Compiled by Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO – The rumors and “not for attribution” comments are far outdistancing what U.S. officials have put on the record concerning President Barack Obama’s alleged anger with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for agreeing to speak before a Joint Session of Congress, now planned March 3.
So let’s go back to Wednesday, Jan 21, the day after President Barack Obama’s “State of the Union” message and follow what happened after that.
Wednesday, Jan. 21
House Speaker John Boehner announces via press release his invitation to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to address a Joint Session of Congress. The press release read:
WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address a joint meeting of Congress: “Prime Minister Netanyahu is a great friend of our country, and this invitation carries with it our unwavering commitment to the security and well-being of his people,” Boehner said. “In this time of challenge, I am asking the Prime Minister to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life. Americans and Israelis have always stood together in shared cause and common ideals, and now we must rise to the moment again.” This would be Prime Minister Netanyahu’s third appearance before a joint meeting of Congress, and his second during Boehner’s speakership. His previous addresses were on July 10, 1996 and May 24, 2011. Other Israeli prime ministers to address Congress include Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin.
Later on Wednesday, January 21, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked for his views.
“I’ve seen those news reports,” he replied: “I’ll say a few things about it. The first is that we were notified of the Speaker’s invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning shortly before the official announcement. As it relates to the Prime Minister’s decision to travel to the United States and deliver those remarks, I’ll tell you that we’re going to reserve judgment on that until we’ve had an opportunity to speak to the Israelis about what their plans are for the trip and what he plans to say. So at this point, we’ll withhold judgment until we’ve had the opportunity to do that?”
Asked if Netanyahu would be visiting the White House, Earnest reiterated that the administration still didn’t know the context of the trip, then added: “… the typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he’s traveling there. That certainly is how President Obama’s trips are planned when we travel overseas. So this particular event seems to be a departure from protocol.”
A reporter said it sounded like Earnest was annoyed.
“No,” responded the spokesman. “I think what we’re saying is that we’re going to reserve judgment on the trip until we’ve had an opportunity to talk to them about exactly what they’re planning.”
Well, asked a reporter, does the White House feel it is appropriate for Netanyahu to lobby Congress on the issue of Iran sanctions?
Earnest responded:
I can tell you when it comes to Iran sanctions, the President has been crystal clear about what he believes our strategy should be. Right now there is a diplomatic option that is being pursued. The only reason that that diplomatic opening was created is because this administration worked closely with Congress to put in place a sanctions regime that has crippled the Iranian economy. And that sanctions regime has only been successful because the administration has worked closely with our diplomatic partners around the globe to implement those sanctions.” Early in the talks with Iran, he added, an agreement was reached “that we wouldn’t’ put in place additional sanctions in return for the Iranians rolling back certain key aspects of their nuclear program. So passing additional sanctions at this point would be a pretty blatant violation of the deal in the mind of this broader international coalition that has been the key to the successful implementation of the sanctions regime. So what the President has said is that for right now, we should allow this diplomatic opening to continue to be pursued.
Earnest went on to say that Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom, one of America’s key allies in the effort, has said additional sanctions would adversely impact “our ability to build an international coalition against Iran.”
Although Netanyahu’s visit had been scheduled for February 11, it was changed to March 3 so that it could coincide with his planned address to the annual America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting in Washington D.C. The visit therefore would occur two weeks before the Israeli elections.
*
Still later on January 21, Secretary of State John Kerry, in a joint appearance in Washington with European Union Representative Representative Federica Mogherini, was asked several questions, including one about the Netanyahu matter.
He responded:
With respect to the prime minister and his visit here, look, we welcome the prime minister of Israel to come and speak in America anytime. And obviously, it’s a little unusual to learn of an invitation from the speaker’s office. That said, everybody knows that the subject of Iran is much on people’s minds. We have no difference in our goal with respect to our position. We may have – we do have some difference in tactics of how you achieve that goal. But we are determined that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and the key to our negotiations is to make certain that whatever is agreed upon will show people with clarity that that is, in fact, the case that the path to a nuclear weapon is not achievable and/or has been given up or both together, and that it can be verified. And that is obviously critical.
So I’m not going to say more about the negotiations at this time. With respect to more sanctions, our friends in Europe have made it very clear. Look, we have partners in this. We’re trying to convince our fellow – my former colleagues in Congress that the United States acting unilaterally is not always the best step to take. And in this case, we have a number of other serious partners – China, Russia, France, Germany, Great Britain – and we are all at this table negotiating together in an effort facilitated by the EU in an effort to be able to come to some agreement.
Now, the sanctions don’t exist simply because of the United States. And if all of our partners were to say, “Well, we don’t think you’re going the right way, we’re going to go do our own thing,” this can all fall apart, including the sanctions regime. You could lose the sanctions altogether. So deciding to act unilaterally is not exactly a strategy for success. We’ve been successful because we’ve kept everybody together, and everybody together has helped enforce these sanctions over a long period of time. And it’s very important to allow the Executive Branch of government, which in our Constitution has the right to be able to do this negotiation, to do it, and then there’s plenty of time for people to make judgments about how they feel about it
So I think in Israel, one of the top intelligence – one of the top intelligence personnel within the Israeli intelligence field – I won’t name names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that visited there over the weekend what the effect of sanctions would be. And this person answered that it would be like throwing a grenade into the process. So we’re asking people to be responsible here, and then let’s have a good, responsible debate about what the best way to proceed is.
But we are committed, as we always have been, to prevent a nuclear weapon from being developed in Iran. And I might add the very same voices that are now raising their objections to not having sanctions or advocating sanctions at this point are the very same people who said that the interim agreement that we reached was a disaster, the very same people who said they objected to it because it was going to allow Iran to go ahead and build its program. Well guess what? It hasn’t. It’s done the opposite. A stockpile of enriched uranium at 20 percent has been reduced now into oxide and into a zero percentage. The work that was being done at the Arak plutonium nuclear reactor has been stopped cold. Nothing has progressed there. No new centrifuges have been introduced above the level that were there the day we signed the agreement. The fact is that we have daily access to an underground facility that we never had access to on that kind of a basis
So there is enormous accountability already built in. And just yesterday, the UN issued a report saying that Iran had complied fully and there was no evidence of them moving in any way to break their agreement with respect to their nuclear program. So I think we’ve earned, frankly, a little credibility in this process. And I think we ought to be able to proceed on a careful basis to complete these negotiations without interference.
Thursday, January 22
In Jerusalem, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office issued a statement announcing his acceptance of Boehner’s invitation. The statement said:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted the invitation sent by Speaker John Boehner, on behalf of the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate, to address a joint meeting of Congress. The Prime Minister is expected to arrive in the USA at the beginning of March and will also participate in the AIPAC Policy Conference. The address will provide an opportunity for the Prime Minister to thank President Obama, the US Congress and the American people for their support of Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu:
“I am honored by this invitation, which reflects the special friendship shared by Israel and the United States as well as the strong bipartisan support for Israel across America.
Just last week I discussed with President Obama the common challenges we face from Islamist extremism, including resurgent terrorism and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
I look forward to being able to share with the joint session Israel’s vision for working together to address these threats and to reiterate Israel’s commitment to the bond that unites our two democracies.”
*
Aboard Air Force One, Earnest held another press briefing in which he said President Obama had decided not to meet with Netanyahu so as not to appear to be interfering with the Israeli elections. Here is a partial transcript of Earnest’s remarks.
Q On another foreign policy question, we talked about yesterday about Israel. Now it sounds like the Prime Minister has changed the date for when he’s coming to the United States, and the White House has already said he won’t be meeting with the President. Can you tell us a little bit of the back story on how that change happened and whether the White House or the President has been in touch?
EARNEST: I don’t have any updates in terms of additional communications between the White House officials and their Israeli counterparts. I can tell you that the reason that we have indicated that the President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his March visit to the United States is that we have a longstanding practice of not meeting with democratically elected officials shortly before their election. And the reason for that is we want to avoid even the appearance of any kind of interference with a democratic election.
Many of you will remember that just last week, Prime Minister Cameron visited the President at the White House. That visit was scheduled for January because the official campaign season in the United Kingdom begins on March 30th. So to avoid even the appearance of the President interfering in that election, we scheduled the Prime Minister’s visit for well in advance of the campaign season.
It’s my understanding that the Israeli elections are actually scheduled for about two weeks after Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the United States. So that’s the — so consistent with our longstanding practice and pretty well-established principle, the President won’t meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu on this visit.
That said, as I mentioned yesterday, the President has spent more time talking with and meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu than any other world leader. And that does reflect the depth of the United States’ commitment and the depth of the Obama administration’s commitment to Israel’s security. This is the closest ally that we have in that region of the world. And the President will — and certainly that commitment has not changed.
And that’s why I can assure you that after the elections take place, the President will be meeting with, at some point thereafter, with the elected leader of Israel — because the strong commitment — or the strong alliance between the United States and Israel transcends partisan affiliation in either country. And that’s been the truth — that’s been the case for quite some time and it’s still true today.
Earnest also was asked whether it was Netanyahu who breached protocol by accepting the invitation, or House Speaker Boehner by issuing the invitation.
MR. EARNEST: Well, I mean, I guess in some ways, it’s both, because the well-established protocol is that the leader of a foreign country would be in touch with the leader of this country about a possible visit. That didn’t occur yesterday. But, again, our position on this is rooted in the well-established principle of not wanting to even appear to interfere in a democratic election.
And so we’ll leave it to Prime Minister Netanyahu to determine his own travel plans and to determine what he wants to do while he’s traveling, but in this case, the trip won’t involve a meeting with the President of the United States.
*
At the U.S. State Department on Thursday, spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked about Secretary of State John Kerry’s plans concerning Netanyahu’s visit. Would Kerry meet with Netanyahu? She responded:
He will not, and just for the benefit of everybody, let me just repeat the reasons why,” said Psaki. “I know some of you have seen the White House statement. But as a long – as a matter of longstanding practice and principle, we typically – the President obviously does not see heads of state or candidates, and neither will the Secretary of State, in close proximity to their elections so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country. So the White House announced the President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and neither will Secretary Kerry when he’s here.
There was also a question about the unnamed Israeli intelligence official whom Kerry described as saying new sanctions would be like throwing a grenade into the negotiations. Following is a transcript of the back and forth with Psaki:
QUESTION: Yesterday, in his press conference, the Secretary quoted an unnamed Israeli – senior Israeli intelligence official as telling a congressional delegation that new sanctions on Iran, quote – imposing new sanctions on Iran now would be like, quote, “throwing a hand grenade into the process.” It – the way that he presented it – the Secretary – it sounded as though whoever this senior intelligence official was was opposed to sanctions. It now emerges that this official may have, in fact, been either supporting the sanctions because they want the talks collapse and then resume with more pressure on the Iranians. So I’m wondering, does the Secretary believe that whoever told him about what this intelligence official said was misleading him?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to speak – I’m sure it doesn’t surprise you – to – further to private discussions that happen with Israeli intelligence officials about intel assessments other —
QUESTION: Well, he brought it up, not me.
MS. PSAKI: Well, other than to convey it was a discussion of assessments, not policy recommendations. Intelligence agencies do assessments; they don’t make policy recommendations.
QUESTION: But the way the – the context in which the Secretary said this was that even the Israelis think that it’s a bad idea for – or even an Israeli intelligence official thinks that it’s a bad idea to impose sanctions. And that does not seem to be the case.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me unpack that a little bit further. We are quite familiar with the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the policy advisors within the Israeli Government about sanctions and what they view as – whether they should take place and when they should be put in place. We agree that sanctions have helped get us to the point we’re at. We have a disagreement about the way to achieve our shared goal, which is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I’m not going to confirm or speak further to conversations members of Congress may have had with intelligence officials other than to convey they were about intelligence assessments; they’re not about what their view is on policy. We know what the Israeli Government’s view is on sanctions.
QUESTION: Well, the official in question – or at least who has released a statement about what he told the Congressional delegation – says that what he meant to say or what his hand grenade reference to was the fact – was that his assessment was that if new sanctions were introduced, the Iranians might walk away, but then it would be temporary and that they would eventually come back to the table and that you – meaning the P5+1 negotiators and in particular the U.S. – would be in a better position to negotiate with Iran than you are right now. It seems from the context that the Secretary used this quote yesterday is that the Administration is trying to suggest that there is daylight or a rift or some kind of a gap between what Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks and what the Mossad – what the Israeli intelligence – at least this one official – thinks. That does not appear to be the case. So I’m wondering if you can say whether the Secretary was misled into thinking that that was actually the situation.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have an assessment for you on what was or wasn’t discussed during the meeting with Congressional officials. What I can convey is that there are many around the world who have assessed – whether you want to call it a political assessment or what you want to call it – including a range of European leaders who put out an op-ed today in the Washington Post – that if we move forward with sanctions, that could blow up the negotiations and could even destroy the international sanctions regime as it exists. So whether or not that specific assessment was made during a private meeting, I don’t have any confirmation of that.
QUESTION: Right. But the problem with that is that the Secretary himself raised it. He is the one who said it. He did it unprompted and the context in which he presented it was to suggest that there is some – there is disagreement that Israel – the Israeli Government and its – elements of the Israeli Government are not united about this, and in fact think that new sanctions – some of them think that new sanctions are wrong. So that’s why the question arises to you, and I realize we probably should be asking him. But the second thing is is that you say – you point out this op-ed that the Europeans wrote, but yesterday in the press conference with the external affairs – or whatever her title is now —
MS. PSAKI: EU high representative.
QUESTION: Right. When – after the Secretary said that his opinion was that new sanctions would hurt rather than hinder – would hurt rather than help the process and blow it up, she pointedly said – and I recognize that she’s not in these negotiations, but she said she couldn’t offer any prediction about what sanctions would do. So there seems to be a disagreement in —
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can assure you those who are on her staff who are in the negotiations feel that it would have a detrimental impact, and that’s what they’re conveying.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Staying on this —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Suppose there is that rogue element; suppose that the Mossad has gone on its own in opposition to Netanyahu. Is that a good thing? Would that be, like – would that augment the call for no more sanctions, do you think?
MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand your desire to go down this road, but I’m not going to journey down it with you.
QUESTION: Okay. And let me ask you another question on the same topic.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the Israeli prime minister is completely focused on his re-election and come what may? I mean, they go, they strike in Syria, they do all kinds of things basically to sabotage whatever chances for a deal. Are you – is that the feeling in this building?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have an assessment of the prime minister of Israel’s views on his election.
QUESTION: Do you feel that the prime minister of Israel is basically doing all he can to obfuscate any effort in terms of reaching a deal?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, we have – we agree on the objective, which is to prevent Iran —
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We disagree on the way to get there. There are many who agree with where we are, which is that putting new sanctions in place would be incredibly detrimental to the process and could even destroy the international sanctions regime.
QUESTION: So —
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure when the prime minister comes here and visits the United States he’ll talk about this, and we’ll continue to have a discussion and debate.
*
Also on Thursday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said not only had Boehner violated protocol by not checking with the President, he also failed to check with the congressional leadership. She said when she was House Speaker, she would check with the Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader before announcing any Joint Session of Congress. Then she added:
So it’s out of the ordinary that the Speaker would decide that he would be inviting people to a Joint Session without any bipartisan consultation. And of course, we always – our friendship with Israel is a very strong one. Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken to the Joint Session two times already. And there are concerns about the fact that this – as I understand it from this morning – that this presentation will take place within two weeks of the election in Israel. I don’t think that’s appropriate for any country – that the head of state would come here within two weeks of his own election in his own country.
*
Friday, January 23
The Republican Jewish Coalition’s Executive Director, responding to press reports, issued the following statement:
Today, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the only national grassroots Republican Jewish organization, responded to anonymous comments from the White House regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned visit to the United States in March.
Anonymous sources in the White House told Haaretz that Netanyahu’s appearance before a joint session of Congress “spat in [the White House’s] face.” The anonymous sources went further saying, “there would be a price” for the visit, even insinuating that Secretary of State Kerry would be less protective of Israel on the international stage.
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said:
“The anonymous threats from this administration are unacceptable. These comments are divisive and come at the expense of our relationship with Israel. It is deeply disappointing that the Obama administration is increasing friction with our ally Israel instead of working to diminish points of contention.”
At the State Department’s daily press briefing, Psaki was asked about the Ha’aretz story. Here is a text of the exchange:
QUESTION: On Israel specifically, there were some quotes in a couple reports today from unnamed officials, U.S. officials, one of which says – this is attributed to a source close to the Secretary, “The bilateral relationship with Israel is unshakable, but playing politics with that relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender.” And I believe that referred specifically to the – at the United Nations.
Is that accurate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m not going to speak – I’m sure that it won’t surprise you – to unnamed anonymous quotes from the podium.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, take it from me; I’m going to say it right now. Playing politics with the U.S.-Israel relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender. Am I lying or am I correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as the Secretary said himself, certainly the way that Israel went about announcing this trip or confirming the trip was unusual. Clearly, we’re going to – the trip is going to happen. He has remained engaged with Prime Minister Netanyahu. There’s a great deal that he does behind the scenes to support Israel. I’m going to leave it at that.
QUESTION: But does that mean that the Secretary’s enthusiasm for defending Israel could somehow be blunted?
MS. PSAKI: I think the Secretary spoke to this himself just a couple of days ago. I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: A couple of days ago?
MS. PSAKI: Yep, two days ago.
QUESTION: He spoke to the idea that his enthusiasm —
MS. PSAKI: He spoke to his views on the prime minister’s visit.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just looking – I’m just trying to find out if it is correct that the Secretary might be less enthusiastic in his defense of Israel at international fora now because of the “unusual” nature of the prime minister’s upcoming trip.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the reason I pointed to what the Secretary said is that he spoke to the fact that he remains engaged with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that there’s a range of issues we work together on.
QUESTION: I understand that. But either the relationship is unshakable or it’s not unshakable. And if it is unshakable, then it would seem to me that a – that the annoyance or whatever, the surprise with which you view the prime minister’s upcoming visit would not potentially – does not have the potential to blunt the Secretary’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s —
MS. PSAKI: The relationship is unshakable. That hasn’t changed. I’m just not going to speak further to unnamed quotes.
QUESTION: Well, but – okay. Forget about the unnamed official saying it. I tried to put this in my mouth, so it’s me —
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Well, we’ve already —
QUESTION: Me saying it. Am I right or am I wrong?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve already addressed this extensively, so I’d leave you – leave it – you with those comments.
QUESTION: Let me just take the flip side of that. Is there an absence of sort of an outrage from this Department, I mean, the Secretary of State being the top American diplomat and this is really a foreign policy issue. This is a foreign leader who is basically intervening in the American process. Shouldn’t have been there a sort of a stronger perhaps reaction to this thing by the Secretary of State?
MS. PSAKI: I understand your desire to weigh into this further, Said. I’m just not going to weight into it further.
QUESTION: No, because – and by the way, I think there was precedent, an Israeli precedent for meeting before elections with Peres back in ’96 – I mean, you can look it up – by President Clinton right before the election.
MS. PSAKI: And you should look up who criticized that at the time.
QUESTION: And I think it was – yeah, when Netanyahu criticized him tremendously at the time. But the point is, I mean, there is a lot of talk around this town that this was basically, I mean, a blatant and basically crude the way it was done. Don’t you think that should have sort of caused perhaps a stronger expression of annoyance —
MS. PSAKI: Said, we’ve spoken to this extensively. I’ll leave the analysis to the analysts, including yourself. Do we —
QUESTION: Can I ask about a factual bit?
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Sure.
QUESTION: Is it correct that the Secretary met with Ambassador Dermer for two hours the other day, and this – the subject of the prime minister’s visit was not —
MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s correct.
QUESTION: That is correct? And was the Secretary surprised after learning of the invitation and the prime minister’s acceptance that Ambassador Dermer did not mention this to him?
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s safe to say.
QUESTION: It is? Okay. So why is – if that’s safe to say, why is it not – why can’t you address the other part of it, or my initial question about potential blunting of his enthusiasm for defending Israel?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, clearly not only the Secretary but others in the Administration, including myself, have spoken to this repeatedly. I just think there’s no benefit in speaking to it further from the podium.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Secretary has been in touch with the ambassador since, or is he now kind of persona non grata?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any calls – I mean, he’s been – obviously, he left on this trip, as you know.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe – I’m not sure if he’s spoken with him since then. I can certainly check on that.
QUESTION: And where was that meeting? Here?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In —
MS. PSAKI: In the State Department.
QUESTION: In the State Department.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Any more on Israel before we continue?
QUESTION: Yeah. (Inaudible) that the Administration essentially would be looking for some sort of payback against the Netanyahu government for this visit. Is that something that the Secretary would endorse – payback?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not even sure what that means, and I’m not, again, going to speak to an anonymous quote. The Secretary spoke to his views on this two days ago.
Do we have any more on Israel?
QUESTION: Just one last – yeah. Did the Secretary play any role in putting off the meeting from the 11th of February back to —
MS. PSAKI: No, we had no role in that whatsoever.
*
So, as the weekend approached, there were these questions: 1) Is President Obama’s refusal to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the time of the latter’s plan speech to Congress a “snub” or simply a matter of not “interfering” with Israel’s election? 2) Did Speaker Boehner violate protocol? And was Netanyahu wrong to accept his invitation? 3) Did Secretary of State John Kerry misquote the unnamed Israeli intelligence official comparing sanctions to a hand grenade? 4) Did Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer fail in some obligation to inform Secretary of State Kerry in advance about Netanyahu’s planned visit? 5) Will any of this affect the U.S. – Israel relationship or how members of Congress will vote on the Menendez-Kirk proposal to put greater sanctions into effect if the current round of negotiations with Iran is unsuccessful?
Stay tuned.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. Your comment may be posted in the space provided below or sent to donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com