The GOP presidential field is quick to criticize President Barack Obama’s relationship with Israel. But concerns about Obama’s lack of support for the Jewish state are nowhere to be found in recent statements by Israeli officials. On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security. Barak, who last month characterized Obama as an “extremely strong supporter of Israel,” told Israel Radio:

We are asked, sometimes, whether Obama is really a soft appeaser. To that, I say: ‘Go ask Osama bin Laden.’

Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta emphasized that “there are no options off the table” in dealing with a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program and General Martin Dempsey sought to dispel concerns raised in an interview last month in which he suggested the Israel might not warn the U.S. before undertaking a unilateral attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Yesterday, Dempsey told CNN:

We are trying to establish some confidence on the part of the Israelis that we recognize their concerns and are collaborating with them on addressing them.

Barak also emphasized that Israeli-U.S. defense coordination was “absolutely fine” and sought to downplay rumors of tensions between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

They don’t have to love each other. It’s enough that they respect and understand that no one works as if they were alone, in a bubble.

Barak’s comments come as Republicans seek to portray Obama as weakening Israel’s security. Earlier this month, Bill Kristol, speaking through a press release for his far-right-wing pressure group, the Emergency Committee for Israel, said the White House “keeps acting to weaken the security of the state of Israel.” And GOP presidential candidates speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidates Forum took turns criticizing Obama’s handling of Iran and commitment to Israel’s security. Rick Perry accused the administration of a “torrent of hostility” toward Israel and Mitt Romney claimed, “Over the last three years President Obama has… chastened Israel.”

But Barak’s praise of Obama’s relationship with Israel and Netanyahu’s appreciation for the White House’s “unprecedented” security cooperation would seem to stand in direct contradiction with the right-wing voices seeking to portray the administration as insufficiently committed to Israel’s security.

After a speech on Friday by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that implored Israel to make moves to thaw its cool relations with strategic partners and overcome its growing isolation, neoconservative commentators went bananas. Former Bush Mideast hand Elliott Abrams, speaking with neocon Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, wondered, “Does anyone wonder why Israelis don’t trust this administration to guard their security?” (In September, Abram’s himself said it was “true” that Israel and the U.S. enjoy “the best military-to-military relationship ever.”)

The most overblown response, though, came from right-wing don Bill Kristol. Speaking through a press release from the far-right-wing pressure group he heads, the Emergency Committee for Israel, Kristol attacked President Obama’s comments last weekend to Jewish donors that his administration’s security cooperation with Israel had reached new heights in the partnership. Kristol said:

Nobody believes President Obama when he claims, as he did last week, that he “has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.” That’s because he hasn’t — and because President Obama and his administration keeps acting to weaken the security of the state of Israel.

The problem with Kristol’s statement, and one he seems to willfully ignore, is that there are at least a few people who don’t hold his stated opinion about the Obama administration’s work on Israel’s security, among them Israel’s leaders.

In a speech delivered to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) national convention in May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called American security cooperation with Israel during the Obama administration “unprecedented”:

Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented. He spoke of that commitment not just in front of AIPAC. He spoke about it in two speeches heard throughout the Arab world. And he has backed those words with deeds.

In September, Netanyahu personally thanked Obama in a speech for his attentiveness and support in resolving a crisis when demonstrators overtook Israel’s embassy in Cairo.

The various U.S. security commitments to Israel are legion. In the same speech Kristol criticized, Panetta announced that “the U.S. armed forces and the [Israel Defense Forces] will conduct the largest joint exercises in the history of that partnership.” This spring, Israel used an expanded aid package from the Obama administration to develop the Iron Dome missile defense system that protects citizens of southern Israel from rocket attacks with a 93 percent success rate. And the U.S. has worked closely with Israel in slowing Iran’s nuclear progress, even reportedly partnering up to create the Stuxnet virus that hampered Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and selling Israel bunk-busing bombs. All the work has included unflinching diplomatic support for Israel in international fora.

In August, former Israeli prime minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he could “hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.” Last month, Barak said Obama is an “extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security” and that his administration was “excelling in this.” He added: “I don’t think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.” Maybe someone should tell Bill Kristol.

Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh is no dove when it comes to Iran. As recently as last month, Bayh supported attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. But in a Fox News interview today, he cautioned against the dangers of an Israeli attack and predicted a unilateral Israeli strike would take the United States on a “slippery slope toward war”:

BILL HEMMER: In your view, how real is the possibility of war between Israel and Iran?

EVAN BAYH: I think that’s more of a threat right now than a reality. And the reason for that, Bill, is Israel could launch a single attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities assuming we know where they all are. We know where most of them are but there may be some where we don’t. [...]

So the real consequence would be if Israel launched an attack against Iran, the Iranians would probably think we were complicit in that. They would never believe the Israelis did it on their own, even if that were true. The Iranians might then lash out at us. Bomb some of our embassies. Go after our troops in Afghanistan. Unleash Hezbollah against us some places. And that would then confront the United States with the decision that having being attacked by Iran, well of course we aren’t going to sit idly by and let them get away with that. So it could be a slippery slope toward war.

Watch it:

Bayh, who has previously bought into the “martyr state myth” that Iran is a suicidal country, should be familiar with the “slippery slope to war” from his membership in the Iraq-war pushing Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. His latest remarks don’t completely contradict his previous endorsements for the use of U.S. military force against Iran but it does offer a stiff rebuke against the increasingly explicit statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggesting Israel is preparing for a unilateral attack.

Admitting that an Israeli attack would almost inevitably result in retaliation against U.S. interests, thereby drawing the U.S. into another war in the Middle East, is an important admission coming from a certifiable Iran hawk.

In an interview with Reuters, Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said that U.S. policy on Iran pursued a pressure track along with “the stated intent not to take any options off the table.” He added: “I’m not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that.” Asked by Reuters if Israel would warn the U.S. before a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, Dempsey said he doesn’t know:

There has been concern that if world powers cannot nudge Iran into serious nuclear negotiations, then Israel, which feels threatened by Iranian nuclear aspirations, will attack.

Asked directly whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it chose to go forward with military action, Dempsey replied flatly: “I don’t know.”

On the heels of the interview, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak hinted that, though a “last resort,” Israel might be forced to take military action. “Israel is a sovereign state and it is the government of Israel, the Israeli army and security forces who are responsible for Israel’s security, future and survival,” he said. “We don’t need unnecessary wars. But we definitely might be put to the test.”

Barak reportedly rebuffed U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month when Panetta sought assurances that Israel would give the U.S. a heads up if it decided to attack Iran. Barak refused to “give any assurances that Israel would first seek Washington’s permission, or even inform the White House in advance” of an impending attack, according to an unnamed source in the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper.

Republicans and right-wing Israel lobbying groups have mounted a concerted campaign to paint President Obama as being anti-Israel. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Obama has “thrown Israel under the bus” and that the Israel should dictate U.S. policy. Michele Bachmann bizarrely alleged that Obama prefers American 99 Percent protesters over Israel. The Bill Kristol-led Emergency Committee for Israel said Obama was “not pro-Israel.”

But Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak once again pushed back on the meme on CNN Sunday:

ZAKARIA: You know that there are people in the United States who’ve criticized President Obama for not supporting Israel strongly enough. Do you believe that President Obama is a very strong supporter of Israel?

BARAK: He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security. I don’t — traditionally, the presidents were support in Israel in keeping its qualitative military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don’t think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.

Watch the video:

Barak noted that the American president will not always agree with every little thing that a foreign country’s government wants. But by funding missile defense systems, giving diplomatic support and cover in international fora, and supplying Israel with sophisticated weapons, among other things, even a staunch hawk like Barak seems more than satisfied, perhaps even pleased, with Obama’s level of support for Israel.

Tensions have been growing over recent days as reports emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak might be in the process of mobilizing support for an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites. But many pundits are viewing the reports with suspicion and suggest that the noise from Netanyahu’s cabinet might have more to do with mobilizing anti-Iran sentiment — and pushing for ever tougher sanctions — in anticipation of next week’s IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program.

The uptick in bomb-Iran chatter has led ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy to call for Netanyahu’s government to temper their hawkish rhetoric. Ynet.com reports:

“The State of Israel cannot be destroyed,” he told Ynet on Friday. “An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years.”

On Thursday, Halevy, speaking at an army boarding school reunion, pushed back at Netnayahu’s claims that Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel, saying “[Iran is] far from posing an existential threat to Israel.” Halevi, as reported by Ynet, added that domestic radicalization “poses a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad.”

While Halevi’s outspoken comments about rightward tilts in Israel and his warnings against a unilateral attack on Iran have brought scorn from members of Netanyahu’s cabinet — indeed Political-Security Cabinet member and House and Construction Minister Ariel Atias characterized Halevy’s statements as “shocking and inciting and they divide the people of Israel at a time when it needs unity more than ever” — the former intelligence chief is not alone in his opposition to Netanyahu and Barak’s saber rattling.

In May, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan called an Israeli strike on Iran “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

And twelve of the eighteen living former heads of the three Israeli security branches are actively opposing or have spoken out against Netanyahu’s aggressive gestures toward Iran.

When President Barack Obama, in his May 19 address on the Middle East, reiterated the long-standing U.S. position that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” the U.S. and Israeli right went berserk. The facts have always been out there, but right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu howled about how the 1967 borders were “indefensible,” though they’d been successfully defended in 1967. This week, Netanyahu undermined his own attack on Obama by agreeing to talks based on the 1967 lines (albeit while adding other pre-conditions).

Despite the hollow argument, Netanyahu’s allies on the U.S. neoconservative right were happy to oblige his attack. The Bill Kristol-led Emergency Committee for Israel said Obama was “stepping away” from the U.S.-Israel relationship — though ECI’s “director” had found nothing wrong with Obama’s speech.

Then, it turned out, most Israelis and Palestinians actually supported a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines, as did Israel’s opposition leader. What’s more, Obama’s formulation was defended by AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

And now yet another pillar of the farce that has been Israeli right wing and American neoconservative criticism of Obama’s handling of the U.S. relationship with Israel is collapsing. In an interview on Fox News, Israel’s foreign minister (and former prime minister) Ehud Barak laid to rest the myth that the Obama administration is casting aside the U.S.’s special relationship with Israel.

Baited by Fox host Greta Van Sustren on whether “Israelis [are] disenchanted a little bit with the Obama administration,” Barak responded:

BARAK: No. Our countries are good friends. And I’m the minister of defense, I can tell you that I can hardly remember — I was in uniform for decades — I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.

And it’s true that not all the Israelis are really happy with the positions of the administration, but I should tell you honestly that the president didn’t say that Israel should go back to the borders of ’67. He made it very clear that he thinks that Palestinians deserve a state of their own. We also believe in two states, Israel side by side — secure Israel side by side with a demilitarized Palestinian state that will basically have the same area that’s West Bank and Gaza Strip had before ’67 with certain swaps, with understanding of the transformation on the ground. [...] Some security consideration we take into account. I don’t think that contradicts what the president said.

Watch the video:

This, from the hawkish defense minister from Netanyahu’s own government, should finally make crystal clear that those in Congress and elsewhere who went after Obama’s comments were misled by a teeny cohort of politically motivated politicians from Netanyahu’s Likud Party and their allies in neoconservative punditry. Perhaps that’s why some of these pundits have been unable to answer questions about their stances. The whole thing was little more than politically-motivated spin, a public relations theater for far right audiences.

But with the Israeli prime minister taking a patently dishonest stand to lead the charge against a U.S. president that has, by almost all accounts, vowed nothing short of full diplomatic support for Israel and broadened the security relationship to heretofore unseen heights, maybe we should be asking who exactly is trying to drive a wedge in the U.S.-Israel relationship here.