At WHAT PRICE Netanyahu?

[Segami]

Do we really need the Israeli prime minister to appear before Congress to explain the dangers and pitfalls of certain prospective deals on Iran’s nuclear weapons programs? Would we not know otherwise? Have the U.S. critics of those prospective deals lost their voice? Are they shy about expressing their concerns? Are they inarticulate or incompetent? Do they lack the wherewithal to get their message out? Not exactly. Every day a new report or analysis warns of the consequences of various concessions that the Obama administration may or may not be making. Some think tanks in Washington devote themselves almost entirely to the subject of Iran’s nuclear program. Congress has held numerous hearings on the subject. Every week, perhaps every day, high-ranking members of the House and Senate, from both parties, lay out the dangers they see. The Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and others publish countless stories on the talks in which experts weigh in to express their doubts. If all the articles, statements and analyses produced in the United States on this subject could be traded for centrifuges, the Iranian nuclear program would be eliminated in a week.


Nor can it be said that we are somehow unaware of Israel’s views on this deal. It is not as if our news media will not report Israeli concerns and complaints. The statements and opinions of the Israeli prime minister, of members of his government and of the military and intelligence services are amply covered in the United States. Israeli officials — including the prime minister — can and do travel to the United States to express their concerns, with or without presidential invitations. They give speeches at the United Nations. They go on Sunday morning television programs and voice their opinions before millions of American viewers. They can even meet with members of Congress in both parties if they choose to. Given all this, can it really be the case that the American people will not know what to think about any prospective Iran deal until one man, and only one man, gets up to speak in one venue, and only one venue, and does so in the first week of March, and only in that week? That is what those who insist it is vital that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak before a joint meeting of Congress next week would have us believe. Even the most eloquent speech by Netanyahu will not add more than marginally to what has already been said and heard. But even if the drama of the situation and the prime minister’s eloquence were to highlight the already well-articulated case against a bad deal, the question is: at what price?


For there is a price. I will leave it to the Israeli government and people to worry about what damage the prime minister’s decision could have on U.S.-Israeli relations going forward, and not just under this administration. Those Americans who care most about that relationship will also have to weigh whether the short-term benefits of having Netanyahu speak will outweigh potential long-term costs. Looking back on it from years hence, will the spectacle of an Israeli prime minister coming to Washington to do battle with an American president wear well or poorly? For the United States, however, there is no doubt that the precedent being set is a bad one. This is not the first time that a U.S. administration and an Israeli prime minister have been at loggerheads. President George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker, reportedly detested then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir and did their best to help him lose his next election. Baker even had a few choice words for the American Jews who tried to come to the Israeli government’s defense. Did anyone at the time think of inviting Shamir to address Congress? The very idea would have been regarded as laughable. Now, we’re supposed to believe that it’s perfectly reasonable.


Is anyone thinking about the future? From now on, whenever the opposition party happens to control Congress — a common enough occurrence — it may call in a foreign leader to speak to a joint meeting of Congress against a president and his policies. Think of how this might have played out in the past. A Democratic-controlled Congress in the 1980s might, for instance, have called the Nobel Prize-winning Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to denounce President Ronald Reagan’s policies in Central America. A Democratic-controlled Congress in 2003 might have called French President Jacques Chirac to oppose President George W. Bush’s impending war in Iraq.






cont'


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-what-price-netanyahu/2015/02/27/96f9efae-be81-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

[Kath1]

1. Well done.

Unfortunately, this country has responded enthusiastically to those war drums waaaaaaaay too often.

In the words of Nancy Reagan - JUST SAY NO.

[Cha]

2. K&R!

[gregcrawford]

3. Boehner is setting a VERY ugly precedent

Unfortunately, when it blows up in is face,the colatteral damage will be the rest of us. Republicans have gone totally batshit psycho...

[Segami]

4. "....Jeremy Bird, the architect of the grass-roots...

"...and online organizing efforts that powered President Obama’s presidential campaigns from Chicago, is advising a similar operation in Tel Aviv. But this time it is focused on ousting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

His consulting work for the group V15 — an independent Israeli organization that does not support specific candidates but is campaigning to replace Israel’s current government — has added yet another political layer to the diplomatic mess surrounding Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to address a joint meeting of Congress next week on Iran.

The White House has argued that Mr. Netanyahu’s plan to deliver the speech on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli elections, is harming the United States-Israel relationship by injecting partisanship. Republicans contend it is Mr. Obama who is playing politics and cite the work of Mr. Bird as proof that the president is quietly rooting for the defeat of his Israeli counterpart

American strategists have for decades signed on to work in Israeli political campaigns, with Democrats usually aligned with the Labor Party and Republicans often backing Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Obama or any of his senior aides had anything to do with the move by his former top campaign official, who has never worked at the White House, to join the effort to defeat Mr. Netanyahu. But Mr. Bird’s involvement in the elections is drawing attention when tensions between the two countries are so acute that what is usually considered standard practice for American political consultants in Israel is now seen as a provocation....."


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/us/politics/former-obama-campaign-aide-now-works-to-oust-netanyahu.html?_r=0

[blondie58]

5. I think we should do everything

To AVOID war. It should be a last resort. If we go to war with Iran, it will create many new- and old enemies.

[Jefferson23]

6. Lunatic. n/t

[yellowwoodII]

7. Terrible

Netanyahu and his hawkish American minions have caused irreparable damage to the good will that Americans feel for Israel. We don't like a foreign leader coming before Congress to try to shape our foreign policy. We are tired of war. We are tired of having our young men sacrificed for other people's dubious causes. Not to mention the financial cost. I will be watching to see which of our Congresspeople of either party support this.

[spanone]

8. k&r...

[Gothmog]

9. Boehner and Bibi are hurting the US/Israeli relationship

This was a very stupid move

[nilesobek]

10. Netanyahu made all kinds of wild threats and promises

of what his military would do if the United States did not come across via Iran and his demands. When you play a hand like that, unfortunately you might have to see it through to the river card and the showdown.

This is part of that. The United States did NOT come across with the Iran policy he wanted and now he has to save face. Netanyahu looks weak in this scenario. Go ahead Bibi, keep your promises and lets see how that works out.

Besides, I'm a little bit perturbed by the negative body language and the staredowns that Netanyahu indulges himself with towards our great POTUS. It has not gone unnoticed. He wanted a mafia style "sitdown," with President Obama and he didn't like Obama's reaction to his power games.