israeli concessions to the Palestinians will make dealing with Iran no easier.

So in the end, who won? Who cares!? We’re allies!