Did Obama Really Disrespect Netanyahu at White House Meeting?

In just a few days, Benjamin Netanyahu will be meeting again with Barack Obama in the White House. The meeting will occur just weeks shy of the two year anniversary of their legendary--if not notorious--meeting on March 23, 2010, when the President is reported to have disrespected and humiliated the Israeli Prime Minister by refusing to permit formal photographs; unceremoniously leaving him in the building to dine in his private residence with his wife and children; and in a fashion evoking images of a parent dealing with an unrepentant child, scolding him as he departed with the words, "I'm still around--let me know if there is anything new."

The incident has become part of every discussion of the President's relationship to Israel. If one does an Internet search of the event, more than one million hits appear.

Typifying the animus it has created among pro-Israel supporters, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch cites the event as one of the reasons he believed President Obama was "throwing Israel under the bus." On Shalom TV, Mr. Koch describes how it contributed to his support a Republican Catholic candidate over an Orthodox Jewish candidate in a special September election in order to send the President a message that he can't "take the Jewish vote for granted." (Only after Obama's "magnificent" speech at the United Nations in support of Israel and in opposition to the UN's granting statehood to the Palestinians did Mr. Koch meet with the President, become convinced that he is truly pro-Israel, and determine to support his re-election.)

But did the event actually occur as it has been portrayed? Was Mr. Obama's behavior actually experienced by Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli delegation with him at the White House a moment of significant humiliation and disrespect?

A number of prominent Jewish figures, including Israel's Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, who was present at the White House meetings, said it did not happen the way it was reported. Jewish Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), chair of the Democratic National Committee, says she was told it never happened. And on Shalom TV, one of American Jewry's foremost leaders, Alan Solow, went on public record with me contending that accounts of the event are "just a figment of people's imagination."

Alan Solow, who just completed his tenure as chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is also a major figure in the Democratic Party and is a close and longtime Chicago friend and supporter of Barack Obama. The very day Alan sat with me he would later host a fundraising evening in New York City for the President with Ed Koch.

Alan paints a very different picture of that March 23, 2010 meeting in the White House from the common understanding, stating: "It never happened that way." On Shalom TV, Alan goes on to explain.

"In fact, what happened was the President and the Prime Minister met for an extended period in the late afternoon and, at the conclusion of that meeting--which was quite a good meeting as reported to me, not only by the Americans who were in the room but by the Israelis who were present--the Israeli delegation asked if they could have space in the White House in order to conduct a meeting among their group to decide what the next steps would be in terms of the problem they were working through with the administration.

"The White House, of course, accommodated the Israelis and let them use space in the White House to conduct those meetings. The President then excused himself."

Moreover, in contrast to media accounts that Mr. Obama abruptly walked out of the meeting to have "dinner with his wife and family," Mr. Solow says Mrs. Obama and the children were out of town that day so that Mr. Obama's leaving had nothing to do with having dinner with his family.

And while newspaper accounts have Mr. Obama's offering a somewhat ominous line, "If things change, let me know," Mr. Solow describes the President as simply offering to return from his private residence if the Israeli delegation wanted to continue discussions. And, according to Mr. Solow, that is exactly what did occur. Prime Minister Netanyahu asked the President to return for further discussion and the President readily accommodated. A second fruitful meeting then ensued. From Mr. Solow's understanding, the Prime Minister and his delegation left the White House without any feelings of being disrespected or humiliated.

Many believe Alan Solow is simply trying to put a positive spin on the meeting to protect his friend and political ally. Isi Leibler, for example, one of world Jewry's leading analysts who writes a column for the Jerusalem Post, completely dismisses Solow's account of the White House meeting.

But Alan Solow is a serious individual and an extremely responsible Jewish leader. Despite his personal relationship with Mr. Obama, he went public(as chairman of the Presidents Conference) with a statement critical of the President for opposing Jewish population growth in Jerusalem. It is not likely that Mr. Solow would appear on television with his account of the March 2010 meeting without having good reason to believe things happened as he describes.

So what is factual and what is apocryphal? Did the President humiliate the Israeli Prime Minister; or was the meeting cordial and productive?

The more obvious question is: Why hasn't Mr. Netanyahu or the Prime Minister's office made it perfectly clear what really happened at that White House meeting?

Some speculate that the Prime Minister's silence is confirmation that the media account of events is, indeed, a rather accurate description of a very uncomfortable moment between the world leaders. Alan Solow suggests, however, that Mr. Netanyahu has never commented because the Israeli Prime Minister never felt the matter merited a public repudiation. It simply wasn't important enough.

If this is the reason the Prime Minister's office has never corrected the popular understanding of what happened at the meeting, it may reflect a refrain in the Jewish world that Israel is sometime "tone deaf" to the concerns of American Jewry, if not to public opinion in general.

Whether the President did or did not humiliate the Israeli Prime Minister is not an insignificant issue. In an election year, the President's perceived treatment of Israel may well be a contributing factor when voters go to the polls. Another common assumption among American Jews is that Mr. Netanyahu's silence on the events of March 2010 is an effort on his part to sway American voters to vote Republican this November.

These concerns elevate this issue to the level where a clear response from Jerusalem is definitely warranted. American Jews and non-Jews simply have a right to know what really happened. Perhaps the upcoming meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu will provide an opportunity for clarification.

Rabbi Mark S. Golub
President & Executive Producer