Obama: Peace out, Israel

They tried to play nice, but we knew it. Evidence existed all along that President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't hold each other in high regard, and who would deny it now? I mean, who would honestly deny it? The decision the U.S. made not to veto the United Nations anti-Israel resolution affecting Israeli settlement has laid it out there -- naked.

Word on the street is this is Obama sticking it to Israel before he leaves office. "Peace out," as they say. In fact, Netanyahu spokesman David Keyes told CNN, "We have ironclad information, frankly, that the Obama administration really helped push this resolution and helped craft it, from sources internationally and sources in the Arab world." While the public has yet to receive evidence, Israel promises to share that proof with the new administration post-Jan. 20.

On Twitter, President-elect Donald Trump reiterated his support for Israel, posting, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th."

Netanyahu expressed anticipation of working with the new President. He tweeted, "President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel!"

Absent from that tweet, but clear to all who can read between the lines, is his sentiment that he can hardly wait to collaborate with someone who -- unlike Obama -- is actually pro-Israel, someone who respects the bond shared by the U.S. and Israel, our No. 1 ally in the Middle East.

Last week, Trump tweeted further support: "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!"

Someone once said, "With friends like these, you don't need enemies." Of the United States' abstention from vetoing the resolution, Netanyahu said, "Friends don't take friends to the Security Council." He blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for his speech in which he lectured and pointed fingers at Israel, rather than the Palestinians, who refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. He defended the decision to leave Israel hanging out to dry as if its people have no right to settle in their own land. Yes, their land.

Kerry went so far in his 70-minute speech to state that if the Jews and Palestinians opt for a one-state solution, "Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both, and it won't ever really be at peace." In other words, pick between who you are and Â… who you are.

Netanyahu, who has most-often managed to bite his tongue and speak well of the Obama administration, responded that "Israelis do not need to be lectured about the importance of peace by foreign leaders."

If it were merely a partisan divide, one might poo-poo the disgust at Obama's treatment of Israel. But not this time. Even Democrats are outraged. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for example, took to Twitter Friday to express his thoughts: "Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution." In a statement the following Wednesday, he said, "While Secretary Kerry mentioned Gaza in his speech, he seems to have forgotten the history of the settlements in Gaza, where the Israeli government forced settlers to withdraw from all settlements and the Palestinians responded by sending rockets into Israel," adding, "This is something that people of all political stripes in Israel vividly remember."

Israelis expect enemies to seek their demise. What they don't expect is the United States to aid those enemies. They don't expect to be stabbed in the back. But it's not the first time. The Iran nuclear deal to which Trump referred was another disappointment, as the U.S. agreed to negotiate with the No. 1 state sponsor of terror committed to wiping Israel off the map. But we know there ain't no pansy in Netanyahu. He will do what's necessary for his people and their land. One never has to wonder, also, if he'll call the enemy by name. One might say he's got some Trump in him, so it'll be interesting to see their relationship post-inauguration.

In an interview with his former senior adviser David Axelrod, President Obama indicated that had he been able to run for a third term, he could have won. He's delusional. During his presidency, Democrats have lost more than 1,000 seats at the state and federal levels, and he bears some responsibility. He himself said during the 2014 midterm elections that though his name wasn't on the ballot, his policies were — and his policies got their tails kicked.

But fine. If he wants to believe that in 2016, with his sad stance on terrorism, lack of an economic plan, dangerous immigration policy and disastrous Obamacare law that he could have won, he's allowed. So I'll play along, concede that to him and say, "OK, you're right: You could've won a third term." Yet another case for term limits.

Adrienne Ross is an author, speaker, columnist, editor, educator and Southeast Missourian editorial board member. Reach her at aross@semissourian.com.