Posted on 02/07/2015 8:48:48 AM PST by Dave346
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has conveyed messages to the Americans to the effect that “he didn’t know” the invitation extended to him to speak before the US Congress was anything but genuinely bipartisan, Israel’s Channel 10 news reported Friday night.
Netanyahu remains determined to go ahead with the address, to highlight the dangers of a deal that would leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state, but is making an effort “to soften” the Obama administration’s anger, and that of many Democrats, over the March 3 speech, the TV report said.
The report added that some 40 Democratic legislators are currently expected to stay away from the address, and that Netanyahu is anxious to avoid that spreading to a wider “second wave” of legislators.
Early Friday, a senior Israeli politician who is close to Netanyahu suggested that the prime minister had been misled into believing both Republicans and Democrats wanted him to speak, and that he had accepted the contentious invitation from House Speaker John Boehner because he understood the offer enjoyed bipartisan support.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud) said Netanyahu “hoped and believed” the invitation was “bi-partisan, as the invite letter said — ‘a bi-partisan initiative’ — but because of the tensions between Congress and the [Obama] administration, [and] between Republicans and Democrats, a problem erupted.”
Speaking to 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio, Hanegbi, who is a close confidant of the PM, acknowledged that the row that has flared up between Israel and the Obama administration following the announcement that Netanyahu would speak to Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat presented a “dilemma.”
Boehner’s January 21 invitation to Netanyahu, indeed, stated: “It is my honor, on behalf of the bipartisan leadership of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, to extend to you an invitation to appear before and address a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday, February 11, 2015″ — the originally scheduled date.
The announcement infuriated the White House, which charged that the planned speech — subsequently moved to March 3 — breached protocol as it was not coordinated with the administration. The incident set off an ugly, ongoing public dispute between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration, with senior US officials charging that the Israeli leader had “spat” in Obama’s face and could not be trusted.
There has been considerable vocal Democratic opposition, too, with Jewish House Democrats meeting privately with Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer to castigate him over the affair. At least three Democrats have said they will skip the speech, Vice President Joe Biden may not attend, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she hopes it will not go ahead.
Netanyahu has been an outspoken critic of the international efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran. He is set to warn strongly in his speech against a bad deal with Tehran. Initially, it had been suggested that he would also urge US lawmakers to pass a new sanctions bill against Tehran to force it to comply with international demands that it curb its nuclear program — a bill Obama strongly opposes and has vowed to veto because such a move would hinder the P5+1 negotiations under way to secure a deal. But officials in Jerusalem said last week that Netanyahu would focus less on sanctions and more on the dangers of a deal that allows Iran to become a threshold nuclear state.
“The dilemma is, how much can Israel insist and disagree and oppose this policy [of the international community seeking a deal with Iran] while simultaneously preserving our wonderful, intimate relationship with the US,” Hanegbi said, adding that “the question was if Netanyahu should pass up this unique opportunity, so necessary in terms of timing, before the deadline [for a deal between the P5+1 and Tehran].”
Hanegbi said Netanyahu was “investing a lot of effort in order to clarify to Democrats that this [planned address] is not an act of defiance against Obama,” and denied charges that the move was political, meant to boost Netanyahu’s image ahead of Israeli national elections set for March 17, two weeks after the speech.
Netanyahu indicated Thursday that he intended to go ahead with this speech, saying it was “my obligation as the prime minister of Israel to speak out against the danger of a nuclear agreement with Iran, and to do everything I can to prevent it.”
I don’t think Netanyahu would have the time, and he certainly wouldn’t want to put up with some of the wrangling that goes on here about Israel.
A better match for a membership would be some of the lower level operatives from Netanyahu’s side.
I’m kind of wondering if instead of seething, they actually set up their this public display of opposition to Netanyahu, and set up the “partisan walkout” in order to play to the opposition campaign in Israel. I say that, because one of the accusations from the side that wants to defeat Netanyahu in the upcoming election in Israel, is that Netanyahu is playing “partisan politics” inside the USA and alienating formerly supportive groups.
I find that hard to believe. But why should the fact that it wasn't bipartisan make a difference?
Reminds me of how Jewish leaders tamped down complaints about the ongoing Holocaust during WWII, for fear of backlash from the public. This allowed vicious anti-Semite FDR to do nothing to help Jews.
There are generals in the US who support everything Obama has done to destroy the US and her military.
That doesn’t change the definition. Anybody who supports the destruction of the US is a traitor to the US. And anyone who supports a Holocaust of Israel is an anti-Semite.
They can argue about whether their position truly supports the destruction of the US and/or Israel, but at this point, anybody who fails to remember that it was APPEASEMENT which killed millions of Jews, Christians, disabled, and/or dissidents during Hitler’s time is either stupid or willfully blind.
And those Israelis who oppose Bibi better be thinking long and hard about how Obama got Morsi installed in Egypt. The Egyptian people allowed themselves to be propagandized but it didn’t take long for reality to sink in. Of course, Iran only needs to drop one bomb and then it doesn’t matter what the Israelis think about the Obama-installed alternative to Netanyahu... And that’s what the Iranian leaders have promised would happen, for a long time now... Israelis will ignore that at their own peril.
An easy fallacy to fall Into. The simple fact is that some of the worst anti- Semitism comes from (self-hating) jews - or as is said, JINO’s Starting g with the nazi in chief, George Soros ( officially an athiest but from a jewish family). Israel has its resident Enemy Within just like USA has. Just because we can find a bunch of jews or JINO’s advocating something harmful to jewish survival does not make their program any less dangerous to Jews, often at an exjstrntial level. We need to help fight such evil programs no matter how “humanitarian and peace- loving” their dressing — and regardless of whether they eminate from visibly anti- Semitic sources or “just some crazy left-wing JINOs”. Jewish names on the petition are no guarantee the platform is any good, or free of harm or danger to the J people. Ps-: the Nazis just loved that kind of “Jew” and it must be said made a lot of use of them Best,
Israels survival depends in large part on Americas willingness to remain her ally. Bibi understands this.
That isn’t the only reason for boycotting Netanyahu. Those officials protesting just don’t like Israeli Jews. They do like US Jews because that’s where there is much money.
What is interesting about this is that Israel is a Socialist country.
So the 40 Democrats are probably more in agreement from an economic stand point. So what is this really about? It’s about Muslim vs. Jew.
The fact that 40 Democrats are walking out, to support the Administration, should be a big red flag for every Democrat with a Jewish background of the absolute hate of their people.
I always here “Never forget” but I think they have forgot. They keep staring into the past vigilantly looking for the Swastikas, the Boss suits and a little man with a funny mustache. That is gone.
However, like the movie, “The Thing” with Kurt Russell(a spiritual Being that jumps from body to body) the Nazis (aka the Socialist) have done the same thing, but you do not know until it’s too late. Then you are fighting for your life.
I can't imagine what living with a sword hanging above your head must be like, but with Islam holding that sword and Iran being enabled by Obama to get the bomb I definitely wouldn't turn the reins over to Herzog. After almost 70 years of negotiations Israel can't even get the basic right to exist. There will be no peace. The most you can get is negotiated one-sided cease fires.
No, they are seething
they don’t give a damn about Israel
They are only concerned with themselves
Once in a lifetime opportunity to grab the narrative here.
Democrats who boycott the speech should be immediately and repeatedly asked why they support a nuclear Iran and Islamic terror.
Grab the narrative and USE IT.
Somebody needs to ask the question: Would it have been wrong for the Polish leader to bypass Hitler and address the Reichstag directly on whether they should support Hitler’s plan of annihilating Poland?
If these 40 dems are the CBC, I guess we know who are the foot-soldiers for the Hitler of our day: the ones who can pull the race card on anybody who recognizes them as the anti-Semites they are. The fact that Obama has to use his “house xxxxx’s” in this way, to make it seem like he has support in his attempt to sell the Jews to the mullahs... shows the contempt he REALLY has for people who share his skin color.
How do you create a narrative when the media is all government propaganda?
It’s EXACTLY the same issue as Hitler’s opposition had. It’s why the first step in a coup is always to take the media and make it a propaganda force. The US media has always been voluntarily complicit in anti-Americanism; Yuri Bezmenov has spoken about how that was done. But in October of 2008 even the so-called “conservative media” was taken hostage by threats of annihilation if they reported on Obama’s eligibility/documentation problem and his Muslim leanings (the fact that he is a puppet, and the fact of who his puppet-masters are...). At that point the “conservative media” also became a propaganda arm of the coup. They are allowed to appear conservative when the issue can never make a real difference, but when the issue matters they can be silenced again by the same old threat. 2008 was LITERALLY a coup, and until the public realizes that, they have no clue what America’s very survival is up against.
“Lyin’ Brian” lying about being in danger isn’t even a speck of sand compared to the vast seashore full of lies that the media has disseminated as government propaganda, hidden behind the mask of “a free media”.
The narrative develops first at the speech and then again over time.
Unfortunately, the point man would be Boehner, who made the invitation and who doesn’t have the stones to say what needs to be said. An actual conservative is going to have to carry that mantle.
But the debate will continue, and will be an issue in 2016. To truly hurt Democrats and show them to be the Islamist lovers they are, it’s going to have to be repeated and repeated, and at times when Republicans have access to media (i.e. in debates).
There’s more than legacy media to deal with too. There’s social media, which costs nothing and which has vast influence (just look at what’s happening to Brian Williams now).
Play the long game. Islamic terror is not going away as long as Democrats are in charge.
Good points.
It’ll take a lot of good people on social media to overcome the sheer volume of the bots purchased by the regime, and the paid agitaters.
Your point about the debates is important. At this point I have absolutely no use for a candidate who is too mealy-mouthed to say what needs to be said. If they’re too afraid of the treasonous media to speak directly and plainly to the people about where America is at right now then they are too weak to do the job. At this point, anybody less than a Winston Churchill is just not strong enough.
If Jeb is our candidate I will sit out this election, for the first time ever.
It does sound as if there’s some hesitation..
I hope he is not backing down to the antics from Barry and the dancing queens. That will just encourage Barry to do worse.
The larger point was it is time for the GOP to take a page out of the Dem playbook. For once they, not the dems, need to frame the issue.
But yes, I do belive in my heart of hearts, 90% of those boycotting are doing so because their own Antisemitism which (as we all know) not unique to Nazi Germany.
As much as Obama claims to support Israel, look at his actions. Listen to what he did not say at the National Prayer breakfast. I must have missed the part where he mentioned the trials of Jews from the Holocaust to those who hated Jews because “they killed Christ.”
You bet it is about Obama’s foreign policy with Iran. Obama has no problem with Iran proceeding with their nuclear program even though they have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. I think Iran is crazy enough to attempt it, especially since Obama has made it very clear he will not answer a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.