ARTICLE

Obama's Blatant Double Standard Toward Netanyahu Revealed On European Tour

News Image By Alan M. Dershowitz/Algeimeiner.com April 26, 2016
Share this article:

As President Obama winds up his farewell tour of Europe, it is appropriate to consider the broader implications of the brouhaha he created in Great Britain. At a joint press conference with Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, President Obama defended his intrusion into British politics in taking sides on the controversial and divisive Brexit debate. 


In an op-ed, Obama came down squarely on the side of Britain remaining in the European Union - a decision I tend to agree with on its merits. But he was much criticized by the British media and British politicians for intruding into a debate about the future of Europe and Britain's role in it.  

Obama defended his actions by suggesting that in a democracy, friends should be able to speak their minds, even when they are visiting another country: "If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in. 

Or at least I want to be able to tell them 'I think this makes you guys bigger players.'" Nor did he stop at merely giving the British voters unsolicited advice, he also issued a not so veiled threat.  He said that "The UK is going to be in the back of the queue" on trade agreements if they exit the EU.

President Obama must either have a short memory or must adhere to Emerson's dictum that "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  Recall how outraged the same President Obama was when the Prime Minister of a friendly country, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke his mind about the Iran Deal.  

There are, of course, differences: first, Israel has a far greater stake in the Iran deal than the United States has in whatever decision the British voters make about Brexit: and second, Benjamin Netanyahu was representing the nearly unanimous view of his countrymen, whereas there is little evidence of whether Americans favor or oppose Brexit in large numbers.  

Another difference, of course, is that Obama was invited to speak by Cameron, whereas, Netanyahu was essentially disinvited by Obama. But under our tripartite system of government - which is different than Britain's Unitary Parliamentary system -- that fact is monumentally irrelevant. 

Netanyahu was invited by a co-equal branch of the government, namely Congress, which has equal authority over foreign policy with the president and equal authority to invite a friendly leader. Moreover, not only are the British voters divided over Brexit, but the conservative party itself is deeply divided. 

Indeed, the leading political figure in opposition to Britain remaining in the European Union is a potential successor to Cameron as leader of the Conservative party. So these differences certainly don't explain the inconsistency between Obama's interference in British affairs and his criticism of Netanyahu for accepting an invitation from Congress to express his country's views on an issue directly affecting its national security.


So what is it Mr. President?  Should friends speak their minds about controversial issues when visiting another country, or should they keep their views to themselves? Or is your answer that friends should speak their minds only when they agree with other friends, but not when they disagree? Such a view would skew the market place of ideas beyond recognition. If friends should speak about such issues, it is even more important to do so when they disagree.

A wit once observed that "hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." It is also the currency of diplomacy and politics. That doesn't make it right.

The President owes the American people, and Benjamin Netanyahu, an explanation for his apparent hypocrisy and inconsistency. Let there be one rule that covers all friends - not one for those with whom you agree and another for those with whom you disagree. 

For me the better rule is open dialogue among friends on all issues of mutual importance. Under this rule, which President Obama now seems to accept, he should have welcomed Prime Minister Netanyahu's advocacy before Congress, instead of condemning it. 

He owes Prime Minister Netanyahu an apology, and so do those Democratic members of Congress who rudely stayed away from Netanyahu's informative address to Congress.

Originally published at Algemeiner.com - Reposted with permission




Other News

July 09, 2025From Japan To The U.S - Earthquake Fault Lines Are Awakening

Is there a possibility that a cataclysmic eruption of Mt. Rainier could occur in the not too distant future? On Tuesday morning, Mt. Rain...

July 09, 2025When The Left Wants Blood: The Quiet Slide Toward Political Violence

Democratic lawmakers are hearing increasingly violent rhetoric from their constituents-calls to "break the rules," "fight dirty," and stop...

July 09, 2025The Digital Trap: Europe's Quiet March Toward Total Control

Imagine a world where every transaction you make, every website you visit, every thought you dare to express online is silently recorded, ...

July 09, 2025Shepherds Without Scripture: What Do Today’s Pastors Really Believe?

One in four Mainline clergy doubt the existence of God. These aren't fringe bloggers or deconstructing TikTok influencers. These are the m...

July 07, 2025Hijacking Creation: Scientists May Only Be Years Away From Lab-Made Children

In-vitro gametogenesis - the creation of human sperm and eggs from skin or blood cells--is now just years away. Scientists across Japan, C...

July 07, 2025Death To The IDF? The Disturbing New Normal On The Progressive Left

Once reliably pro-Israel, the Democratic Party has undergone a dramatic reversal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict-and no demographic re...

July 07, 2025Access Denied: How Age Rules Could Reshape The Internet For Everyone

If identity becomes the new key to the internet, then the next great digital debate won't be about content moderation-it will be about acc...

Get Breaking News