This split serves Obama's goals, ensuring that Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, stopping Israel from damaging his sell out to Iran, and driving a wedge between the American people and Israel so he can bully the Jewish State into an unfavorable deal with the Palestinians.
Yesterday John Kerry ridiculously contented that Binyamin Netanyahu can't be trusted on Iran because in 2002 he testified before congress in support of a war in Iraq. A great argument to expand the wedge between anti-war Democrats and Israel. Of course using the same argument, since Kerry voted for the war resolution when he was in the Senate how can we trust him. But even more than that, if one reads his 2002 congressional testimony at the House Government Reform Committee(and I did) his testimony was more nuanced than that.
Yes Netanyahu said Saddam had nukes, every intelligence agency in the world said it also, but what Bibi also said was that if Saddam was toppled Qaddafi would give up his nukes (he did) and Iran would become destabilized (it was remember the green revolution which Obama refused to support even with a kind word). Oh and he also predicted the Arab spring attempted democratization of the region.
He also explained the only way to win the war on terror, a method Obama has long since forgotten:
If I had to say what are the three principles of winning the war on terror, it is like what are the three principles of real estate: location, location, location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three Ws: winning, winning, and winning.Israel and the Obama administration have distinct objectives in the spat between the two governments. As mentioned above Obama's goals are ensuring that Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, stopping Israel from damaging his sell out to Iran, and driving a wedge between the American people and Israel so he can bully the Jewish State into an unfavorable deal with the Palestinians. Netanyahu's goals are far less political preventing the 8+ million Israelis from getting nuked into oblivion. Perhaps it is because Obama's actions against Bibi are political he can't see Netanyahu's speech as having anything less than the same nefarious political intent.
Each of the twenty-two members of congress who are boycotting the Netanyahu speech and each of the members of Congress who haven't spoken out against the Obama anti-Israel attacks like Chuck Schumer, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand, the entire lot of those silent Democrats them may feel in their hearts they are pro-Israel, but with their action (or lack of action) the are being very anti-Israel. Their silence supports Obama's anti-Israel actions and maybe without knowing it, they are supporting nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish State.