Ignorance, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

 Isi Leibler  December 10, 2012

I was more saddened than angered when I learned that the North American Board of Trustees of the Union for Reform Judaism condemned Israel’s plans for construction in Jerusalem and the E1 area because it highlights Israel’s failure to adequately explain our position even to American Jews. Were Jews at grassroots level better informed of the facts, no Jewish leadership group would have dared to adopt such an approach.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s false and outrageous outbursts in the US, even stooping to accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of initiating this move solely to humiliate President Obama, undoubtedly contributed to this in no small measure. Olmert was supported by the far left, former American Jewish ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who dismissed the Israeli initiative as a crude effort to garner votes at the forthcoming elections.

I would wager that the vast majority of American Reform Jews are unaware that the ongoing hysterical condemnation of Israel over settlements relates to no more than 2% of the territories. Or that much of the housing construction planned is merely catering to natural population growth of existing settlements. And that the construction currently being condemned is limited either to suburbs of Jerusalem or within the framework of the agreed settlement blocs that every peace plan assumes will remain within the borders of the Jewish state.

The E1 area comprises of 12 square kilometers and is adjacent to Maale Adumim, a city inhabited by 40,000 Jewish residents located just 4 miles from Jerusalem. That this city will remain within the boundaries of Israel was reaffirmed by every political leader including Yitzhak Rabin (who at the outset of the Oslo accords even provided the mayor of Maale Adumim with annexation documents for E1), Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Yossi Beilin (the architect of the Oslo accords), Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. In the course of the Camp David Accords, President Clinton also endorsed the area as being within the future boundaries of Israel.

As a quid pro quo to Prime Minister Sharon’s 2004 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, the Bush Administration agreed that taking into account demographic changes, areas encompassing the major settlement blocs would be retained by Israel. However,this was indirectly challenged by President Obama in his May 2011 speech which called for the 1967 borders plus swaps as a starting point for negotiations. But anyone seriously involved in Middle East affairs understands that these areas can never be separated from the Jewish state.

The Palestinians and other international critics falsely insist that by adopting this path, Israel would deny contiguity to a Palestinian state. This is untrue. The government has provided for a bypass road to be accessible at all times, guaranteeing Palestinians right of passage throughout the area.

For over 10 years, Israel deferred to international requests to delay construction in the area in order to appease the Palestinians. But even after Netanyahu’s unprecedented and unconditional ten month settlement freeze, the Palestinian Authority still refused to negotiate with Israel. Instead, PA chair Mahmoud Abbas continued to incite hatred against Israel, even denying any Jewish connection to Jerusalem. After he defiantly abrogated the Oslo Accords by promoting UN recognition, the Israeli government felt that it had waited long enough and decided to proceed with the long-delayed construction in this area.

In the particularly volatile and hostile environment which surrounds us, one might question the wisdom of the government making needlessly provocative proclamations about these issues rather than proceeding quietly and dispensing with such strident advance announcements. And the issue should be presented as reflecting Israel’s legitimate national interests and in no way an obstacle to establishing a Palestinian state. It is certainly wrong and conveys a false message if portrayed as a punishment for the misbehavior of the PA.

But it would probably not have made the slightest difference. Most of the international community, especially the Europeans, were relieved to distance themselves from the supportive role they were recently obliged to assume towards Israel by endorsing its right of self-defense in the face of Hamas rocket attacks. Even then, many remained critical, accusing Israel of employing excessive force and failing to respond proportionately.

They were also visibly overjoyed to draw closer to our “moderate peace partner” the corrupt Mahmoud Abbas, who at the UN received standing ovations from virtually the entire gathering after delivering a speech replete with lies and hatred designed to demonize us.

The hysterical condemnation of the Jewish state for approving home construction in an area adjacent to its capital, on barren, uninhabited land which neither displaced Palestinians nor altered the demography of the region, is bizarre. No distinction is made between housing construction in outlying settlements – which the government has restricted – and the major settlement blocs which will unquestionably remain within the boundaries of Israel.

Double standards are shamelessly applied. Nobody takes into account that two successive Israeli Prime Ministers effectively offered the Palestinians over 95% of disputed territories but were rejected. The Quartet undertook to guarantee implementation of the Oslo accords, yet aside from the United States, all its members abandoned Israel by abstaining or voting in favor of the PA abrogation. In so doing they repudiated UN Security Council resolution 242 and actually rewarded the PA for materially breaching its commitments.

During the Gaza conflict the Western powers called continuously on Israel to act proportionately. But there was no such proportionality in relation to their condemnation of Israel over the construction issue. No indignation was expressed during the years when missiles were launched against our civilians. No criticisms were voiced against the PA and Hamas for inciting against Israel or of their sanctification of “martyrs” who murdered Israeli women and children. No country condemned PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas – who accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing” – for proclaiming that not a single Jew will be permitted to live in a Palestinian state. The international community responded with a greater uproar against Israel home construction than to the ongoing, obscene atrocities committed by both parties in the Syrian civil war. Little was said when North Korea breached its undertakings and renewed the testing of international missiles. When Egyptian President Morsi sought to impose dictatorial rule in his country, there was barely a murmur of protest. Surely the application of such double standards by the international community towards Israel amounts to ignorance, hypocrisy, double standards or a combination thereof.

With the existential threat looming from Iran’s efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb, there is indeed a desperate need for us to reverse the tide flowing against us in the war of ideas, gain support internationally and strengthen our standing with our most important ally, the United States.

However Jerusalem and Maale Adumim and the major adjacent settlement blocs will remain part of Israel and this is one issue concerning which we must remain steadfast. And we cannot be expected to freeze construction indefinitely because the Palestinian Authority leaders refuse to negotiate while they proclaim a willingness to unite with the genocidal Hamas, whose leader Khaled Mashal only a few days ago again publicly reiterated his pledge to wipe away the Jewish state through military action.

US Media and the E1 Controversy

By: Vic Rosenthal

Published: December 9th, 2012

A view of Maaleh Adumim from E-1.
Photo Credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

On Monday, the NY Times published an editorial which included this:

[Netanyahu's actions] could doom the chances for a two-state solution because building in the E1 area would split the northern and southern parts of the West Bank.

Yesterday, NPR’s Philip Reeves, probably the single journalist most responsible for promulgating the 2002 “Jenin Massacre” blood libel against Israel, announced in a “news” broadcast that:

There’s particular concern over plans, still at a preliminary stage, for an area called E1. If built, this would cut the West Bank in two. Diplomats say this would make a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict almost impossible.

And today, I was greeted by the following in an editorial in the McClatchy-owned Fresno Bee newspaper:

Yet Israel has decided to … prepare construction of a 4.6 square-mile project near Jerusalem known as E-1. That would effectively cut the occupied West Bank in two and make establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel with Jerusalem as a shared capital, impossible.

Folks, look at a map. If you didn’t see it in my previous post, here it is again:

 



Do you see the “West Bank” cut in two? I don’t either. As I pointed out yesterday, if Israel annexes Ma’ale Adumim, the proposed Palestinian state will be wider at is narrowest point than Israel would be with pre-1967 borders!

If the problem is supposed to be that it will be harder for Palestinians to drive from Bethlehem to Ramallah, Israel plans a bypass road around Ma’ale Adumim for Palestinian traffic that would actually be faster, and would not require passage through the security barrier’s checkpoints. There are also plans for a 4-lane underpass to some Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, while others would not be affected at all by the planned construction.

Actually, the shoe is entirely on the other foot. If the E1 plan is notcompleted, then Palestinian construction in the area will cut off Ma’ale Adumim — a town of 46,000 that has been expected to remain part of Israel in all proposed peace agreements with the Palestinians — from the rest of Israel. It will make it harder for Israel to keep control of the strategic Jerusalem-Jericho road, which would be necessary to transport troops and tanks to the Jordan Valley in the event of an attack from the east.

Every Israeli Prime Minister since Rabin has supported the plan, but it has never been carried out because of pressure from the US and Europe. Meanwhile, illegal Palestinian construction in the area — illegal under the Oslo agreements, not that the Palestinians have ever paid attention — continues. It has already narrowed the corridor for the E1 plan, and at some point will make it impossible.

In other words, the true situation is exactly the opposite of what Palestinians and their supporters claim!

It’s time to face reality, which is that there will not be a two-state solution that will meet Palestinian requirements, because these requirements are incompatible with the survival of a Jewish state. Much as I would like to see Israel retain all of Judea and Samaria, and much as the Palestinians would like to see a‘Palestine’ from the river to the sea, these outcomes are unlikely.

What could happen is a realignment in which Israel retains places with large Jewish populations (like Ma’ale Adumim) and areas that are strategically vital (like E1), and withdraws from others. This would have to be implemented unilaterally, but then the Palestinians have already officially renounced a bilateral solution by turning to the UN.

What I find remarkable is the way the US media have swallowed the Palestinian story hook, line and sinker, when a simple glance at a map would show that it is wrong. Are they following the lead of the administration?

One wonders what they — and the administration — want: a strong American ally in a Middle East where allies are rapidly disappearing, or yet another radical Islamist base for anti-Western and anti-American terrorism?

Take your pick — because those are the options.

Game changer : Russian Iskander (SS-26) Mobile Ballistic Missile Delivered to Assad’s Syria Jerry Gordon 12-8-12

  downloaded  video of  the Russian Iskander SS-26 missile.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3F8DbZ-3yc&feature=player_embedded

Iskander (SS-26 Stone) Russian Mobile Short Range Balistic Missile

Reza Khalili reported in World Net Daily on Russian deliveries of the Iskander (SS-26 Stone) Mobile Ballistic Missile to Syria, “Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missile,”.  

 The  Iskander was developed to foil anti-missile defense systems, whether those deployed in Eastern or Central Europe or the Patriot batteries that NATO  has just released to Turkey. The US deployed the first Patriot Batteries to Poland in 2010. Syria has criticized Turkey for this deployment. 

   Kahlili notes the threat that Iskander  presents to Israel’s  missile defense umbrella  in the wake of the recent rocket war in Gaza and  successful tests of the David Sling intermediate range rocket and missile defense system. 

 Israel had  purchased and  deployed Patriot batteries following the Scud attacks from Iraq during the First Gulf War in 1991.  Kahlili notes:

The [solid fuel] superior Iskander can travel at hypersonic speed of over 1.3 miles per second (Mach 6-7) and has a range of over 280 miles with pinpoint accuracy of destroying targets with its 1,500-pound warhead, a nightmare for any missile defense system.

According to Mashregh, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard media outlet, Russia had warned Turkey not to escalate the situation, but with Turkey’s request for Patriot missiles, it delivered its first shipment of Iskanders to Syria.

Reporting today, Mashregh said the handover occurred when Russian naval logistic vessels docked at Tartus in Syria.

The Iskandar is a surface-to-surface missile that no missile defense system can trace or destroy, Mashregh said. Russia had earlier threatened that should America put its missile defense system in Poland, it would retaliate by placing its Iskander missiles at Kaliningrad, its Baltic Sea port.

Russia’s delivery of Iskanders to Bashar Assad’s embattled regime clearly shows that the security and stability of Syria remains Russia’s red line, Mashregh said. It is unknown how many of these missiles have been delivered but the numbers given are sufficient to destroy any Patriot missiles in Turkey, it said.

The delivery of the missile not only threatens the security of Turkey but also Israel, which would have to recalculate its strategy with its defensive and offensive capabilities.

As reported in a WND exclusive on Dec. 5, Iran’s Islamic regime also sees the toppling of the Assad regime as its red line and has 170 ballistic missiles targeting Tel Aviv in underground missiles

Military Today reported that Russia had invested $1.2 billion in development and deployment to counter US missile shields in Eastern and Central Europe. Moreover, it has sold 26 Iskander missile systems  to Syria.  Military Today notes the dangerous versatility of the Iskander (SS-26 Stone);

The Iskander road mobile missile system is equipped with two short-range ballistic missiles, which substantially increases firepower of missile units. Each missile can be independently targeted. System is capable of hitting moving targets, as target coordination can be adjusted while missile is in-flight. The Iskander has several different conventional warheads, including cluster, fuel-air explosive, bunker-busting and electro-magnetic pulse. Minimum firing range is 50 km.

   The Iskander was designed to overcome air defense systems. Missile files at supersonic speed, excessively maneuvers in the terminal phase of the flight and releases decoys. In some cases this ballistic missile can be used as an alternative to precision bombing.

   Missiles can be launched 16 minutes from traveling or 4 minutes from highest readiness. The second minute can be launched after less than a minute.

Given the deteriorating situation in Syria, if the Iskander (SS-26 Missiles) were to fall into al Qaeda, al-Husra or  Jundallah  Islamist militia hands in the fundamentalist opposition that would constitute a serious threat to Israel’s yet to be completed missile defense umbrella.  The David’s Sling intermediate range  defense system will be deployed in 2013 and 2014.

Tolerating the intolerable is the liberalism of fools.

FROM: Rabbis Who Screw Israel 

Shmuley Boteach   12-7-12

We all agree that Rabbis are entitled to their opinions, however wrong, and should not be silenced. But, it turns out that when Rabbis criticize Israel or are seen to join the other side, guess what. It’s news. Big news.

But I learned something in Oxford as a Rabbi that I’ll never forget : Tolerating the intolerable is the liberalism of fools.

The Palestinian Authority remains a force deeply hostile to Israel as a Jewish state and Mahmoud Abbas has been adamant that he will not recognize Israel’s uniquely Jewish character. On 27 April 2009, he said, ”A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don’t accept it and I say so publicly.” Worse, the Palestinian Authority is an entity that continues to glorify terrorists who murder Jews. As Palestinian Media Watch reports, Abd Al-Baset Udeh, the murderer of 30 innocent Jews at the Passover Seder massacre, had a soccer event for teenagers named for him. His brother distributed the trophies. And who can forget Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who led the bloodiest attack in Israel’s history in 1978, when she and other terrorists killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children. This monster has had summer camps, schools, graduation ceremonies and sporting events named for her.

Abbas himself seems to have a problem recognizing Jewish suffering. His 1982 thesis titled “The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement” maintains that “less than one million” Jews died in the holocaust. Abbas also outrageously claimed that the Zionist leadership were collaborators with the Nazi regime to “facilitate the wide-spread destruction” of Jews.

But lest anyone say that all of this is in the past and Abbas is a new man, look at the speech that he gave at the UN for the observer status vote where he accused Israel of killing many Palestinians in the recent Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza and intentionally causing ferocious damage to Gaza infrastructure. Referring to the “Nakba-catastrophe” events of 1948, he said that Israel is a racist country committed modern ethnic cleansing. He added that Israel is guilty of colonizing Palestine and continuing its aggression.

Are these the pronouncements of a man who wants peace? Do they presage a Palestinian entity that will use its observer status to promote conciliation or one hell-bent on delegitimizing Israel?

So the question becomes, why would Rabbis endorse these words? Where is it a mitzvah to uphold the rights of one people when those rights are abused to defame, delegitimize, and destroy another?

No one disputes that Palestinians are equal children of God to the Jews and are endowed with the same inalienable rights. What is at issue here is why the Palestinians do not have a state. And the clear answer is that every time Israel has been misguided enough to trade land for peace it has mostly led to the land being used as a launching pad for wars of annihilation against Israel. Land for peace has always resulted in dead Jews.

If there are fewer dead Jews today at the hands of murderers who infiltrate from the West Bank it is not because of any lessening of the commitment on the part of terrorists to murder them, but because Israel has built a wall to keep the killers out.

There are, thank God, more than a billion Muslims in the world. But there are only fourteen millions Jews in the world and probably not more than a few thousand Rabbis in all of America.

Surely Rabbis should be firmly on the side of Israel.

No doubt the day will one day come when Arabs will reach out to Jews truly as brothers and peace will break out across the globe, just as the prophet Isaiah foretold. But Rabbis forcing that day and pretending its already here when so many of our Palestinian brothers are sadly still committed to the Jewish state’s destruction is dangerous, naïve, and the liberalism of fools.

Foreign press beats IDF Op-ed: Israel fails to respond to repeated violations of journalistic norms by 'impartial' BBC Trevor Asserson  12-5-12

The only force in the Middle East that can beat the Israeli army is a bunch of ragged reporters. Had it not been for the fear of world opinion the Army would have rooted out Hamas and its rockets. That job remains on the "to do" list.

World opinion matters because Israel’s natural friends are democracies. Politicians in democracies will follow public opinion. If the voters hate Israel, their businessmen will not purchase Israeli products, their politicians will cease to support Israel and anti-Israeli legislation will be passed. The boycott could become a reality.

The Palestinian strategy of undermining Israel before the court of world opinion has been operating for some 30 years, piling victory upon victory. The trauma of Cast Lead, Goldstone and Mavi Marmara has left Israel emasculated, unable to use its own army.

dissimulation. That the Jabari assassination was a response to an unprovoked barrage of more than 120 rockets was barely explained; the BBC aired dead Syrian children passed off as Palestinians; a ‘badly injured victim of Israeli bombing’ was filmed moments later walking around healthily. The BBC shrugged it off – "perhaps he just recovered quickly." A glancing reference to "an incendiary device" going off is almost all the BBC tells you of the Tel Aviv bus bomb; a BBC documentary airing gruesome pictures of injured Palestinian children appears designed to incite racial hatred against Israelis.

Each of these is a breach by the BBC of a number of its own rules. Yet Israel fails to respond.

The concept of a ‘proportionate response’ is wrongly explained by the BBC as a facile number count – 130 dead Palestinians: four dead Israelis - conclusion, Israeli actions are disproportionate.

English case law, to which the BBC is subject, permits what is reasonably required to achieve a reasonable aim. By that token, Israel’s actions are far short of sufficient, since it has doubtless failed to stop the rockets. Israel should press the point in court, not ignore it.

Even on the facile ‘body count’ parameter, looking at the ratio of combatants to civilian casualties Israel is seven times more ‘proportionate’ than the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. But these arguments are not getting across.

Israel is losing this battle because it has barely begun to fight. It needs to mount a carefully directed, massively funded campaign. Journalists need to be courted, wooed, educated and trained. Complaints against media must be lodged and legal claims brought. Until Israel enters the fray of world opinion, its world beating army could yet again find itself sitting uselessly on the sidelines.

Trevor Asserson is the senior partner of Asserson Law Offices, the largest English Law firm in Israel. He is recognized as the UK’s leading expert on the BBC’s portrayal of the Middle East.

ISRAEL IS AT WAR….IN THE SHORT RUN THIS APPROACH MIGHT INCREASE PALESTINIAN OR LEBANESE  CASUALTIES. ……

HOWEVER …..IN THE LONG RUN …..IT WILL REDUCE  TOTAL CASUALTIES SINCE IT WILL END THE ATTACKS SOONER AND PREVENT FUTURE ATTACKS.

 It must be emphasized to the world and to all Israelis that Israel is at war and that Israel is fighting for its very survival.

Although the Iron Dome anti-rocket shield was  successful in largely protecting the major Israeli cities, there were tragic casualties and regrettably more are likely when hostilities continue . The high cost of Iron Dome ($40,000 per missile?) and it's limited number make it a ineffective weapon against  a low-cost missile saturated attack. Also, if a sufficient quantity of Iron Dome missiles are not held in reserve ,then later when  long-range missiles are  fired against Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc., they will go unchallenged. Iron Dome  is not an effective long-range strategy. Defense rarely is an effective long-range strategy.

THE MOST IMMEDIATE THREAT TO ISRAEL'S SURVIVAL is a nuclear armed Iran. (The recent  attack on Israel by Irani's proxy in Gaza, Hamas ,should disabuse anyone who hopes for the "rationality" of the Islamists.) Thus, Israel must maintain a capability to attack Iran's nuclear program if and when it deems it to be in Israel's interest to do so. Even a few years delay in Iran's nuclear progress might change the situation radically in the Middle East .To have  as free  a hand as possible ,interference from Hamas, Hezbollah or any other pro-Iranian entity must be squelched..

A 2ND IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE is to effectively convince Hezbollah that any attack on Israel (including kidnappings, over the border raids, explosive tunnels, missile and rocket assaults, etc. )would exact a catastrophic price from Hezbollah and from the Lebanese infrastructure. The expected retaliation should be so severe that the clear message to Hezbollah is: “don't even think of it”. This will free Israel's hands for action against Iran and for action against Hamas and Hezbollah

A 3RD IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE was to stop the current  Hamas' missile attacks and  to make sure that Hamas never again attacks Israel (through rockets and missiles, raids, kidnappings, explosive tunnels, etc.)

Anything less than accomplishing the 3 objectives (identified above) will be an Israeli defeat.

In any active combat situation, Israel has a limited time window. The US administration nearly always threatens  to slow down Israel's resupply chain.{ The  US administration contacted Israel to “warn” Israel against conducting a ground offensive. Interestingly, certain military analysts believe that a ground offensive is the only way of halting current and future missile attacks against Israel.} Soon the world demands an end to Israel's military efforts. Whatever Israel does not accomplish during these  brief periods of time will remain a sword hanging over Israel's head which will be exercised by her enemies in the future.

Israel must recognize and clearly explain to the United States and to the rest of the world that in every cease-fire to date the terrorists have continued accumulating more effective and lethal weapons to employ against Israel (as well as against the United States and against the rest of the world). 

Israel must therefore  resist calls for a cease-fire until such time as their enemies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and various elements in the Palestinian Authority  undertake to cease their aggression.

There must be a clear understanding (by Israel, by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by the United States, by England, and by the rest of the world) that any breach will result in harsh “disproportionate” Israeli responses including the targeted killings of those responsible for initiating attacks. In the absence of such a clear understanding 

 an enforced cease fire will be perceived as a major victory for Hamas and Israel's citizens will (sooner or later)  return to the life of terror they endured since the first Kassams were launched a decade ago.

Israel should announce that it's retaliation/prevention  policy is “ strictly proportional”. Just keep announcing it and then the media will repeat it.

The PUBLIC logic is simple. You are obligating yourself to do enough but   no more (AND NO LESS) than is necessary. And, If  Hamas , Hezbollah,  etc. again attack Israel ,then by definition, you have not exercised sufficient force. Therefore, under the doctrine of “proportionality” Israel must increase the intensity of the Israeli attacks until Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. cease all of their offensive actions.

Hamas is no longer a terrorist faction. It is in every respect an independent state the majority of whose citizens enthusiastically support the terrorist initiatives and missile launches initiated by its leaders committed to  Israel's annihilation. Hezbollah is  a significant and possibly dominating factor in the Lebanese government.

Bargaining theory is useful. In poker one objective is to  force your opponent  to abandon the game (or to lose all of his assets to you.). Gradual escalation sucks both you and him in deeper. Usually deeper then you have to go, if stead of escalating gradually, you escalate dramatically. In poker you would say “ I see your dollar and I raise you $10,000.” Israel must raise the price so high that the message is clear to Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.: “don't even think about firing more missiles since our “proportionate response” would be immediate, fierce and  very costly to you and to the population that you represent.

In the immediate response to the 1st attack, Israel should begin systematically destroying obvious and essential  infrastructure. Examples include bridges over bodies of water. Key intersections. Shopping malls. Electrical and water grids., commercial properties ,manufacturing properties ,etc.

IN THE SHORT RUN THIS APPROACH MIGHT INCREASE PALESTINIAN OR LEBANESE  CASUALTIES. ……

HOWEVER …..IN THE LONG RUN IT WILL REDUCE  TOTAL CASUALTIES SINCE IT WILL END THE ATTACKS SOONER AND PREVENT FUTURE ATTACKS.

SANCTIONS FIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY BIBI DOESN’T TRUST BARACK OBAMA

Seth Mandel  12-3-12

It’s no secret that President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu don’t trust each other. Personality conflicts are slightly less troubling–they can dislike each other and still respect and even trust each other. But trust is seemingly nowhere to be found in the distressed relationship between the two leaders. (We got another reminder of this at the Saban Forum, when Ehud Olmert restatedon the record comments that Rahm Emanuel, once Obama’s chief of staff, had made at the forum off the record. The comments were tinged with anger and resentment at Netanyahu.)

And that’s why the issue of Iran will always be the greatest source of friction between the two. Arguments over settlements are mostly background noise; Iran represents an existential threat to Israel, a major security threat to Europe, an ongoing security threat to the United States, and is in pursuit of what would be perhaps the bitterest of Obama administration failures–a nuclear-armed Iran setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Obama has repeatedly said he won’t let this happen, so why doesn’t Netanyahu trust him? One answer is something that cropped up again almost unnoticed just before the weekend: Obama’s consistent opposition to tough Iran sanctions. The president has repeatedly tried to kill sanctions, then delay them, then water them down, then as a last resort attach so many waivers as to leave the sanctions looking like Swiss cheese.

Of course, the Obama administration has its own justifications for its consistent and adamant opposition to tough sanctions. Here, according to Josh Rogin, is what the White House doesn’t like about the latest round of sanctions:

One of the White House’s chief concerns is that Congress is not providing the administration enough waivers, which would give the United States the option of negating or postponing applications of the sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

The White House also said that secondary sanctions should apply only to those Iranian persons and entities that are guilty of aiding Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The new legislative language would designate entire categories of Iranian government entities to be sanctioned — whether or not each person or entity is directly involved in such activities.

The new sanctions too broadly punish companies that supply materials, such as certain metals, that could be used in Iran’s nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs, the White House worries. The bill allows those materials to be sold to Iranian entities that intend to use them for non-military or nuclear-related purposes, but the administration said that the ambiguity in that part of the legislation will make it hard to implement.

Finally, the White House doesn’t want to implement the part of the new legislation that would require reports to Congress on the thousands of boats that dock at Iranian ports and the dozens of Iranian planes that make stops at airports around the world. Those reporting requirements “will impose serious time burdens on the Intelligence Community and sanctions officers,” the White House said in the e-mail.

Too few loopholes and escape routes; too much accountability and work for the White House.

The reason Obama and Netanyahu are often at odds over Iran’s nuclear program is that Netanyahu sees the gap separating Obama’s words and his actions, and he doesn’t like it. Netanyahu also wants assurances on military action, if that’s what it takes, if and when the sanctions fail. Obama’s blasé approach to sanctions indicates the two countries may be working with two different time frames on when Iran would reach what the Israelis refer to as the point of no return.

From the Israeli perspective, an optimist would suggest that Obama isn’t too concerned with sanctions stopping the Iranian program because he is ready and willing to take the requisite action to attempt to crush the program, and doesn’t see the point in alienating the Europeans or other trading partners with onerous sanctions if a.) they are not going to stop the program anyway, and b.) Obama will.

But Obama has obviously not been particularly convincing on this score, as far as Netanyahu is concerned. Obama may be playing his cards close to his chest, but Netanyahu won’t be reassured without seeing his hand. And the pessimist sees something else entirely: an American president who makes lots of campaign promises he doesn’t keep who doesn’t seem to possess any sense of urgency on a matter that, to Israelis, is tied to the very survival of the Jewish state.