“When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing, in
the middle of these negotiations…to make statements like 'death to America,' how is that not problematic for you? …why are you just willing to let that, let
it slide, basically, and you are holding the prime minister of Israel to
comments that he made and has since changed?”
In her non-direct answer to Matt Lee’s question, State
Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki seemed to enact the very problem the AP reporter had just identified:
“…our
relationship with Israel is abiding; it’s strong; it’s a security relationship;
it’s one that we’re committed to. Do we have disagreements on some issues, like
how we should proceed with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Yes. Have we – can we – do we believe that it isn’t possible to just forget
what the prime minister says when it’s conflicting with past precedent and past
policy for some time? Yes…”
Lee tried to get Psaki to talk about the contrast between reaction
to the words of an ally talking, during a heated, democratic election, about his country’s situation vs non-reaction
to words like “death to America” spoken by leaders of the country currently
negotiating--with the US--for nuclear weapons. But Psaki continued in the same vein:
“…even if there is a deal, it doesn’t mean we let slide or
forget, whether it’s the comments or more important the actions – state sponsor
of terrorism, their human rights record…But we also feel that preventing Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not only in our interests, it’s in the
interests of the international community…”
The implication here seems to be that negotiating with Iran
about their nuclear weapons program is disconnected from considering or
responding to their leaders’ words and actions. This seems to leave us simply ignoring
the plain meaning of their words.
By contrast, although Netanyahu clarified, or changed, his last
minute campaign statement, the Israeli leader’s words apparently are always
relevant. Except when they are not, as
in: we don’t accept his clarification.
A day after the election, Netanyahu reiterated that he continues
to hold the same views as those he has expressed since his speech at Bar Ilan
University in 2009. There, he voiced his support for a
demilitarized Palestinian state next door to the Jewish state, whereas in the
last moments of the campaign, in what seems to have been a ploy to get votes
away from some of the smaller parties, he contradicted this position.
Politicians’ electioneering aside, journalist Matt
Lee raises an important question.
How is it that even while they are directly calling for the
destruction of the US, Iranian leaders are not to be criticized or taken at
their word, yet any statement by the freely elected prime minster of Israel, a close
American ally, is under continual, negative scrutiny?
At the same time, Netanyahu’s consistent and persistent
warnings about Iran’s nuclear program may be in the process of being
ignored. The upcoming “deal” has been described
by an Israeli official as an “incomprehensibly” bad agreement that leaves
thousands of centrifuges in place and puts no restraints on Iranian
backed terrorism.