Did Obama threaten to withhold support from Israel at the UN during an Israeli TV interview?

Barack Obama is interviewed by Ilana Dayan for Israeli TV channel 2

US President Barack Obama has once again opened his mouth and put his foot in it, compounding all the errors he made in his speech at the Washington synagogue last week. Certainly that is the strong impression have received from watching his interview with Ilana Dayan on Israeli TV channel 2. While I don’t always like Dayan’s style, her agenda and her leading questions – including in this interview – she also presented Netanyahu’s standpoint fairly, and it was unpleasant, if unsurprising, to hear Obama’s veiled threat against Israel.  Although we’ve heard similar words and threats from Obama previously, and quite recently, it’s a different matter altogether when they are spoken to Netanyahu’s “home audience”.

Watch and listen to the video excerpt of his interview embedded in the Arutz Sheva report linked here below.

Here is Arutz Sheva’s analysis:

US President Barack Obama gave an interview with Israeli media on Tuesday, in which he threatened that an Israeli refusal to renew peace talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA) will “make it hard” for the US to veto motions in the UN against Israel.

In an interview with Ilana Dayan for Channel 2‘s “Uvda” (Fact) TV show aired Tuesday night, Obama commented on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s statements before elections in which he said that a Palestinian state won’t be founded on his watch.

Obama noted that later Netanyahu distanced from the statement and “suggested that there is the possibility of a Palestinian state. But it has so many caveats, so many conditions, that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met anytime in the near future.”

Those conditions have included the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and demilitarization, conditions that proved problematic in the last round of peace talks that Obama pushed into existence in late 2013.

The president continued, “and so the danger here, is that…Israel as a whole loses credibility. Already the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two states solution…the statement the Prime Minister made compounded that…belief that there’s not a commitment there.”

I find it fascinating in a sick sort of way that Obama makes no such demands for credibility from the Palestinians. (I mentioned this point in my earlier post on Obama’s speech to the Washington synagogue).

Describing Netanyahu, Obama said, “I think that he also is someone who has been skeptical about the capacity of Israelis and Palestinians to come together on behalf of peace. I think that he is also a politician, who’s concerned about keeping coalitions together and maintaining his office.”

Goodness me! Netanyahu is a – gasp! – politician! And behaving like one too! Who’d ever have thunk it?

“Netanyahu…is somebody who’s predisposed to think of security first. To think perhaps that peace is naive,” he continued. “To see the worst possibilities, as opposed to the best possibilities in Arab partners or Palestinian partners, and so I do think that right now, those politics, and those fears are driving the government’s response. And, I understand it, but…what may seem wise and prudent on the short-term, can actually end up being unwise over the long-term.”

Obama then issued a threat to Israel, referring to his remarks after the recent Israeli elections when he said America would have to reasses its policy towards Israel, and clarifying that at the time he was referring to something specific.

“If there are additional resolutions introduced in the United Nations…up until this point we have pushed away against European efforts for example, or other efforts. Because we’ve said, the only way this gets resolved is if the two parties worked together,” he said, referring to European moves to unilaterally recognize the PA as a state.

The president said security aid to Israel won’t cease, but warn that, “if in fact, there’s no prospect of an actual peace-process, if nobody believes there’s a peace process, then it becomes more difficult, to argue with those who are concerned about settlement construction, those who are concerned about the current situation, it’s more difficult for me to say to them ‘be patient! wait! Because we have a process here.’ Because, all they need to do is to point to the statements that have been made saying there is no process.”

Obama returned to his personal image of Israel as it was in the glorious 1960s, as he referenced in his Washington synagogue speech too:

Referencing the Jewish nature of Israel, Obama said, “I am less worried about any particular disagreement that I have with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I am more worried about…an Israeli politics that’s motivated only by fear. And that then leads to a loss of those core values, that when I was young and I was admiring Israel from afar…were…the essence of this nation. There are things that you can lose, that don’t just involve rockets.”

And then we come to the main event – the existential threat faced by Israel from Iran’s nuclear weapons program – and the President is either woefully ignorant or lying through his teeth:

Turning his attention to Iran and the deal being formed with it on its nuclear program ahead of a June 30 deadline, he claimed that sanctions have caused Iran to keep its agreements in negotiations.

“I’ve said that, in exchange for some modest relief in sanctions, that Iran is going to have to freeze its nuclear program, roll back on its stockpiles of very highly enriched Uranium – the very stockpiles that Prime Minister Netanyahu had gone before the United Nations, with his picture of the bomb and said that was proof of how dangerous this was.”

“At that time, everybody said ‘this isn’t going to work! They’re going to cheat, they’re not going to abide by it.’ And yet, over a year and a half later, we know that they have abided by the letter of it,” claimed Obama.

His assertion is in fact false; Iranian nuclear fuel stockpiles grew by a massive 20% over the past 18 months of negotiations between Iran and world powers, as revealed in a report last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Arlene Kushner has more to say on the subject in her aptly titled article “Outrageous!”:

Intoned Obama:

“I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement.

“A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.”


It’s difficult to know where to begin.

Perhaps what is most outrageous here is that he has just announced to Iran that no matter what, the US will not be attacking.

We all knew that, of course.  But the US policy, enunciated every so often, has been that all options, including the military option, were on the table.

What Obama has done here, in pulling the military option off the table, is not something that should be done when in the midst of negotiations.  Not if the desire is to come out with the best possible deal: then you negotiate from strength and, at the very least, keep the your adversary guessing.

This tells us a great deal about Obama’s lack of seriousness in the negotiations. 


Or perhaps this is the most outrageous aspect of what he has said:  <strong>He is trying to convince the Israeli public that there is no point in attacking Iran, because a military solution won’t work.</strong>

My friends, at this point in time, <strong>a military solution is the only thing that will work</strong>!


What is more, it is not true that a military solution would only slow down Iran’s operation.  Let’s parse what he said, for a moment.  He didn’t refer to the US attacking Iran, but to the US “participating,” which means Israel would have the lead. This is different from a determined attack from strength directly by the US.

It is true that Israel can only set back Iran’s operation – I’ve been told by three to five years (which would be no small matter).  That’s because Israel does not have the enormous 30,000 pound bunker busters – the Massive Ordnance Penetrators – that would be required to break through Iran’s underground fortifications.

But the US has them, and has the B-2 and B-52 bombers required for carrying them.


In fact, let me carry this one step further:

A mere two months ago, it was announced that the Pentagon had just upgraded and tested its bunker busters

“According to senior officials, the results show the improved bomb—when dropped one on top of the other—is now more capable of penetrating fortified nuclear facilities in Iran or in North Korea, The Wall Street Journal reported. The Pentagon also designed the bunker buster to challenge Iran’s Fordow facility, which is built into a mountain to protect it from potential airstrikes.

bunker-buster bomb


“It’s believed that the above mentioned measures will allow the destructive weapon to be targeted with a precision previously possible only for far smaller guided US bombs.”


Clearly, the Pentagon and the Obama administration are not of the same mind. Also not news.  But in light of the Pentagon’s improvements to the bunker busters, Obama’s statement about the military option not being able to “fix” the situation is a glaring misrepresentation.  In other words, it’s a lie.

So Obama is (probably) lying about the Iranians freezing their stockpile and he’s lying about the chances of success with the military option.

At the risk of repeating myself, as was pointed out in my earlier post, he’s also lying to himself or to us about the rationality and antisemitism of the Iranian regime. Even a Lebanese journalist has noted that Obama will defend antisemitism in order to spin his miserable deal with the Iranians.

Is there anything this man says that we can trust?

This entry was posted in Antisemitism, Defence and Military, International relations, Lawfare and Delegitimization, Mideast news and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Did Obama threaten to withhold support from Israel at the UN during an Israeli TV interview?

  1. Brian Goldfarb says:

    Given that President Obama is, supposedly, highly educated, it is interesting to note that he fails to join the dots that are becoming increasingly clear to so many others. The American War of Independence (the American Revolution, if you live in the USA) came about because the British failed to recognise that the Americans had become a people and were thus entitled to self-determination. Which is exactly what the Palestinians refuse to do with regard to the Jews. Ironically, we find that Netanyahu and the likes of Einat Wilf, divided on so much else, are united on this.

    Until Obama, Kerry (trust he recovers from his broken leg, pity it wasn’t…oops, sorry, mustn’t be that cynical), et al, recognise that this is the nub of the problem, no progress will be made.
    Which is exactly what Bibi means when he says “not on my watch…” We can add the unstated rider “until the Palestinians recognise us as a people, as we recognise them as a people”. Sadly, we all know that means not in this generation…which is what Bibi said in the first place.

    Perhaps he needs to stop being a politician and become, for a while, a statesman, and say this out loud. Please!

    • anneinpt says:

      Very good point Brian. Obama’s supporters made such a huge thing about his high level of education, especially compared to the “dumb” Bush (who had a Harvard degree if I’m not mistaken) that Obama’s real-life blindness to reality is quite amazing.

      His refusal to accept that Bibi didn’t mean “I won’t ALLOW a Palestinian state on my watch” but rather “It’s not going to happen because of the present circumstances” reveals his malice and bias..

      I agree with your request of Bibi to be a statesman for once and not a politician – but in the reverse meaning (and here is where you and I disagree). I want him to AGREE with Obama! I want him to say once and for all that Israel won’t allow a Palestinian state because it would be an existential threat to Israel, and because the Palestinians anyway already have a state – in Jordan.

      It’s about time the world faced up to the reality. I include very many Israelis in “the world”.

  2. Aridog says:

    Nothing embarrasses me more than President Obama…latest absurdity is that he he thinks he’s the most Jewish President ever. My G-d. He is beyond description, and without a clue. I can only pray we can survive another 1.5 years of this idiot.

    • anneinpt says:

      My jaw dropped when I read his ridiculous comment.

      • Aridog says:

        Hey, it is your turn. He’s already declared himself an Irishman (huh?)…due to some faint lineage through his mother’s side. Even went to Ireland and was feted. I’m sure you’ll all give him a rousing welcome when he comes to Israel (fat chance) to advice on his “Jewishness.” 🙂

        • anneinpt says:

          Well, he did come here, twice I think. The first time was a bit of a non-event as far as I remember (I don’t), but the second time was yet another insult to us. He refused to speak at the Knesset – what kind of head of state refuses to address the nation’s parliament?? – and spoke to hand-picked Israeli students instead. Hand-picked – i.e. no right-wingers or nasty settlers were allowed in.

          So please take him back and donate him to the cause – whether Irish or black or green or purple. Maybe the aliens on Mars will have him.

  3. cba says:

    And not one word about the children’s TV program THIS WEEK on PA TV (the official station run by our “peace partners” the PA) that included a girl reciting a poem about “returning” to all areas of Israel and destroying the vermin Jews–to the cheers of the program host.

    • anneinpt says:

      The malicious antisemitic indoctrination of Palestinian children (all Arab children come to think of it) is completely ignored by the world, or at most, blamed on “the settlements/occupation”. As if Arabs were never antisemitic before 1967. (See my Farhud post for example).

      Worse, this indoctrination is going to make peace impossible for generations to come, as far as the eye can see.

  4. whitemvibes says:

    Yes hopefully dollars to Israel will stop. Fantastic.

    • anneinpt says:

      It would be no bad thing if US aid to Israel stopped. Then they would have no hold over us any more, and we could go ahead with building as many settlements as we want, and with really smashing the Palestinian terrorists – which, as long as US aid is held over our heads – ties one hand of the IDF behind its back.

      I presume you also want your dollars to stop going to the Palestinian terrorists too.

      • cba says:

        Your first paragraph: Exactly.
        Your second paragraph: I think that’s a presumption too far 🙂

        • Aridog says:

          Not as far as I am concerned. But good tongue in cheek never-the-less. 😀

          I hope all is well with you and yours.

          Help ordinary work-a-day Palestinians, okay, Israelis do this every day. Sponsor their aberrations of governance, no thank you. And I live among Arab Muslims who don’t think much of the Palestinians either…except for the few who go to their protest parades just because. “Just because” is a poor excuse. When they have a fandango, very few of us, Arab or Irishmen, pay any attention and although “reported” as thousands, never amount to much over a hundred or so. We’re too busy with out-of-state idiots like Terry Jones et al…who usually gather crowds of tens. The jerks with pig’s heads on poles are especially odd.

          Never mind in defense of what they assert as “free speech” they have suppressed it by their antics…in the nations’s largest community of Arabs there no longer is an Arab Festival of any kind, which always included the Muslims, Marionites, and Chaldeans, plus sundry Arab cultures other than Muslim. The “festival” was a celebration of culture, not religion, (those belly dancers certainly weren’t adhering to Sharia now were they?) but the outsiders made it un-affordable for the city to defend. So much for “free speech” eh?

          One of my best days, humor wise, was when three v-e-r-y black ladies from west Detroit ran his little behind back in city hall, in abject fear, when he tried to move out in to the community. Never under estimate the power of angry black ladies 🙂 I always tip my hat to older black ladies…they’re a tough bunch…and I’m very happy when they come here to push back on a fool of the first order. They’re mostly Christian Protestants (Baptist or AME) but take no guff. Gotta love them. 🙂

          • anneinpt says:

            I love your descriptions of your neighbourhood Aridog. It sounds a lot like our neighbourhood OUGHT to look like, in microcosm.

            We really could do with some of your little old ladies here. Maybe they’d scare Hamas away. 🙂

            • Aridog says:

              A group of angry black ladies can scare almost anyone. Witness the recent viral video of a mother discipling her son up side the head. Get a group of 3+ together and, Houston, you got problems. 😀

  5. Pingback: Did Obama threaten to withhold support from Israel at the UN during an Israeli TV interview? |

Comments are closed.