Obama and Sarkozy: True Discussions Behind the Scenes

In a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his American counterpart, Barack Obama, Sarkozy described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “liar.” This conversation took place on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, which convened in the French city of Cannes last week. It was broadcast to journalists by mistake.

Sarkozy told Obama, “I cannot stand him. He's a liar.” The American president responded, “You're fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day."

Of course, on Wednesday, Nov. 8, the White House sought to limit the extent of damage caused to American-Israeli relations by the frankness of the French president in describing Netanyahu “a liar” during a private conversation with Obama. American Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes referenced Obama in an interview with reporters, stating that “our record speaks very clearly about the president’s commitment to Israel, and he … has maintained a very close working relationships with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” This statement seems to be nothing but another lie.

Allow me to mention that Netanyahu's strategy depends in a fundamental way on deceit, and he has acknowledged that this is his strategy. The Israeli newspaper Hareetz reported in its July 15, 2001, issue that “giving his audience a bit of advice on how to deal with foreign interviewers [Netanyahu said]: 'Always, irrespective of whether you're right or not, you must always present your side as right."

Here we face three related issues:

– The first issue is that Netanyahu is a “liar.”

– The second issue is that Sarkozy is fed up with Netanhayu.

– The third issue is that Obama must deal with Netanyahu on a daily basis.

I believe that most politicians are liars, and Netanyahu is the greatest example of that. Klemens von Metternich, the famous Austrian politician, once said that God gave man a tongue so that he could express the opposite of what was in his heart. In other words, politicians speak using false tongues.

Sometimes politicians and decision makers are able to hide their lies, despite the fact that time is clearly not in favor of the liar. In the end the truth will be exposed, and everyone will wait for that moment as if he were standing naked in a public square. They will scream and shout that he is a liar.

Tony Blair wrote in his memoir, “A Journey,” that the members of the conservative party nicknamed him “Tony B-liar,” (pg. 459 of “A Journey”).* Blair writes, “how many times did people tell me that politicians in the Iranian government, as Shiites, will never form an alliance with the Sunnis in the Middle East?” (pg. 386).* It is clear that this is not true, because as we all know, America and Europe have pronounced Iran guilty because of the support it provides to the Hamas movement in Palestine and the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, as well as some Sunnis in Iraq. So how can we find consistency in these facts?

But the biggest lie is the peace process in the Middle East. Over the past decade Israel has always demanded peace, but now it has switched its attention from peace to security. Netanyahu admitted in his famous address before the U.S. Congress that the peace process is only a desert mirage. He said that he does not believe in Palestine's right to become an independent state, which means that according to his interpretation the Palestinian nation will be merely an illusion. Obama once spoke about the two-state solution, but now he opposes Palestine obtaining membership in the United Nations. This hypocrisy is the essence and foundation of lies.

Now a very important question faces us: why do most politicians lie? Why does Sarkozy consider Netanhayu a liar? And why did America and its allies invade Iraq based only on enormous lies — the alleged production of nuclear weapons and the alleged relations between Iraq and the al-Qaida organization? Dick Cheney, in his book “In My Time,” mentioned in a chapter on intelligence and politics that the report which pointed to the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq was untrue, and that the accusations made were out of place. But he did not mention who it was that issued that report! Let us mention a quote from President Bush in his State of the Union Address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm] This lie was the principal reason behind the invasion of Iraq.

I believe that there are two basic reasons for lying... the first reason is that most politicians are hypocrites, and when Netanyahu believes that he is right in all that he does, this clearly means that his interpretation of the word “right” differs entirely from our own! This approach is based on moral theory. The theory of consequentialism, which follows from moral theory, tells us that our moral responsibility is based on identifying the consequences of our actions. Correct moral behavior is determined only by analyzing the cost and benefit of the results of a given action. This is the reason for the diverse positions and approaches that America and Britain have taken at different times.

In his book, Tony Blair also mentioned some strategic errors committed by American and the West: “In the 80s we armed Saddam Hussein and the jihadists in Afghanistan, and that was to impede Iran and the Soviet Union. This was an intermediary step, but it was a strategic mistake.” (“A Journey” pg. 388)*

Usually, these intermediary steps are based on cost-benefit analysis. When politicians or decision makers cannot see the distant horizon, and when they do not know a region or a people, they end up clashing with reality after a decade. Only then do they realize that they committed a strategic mistake. In reality, Israel never believed for a day in the two-state solution, just as it never recognized the rights of the Palestinians. As a result, Israel continues lying and using new excuses every day. Israel is playing with time by insisting on holding negotiations without end.

This conversation between Sarkozy and Obama was not the first conversation of its type that has been leaked. A similar case occurred in St. Petersburg, when a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair on the war between Israel and Hezbollah was leaked. In that case, Bush was talking about Kofi Annan. The way he spoke would make one wonder whether the United Nations was one of the departments within the White House!

This is the result of hypocrisy and the theory of consequentialism, which are a few of the Machiavellian styles of the modern world. This is the essence of the private conversation that occurred between Obama and Sarkozy.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, while translated accurately, could not be verified through a copy of “A Journey.”