The low language used by U.S. government officials about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in comments made to Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg was not appropriate, given the fact that Israel is an American ally. This was not normal discourse between heads of state. The Americans never describe Syrian President Bashar Assad as a "coward" or "Aspergery." The White House quickly distanced itself from the belligerent language used by the unnamed officials. This was an attempt at damage control, but the deed was already done. The scathing language used by the officials indicates two developments -- growing Obama administration anger at Netanyahu for construction in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria; and the embarrassment of the administration over the collapse of its plans for a new Middle East. The unusual language used by the officials was a manifestation of the U.S. government's realization that it has failed in the Middle East in general, and in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere in particular. The Americans now realize that they do not have a monopoly on proper policy management. Last weekend, Thomas Friedman, regarded in Israel as a mouthpiece for President Barack Obama, published an op-ed in The New York Times in which he recanted some of the charges he had made in the past against Israel. Friedman is no longer convinced that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's proposals were the "last train" to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. A tragedy may be occurring, as Friedman put it, and there is no solution now, but the future is darker than dark. So, in fact, what the White House might deem as unsuitable "under any circumstances," may not indeed be so. Friedman's view is now closer to Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's, which is that there is no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the near future. Rather, there should be "crisis management," while waiting for circumstances to change. America's adoption of a gloves-off approach with Israel will not achieve the goal that the initiators of the confrontation hoped for. While many Israelis, myself included, agree with the U.S. criticism of the timing of Israel's construction plans and Netanyahu's turn to the right, they will stand by Netanyahu if Obama tries to undermine the prime minister, who was democratically elected by the Israeli public. According to commentators, Washington believes that Netanyahu's turn to the right means elections are in the offing in Israel and Obama wants to influence the results by giving Israeli voters a tangible sense that Netanyahu's policies are putting their country in conflict with the world. Perhaps Obama hopes this will deter voters from supporting Likud. But this is not how life goes in democratic nations. Instead, the average patriot in a democracy will defend his or her prime minister who is under an illegitimate verbal assault from abroad. This week, I heard a short lecture on why the humans and animals crammed into Noah's Ark did not clash with each other. The answer was that the flood was an external pressure, which always brings people together. And this is how Israelis react to diplomatic attacks from abroad.
