Home

On Tuesday, I visited the Web site of the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz. There were five headlines going down the center of the main page, showing the day's top stories. They were:

     -- Clinton dismisses suggestions of crisis in Israel ties
     -- MESS Report / U.S. anger over Jerusalem row is excessive
     -- Bradley Burston / Israel's Titanic moment: Does Obama want Bibi's head?
     -- Police chief: Jerusalem violence won't spark third Intifada
     -- Rightists prepare banner declaring Obama as 'PLO agent'

Did you happen to catch the theme? No? Well then let me show you the four "minor" story headlines running down the side of the page next to the "major" stories:

     -- Violence flares in Jerusalem after Hamas declares 'day of rage'
     -- U.S. envoy's Israel trip on hold as diplomatic crisis deepens
     -- Yoel Marcus / Row with U.S. questions Netanyahu's fitness to lead
     -- Moshe Arens / Israel doesn't need to grovel for U.S. forgiveness

Obviously, since the president is clearly not a PLO agent, and since Bibi Netanyahu still leads all Israeli would-be prime ministers in the polls, you can call Haaretz's headline layout, in the words of the comedian Brian Regan, the epitome of hyperbole.

But if you scrolled down just below the headline proclaiming President Obama to be a PLO agent, you'd see the following headline: "U.S. general: Iran efforts at nuclear bomb slowing down". Whether you believe that report or not (no offense to the nice folks at Haaretz, but every issue of that paper should come with a complimentary grain of salt), it's what we in the news business would call, well, actual news.

If I sound dismissive of the "crisis" emerging in U.S.-Israel relations, it's because the tense relationship is between the U.S. president and a fairly popular Israeli prime minister. And there is a gargantuan gulch between that and what would be a real crisis: a genuine fracturing of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

That is distinct from what we are seeing, for two reasons. The first is that in this current spat, both sides (if you include the Palestinians, then it's all three) are wrong. The controversy arose because an Israeli housing and zoning official announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo -- which coincided with Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel.

The White House, considering the move an "affront," harshly condemned -- and then condemned again and again -- Israel's decision. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a few gratuitous whacks at Israel's leadership. The U.S. was unnecessarily harsh; Jerusalem, even according to the Oslo Accords, is not considered part of the West Bank and thus buildings there are not "settlements." But the housing officials were wrong to announce it when they did. They were attempting to embarrass Netanyahu more than Biden (which is another reason the American response was mistaken -- U.S. officials seemed to misunderstand the whole episode), but ended up angering both, grossly overplaying their hand.

And feeling left out, the Palestinians decided to one-up both the U.S. and Israel and prove that their insensitivity is in a league of its own. They welcomed Biden by dedicating a square in a Ramallah suburb in honor of a woman who murdered 38 Israelis -- 13 of them children -- in a terrorist attack.

So, the Palestinians behaved grotesquely, the Israeli housing officials were flippant, and the Americans displayed the nerve-racked foot stomping of a babysitter feeling the onset of a migraine. Which brings us to the second reason this isn't a true "crisis": the reaction of the U.S. Congress.

Since the president is a Democrat, we can expect a more or less uniform response from the GOP, which criticized the president's reaction, as anticipated. But the Obama administration didn't get any support from its own party, either.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) called the administration's reaction a "temper tantrum" and asserted that Israel is "not a punching bag." Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) knocked Obama for airing dirty laundry in public, as did Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). Rep. Shelley Berkeley (D-Nev.) called it an "overreaction." They were joined by Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. I imagine that list will have grown by the time you read this.

Members of Congress -- the representatives of the people -- are unified in their support for Israel in this episode. That isn't surprising, because as we recently reported, the American public's support for Israel is near an all-time high. And, as Michael Medved states in a story elsewhere in this issue, the president's condemnation of Israel seems to have a negative correlation with American support for Israel -- the more Americans believe Israel is attacked, the more vigorously they promote her virtues.

The relationship is strong. The media's choice to bury news about Iran's nuclear program -- a true emerging crisis -- under a heap of dirty laundry smacks of silly sensationalism.

Seth Mandel is the managing editor of The Jewish State.