Put aside the absurdity of calling a man who was a commander in Israel’s special forces unit, Sayeret Matkal, a “coward.” Forget the spectacular hypocrisy – even by Washington D.C. standards – of calling a world leader “chickens#@!” while hiding behind an anonymous quote. Such crude attacks speak infinitely more about the officials who made them than about the Prime Minister.

I met Prime Minister Netanyahu this year while visiting Israel as part of a delegation of retired generals and admirals led by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and although I did not agree with all of his strategic assessments, I found him to be a man of conviction and integrity, incredibly well versed in history and academia, and fully committed to preserving his citizens’ security amidst the Middle East’s increasing turmoil.

What is most troubling about Jeffrey Goldberg’s revelation in The Atlantic that two unnamed “senior Obama administration officials” called the Israeli Prime Minister “a chickens#@!” and “a coward” is the negative consequences such venting will have for U.S. diplomacy.

According to Goldberg, the anonymous officials chide Netanyahu for alleged cowardice on two specific issues: his willingness to preemptively strike Iranian nuclear facilities and to defy members of his electoral coalition, specifically on the issue of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. There are legitimate arguments to be made both for and against the Prime Minister’s policies on both topics, but the U.S. needs to look in a mirror before criticizing Israeli foreign policy. The officials quoted by Goldberg are either disingenuous or dishonest in their statements, and worse, potentially undermine future U.S. coalition-building efforts.

For example, take the accusation that Netanyahu is a coward for not striking Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2011 or 2012. Although the Prime Minister said Israel was prepared to launch a preemptive strike if necessary to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, the anonymous administration official notes that one of the reasons he did not order such an operation was because “of our pressure” not to do so. Regardless of one’s opinion as to the strategic wisdom of a preemptive strike against Iran, Netanyahu accepted increased risk to his country’s national security at the request of a close ally, the United States, and was subsequently rewarded for this action by being called a coward in a national publication.

What are administration officials hoping to achieve by such an obvious betrayal?

Given that the administration has called U.S. senators from both parties “warmongers” for proposing new sanctions against Iran if nuclear talks failed, it is unlikely they are hoping to goad Netanyahu into a military strike. Instead, the more likely effect of such adolescent taunts will be to undermine U.S. credibility when we ask other allies to run risks in combatting ISIS, a recidivist Russia, or address other threats.

There are certainly aspects of Israel’s settlement policy that are controversial, and one hopes that Israelis and Palestinians will someday reach a negotiated settlement that both fulfills legitimate Palestinian nationalist aspirations while addressing legitimate Israeli security concerns. But to call Netanyahu “chickens#@!” over this policy disagreement is not only disingenuous, but also will undermine the President’s stated objectives.

First, rather than cowing to the right wing of his Cabinet and electoral coalition, the Prime Minister defied them by agreeing to Secretary of State John Kerry’s request that Israel release Palestinian prisoners as a precondition simply to get President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table. According to insiders’ accounts of the negotiations reported in The New Republic, Netanyahu stood up to members of his Cabinet and made important concessions during the ensuing talks. After negotiations failed and Hamas initiated another round of war with Israel, Netanyahu resisted the same voices on the Israeli Right that favored launching a full-scale invasion and reoccupation of Gaza, a policy the Obama administration supported at the time.

Once more, his reward for this was to be personally insulted as soon as he diverged from the Administration’s preferred policy on settlements. Again, if the administration genuinely seeks a negotiated settlement, do these officials think these jibes will make Netanyahu more willing to compromise his beliefs and defy the Israeli electorate on security issues?

It is one thing to be angered by policy disagreements with a world leader. It is another matter entirely to vent this frustration in such a public manner as to call into question America’s good faith and the benefits of complying with U.S. requests on issues allies deem vital to their national security.

The silver lining on this unfortunate incident is that this “crisis” is more about personalities than about deeper differences that could jeopardize the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel. Despite arriving in Israel shortly after the breakdown of peace negotiations and the exchange of ill-advised remarks by Israeli Minister of Defense Moshe Ya’alon and Secretary Kerry, none of the more than forty Israeli policymakers and military officers who briefed the JINSA delegation expressed anything but appreciation for U.S. support for Israel. Similarly, public opinion polls continue to demonstrate the American public’s strong support for Israel, a fact reflected in Congressional support for Israel this summer during Operation Protective Edge.

In other words, if Goldberg’s headline “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here” is correct, this is news to the American people and their representatives in Washington, D.C., as well as to the Israeli officers we met. It is probably time for the administration to rethink its Middle East policy.