Obama looking for regime change in Israel?

David Hornick:

After Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama last month, Israeli commentator Aluf Benn noted that “many people in Washington seemed to be more interested in the life expectancy of the current Israeli government than in Netanyahu’s positions.”

Last week in London, dovish Likud minister Dan Meridor reportedly complained to a U.S. delegation that “Washington’s demands of a complete construction freeze would lead to the dissolution of the Netanyahu government.” The Israeli side was said to be “stunned by the uncompromising U.S. stance.”

Israeli commentator Ben Caspit claims the following, from Netanyahu:

“What do they want from me? That my government will fall?”

The Obama administration’s heavy pressure on the settlement issue may well intend precisely that.

This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be in Washington for talks with — among others — Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser James Jones. Barak, from the left-of-center Labor Party, is the most dovish major minister in the government. Netanyahu badly wanted Barak and his party within his coalition, partly due to the belief that Labor’s dovish image would shore up Netanyahu’s legitimacy. Barak is said to agree that the U.S. demand for a total settlement freeze, even on “natural growth,” is unreasonable, and is expected to present that position in Washington.

Netanyahu may be finding out the hard way, though, that if Obama and his crew are dead-set against his government, even including perceived moderates in his coalition won’t help. Apart from the diplomatic rumors, there are reasons to believe the U.S. wants to see Bibi go....

...

The insistence on stopping all settlements is so irrational that it could certainly lead to the conclusion that Obama is trying to bring down the government. They have to know that there are elements of Netanyahu's coalition for whom a freeze of this nature on settlements is a deal killer.

The State Department has always had a bug up its rear about settlements, but it seems to be based on the irrational assumption that stopping them would really lead to a deal with the Palestinians. There is zero evidence to support that position and much that disproves it.

Then there is also the invalid assumption that a Middle East peace deal is important. I know that some of the Arab states say it is, but their actions belie those statements. Their actions say they want the Palestinians in a continued state of dependency.