Ha'aretz has a story that makes Netanyahu sound like a loon (which, given Ha'retz's political perspective, is exactly how they want to make him sound). According to the story:
"He thought that his speech at Bar-Ilan would become mandatory reading at schools in the United States, and when he realized that Obama gave no such order, he went back to being frustrated," one of his associates said.
Oh, come on! Bibi went to high school in the U.S., came back to the U.S. for graduate school and to work in a consulting job, and served in the Israeli embassy in Washington and then as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Given his extensive background in the U.S., what is the likelihood that Netanyahu thinks that the President of the United States has the power, or would have the inclination even if he had the power, to order that an Israeli prime minister's speech be read in U.S. public schools? I'd say the likelihood is zero.
I don't know if the correspondent made this story up, or whether he naively wrote down what someone else told him. But Ha'aretz, which tries to be a respectable news source, really dropped the ball on this one. (The story also claims that Netanyahu refers to Axelrod and Emmanuel as "self-hating Jews," but the author has already lost his credibility with me.)
UPDATE: Commenters have persuaded me that this is likely just a bad translation of a Hebrew figure of speech. But given that the theme of the article is how erratic and paranoid Netanyahu is, I couldn't tell.
In fact, don't read US newspapers either.
That reading has the merit of not assuming anyone involved to be a complete idiot. Of course, in politics as elsewhere, that's not always a merit.
More likely the writer went around to whoever he could find around the Knesset who dislikes Netanyahu and asked them for whatever negative stories they wanted to tell about the prime minister.
Unless, of course, Netanyahu is showing objective symptoms of confusion and paranoia. Or are we supposed to rule that out ab initio?
The words actually signify that Netanyahu expected his speech to become essential reading in Washington -- in other words to become the basis for any further discussion; evidently the Obama administration thinks otherwise. The great exaggeration of the spoken words is meant to criticize Netanyahu's overestimation of his own importance but should definitely not be taken literally.
Referring to Rahm and Axelrod as "self-hating Jews" in private discussions for failing to support the policies of the government of Israel does not strike me as unbelievable.
"To become mandatory reading in the schools" is a figure of speech in Hebrew. If the translator realized this, surely he thought the hyperbole is sufficiently obvious that a literal translation was acceptable. A non-literal translation would have been something like "he though the speech would be treated with utmost importance".
Reads like a piece of sarcasm to me. I think it's a stretch to suppose otherwise.
Unless you know Hebrew, in which case it's really obvious.
Also, I still find it hard to believe that Netanyahu would refer to Emanuel and Axelrod as "self-hating Jews".
It wasn't at all clear from the translation, but the hebrew version on http://www.haaretz.co.il/ is available.
If you were at all familiar with the rhetoric of Israeli politics, this would not surprise you at all. This is regular stuff coming from the right in Israel (and the left says just as nasty things).
I consider myself relatively familiar with the rhetoric of Israeli politics, and while there are people on the Israeli right (which is far from a monolithic entity) that I would not be surprised to hear such characterizations from, Netanyahu is not one of them.
Also, I would not be surprised if the source for that allegation was not a Netanyahu adviser but rather a political enemy.
This is a great example of the value of permitting comments on posts. Lindgren, take notice.
Lindgren thinks we have something to learn from him, but not vice-versa. Charmingly candid of him, really.
3 bullseyes
In detail, "qri`at xova" (קריאת חובה) literally means whatever the ministry of education thinks every schoolchild should read (Hamlet / The Declaration of Independence / The Magna Carta / The writings of Lenin). It is not unusual for an incoming minister of education in Israel to make decree such readings or reverse ones made by their predecessors. Right-wing or left-wing political orientation figures heavily in the selection of material.
"To become mandatory reading" thus clearly means here "to be of foundational importance to the politicians in charge".
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1996/netanyahu-0605.html
Even if Netanyahu DIDN`T say this, aren`t claims of "self-hating Jew" rather standard fare against Jewish critics of Israeli policy? (Just as anti-Semitism is a common sling against goy friends of Jews who criticise the Israeli government.)
Aren`t claims that Israel's critics get smeared as anti-Semites rather standard fare against defenders of Israeli policy? My impression is it's only a loud fringe of each side for whom such broad brushes are "standard fare." And I don't know of a basis more reliable than biased speculation for saying which fringe is more populous. Do you?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.