Boehner invites Netanyahu...

Monkey · Feb 10, 2015

...to speak to congress without going through the approved channels.

Here's a fairly balanced take: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-benjamin-netanyahu-congress-iran-114439.html

Boehner was plainly unapologetic about not consulting the White House or State Department.

“Congress can make this decision on its own,” Boehner told reporters. “I don’t believe I’m poking anyone in the eye. There is a serious threat that exists in the world, and the president last night kind of papered over it. And the fact is that there needs to be a more serious conversation in America about how serious the threat is from radical Islamic jihadists and the threat posed by Iran.”

Those on the far left are saying this violates the law because Boehner is contacting a foreign head of state in order to shape policy, which is something reserved for very particular members of the government. Some are even suggesting that it's treasonous - that Boehner is attempting to upset negotiations with Iran by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US is more far more interested in Israel's aims than Iran's.

Those on the far right are applauding this as going behind the no-good, traitorous Obama's back in order to show unwavering support for Israel - Iran and anyone else be damned.

Which is to say... the fringes are kind of seeing this the same way; they're only disagreeing on who is more traitorous.

What say ye, vast middle?

Synonym · Feb 10, 2015

Someone has their knickers in a knot?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-obama-administration-lie-about-netanyahu/

"All this raises the issue of why the Obama Administration chose to turn this incident into a diplomatic brouhaha. On the one hand, a foreign leader planning a visit without prior coordination with the State Department is surely unusual. On the other hand, over at American Thinker, Ed Lasky notes that a visit like this is not exactly unprecedented: “In 2011, Boehner sent a notice to the WH stating his intention to invite Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. The White House never responded (spite? incompetence?) and Boehner proceeded to extend the invitation to Netanyahu. Netanyahu accepted the invitation and spoke. The White House did not express any outrage in 2011.” The invitation letter, meanwhile, said the invitation was “on behalf of the the bipartisan leadership of the US House and US Senate”, suggesting that the Israelis may have been misinformed regarding the extent to which the Democratic Congressional leadership was on board (and if they were on board, surely the White House would have known about it)."

If they'd treated it (the visit) in the same fashion as the 2011 invitation, most wouldn't even notice that Netanyahu was here, except for a short blurb on the evening news.

Xelebes · Feb 10, 2015

I'm not seeing any match-up there, Syn.

I do enjoy the fact that Boehner is allowing Netanyahu to make domestic political speeches using the US Congress as his pulpit. Going to do a whole lot of good for the US.

Monkey · Feb 11, 2015

Iran would have noticed.

Did notice.

What's important, here, is not the bruhaha. I will say that it's kind of backwards that, when someone on the Right has pulled some nonsense, some right-wingers will immediately point fingers at the left as "starting bruhaha" for even mentioning or acknowledging what just happened. I will also say that if anyone wants to suggest that Boehner is NOT pulling some nonsense, they should consider exactly what his goal was in doing this (hint: he pretty much gave the answer, and it did have to do with Iran.)

But really? The reaction of the US public is not what I'm concerned about. Reactions in the US are predictable beyond belief, and firmly divided along partisan lines. I'm more concerned about the ramifications - legal, social, and political, world-wide - than I am about that.

I'm hoping this will largely be ignored and won't have a major effect on anything at all. There's a good chance that that will be the case. But if it does manage to have an effect, I can't imagine it being anything but very, very bad.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 11, 2015

Oh, believe me, plenty of international observers have noticed and commented. The BBC noticed last month, and international diplomacy eyebrows went up.

Boehner violated all the protocol rules designed to give Congress the appearance of decency and politeness to unilaterally invite a world leader opposed to the President's policies on Iran to speak to Congress about Iran, just before Netanyahu faces an election in his own country, and Netanyahu accepted, knowing that it was a slap in the face to the US President.

It is seen as some pretty impudent meddling in international affairs and foreign elections by both Boehner and Netanyahu.

The move is seen as a rebuke to President Barack Obama's threat to veto any additional sanctions on [Iran].

...

On this bit of foreign policy it is clear there is profound mistrust between Congress and the White House - and the decision to invite Mr Netanyahu - a man who has the most testy relationship with the president - must be seen as a poke in the eye to Barack Obama

Don · Feb 11, 2015

NewsFlash!

Boehner Pulls Another Boner!

Film at Eleven!

Everybody expects cream to rise to the top in politics, but what they get instead is turds floating in a punchbowl.

Monkey · Feb 11, 2015

Update:

Israeli officials claim that they were mislead by Republicans and believed their invitation was a bipartisan effort, but say they will still speak regardless because it's so important to influence US policy on Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-israel-usa-congress-iran-idUSKBN0LA1AG20150206

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides," Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.
[...]
Asked whether the prime minister should cancel or postpone the speech, Hanegbi said: "What would the outcome be then? The outcome would be that we forsake an arena in which there is a going to be a very dramatic decision (on Iran)."
[...]
"The Republicans know, as the president has already made clear, that he will veto this legislation. So in order to pass legislation that overcomes the veto, two-thirds are required in the Senate. So if the prime minister can persuade another one or two or another three or four, this could have weight," he said.

ETA: Obama's response - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nanOevuxpdM

zerosystem · Feb 11, 2015

Personally, I care less about the formalities of the visit and more about the fact that currently, President Obama has a closer relationship with the likes of the Castros (who have oppressed their own people for decades) and the Iranian government (which denies the Holocaust and threatens to murder Jews) than he does with the Israelis.

Monkey · Feb 11, 2015

Assuming that were true - which I don't for a moment believe it is - wouldn't this whole episode further damage that relationship?

zerosystem · Feb 11, 2015

Monkey said:
Assuming that were true - which I don't for a moment believe it is - wouldn't this whole episode further damage that relationship?

Yes. Netanyahu isn't blameless, he has his own agenda, namely his bid to stay in power. I fully expect world leaders to bump heads from time to time. They all have their own priorities and electorate to answer to. Also, say what you will about Netanyahu but at least there will be an election in his country. He has not declared himself leader for life nor has he funded nefarious groups to destabilize the region like some other people.

My problem is that in recent times his administration has been buddy buddy with Raul Castro, a murder and a tyrant, who I suspect he will invite to the US before his term ends. Then you have a government that has continuously pledged to commit genocide against Jewish people yet Obama constantly bends over backward for them while dismissing any opposition from the Israelis. I don't understand how this administration can be so sensitive to the needs of tyrants but so dismissive of the fears of the Israeli people, who have every right to feel the way they do.

Monkey · Feb 11, 2015

I'm kind of boggled, here.

I mean, I don't think I need to point out the rocky (to put it mildly) history between the US and the leadership of Cuba and/or Iran. Yes, Obama is currently working to improve those relationships, but working to improve on seriously hostile dealings is a long, LONG way from "buddy buddy." We've been on the verge of war with Iran over its nuclear programs for pretty much all of Obama's two terms; I'm not sure how that counts as "bending over backwards" for them.

Meanwhile, Israel is an issue in every major presidential election and has a very long-standing positive relationship with the United States - even if the current leadership aren't as fond of each other as some would like. And, as you said, that whole "not as fond of each other" thing is not a some one-way deal perpetrated solely by Obama. Netanyahu has certainly played his part in it, and no, the fact that "at least there will be an election in his country" does not absolve him of that, nor does it automatically make him a good guy or garner my unwavering support. The US also still has elections; clearly that doesn't sway your opinion on Obama.

Let's look at it this way: This isn't an issue between Obama and Israel - it's an issue between Obama (who won't be president much longer) and Netanyahu (who won't necessarily be in charge of Israel much longer.)

You agree that this relationship is soured, rather than helped, by Boehner's move.

I don't see this move as pro-Israel so much as supportive of Netanyahu, who is not Israel personified, at the cost of possibly destroying some very fragile diplomatic relationships that could very well end up throwing the US into another war. And at that point, it's damaging to the US as a whole, not just to Obama.

In other words, this isn't good for the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu. There's no tangible benefit for either country. There is, however, a chance that this could cause problems with the US's efforts to not end up in another stupid war, which means it's bad for the US.

Some will say that it's worth doing something bad for the US so long as it hurts Obama. Some, I'm sure, will feel so even more strongly if that action has a veneer of being pro-Israel.

I'm not impressed by that logic, nor that veneer.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 26, 2015

Looks like Boehner's attempt to twit President Obama is turning into a bona fide international incident and a crisis in Middle East diplomatic relations.

Did I mention that the administration is right now in the middle of very delicate negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/u...visit-destructive-to-us-israel-ties.html?_r=0

Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sharply criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday over his plans to address a joint meeting of Congress next week, saying his actions had hurt his nation’s relationship with the United States.

The speech, scheduled for March 3, was arranged by Mr. Boehner and the Israeli ambassador without consulting the White House — a move that Mr. Obama’s team has called a breach of protocol.

The president has said he will not meet with Mr. Netanyahu during his visit to avoid any appearance that he is trying to influence the Israeli elections that are scheduled

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who as president of the Senate would be expected to attend, has said he will be traveling abroad. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that he would be in Switzerland negotiating with the Iranians. The White House has also not committed to sending a representative next week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s conference, where Mr. Netanyahu is also scheduled to appear.

The Israeli prime minister himself has turned down a request by Democratic senators for a private meeting, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Tuesday.

“We offered the prime minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong,” Mr. Durbin said in a statement. “His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/w...NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article

What started out last month as a dispute over a speech has consumed the two sides ever since, threatening long-term consequences and possibly fracturing America’s tradition of bipartisan support for Israel. The president’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, evidently was not mollified by the meeting with Yossi Cohen, her Israeli counterpart, since she said in a television interview on Tuesday night that Mr. Netanyahu’s actions were “destructive” because they were injecting partisanship into the relationship.

Eytan Gilboa, an expert on Israeli-American relations at Bar-Ilan University, called Ms. Rice’s comment “unprecedented” and told Israel Radio that it was clear the longstanding bipartisanship that underpinned the alliance “has now been badly broken.”

The polarization seems to be growing. J Street, a pro-Israel group more aligned with Mr. Obama’s positions on Iran, is running a full-page ad in Thursday newspapers attacking Mr. Netanyahu for coming to Capitol Hill just two weeks before his own election. “Prime Minister Netanyahu: Congress Isn’t a Prop for Your Election Campaign,” the ad declares.

But critics and even some supporters of Mr. Netanyahu were dismayed by his decision to decline an invitation from Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, two of Israel’s strongest Democratic supporters, to meet with Democrats while in town.

“Since when does an Israeli prime minister say no to a meeting with Democrats?” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. He added: “By the way, their Israeli voting record is impeccable. Not good, not very good, impeccable. The Democrats extend a hand of sorts and he says no? This defies explanation.”

During her meeting last week with Mr. Cohen, the Israeli adviser, Ms. Rice expressed the administration’s pique at leaks by the government in Jerusalem about the Iranian talks, the kinds of leaks she said had not happened in the past.

To the Americans, it seemed an intentional effort to torpedo the negotiations with one-sided information, and it undercut trust. “We shared with them that this causes us great concern,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 26, 2015

Monkey said:
Some will say that it's worth doing something bad for the US so long as it hurts Obama. Some, I'm sure, will feel so even more strongly if that action has a veneer of being pro-Israel.

Some will also try to profit off of this, like Sarah Palin, who is selling $35 T-shirts saying "I Stand With Bibi" ("Bibi" is Netanyahu's nickname) with an anti-Democrat sales pitch.

rugcat · Feb 26, 2015

And of course, perhaps some remember Netanyahu's 2012 trip to the UN where he claimed Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. As he was publicly promoting this theory, the Mossad was telling him a completely different story.

Writing that Iran had not begun the work needed to build any kind of nuclear weapon, the Mossad cable said the Islamic Republic's scientists are "working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment reactors".

Such activities, however, "will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given".

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...iran-nuclear-speech-2012-150218165622065.html

I see Netanyahu as Israel's version of our own neocons -- a right wing hawkish mentality willing to use lies and deception to push a nation into a war that they believe is necessary and desirable.

However, there is one difference – Netanyahu is not as interested in pushing Israel into a war with Iran as he is in pushing the United States into one.

clintl · Feb 26, 2015

rugcat said:
I see Netanyahu as Israel's version of our own neocons -- a right wing hawkish mentality willing to use lies and deception to push a nation into a war that they believe is necessary and desirable.

However, there is one difference – Netanyahu is not as interested in pushing Israel into a war with Iran as he is in pushing the United States into one.

That's my take, too. He has basically sabotaged every single effort for a peace agreement in the Middle East that he has been in a position to do.

backslashbaby · Feb 26, 2015

Eh, Netanyahu wants to distance himself from one party in the US, because they have dared to not be 100% pro-Netanyahu and lots gets written about that at home. So be it. I like that we can be more vocal about disagreeing with Israel at times, and he paved the way for that with these moves. It unties our hands.

The dishonesty and leaks are another story. I really can't stand him. And yes, he breached protocol on purpose, playing with our internal politics for his election, and Republicans here support that hugely bold move. It just tells a lot about both groups.

But the partisan divide here occurred pretty organically, so it doesn't bother me that now we can be quite open about it. I think that part is good in the end.

J.S.F. · Feb 26, 2015

clintl said:
That's my take, too. He has basically sabotaged every single effort for a peace agreement in the Middle East that he has been in a position to do.

---

Right, sure he has. And while we're talking about sabotage, let's hear it for Iran which has constantly delayed, lied to, hid or obfuscated evidence of their nuclear-enrichment program. They may very well be building nuclear reactors simply for power...but does anyone believe it? Meanwhile, they consistently call for Israel's destruction, aid in terrorism, and spew their hatred of Israel out at every UN meeting.

Let's hear it for Hamas which spends an average of 10 million dollars on one tunnel to enter into Israeli territory and murder civilians. Let's hear it for the other groups that kidnap and murder Israeli civilians because of their own perverted dreams of "justice".

Let's hear it for Al-Qaeda and its affiliates who want to impose their own brand of a modern-day caliphate in the Middle East and elsewhere.

So while Netanyahu is hardly blameless, it takes two to tango, and saying he's largely to blame for there not being peace in the Middle East is pushing things. There are two "peaces". One Israeli and one Arab. Guess what? They both conflict. You want to believe that Bibi's the main cause of this? Right.......

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 26, 2015

I didn't see that clintl was saying that Netanyahu was "to blame" or "the main cause of" the lack of peace in the Middle East, only that he "sabotaged every single effort for a peace agreement in the Middle East that he has been in a position to do."

That's not the same thing. It's not a laying of responsibility, but a pointing out of a provocateur nature.

No one here is praising those other groups you mention.

Neither is anyone unilaterally inviting them to address the US Congress in violation of protocols.

That they may be villainous does not make Netanyahu a wise man or a good leader.

clintl · Feb 26, 2015

I'm not blaming Netanyahu solely for anything, and I never said he was the only bad actor in the region. However, he has a long track record, going back to his first election as prime minister, of enacting policies that undermine previous efforts and progress on peace. I stand by that assessment. Israel would have had a far better chance for peace if Netanyahu and his party had never been elected.

As for Iran and its nuclear program - I think rugcat is spot on in his assessment. What Netanyahu desperately wants is the US to launch a preemptive war against Iran on Israel's behalf. I don't think we should let ourselves get suckered into it. The negotiations are still ongoing, and Netanyahu is again doing everything in his power to derail any agreement. Screw him. We know for sure now that he's a liar on Iran's nuclear program, that he lied to the UN, so why believe anything he says now about it?

As far as the rest of your post goes, no one here that I know of is a Hamas supporter. No one here I know of is an Al-Qaeda supporter. So I'm not sure what your point was bringing them up.

benbradley · Feb 26, 2015

A pertinent political cartoon about this potentially explosive situation:
http://luckovich.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/26/227-luckovich-cartoon-lighting-the-fuse/

Monkey · Feb 26, 2015

benbradley said:
A pertinent political cartoon about this potentially explosive situation:
http://luckovich.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/26/227-luckovich-cartoon-lighting-the-fuse/

Pretty much.

The question is, did Boehner do this entirely to show how pro-Israel the Republicans are, or did he actually mean to push us towards war with Iran just because we're still technically on Obama's watch?

blacbird · Feb 26, 2015

Boehner invites him, without Presidential approval.

Objections to this rather extraordinarily inflammatory procedure get made.

Democratic legislators offer to meet with Netanyahu.

He refuses.

What's wrong with this picture?

caw

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 3, 2015

Netanyahu has said today that he deeply regrets that his speech, to be given to a largely Republican Congress at Republican invitation deliberately leaving Democrats out of the loop, including deliberate snubs of Democrats and shocking diplomatic discourtesy to the Democratic President during the most delicate international diplomatic negotiations with the country he is speaking of and mere weeks before Netanyahu faces a close election in his home country, is being seen as political.

BenPanced · Mar 3, 2015

Have a Coke and a smile, Bibi.

:sarcasm

Monkey · Mar 3, 2015

Oh, you mean the political speech he was making with the intent of shifting American policy?

Boehner invites Netanyahu...

Is me.

Delerium ex Ennui

Is me.

Sophipygian

All Living is Local

Is me.

practical experience, FTW

Is me.

practical experience, FTW

Is me.

Sophipygian

Sophipygian

Lost in the Fog

Represent.

~~~~*~~~~

Red fish, blue fish...

Sophipygian

Represent.

It's a doggy dog world

Is me.

Sophipygian

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Is me.

*