Netanyahu has said that he and Obama are "like a married couple"— the implication being that they may not love each other, but that they’re stuck together in the same mutual endeavor. Over the past year, however, we have spoken to nearly 50 former and current officials in Israel and the United States, and their interpretations are far less charitable. They speak not only of a relationship that has soured irreparably, due to a string of miscalculations on both sides—but also of lasting damage to the Israeli-U.S. alliance.

The Obama administration says it doesn’t consider a new European Union rule outlawing “Made in Israel” tags on goods from the West Bank as a boycott of the Jewish state, only a technical guideline for consumers.

The US clarification of its position comes a day after the decision by the EU, which applies to goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

“We do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner says. “And as you know, we do not consider settlements to be part of Israel. We do not view labeling the origin of products as being from the settlements as a boycott of Israel.”

Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) presidential campaign brushed off repeated, yet subtle, accusations of being a moderate from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after Tuesday's Republican debate in Milwaukee.

Rubio's campaign manager Terry Sullivan told Bloomberg Politics that calling the freshman senator a moderate was "ridiculous."

“It's crazy," Sullivan told Bloomberg. "Absolutely, positively most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Marco Rubio is the conservative's conservative."

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely says Israel will suspend diplomatic dialogue with the EU for the coming weeks following the decision to label products produced in territories captured during the 1967 war.

“The double standard with which the union treats Israel is incomprehensible,” says a top official at the Foreign Ministry.

Lars Faaborg Andersen, the EU ambassador to Israel, was called for a reprimand at the Foreign Ministry following the decision.

A few minutes before the end of our lengthy phone conversation earlier this month, Ben Rhodes says to me, “You know, this focus doesn’t come from Obama or Kerry. The lack of a two-state solution was there when Obama came into office and it may unfortunately be there when he leaves office. And people will still be focused on it. Whoever the next president is, there is going to be significant international concern over the lack of a two-state solution and settlement expansion.”

...

In recent months, the prime minister and his people seem to be counting the days until January 2017, when a new American president — preferably, they hope, Republican — takes office. The thinking appears to be that with Obama and Kerry out of the picture, the “threat” of peace will be removed — or at least that the motivation to pressure Israel to make decisions and progress on the Palestinian issue will be lessened.

“Sometimes it is an excuse to suggest that this is solely an interest of Kerry or Obama. It will be an interest of whoever the next president is,” says Rhodes. “Sometimes people see this as a scorecard — like the comments about Kerry that this is a desire to win some award. This is about people’s lives and the president has met with Israeli families of terror victims, he met with Palestinian young people who are growing up without hope of living in their own state — those people are still going to be there after Obama leaves office … All the problems created by the lack of [a] Palestinian state will be there.”


....

“When President Obama put forward two parameters in May 2011, our purpose was to create an alternative to the Palestinians going to the UN and to create a basis for talks,” says Rhodes. “And if you look at what the president said, it was entirely consistent with every negotiation in recent years — on territory, the ’67 lines with mutually agreed swaps, and on security — language that was very favorable to Israel … We wanted to signal to Israel that we recognize its security needs to be the starting point for any final-status discussion.

“The prime minister made a decision to attack this proposal rather than work with it,” continues Rhodes. “Frankly — casting it as ’67 lines and not embracing the part on mutually agreed swaps … In his initial comments the prime minister misrepresented what the president said … suggesting we wanted Israel to go back to the ’67 lines — which we didn’t. Everybody knows what mutually agreed swaps mean … but the approach taken by Israel was to take it as the most threatening language possible. That was a determination by Netanyahu to basically reject this as a basis for discussion. And then the Palestinians went to the UN and it was our last chance during the first term.”

...

Obama, though, is much more skeptical than Kerry about the chances of achieving a breakthrough by the time he leaves office in January 2017. “We don’t have particularly high expectations for what can be accomplished in the next year,” admits Rhodes. “On the other hand, there has not been a year since we have been here in which there was not some effort made to bring Israelis and Palestinians together — either because we saw a diplomatic opening or because there were tensions that required trust building between the parties. Every day that John Kerry is secretary of state, he will continue to see this as [a] priority. He is personally willing to commit his time and energy to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table,” adds Rhodes.

At this point, the U.S. administration has no solid plan of action for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue over the next year, but Rhodes says it also has no intention of ignoring it: Kerry will continue his exploratory efforts in the coming months, but in order for the president to intervene and invest his time in the matter, the secretary of state will have to convince him there is a high probability it will pay off. “I think we will be looking for opportunities and ways to build some confidence between the parties to avoid deterioration and keep some space open for the pursuit of peace,” adds Rhodes.

...

In this regard, asserts Rhodes, settlement construction weakens the prospects of ever achieving a two-state solution even further. “For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve that peace and the more Israel will only have to be defending its settlement policies in the years to come. That’s a reality. It is not something the U.S. or the international community has chosen to make an issue. It’s an issue because there are settlements being built in the West Bank. That’s not going to go away — that’s going be an issue of international concern. There is no alternative that people can just forget this issue and say, ‘You know what, it is just going to work itself out.’ It is only going to get more difficult over time,” he elaborates.

...

“Barack Obama has been an enormous supporter of Israel. He has done more for Israel’s security than any other president, and he understands Israeli history very well. He has been and can be an enormous asset for Israel. He believes in Zionism. He believes in how just Israel is as a Jewish state and a democracy, and he can make that case to the world. He is more than happy to go around the world and defend Israel and Zionism. If anything, the fact he was in the Oval Office prevented and slowed other international efforts — certain actions in the UN or by some of our EU allies. He has been a brake on efforts to single out Israel. He should be seen as an ally, as a friend and as an asset to Israel’s standing in the world.”

US officials said Thursday that President Barack Obama has made a “realistic assessment” that a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians is not possible during his final months in office.

...

At a press conference last month, Obama reiterated his long-held conviction that the only way Israel would be secure, and the Palestinians would meet their aspirations, was via a two-state solution. He indicated then, but did not spell out, that the US was not about to start a new peace effort, saying “it’s going to be up to the parties” to do that, “and we stand ready to assist.”

Kerry sought to be broker an accord in 2013-2014, but the effort collapsed amid a stream of bitter accusations and recriminations between the sides.

With no realistic prospect of substantial negotiated progress, the Obama administration is said to remain determined to keep the idea of a two-state solution viable, and it is understood the president and the prime minister will discuss possible steps in that direction.

The two leaders will likely discuss means to prevent a further deterioration on the ground, including how to thwart further terrorism; tackle incitement more effectively; deal with the strained Palestinian Authority; and safeguard Israeli-Jordanian relations.

It has been hard having a woman lead the world's most powerful economic institution, the Federal Reserve. Federal Open Market Committee meetings have become giant cryfests, punctuated by breaks for emotional overeating. Interest-rate setting has started to align with the lunar cycle. Worst, Janet Yellen, with her small lady brain, has failed to grok that low interest rates harm savers. She'd better sit down with her husband so he can explain that to her!

That last bit — astonishingly, or maybe not so astonishingly — is a real-life, actual suggestion being made by Ralph Nader, who dings Yellen for hurting seniors, not helping payday-loan borrowers, being in the pocket of the big banks, and for playing politics, all in one fantastically sexist opinion piece.

Chairwoman Yellen, I think you should sit down with your Nobel Prize winning husband, economist George Akerlof, who is known to be consumer-sensitive. Together, figure out what to do for tens of millions of Americans who, with more interest income, could stimulate the economy by spending toward the necessities of life.

For heaven's sake, you're a "liberal" from Berkeley! That is supposed to mean something other than to be indentured by the culture and jargon of the Federal Reserve. If you need further nudging on monetary and regulatory policies of the Fed, other than interest rate decisions, why not invite Berkeley Professor Robert Reich, one of your long-time friends and admirers, to lunch on your next trip home?