Historian Aaron Friedman on Israel’s leaders [VIDEO]
Israeli historian Aaron Friedman shares his experiences in the creation of the State of Israel and his relationships with its leaders.
Israeli historian Aaron Friedman shares his experiences in the creation of the State of Israel and his relationships with its leaders.
President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree, at least in principle: Keep the talk on what to do about Iran behind closed doors. But once they’re behind those doors, they can’t agree — and they can’t seem to resist bringing their disagreements into the open.
Within hours of a long and private Oval Office meeting on March 5 that aides to both leaders said was productive, Netanyahu suggested that Obama’s sanctions-focused approach to Iran’s nuclear program wasn’t producing results. The next day Obama was warning that the United States would suffer repercussions if Israel struck Iran prematurely.
There also seem to have been some concessions from both sides.
Netanyahu told Obama and congressional leaders that he had not yet decided to strike Iran. And Obama’s defense secretary, Leon Panetta, issued perhaps the most explicit warning yet of possible U.S. military action against Iran in his address on March 6 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.
“Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,” he said on the conference’s last day in a round of morning addresses aimed at motivating the 13,000 activists in attendance before they visited Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers. “But make no mistake, if all else fails, we will act.”
That formulation is more acute than the “no-options-off-the-table” language that has been the boilerplate for the Obama and Bush administrations.
Much of Panetta’s speech appeared to be a bid to persuade Netanyahu to coordinate more closely with the United States.
“Cooperation is going to be essential to confronting the challenges of the 21st century,” Panetta said. “The United States must always have the unshakeable trust of our ally Israel. We are stronger when we act as one.”
Top Obama administration officials have tried to persuade Netanyahu that diplomatic options have not yet been exhausted in the bid to have Iran stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program.
Netanyahu did not seem as eager to cooperate in his hard-hitting speech on Monday night, which repeatedly brought the AIPAC crowd to its feet for ovations. He stressed Israel’s right to act and expressed impatience with the pace of efforts to bring pressure to bear on Iran.
“I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran, and these sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy, but unfortunately Iran’s nuclear program continues to march forward,” Netanyahu said. “We’ve waited for diplomacy to work, we’ve waited for sanctions to work, none of us can afford to wait much longer. As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation.”
Responding to commentators who argue that military action against Iran would be ineffective or provoke a violent response, Netanyahu said, “I’ve heard these arguments before.” He then dramatically held up correspondence from 1944 between the World Jewish Congress and the U.S. War Department in which the latter rejected the WJC’s plea to bomb Auschwitz and the railways leading to the death camp.
“2012 is not 1944, the American government today is different. You heard that in President Obama’s speech yesterday,” he said. “But here is my point: The Jewish people is also different today. We have a state of our own, and the purpose of a Jewish state is to defend Jewish lives and secure our future. Never again.”
He repeated the line that he had told Obama at the outset of their meeting earlier Monday: ”When it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.”
Such talk appeared to frustrate Obama. The next day, in response to a question at a news conference, Obama pointedly said that military action against Iran could have consequences for the United States.
“Israel is a sovereign nation that has to make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security,” he said. “And as I said over the last several days, I am deeply mindful of the historical precedents that weigh on any prime minister of Israel when they think about the potential threats to Israel and the Jewish homeland.”
But then he added, “The argument that we’ve made to the Israelis is that we have made an unprecedented commitment to their security. There is an unbreakable bond between our two countries, but one of the functions of friends is to make sure that we provide honest and unvarnished advice in terms of what is the best approach to achieve a common goal, particularly one in which we have a stake. This is not just an issue of Israeli interests, this is an issue of U.S. interests. It’s also not just an issue of consequences for Israel, if action is taken prematurely. There are consequences to the United States as well.”
If that wasn’t enough to get the message across, Obama painted a searing picture of such consequences.
“You know, when I visit Walter Reed,” the military hospital in Washington, ”when I sign letters to families that have — whose loved ones have not come home — I am reminded that there is a cost,” he said.
Obama insisted there was still time for diplomacy to work, and in a subtle gibe at Netanyahu said that Israel’s intelligence establishment agreed.
“It is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically,” he said. “That’s not just my view — that’s the view of our top intelligence officials, it’s the view of top Israeli intelligence officials.”
Both leaders appeared to be caught between wanting to make their case and keep some matters behind closed doors. Netanyahu started his Monday night speech to AIPAC’s policy conference by pledging, “I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or not do — I never talk about that.”
A day earlier in his AIPAC address, Obama criticized what he called “loose talk of war.”
“Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program,” he said. “For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.”
The three Republican presidential candidates who addressed AIPAC on Tuesday used the opportunity to take aim at Obama’s Iran policy, accusing the president of being soft and hesitant on the issue.
“I will bring the current policy of procrastination to an end,” Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said via satellite.
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives also speaking via satellite, said that as president he would not expect a warning from Israel should it decide to strike Iran.
Rick Santorum, the ex-U.S. senator who was at the conference in person, despite it being Super Tuesday, said that differences between the U.S. and Israel over what should trigger a strike were emboldening Iran.
“There is a clear and unfortunate and tragic disconnect between how the leaders of Israel and of the United States view the exigency of this situation,” Santorum said. He accused Obama of “turning his back” on Israel.
The evening before, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate minority leader, proposed from the podium that the U.S. should openly threaten Iran with the prospect of “overwhelming force” if its nuclear program progresses past certain thresholds.
“If Iran at any time begins to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, or decides to go forward with a weapons program, then the United States will use overwhelming force to end that program,” he said to applause, although his remarks do not reflect any AIPAC policy.
In the president’s news conference, which was supposed to be about the housing crisis, Obama pushed back against hawkish talk from his Republican critics.
“When I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war,” he said. “I’m reminded of the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy. This is not a game, and there’s nothing casual about it.”
Obama and Netanyahu disagree, in private and in public Read More »
VENAHAFOCHU. Upside down, inside out, wrong side up. A picture perfect description of my last year and a half. And a perfect excuse to write again, after a resounding silence from Hollywood East.
My last blog ended with an article about Israeli’s getting naked for the camera. A perfect build up to the Purim Megillah story, where Ahashverosh, clearly looking to demean Vashti, commands her to dance in the nude, and she, refusing, is beheaded. I wouldn’t call that exactly being a doting husband, but here’s the nahafoch in the Megillah: The Megillah starts by showing how a chauvinistic King drunkenly kills his Queen and ends with the same King respecting and obeying his Queen (Esther) and during a party, at which he’s no doubt drunk again, the King kills his (male) advisor, the very same advisor who, according to the rabbis first suggested to the King that Vashti had to go.
My question is: What caused this change in the story?
Maybe my story can help explain it.
When I first started dating, my parents prepared me for what they were sure was an average courting scenario. They dressed me up like a bridesmaid, reminded me not to be surprised if my date brought me flowers, and had me practice walking through a door already opened by my future date.
But when my first Israeli date showed up in jeans and a T-shirt, honking at the curb, my parents were forced to realize that not only were they stuck in the wrong dating country, but they were also about 40 years behind the times. And me, being an independent liberated woman, was only too happy to prove that indeed, we’re all created equal, and I can hold open my own car door, thank you very much.
So when I approached my date, now leaning on the hood of the car, I wasn’t at all upset that he didn’t open my door and gesture me in the way my parents assured me he would. I didn’t want a dandy. I wanted a modern man. So, with my bare-hands, I let myself into the passenger seat, and waited for him to get back inside the drivers seat. But he just stood there, in the cold, outside the car. Finally, after about a minute, he opened the door, plopped himself into the drivers seat and sighed. “You failed,” he shook his head sadly at me.
“I failed?” I echoed. “I failed what?”
“You failed Mivchan Hadelet – The door test,” he replied matter-of-factly. “Every guy knows, if the girl doesn’t open the door for you from the inside she won’t be a thoughtful girlfriend, and a true balabusta.”
The question, Was I behind the times? suddenly loomed in front of me. But this was only the beginning. The next guy, I dated for 3 months, and for my birthday, suggested he do something romantic like bring me flowers. Come my Birthday, and Hulio (yes there are Jewish Hulios in Israel) knocks at the door, lets himself in, sinks into the couch and turns on the TV, but not before shouting: “By the way, happy birthday! Don’t worry, I got you flowers, they’re on the counter. Put them in some water or they’ll die.”
What more could a girl ask for?
The more I dated, the more I began to yearn for the “gentleman” my parents had always told me fairytales about. As much as I enjoyed my adventures, I was starting to yearn for my “happily ever after”. After all, if Snow White, Cinderella and Esther could get it, what’s to stop me?
And indeed, with my current boyfriend, whom I shall refer to only as ‘superhero’, it’s a whole new story.
Superhero and I happened to have been friends as children. He was one of the neighborhood children my father used to scare on Purim when he dressed up to the “child catcher” from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. It so happens, we reconnected, 20 years later, and when I visited my parents for the weekend, he insisted on coming in to say Hello. The guy even brought flowers.
“For me?” my youngest sister, Blooper, gushed in delight.
“What a gentleman!” my mother kvelled.
“Certainly brightens up the room,” my father added.
The following Friday, I was visiting my parents again, and Superhero came to pick me up for a cup of coffee. Blooper was waiting eagerly with an empty vase at the doorway when he came knocking.
“Where’re the flowers?” She asks, holding out her vase to him. Prepared for any scenario, my guy smiles and pulls out a beautiful pink flower, one he had clearly picked from the neighbor’s yard.
“What?” she says sternly “That can’t fill up a vase!”
“Isn’t it the thought that counts?” he smiles at her.
“The thought counts, but not as much as the flowers.”
Just then my father walks in with his usual Shabbat bouquet for my Mother.
“Aw, that’s so nice,” Superhero says as my Mothers does a little tap dance, “so romantic of him. Is it her birthday?”
“No!” #8 chimes in before I can respond. “He does that EVERY Friday” and she grabs the single pink flower and plops it into one of those super thin vases we keep around for fake flowers. The bar has just been raised.
On Sunday, sister #6, closer to my age, invites us both to a party. During the ride she grills Superhero without letting up. “What do you do? What do you WANT to do? Where do you live? Show me the Facebook profile of your ex-girlfriend”. Unflustered, he takes it in stride. Even offers to put her picture on his Facebook page.
Yes, my boyfriend is one in a million. Exactly the kind I was supposed to bring home to start with. So is it because I started choosing different kind of guys? Or is perhaps “Divine Intervention”? Or maybe it’s simply the right man at the right time?
Actually, I’m not sure if I really have much to do with the fact that my boyfriend always picks me up at the door, or if it’s more the menacing glare of my sister edging him up the stairs. I don’t know if he actually enjoys sitting around with me and my family listening to us talk for hours, or if it’s more my Father’s strong arm pinning him to the chair. And although I like to think he’s showing me how much he cares by bringing a bouquet of flowers every Friday, he does hand them directly to #9 eagerly awaiting them with her vase, whether I’m there that weekend or not.
All’s fair in love and war, but I’m thankful my family sometimes goes to battle for me. When I think about it, Esther had Mordechai there. Guiding her, watching over her, reminding her where she came from and what she should be looking for.
So was it Esther who changed Ahashverosh? Or did he evolve with time?
The Megillah, to me, represents the battle of women for their independence and rights over the last 60 years. From Vashti, somewhere in the back room, expected to obey her husbands command, to Esther trying to balance her many tasks of saving a nation, pleasing her cousin, ruling a castle, and all the while providing a warm nurturing home for her husband.
And Ahashverosh? He changed too. A lot. For starters, he finally learns to stop taking advice from triangle-eared idiots. And comes a long road from beheading Vashti, to treating Esther as the queen she should be.
Venahafochu. We’ve all come a long way. Although if you ask me, somewhere is the sequel to this “happily ever after” Megillah, and Esther’s yelling at the king to put down that toilet seat already!
Cinderella, Queen Esther and Me. Read More »
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee likes to promote an image of bipartisan bonhomie at its annual policy conference. But that’s not always easy, especially in a presidential election year and with partisan passions running high over Middle East policy.
The first session of the AIPAC conference ,a foreign policy panel, produced some surprise fireworks.
Liz Cheney, a top State Department Middle East official in the Bush administration and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, came out swinging against President Obama’s record.
“Everyone in the room understands,” she said, that Obama has made statements “more focused on containing Israeli actions than they have been on containing Iran.”
Fellow panelist Jane Harman, a former California congresswoman who was the longtime top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, did not take the swipe at her party’s standard-bearer sitting down.
“This administration has done more than any in history to help Israel protect itself,” Harman said.
She contrasted Obama’s efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear with what she depicted as the failures of the administration that employed both Cheneys.
“We have paid dearly in treasure and lives, and the results in those countries are very unsettling,” Harman said, enduring Cheney’s withering glare in referring to the wars that Bush launched in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pro-Iranian tilt of the Iraqi government was “very, very troubling,” Harman added, leaving unsaid that Cheney had helped midwife the same government into existence.
The parties that followed the Monday night gala were off the record, but the political movers and shakers shouted so loud in their rented tents in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, you could hear what they were saying out in the hall.
Once I got past the barriers it was off the record.
So what did I overhear from the hall?
National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris saying his party is the natural home for the Democrats …
And Republican Adam Hasner, running in Allen West’s old congressional seat in South Florida, joking about how the Republican Jewish Coalition could not so long ago meet in a phone booth …
And from this we learn much of what is said off the record at these events is said on the record at other events.
Daniel Hernandez, the congressional intern who helped save Gabrielle Giffords’ life after she was shot, got a shout-out at the NJDC event.
AIPAC showed a video interview with the college student, whose own political career is budding—he was recently elected to the Phoenix school board.
Hernandez described his interactions with a teacher who was a Holocaust survivor, and then his introduction to working for the Democratic Party.
“I started working for a lot of older Jewish women who called themselves my yentas,” he said.
The last time he saw Giffords, Hernandez said, he told her he would attend the AIPAC conference.
“When I said AIPAC she just lit up and had a really big smile,” he recalled. Her message? “Tell them I love Arizona and tell them I love AIPAC.”
Rick Santorum was the first of three GOP candidates to speak at the AIPAC conference on Tuesday, its last day—and the only one there in the flesh. He wanted some love for actually flying in on Super Tuesday, when 10 primaries are being contested.
“I wanted to come off the campaign trail to come here,” he said. Santorum also coined the catchy anti-Obama line of the day, saying that while Obama says he has Israel’s back, “from everything I’ve seen from the conduct of his administration, he has turned his back on the State of Israel.”
Romney, speaking via satellite, got special treatment in two ways: First, AIPAC tweaked its tradition of having a home-state backer introduce the candidate by bringing on two AIPAC stalwarts—one from Massachusetts (where he governed) and one from Michigan (where he was raised, and where his father governed).
But won’t that contribute to the feckless image he is trying to shuck?
Romney also had a panel ask him questions, and he even made a little news when one of the questioners asked him what he would do to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace.
“Talking about a peace process right now is a bit like setting up a tent in the middle of a hurricane,” he said. “So there has to be some settling down of a number of questions I think before the peace process is going to get its legs again.”
Newt Gingrich then spoke and delivered a quickie Israel platform in maybe a minute.
His first day, he would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, introduce an energy plan that would reduce the necessity of Saudi oil and launch a bid to unseat the Iranian government.
Then he wanted his panel; some 10 seconds of dead silence: For Newt, there was no panel.
Gingrich recovered, and AIPAC even came back with two questions.
AIPAC 2012: Partisan fireworks, a hero’s welcome, Gingrich goes panel-less Read More »
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested the United States approve the sale of advanced refueling aircraft as well as GBU-28 bunker-piercing bombs to Israel during a recent meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, a top U.S. official said on Tuesday.
The American official said that U.S. President Barack Obama instructed Panetta to work directly with Defense Minister Ehud Barak on the matter, indicating that the U.S. administration was inclined to approve the request as soon as possible.
During the administration of former U.S. President George Bush, the U.S. refused to sell bunker-penetrating bombs and refueling aircrafts to Israel, as a result of American estimates that Israel would then use them to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Read more at Haaretz.com.
U.S. official: Netanyahu asked Panetta to approve sale of bunker-busting bombs Read More »
KogiBBQ, Coolhaus, and Canter’s mobile food trucks are not a usual topic of interest to The Wide Angle blog. We don’t opine on which of the food trucks are better or more accessible or offer more variety—- that’s not our thing.
But a ” title=”AB 1678″ target=”_blank”>AB 1678) that will ban mobile food trucks from “sell[ing] or otherwise provid[ing] food or beverages within 1,500 feet of the property line of an elementary or secondary school campus from the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00PM, inclusive on a day that school is in session.”
The predicate for this draconian bit of legislation is the author’s view that “mobile food vending diminishes participation in the school nutrition programs, reinforces the stigma associated with eating school meals, and jeopardizes the fiscal viability of school nutrition programs at the local level.”
In the Sacramento’s At It Again Read More »
The Jewish Federation of Louisville has opened a fund to help victims of tornadoes that ripped through the Midwest.
Federation officials said they were eager to help donors who wanted to help those affected by the storms, which claimed dozens of lives and cut a path of destruction across several states.
“Our hearts go out to our neighbors in Southern Indiana who are suffering tremendously in the wake of last week’s powerful storms,” Stu Silberman, the Louisville federation’s president and CEO, said in a statement Tuesday. “We are honored to play a role in helping restore lives by coordinating relief efforts from Jewish communities around the country.”
Other Jewish groups also have responded to the storms. NECHAMA, a Jewish disaster relief organization, is set to begin a cleanup operation in two communities, and the National Association of Jewish Chaplains also will deploy chaplains to affected areas.
The storms did not have a direct impact on any Jewish communities.
Louisville federation launches fundraising drive for tornado victims Read More »
Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni and several American Jews, including former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were included in Newsweek’s 150 “Women Who Shake the World.”
Livni was the only Israeli woman on the list.
“They are starting revolutions, opening schools, and fostering a brave new generation. From Detroit to Kabul, these women are making their voices heard,” Newsweek wrote on its partner The Daily Beast website in announcing the new annual feature.
The feature called Livni “one of the most powerful women in the country,” who is “known for her honesty and integrity.”
Among the American Jewish women appearing on the list are Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who stepped down from the Congress as she recovers from being shot in the head during a constituents’ meeting; Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times; Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, a lesbian rabbi who leads the world’s largest LGBT congregation in Manhattan; and Roseanne Barr, an actress and Tea Party activist.
Other notable women on the list are U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, actress and activist Angelina Jolie, British singer Adele and U.S. war correspondent Marie Colvin, who died in Syria last month.
Livni, Giffords on Newsweek’s influential women list Read More »
“ְהָפוּך” in Hebrew means opposite, upside-down, reversed, or backward!
However, in regards to the reading of the Book of Esther backwards, Jewish law (Halacha) says: “One who reads the Megilah backwards has not fulfilled the mitzvah (commandment) of reading the Megilah.”
The Baal Shem Tov (the founder of modern Hasidism) comments, saying: “If you read the Megilah thinking it’s only about the past [i.e. looking backwards], you miss the point.”
We Jews need to look forward always. Though we are a people with a long memory and we do not forget very much in our history and experience, we become mired in the past to our own detriment because then we find ourselves responding to current challenges inappropriately and unwisely.
Chag Sameach!
A Thought for Purim Read More »
President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not have bridged their differences on how to deal with Iran, but each managed to give the other a measure of reassurance.
In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama held his ground, declining to articulate new American red lines on the Iranian nuclear issue and strongly advising against “loose talk of war.” Yet he earned the praise of the prime minister and the pro-Israel lobby with his acknowledgement that Israel needs to be able to defend itself, and his vow that America has Israel’s back.
While Obama stressed diplomacy as a continued option in public and private comments, Netanyahu indicated in the two leaders’ private meeting that he believes sanctions have been exhausted. Yet even if the prime minister does not share the president’s patience, he also told Obama that there is not yet any Israeli decision to attack Iran, according to Israeli press reports.
“We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, but ultimately the Iranians’ regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far,” Obama said in an Oval Office photo-op Monday morning ahead of the leaders’ two-hour meeting, which was followed by what aides described as an “expansive” lunch.
He added, looking at Netanyahu, “I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the costs of any military action.”
Netanyahu did not acknowledge the president’s plea for diplomacy to play itself out, instead emphasizing Israel’s sovereign right to act—and noting that Obama had made the same point in his speech the day before to AIPAC’s annual policy forum.
“I think that above and beyond that there are two principles, longstanding principles of American policy that you reiterated yesterday in your speech—that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself by itself against any threat; and that when it comes to Israel’s security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right to make its own decisions,” Netanyahu said.
“I believe that’s why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself. And after all, that’s the very purpose of the Jewish state—to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny,” he continued. “And that’s why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate.”
That acknowledgement—that Israel has the right to strike in its own perceived self-defense—was the element that AIPAC’s leaders were seeking, and Obama earned the most extended standing ovation of the day when he told the conference: “Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”
Another crowd pleaser was the president’s pledge that “the United States will always have Israel’s back when it comes to Israel’s security.”
How to deal with Iran dominated much of the meeting between the leaders. As if to underscore Netanyahu’s message of his determination to confront the Iranian regime, his gift to Obama was a copy of the Megillah, the tale of the Persian Jews’ bloody triumph over Haman.
An Israeli source said the meeting underscored agreement between the Netanyahu and Obama governments in four areas: a determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon; that all options are on the table; that containment is not an option; that Israel is a sovereign state that has a right to defend itself by itself.
In his own address to the conference on Monday morning—delivered as Obama and Netanyahu were meeting—Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s executive director, made it clear that the fourth message was the one AIPAC had been seeking.
“This is the context in which Israel must decide her course of action,” he said. “If she can put her fate in the hands of anyone—even her closest ally, America—or if she must conduct a strike to postpone Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Israel was created to ensure that the Jewish people would never have to put their fate in the hands of others.”
Kohr also pushed back strongly against those who say that Obama has not done enough to confront Iran.
“President Obama and his administration are to be commended,” he said. “They have—more than any other administration, more than any other country—brought unprecedented pressure to bear on Tehran through the use of biting economic sanctions. They have built a broad coalition to isolate the Iranian regime and they have brought the necessary military assets to the gulf and to Iran’s neighbors in order to signal that America has the power to act.”
Kohr echoed Democrats in their pleas not to make Iran policy a partisan issue. Republican salvos against Obama have frustrated his supporters, who say that the criticisms fail to take into account the strides he has made in isolating Iran.
While campaigning in Georgia on Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said that Obama had “failed to communicate that military options are on the table.”
The president and administration officials have repeatedly stressed that all options are on the table, even as they call for giving sanctions time to work. In his Sunday speech to AIPAC, Obama said that there is “too much loose talk of war,” arguing that “now is not the time for bluster.”
At Obama-Netanyahu summit, assurances exchanged but differences remain Read More »