The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, described the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, as a "liar" in a private exchange with Barack Obama at last week's G20 summit in Cannes that was inadvertently broadcast to journalists.

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

Neither leader apparently realised that microphones that had been attached for a press conference had already been switched on, allowing journalists waiting for a press conference to hear the conversation.

The exchange was first reported on the French website Arrêt Sur Images, and was later confirmed by a Reuters reporter who also heard the remarks.

The gaffe came before a press conference while the two presidents were in a private room.

Arrêt Sur Images reported that while the two presidents were in private discussions in a closed room before their press conference, Élysée staff handed out translation sets to waiting journalists.

A staff member reportedly explained that the headphones to go with the translation sets were not yet being handed out because this would have allowed journalists to listen in on the private conversation still going on. Half a dozen journalists immediately plugged in their own headphones and caught three minutes of the private exchange.

The conversation apparently began with Obama criticising Sarkozy for not warning the US that France would vote in favour of the Palestinians' application to join Unesco, the United Nations agency for culture and education.

One French journalist told Arrêt Sur Images that the conversation was broadcast for around three minutes before officials realised the mistake. Another told the website that the reporters agreed not to publicise the remarks because of their sensitive nature.

The exchange was mentioned on a blog by Le Monde's political correspondent Arnaud Leparmentier, who said the two presidents had discussed their "difficult" relationship with Netanyahu behind closed doors.

Spokesmen for the Élysée and Netanyahu declined to comment.

Sarkozy and Obama's Netanyahu gaffe broadcast via microphones | World news | The Guardian

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

Another told the website that the reporters agreed not to publicise the remarks because of their sensitive nature.

lawl...

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

Nobody likes me, I don't care, reckons Netanyahu ? but can any politician afford to be so disliked? – Telegraph Blogs

Quote:

The leaked Sarkozy-Obama conversation about Benjamin Netanyahu may be an "embarrassment for Obama" or an example of Sarkozy's "backstabbing", but it certainly shouldn't be a surprise. As I noted two years ago, Mr Netanyahu has made himself exceptionally unpopular even in venues like Downing Street which have historically been firm, if occasionally critical, supporters of Israel. Aggressively pursuing national interests is one thing, and it is obvious that those who admire Mr Netanyahu for doing so are obviously going to despise those who fail to support him as weak and lily-livered. But it is questionable whether alienating all your friends is ever in the national interest in the long term. The thing with Mr Netanyahu is that you are constantly waiting for the other boot to drop. He – like other Israelis – argue reasonably enough that in their position you can only negotiate from a position of strength. So when he announces the building of more settlements, or horribly undermines the Palestinian Authority, you sit and wait for the offer of some sort of negotiated concession, but it never seems to come. Instead, he seems to go for the jugular on every possible occasion – as he did to Mr Obama on his last visit to the United States. Part of his strategy is deliberately to sow division in his allies, so as to force his supporters to express themselves more clearly – as Congress did shortly after by giving him numerous standing ovations when he addressed them. (In this reapect, the US, where the political establishment tends to be more pro-Israel than the presidency, is the dead opposite of the UK.) However, this is a risky game for Mr Netanyahu. If he has now alienated the elected leaders of Britain, France and the United States, is it really – as has been claimed – Mr Obama that is left isolated? Mr Netanyahu is gambling, probably rightly, that for now he only needs America and no American president can afford to defy Congress over Israel, even though Congress is not nominally responsible for US foreign policy. But the world is changing, and Mr Netanyahu isn't: the Arab countries that surround him are becoming both more hostile, less predictable, and more democratic. Israel's economy is suffering – as of course is that of the United States – while Turkey and the Arab oil states surge ahead. Saudi Arabia has a new power in Crown Prince Nayef with a track record of hostility to Israel. It is estranged from Qatar, the one Gulf state with which it had public relations, and which is now backing Islamist causes across the region. Its less public relations with other Gulf states like the UAE are broken because of the Mossad assassination of a Hamas operative in Dubai last year. There are two consequent dangers for him and, therefore, Israel. Neither, barring the outlandish exception of an attack by Iran, consists any more of a sudden move against it by some brutal regional dictator, needing an American deterrent to see it off. The first danger is a gradual squeeze on its security and economy by former allies, like Turkey and Egypt, coupled with a more subtle strategy by Hamas and its allies to undermine it. The second danger is a sudden reversal – without anyone at first noticing – of the balance of negotiating power. For decades, that balance has lain with Israel: at each successive round of negotiation, its position has been strengthened from the previous time and it has offered fewer concessions. The Palestinians could have accepted 10, 20 or indeed 60 years ago much more than they are ever likely to get now. But it is not impossible to imagine a situation, not far hence, when a relatively democratic, accountable and most importantly like-minded string of governments across the region leaves an economically weaker Israel under ever greater pressure to settle for less and less itself. There is a tide in the affairs of man… In the face of the revolutions around him Mr Netanyahu has been silent; if it were not for constant distractions such as Iran, Gilad Shalit and the so-called "peace process" he would come over as much weaker and less imaginative in his response than he has. He is also facing a major economic backlash from his own disillusioned middle classes. Thus weakened, can he afford for so many of his fellow leaders to dislike him as much as they do?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.