by Isi Leibler
He accepted this invitation because he regards a nuclear Iran as an immense global danger as well as an existential threat to Israel. Had he not consistently campaigned over the years, Iran would today have achieved its nuclear ambitions.
 |
Presumably, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu weighed his options
carefully before accepting U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John
Boehner’s invitation to address the joint session of Congress. There is
no doubt that the bulk of Congress, including many Democrats, are
angered with President Barack Obama for ignoring their concerns in his
obsession to reach a deal with the Iranians – at any cost. He has
already demonstrated his willingness to enable Iran to become a
threshold nuclear state. Thus, many members of Congress would be keen to
hear Netanyahu’s views, which Boehner undoubtedly hopes will strengthen
the resolve of Congress to ramp up sanctions if no deal is achieved by
the June deadline.
Netanyahu’s acceptance unleashed
a firestorm, both at home and in the U.S. Infuriated unnamed White
House officials told Haaretz, “We thought we’d seen everything but Bibi
managed to surprise even us.” This was a breach of protocol in which “he
spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought
to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his
presidency and that there will be a price.” Another official said it
would be difficult to trust Netanyahu in the future and accused him of
“preferring to advance his political interests” rather than “maintaining
the correct working relationship between both countries.”
However, Boehner subsequently
revealed on CBS’s “60 minutes” that the White House had in fact been
notified before the announcement of the Netanyahu visit, suggesting that
the White House rage was less about the breach of protocol and more its
concern that Netanyahu would undermine Obama’s policies of appeasement
toward Iran.
The White House announced that
‘in accordance with standard tradition’, it was inappropriate for the
president or the secretary of state to meet Netanyahu two weeks before
Israeli national elections. This is inconsistent with the fact that that
on April 30, 1996, one month before the elections (in which Netanyahu
was victorious), then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres met with President
Bill Clinton in the White House.
Israeli opposition leaders were
hysterical. Labor Chairman Isaac Herzog told Israel Army Radio that
Netanyahu was “directly harming the president of the United States” and
“what Netanyahu is doing with this thuggish behavior is to harm Israel’s
security interests.” Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid expressed similar
sentiments. There were even suggestions that the state comptroller
should investigate the propriety of the Israeli embassy facilitating the
broadcast of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress without the approval of the
White House.
Despite the fact that the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been energetically lobbying
Congress to intensify sanctions against Iran, the American Jewish
establishment – which has failed to react to Obama’s frequent biased and
offensive statements and initiatives – was clearly distressed that
Netanyahu had become an issue between Congress and the White House, but
largely remained silent.
However, the Anti-Defamation
League’s head, Abe Foxman, could not contain himself. He told the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency that “this looks like a political challenge to the
White House and/or a campaign effort in Israel.” He said, “The
invitation and acceptance is ill advised” and had the chutzpah to tell
Boehner to withdraw his invitation and urged Netanyahu to rescind his
acceptance. Foxman’s outrageous and harmful remarks were met with
deafening silence by other Jewish bodies and publicly condemned only by
the hawkish Zionist Organization of America.
Our prime minister has certainly
embarked on a risky enterprise. Many fear that a vindictive Obama could
exact payback when it comes to employing the veto at the U.N. Security
Council or at the International Criminal Court where the Palestinian
Authority is seeking to charge Israel with war crimes. He may intensify
the pressures on Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice
lines and increase pressure against construction in Jerusalem and the
settlement blocs. It is feared that he could even reduce the crucial
U.S. defense support to Israel.
This is possible. But the
reality is that Obama’s attitude toward Netanyahu is so toxic that it
probably makes little difference how Netanyahu would act. Besides,
whereas normally a U.S. president has considerable control of foreign
affairs, Obama is today a lame duck president and for him to engage in
vindictive initiatives against the foremost U.S. ally would further
damage America’s standing and create a major revolt in Congress.
The greater risk facing
Netanyahu is that by forcing Democrats to choose between backing their
president and supporting his call for sanctions against Iran, he could
fragment the crucial bipartisan support Israel enjoys from most
Democrats and Republicans, and on which the Israeli American alliance is
based.
There have already been harsh
remarks by leading Democrats condemning the invitation. Nancy Pelosi,
leader of the House Democrats, said it was inappropriate to invite
Netanyahu while sensitive negotiations were in process about Iran’s
nuclear program and two weeks before his own election. Former U.S.
Ambassador to Israel Martyn Indyk, notorious for intervening in domestic
Israeli policies, accused Netanyahu of “using the Republican Congress
for a photo-op for his election campaign.”
Those opposing the invitation
also question whether the Senate will muster the 67 votes needed to
override the veto that Obama has committed to invoke should Congress
seek to impose sanctions.
Netanyahu rarely engages in
risky initiatives. Indeed, many of his critics complain that one of his
principal weaknesses is hesitancy and delay in decision-making.
He accepted this invitation
because he regards a nuclear Iran as an immense global danger as well as
an existential threat to Israel. Had he not consistently campaigned
over the years, Iran would today have achieved its nuclear ambitions.
Over the past year, he observed
with agony how the administration capitulated to virtually every demand
of the Iranians, even granting them the right to a nuclear enrichment
program, which would effectively make them a threshold nuclear state. In
his determination to reach a deal with the Iranians, Obama has
obfuscated the reality and moved toward a policy of containment. Yet
whereas mutual assured destruction may have deterred the Soviets, this
cannot be taken for granted when confronting the fanatic ayatollahs who
would happily accept Paradise to impose what they believe to be Allah’s
will.
Dennis Ross, previously
Clinton’s and then Obama’s U.S. Middle East peace envoy, whose views
usually reflect those of the Democratic Party, was scathing in his
condemnation of the president’s weakness and ongoing concessions to the
Iranians. Similar sentiments were expressed by former State Department
security adviser Ray Takeyh and former Undersecretary of Defense Eric
Edelman.
More importantly, Robert
Menendez, the senior Democrat on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations
Committee who, together with Republican Mark Kirk leads the campaign to
strengthen sanctions against Iran, said at a Senate hearing: “I have to
be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration and its
quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of
Tehran.” Obama accused him of being concerned by “donors and others.”
On balance, I believe Netanyahu displayed courage in accepting such an invitation knowing the consequences.
Instead of displaying a united
front, Israeli politicians have provided ammunition to the White House
to discredit Netanyahu’s address to Congress as an election stunt.
Through Congress, Netanyahu has a small window of opportunity to exploit
a global platform to make his case on this crucial issue before the die
is cast as the “P5+1” nations continue groveling to Iranian demands. He
may well have a major influence in convincing Congress to reverse the
Chamberlain-like policies of appeasement of Obama toward Iran. To forego
such a rare opportunity would be irresponsible. At the very least, he
will heighten U.S consciousness of the threatening global dangers should
the Iranians achieve their goal.
There will be some backlash. But
nobody is better qualified than Netanyahu to convey the message that,
far from intervening in U.S. domestic politics ,he considers it his
sacred task to seek to prevent a global catastrophe and existential
threat to his people should the Iranian Islamic terrorist regime achieve
nuclear power. He will stress that this should not be distorted as a
move that would undermine congressional bipartisan policy toward Israel.
Those accusing Netanyahu of
jeopardizing the U.S.-Israel relationship should bear in mind that even
though Congress is currently dominated by the Republicans, it was
elected by the people and is more representative of public opinion than
the White House.
We should take pride that, other
than Winston Churchill, our prime minister is the only world leader to
have been invited on three occasions to address a joint sitting of
Congress – the most powerful legislative body in the world.
Israeli patriots and friends of
Israel should pray that Netanyahu’s address contributes toward
preventing Iran from reaching nuclear status.
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com. His website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=5496
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment