Iran has exploited… turmoil to pursue positions of power within other countries beyond the control of national authorities, such as in Lebanon and Iraq, and while developing a nuclear program of potentially global consequence… Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability… The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it
– Henry Kissinger, before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 29, 2015
Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy
– Henry Kissinger
These citations from the doyen of American strategic diplomacy – one from a statement delivered last month, the other, a remark made decades ago – capture the essence of the brouhaha that has erupted over the invitation extended to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by Speaker of the US House of Representatives John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress on March 3.
The first illustrates the substantive disagreement over the emerging accord with Tehran and its nuclear program; the other exposes the underlying reason for the political disagreement in Israel over the invitation – and which, in turn, has sparked parallel political disagreement in the US.
Not a Netanyahu apologist
Regular readers of this column will know that I am not an uncritical Netanyahu apologist. I have on numerous occasions condemned his policy decisions when I have thought them flawed and/or unfounded. On the other hand, I have defended him vigorously against ad hominem attacks by political opponents or by the pathologically antagonistic mainstream media.
However, on the issue of his acceptance of Boehner’s invitation to present Israel’s perception of the Iranian nuclear issue to the representatives of the American people, there should be no room for equivocation.
Indeed, it is virtually inconceivable that, with regard to Iran, all Israelis, irrespective of their political hue, should not rally behind him, present a unified front to the outside world, and convey a sense of pride that an Israeli leader will be the only person besides Winston Churchill to address the US legislature three times.
Concern over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and the danger it poses to the survival of the nation should be common to all shades of political opinion in Israel.
Were logic and decency to dictate the conduct of political life in Israel, one might well have assumed that the prime minister would have won wall-to-wall endorsement in seizing the opportunity of being invited to articulate those concerns to the American public and the world from, arguably, the most high-profile stage on the globe.
Faulty arguments, poor excuses, transparent untruths
Yet despite the dictates of reason and national interest, quite the opposite has taken place.
Instead of uniting behind the nation’s elected leader’s endeavor to thwart the conclusion of what increasingly appears to be a perilously ill-advised deal with Tehran’s tyrannical theocracy, the invitation to speak has been exploited to generate sharp division in the country.
Domestic opposition to Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation falls into two broad categories. The first is that it will create friction with the White House, thus undermining Israel’s “greatest strategic asset,” its relationship with the US. The second is that it is a cynical maneuver to gain unfair advantage in the March election.
Both must be disregarded; both are inappropriate and/or disingenuous.
The raucous cacophony of Netanyahu’s domestic opponents to call off the visit is composed of faulty arguments, poor excuses and/or transparent untruths. Moreover, they are likely to prove distinctly counter- productive and help precipitate precisely the outcomes they ostensibly seek to avoid.
If anything, it is the prime minister’s electoral rivals who are cynically exploiting the proposed address, not only to score political points at home by denigrating his leadership, but by presenting acceptance of the invitation as siding with the Republicans against the Democrats, thus undermining bipartisan support for Israel in Washington.
Divisive in US because divisive in Israel
To a large degree, the issue of Netanyahu’s address to Congress has only become a divisive political issue in the US because it has become a politically divisive issue in Israel. In fact, much of the Democratic opposition to the address has been fed by domestic opposition to it in Israel.
After all, it is not as though Netanyahu’s rivals really endorse the emerging accord with the ayatollahs. Indeed, even some of the most Obama-philic sources in America have raised grave “concern” over it.
Thus, The Washington Post, hardly a pliant Republican mouthpiece, wrote in a February 5 editorial, titled “The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns”: “As the Obama administration pushes to complete a nuclear accord with Iran, numerous members of Congress, former secretaries of state and officials of allied governments are expressing concerns about the contours of the emerging deal…
We share several of those concerns and believe they deserve a debate now – before negotiators present the world with a fait accompli.”
In unusually critical tones, it warns: “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make.”
A highly plausible case can be made for the claim that the ostensible Democratic ire at the PM’s acceptance of the congressional invitation is to a great extent a derivative of the vicious criticism he has been subjected to at home.
Bibi-phobia undermines bipartisan support
It was the domestic portrayal of Netanyahu’s acceptance of Boehner’s invitation as disrespectful confrontation with the White House, which virtually compelled some Democrats to rally around the president against the alleged assault on his honor. After all, could they let themselves be seen as less mindful of his prestige than Buji Herzog and Tzipi Livni??
Now imagine what would have happened if the entire Israeli body-politic had united behind Netanyahu’s last-ditch endeavor to thwart the Obama administration railroading through a tenuous and temporary agreement with the Iranian regime that in the long run is unsustainable, unverifiable and unenforceable.
In the face of such a united Israeli front, the specter of a rift in bipartisan support for Israel would be – if not totally impossible – at least highly improbable. Confronted with such Israeli unity, it certainly would have been far more difficult to conjure up and to propagate. For, then, it could not draw its justification from Israeli sources, who brandish it so vociferously today, thus providing the rationale for driving a divisive wedge in the hitherto solid bipartisan US support for the country.
Sadly, however, this was not the case – and the animosity Bibi’s political rivals feel toward him appears to have eclipsed their commitment to the national interest.
‘Chamberlain of the 21st century…’
Few could have made this case in stronger terms than a self-confessed twice-over supporter of Obama, Alan Dershowitz, who in a recent interview dismissed the negotiations as a “joke.”
Dershowitz, a long standing Democrat, excoriated the prospective accord: “This is a very bad deal, a bad deal for the United States, a bad deal for the international community…My fear is that… Barack Obama is going to go down in history as the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.”
He warned: “We will point to this point in history and say, this was the turning point. This was the point where the president could’ve recognized the greatest threat to the world in the 21st century and, like Chamberlain in the 20th century, he failed to do it. That will be his legacy…:
Regarding the claim that foreign policy is the exclusive prerogative of the president, the renowned Harvard scholar of US constitutional law observed, “This is an issue of separation of powers and checks and balances. Foreign policy doesn’t belong entirely to the president.”
Significantly, this view was also reflected in the previously cited Washington Post editorial, which made the point that: “While presidents initiate US foreign policies, it is vital that major shifts win the support of Congress and the country; otherwise, they will be unsustainable…”
‘Let Congress serve as check on president…’
When questioned as to whether it was appropriate for Netanyahu to address Congress, Dershowitz was even more emphatic: “… a prime minister of a country whose very existence is at stake has [an] absolute right to speak to Congress – and to say to Congress ‘this is not a good deal….’ So I support the prime minister… in speaking to Congress and telling them the truth”
Referring back to the issue of checks and balances, he stated: “Let Congress serve as a check on the president, if the president is going to be making a bad deal.”
But of course none of this really is of interest to Netanyahu’s domestic adversaries.
None could really have any doubt as to the prime minister’s oratory skills; none really believe he could not present Israel’s case persuasively and convey its concerns eloquently.
Their opposition to him addressing Congress is not rooted in any fear he will not perform competently. Quite the contrary, it is rooted in the fear that he will perform too competently – and hence by discharging his duty as the elected prime minister, enhance his electoral prospects. As if that is not precisely what prime ministers in democracies are supposed to do – i.e. perform competently so as to be reelected.
Real reason revealed
This, then, is the real reason for the resistance to Netanyahu’s address – not concern for the national interest, or for erosion of bipartisan support for Israel, or alarm over the degradation of Israel’s relationship with the White House.
The cynical motivation behind the political opposition to Netanyahu cogently conveying to Congress Israel’s misgivings regarding the nascent Iranian deal was dramatically exposed by the petition the leader of the far-left Meretz faction Zehava Gal-On submitted to the Central Elections Committee last month.
In it, Gal-On demanded that coverage of his congressional address by Israeli TV and radio stations be banned on grounds that it constituted prohibited electioneering. According to Israeli law, it is illegal to broadcast “campaign speeches” 60 days before an election – and Netanyahu’s speech is planned for March 3, while the election is on March 17.
Of course, the attempt to brand Netanyahu’s planned address on the perils of Iranian nuclear program and the ineffective efforts to contend with it, as ”electioneering” is patently preposterous. After all, one would hope that this was an objective virtually all parties competing in the election would endorse. Unless of course…
Happily, however, it seems that in this case, we have a triumph of common sense over politically biased absurdity – something remarkably rare in Israeli politics. In recommending that Gal-On’s petition be rejected, the attorney-general wrote sensibly: “… the request to issue the aforementioned restraining order should be turned down since this is a clearly newsworthy event with a dominant effect in terms of news and current affairs.”
Bibi bent over backwards
Ironically, Netanyahu is the last person who should be accused of not trying to accommodate White House caprices – no matter how outrageous. Perhaps more than any other Israeli politician in recent decades, he has gone against his political base to comply with the administration’s demands – whether it was the unilateral freeze on construction in Judea-Samaria, the unreciprocated release of scores of convicted terrorists, or the uncalled for apology to Turkey.
But all this pliancy has not resulted in any positive attitude from Obama’s administration. It has only created increasingly petulant expectations that future demands – however detrimental to Israeli interests – be obediently complied with.
In withstanding pressures in the current episode, the prime minister would do well to recall the 1975 “Reassessment” of US policy toward Israel, when Yitzhak Rabin refused to bow to demands from the Ford administration.
In his memoirs Rabin wrote, “‘Reassessment’…heralded one of the worst periods in American-Israeli relations.” US arms transfers to Israel were halted, negotiations with Israel over future weapons purchases suspended, and visits to the US by Israeli diplomats canceled. Yet it was counter-pressure from Congress that compelled the White House to back down – and US–Israel relations recovered and blossomed.
‘Obama repays allies with neglect & derision’
In concluding this essay I can do no better than cite a recent article by The Wall Street Journal’s Pulitzer Prize winner Bret Stephens, formerly editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post. In an opinion piece titled “A Speech Netanyahu Must Give” he warns:
“The president collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision… Israel cannot expect indefinite support from the US if it acts like a fretful and obedient client to a cavalier American patron. The margin of Israel’s security is measured not by anyone’s love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Mr. Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the president is a small price to pay for doing so.”
Amen.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org).
The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns (WaPo)
@ Ted Belman:
Israelis Fed Up with Obama
Israelis’ view of President Barack Obama mirrors his attitude towards Israel.
By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu
Poll: Americans Divided by Race and Party on Netanyahu in Congress
The media circus Obama has created ensures debate on the issues where almost none was before.
It almost ensures maximum American and world coverage of the speech.
In other words Obama has fallen into a trap of his own making. The breakup and decline of bipartisan political support for Israel has long been trending along American political divide between Republicans and Democrats anyway and looks to continue long after Obama is gone.
It has shown to growing rift between American Jews and the State of Israel and that rift too seems to be trending wider.
Support for Netanyahu Speech to Congress on Iranian Nuclear Threat Surges
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/13/support-for-netanyahu-speech-to-congress-on-iranian-nuclear-threat-surges/
Most of the support sseems to be coming from non Jews. Very Telling!!!!!
But not a surprise or unexpected. As a collective i have long written off American Jews.
Comment is in moderation
Bill O’Reilly: Are you safe?
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/02/13/bill-oreilly-are-safe/
a new Fox News poll When asked does the Obama administration have a clear strategy for defeating ISIS — just 19 percent of registered voters say yes, an astounding 73 percent say no. When asked is the federal government reducing the threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists — 67 percent Americans say the feds are not doing a good job in that. However, when asked do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s policy on terrorism — 42 percent actually approve, 53 percent disapprove. That makes no sense.
Comment to Ted Belman was botted by spam filter
@ Ted Belman:
Bill O’Reilly: Are you safe?
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/02/13/bill-oreilly-are-safe/
Bill O’Reilly
If you have been watching us over the past few weeks, you know that we have established beyond any doubt that most intelligence and military experts in the U.S.A. believe the terror threat from Muslim fanatics is getting worse. Also, that the Obama administration does not have an effective strategy to deal with the situation.
Yesterday on Capitol Hill, Michael Steinbach, a big shot in the FBI’s counterterrorism division was asked about ISIS.
REP. BUDDY CARTER (R), GEORGIA: So the message I’m getting from you here today is that you feel like we have got that under control or doing the best we can?
STEINBACH: We don’t have it under control. Absolutely we are doing the best we can. If I were to say that we had it under control, but I would say that I knew of every single individual traveling. I don’t. And I don’t know every person there and I don’t know everyone coming back. So it’s not even close to being under control.
O’REILLY: According to our information, that is true. The ISIS terror killers now control thousands of square miles in Syria and Iraq, have now expanded into Libya and Egypt. And their assassins freely travel all over the world. So it is just a matter of time until they show up here.
Now, to be fair, no president, no president can protect this country with a 100 percent certainty. It’s impossible. But for nearly a year, President Obama has dithered and evaded the growing threat from ISIS. However now, after executing four Americans and setting a Jordanian pilot on fire, critical mass has been reached.
That kind of personal violence puts pressure on Barack Obama to do something. And a new Fox News poll demonstrates that pressure. When asked does the Obama administration have a clear strategy for defeating ISIS — just 19 percent of registered voters say yes, an astounding 73 percent say no. When asked is the federal government reducing the threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists — 67 percent Americans say the feds are not doing a good job in that. However, when asked do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s policy on terrorism — 42 percent actually approve, 53 percent disapprove. That makes no sense.
Amazing that while Alan Dershowitz, Dennis Ross and now Elie Wiesel,
all previously staunch supporters of Obama, finally realized the
disaster Obama’s policies towards Iran are creating for Israel and the US, the Israeli
left has learned absolutely nothing.
Elie Wiesel: IRAN’S PLAN FOR THE JEWS, ANCIENT AND PRESENT
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2015/02/irans-plan-for-jews-ancient-and-present.html
@ Colorado Rose:
@ bernard ross:
I had the same reaction to that paragraph.
Barnard, I was also flummoxed by this statement. There have been many, many articles from a wide variety of writers on this fake crisis and none have so much as hinted that this was the case. Rather, the fake outrage seem more to center around the face that it is okay to diss a white president, but doing so to a black one is verboten.
Most people seem to understand that in an election year, PM Netanyahu is facing the same political back-biting, back stabbing and political maneuvering that every politician faces during election time. And as one columnist pointed out, when PM Netanyahu was invited to speak to Congress in 2011 by John Boehner, there was not a peep from the White House. But then the Iranian talks were not at such a critical stage.
As the facts have shown, it is increasingly clear that President Obama is manufacturing this crisis simply because he it desperate for a deal with Iran and he knows that PM Netanyahu is going to rain on his parade. Millions of people know this is going to be a bad deal, but do not have the platform to say so.
I, for one, am very happy that PM Netanyahu is being given that platform. In this case, he speaks for me, America and the rest of the sane world.
God Bless America, God bless Israel
A prime minister deeply committed to western values against an an anti-Western American President.
The US congress and senate will have to decide who really defends the western world.
A unique opportunity for the world to know what this US administration wants to hide at any cost.
Let us remember that Obama has become one of the most unpopular presidents in history, his ratings are abysmal and he is a political fool to be taking on congress and everyone else at the same time. Democrats must be aware that he is putting the nail in the coffin of their electoral hopes for 2016.
BB must give the speech and must demonstrate that Israels existential danger cannot be subservient to petulant presidential ego trips NOR to Israeli political leftist puppet stooges of that same petulant ego.
Obama’s strategic political error was allowing himself to be seen as irritated, petulant, on an ego trip thus discrediting his Iran policy as being fake.
What democratic ire? the black caucus, where blacks have polled at 35% anti semitic is no surprise… also that they must back the black president who gives them their patronage? Bernie saunders… the lone US socialist who must ally with the radical left who can be counted on to be anti Israel… thats the only place his votes come from? Or Biden the loser that no one considers as having a chance at the 2016 presidency whereas past veeps were generally considered advantaged he is seen as a loser, a joker. Democrats will assess the impact on their future and most will attend because their future will necessitate moving away from obama. The rats who cant dissociate from the sinking ship will desparetly try to stop BB but their increased screams agiainst BB are a sure sign of their desperation. If Obama had a brain he would take wiesels invitation to join him at BB speech and using it as an excuse to pretend he is not on a petulant ego trip and is willing to listen to other views on his policies. But it is unlikely that Obama is that smart.
I disagree. the US brouhaha is alive and well on its own but the Israeli stooge parroting puppet left was activated by its washington handlers to delegitimize BB’s opposition to the iran deal and that left has demonstrated their willing compliance to mute the danger of Iran to Israel so long as they can get into power. In this regard the israeli political left are 100% foreign agent stooges in that their only platform for seeking election is to have the US argue with BB. In other states the Israeli left would be purged and executed for engaging in the treasonous acts of aiding foreign interests causing the endangerment of the state by advocating that the existential dangers of Iran to Israel are not as important as the obama BB argument. The Israeli left have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to mute Israels existential danger so long as they can be returned to power.
A vote for the left is a vote for Obama as PM of Israel
It is not really an accident that the true Trotskyist movement in an article the past week turned to an analysis of NGOs in Israel. We found in this exercise that our political opposition to NGOs as a whole is entirely in line with the admirable NGO-Monitor. (http://4international.me/2015/02/11/ngo-monitor-is-needed-not-one-other-country-has-such-attacks-being-made-on-it-as-does-israel/)Our instincts are spot on and leads to the only disagreement I have with the article by Martin Sherman dealing with Netanyahu’s visit to America to speak to the House of Congress. Every word I agree with Sherman on in his analysis except for one phrase in description as follows
far-left Meretz faction Zehava Gal-On
The phrase especially “far-left” is I am sorry to say Martin Sherman falling into the very trap of very (at best) confusing terminology which in fact he has already in previous writings showed that he recognizes as a danger.
Only going on information readily available on Wikipedia it is clear that this leader Zahava Gal-On is the daughter of Russian immigrants and given the dates it is clear that her parents come out of the period of Stalinist (not socialist revolutionary) Russia. It is likely that they knew little about the actual history of the Soviet Union or of any of the struggles of the Old Bolsheviks against the usurper of Stalin, later to be codified into a theory “Stalinism”, a far right adaptation to the presurre of world capitalism (imperialism) on the new state, the first worker’s state and the first worker’s revolution.
It is thus likely in one way or another and as emerging out of that milieu either through ignorance or design that the dominant influence on this Israeli phenomenon centred on this lady Zahava Gal-On is Stalinism and hatred of Trotskyism (meaning hatred of Marxism)
Just these reflections therefore show how far off is Martin Sherman’s reference to this leader as being “far-left”. The very opposite appelation would be far more suitable.
Take this:
Political career
Gal-On served as general secretary of the paper Politika, of the Human Rights organization B’Tselem, and of the Ratz party. She is a member of the general directorate of Meretz. Among her main activities: the struggle for human and civil rights,[4] women’s rights and the fight for social justice.[3] In regards to IDF refuseniks, she has said that “Meretz should not go with the wind of refusal, but should not try to oppose it. We are a party that believes in ideological pluralism and should not bury our heads in the sand. Meretz must show empathy towards the refuseniks and must bring the matter up for public discussion and reveal the reasons why the officers are refusing to serve.”[5]
She was elected to the Knesset in 1999, and served as chairwoman of the Knesset committee for the struggle against trafficking in women.[6] She was a member of the Knesset law and constitution committee and the Knesset committee.[3]
In 2007, Gal-On launched an unsuccessful bid to become the leader of Meretz. She believes that the party has to reinvent itself and promote a civilian agenda, which encompasses human rights and civil liberties in order to remain politically viable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahava_Gal-On
A perusal of any part of the wikipedia entry on Gal-On would make any socialist revolutionary type wince in some pain. The merest mention of the group “B’Tselem” is enough to label this woman as being on the very traitorous wing of Israeli society and a total enemy of the struggle for the continued existence of the Jewish state. Gal-On is no socialist. Gal-On is an outgoing and unashamed traitor to the Jewish state and to the Jewish people.
I could go on and talk about how these types of social justice activists who preach one thing but in practice do the very opposite were always seen as reactionaries of the worst type inside the historical Marxist movement. Slashing the rhetoric of these reactionaries became part of the ironical expertise of Leon Trotsky over a whole lifetime. From the Webbs to now Gal-On! It is the rhetoric of socialism but the practice of Hitlerism that is in play here. That has always been the case.
To therefore add to this is the greatest problem for Jews in the present situation.
These issues of leadership run very deep in the Jewish struggle. Ben Gurion (some kind of socialist I guess) ordered the Hagannah to fire on the refugee ship The Atalena while in return Begin gave the order not to return fire on the Hagannah. Thus we can see that the roots of traitordom lie very deep and it was Ben Gurion and his Hagannah who were the traitors to the Jewish people in firing on the Atalena, and the people who were putting the interests of the Jewish people above partisan interest were those around Begin, the bitter enemy of Ben Gurion, with Jabotinsky actually exiled from Israel by Ben Gurion. Those who today like Gal-On who fire on Netanyahu for the great crime of speaking to the American people about the danger from Iran (the Jihad against Jews!) are out of that firing on The Atalena milieu. Things have not changed so much.
Of course it is vital that Netanyahu goes to speak to Congress in March. Martin Sherman has spelled out in admirable fashion how the analysis of Kissinger is so correct
Everything being enacted by Obama, by the EU leaders and by NATO leads to the resurrection of Iran as a major political and military force in the world. Add to that their ability to produce nuclear weapons and another Holocaust looms realistically and immediately in sight. These moves towards creating this monster are closely entwined with Obama and the EU leaders turning against Jews in an open way (thus Teresa May bans the Jewish woman Pamela Geller from entering Britian and why? – no other reason really than that she is hated by Islamists and their Fascist Left SWP-type felow travellers.)
So Israel must be united behind the visit of Netanyahu. But part of this struggle for unity is to understand Gal-On and her party as being a party of traitors, with Stalinism and Labourism and a dose of just sheer hatred of Jews thrown in. Not far-left! That expression applied to Gal-On confuses me