Netanyahu should be uninvited to Congress
For some Republicans in Congress, no strategies are off limits for waging an agenda of discord, chaos and confusion throughout President Barack Obama’s second term. This time, the thorn in a functioning government is Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, an invitation Netanyahu has, for mind-boggling reasons, accepted.
The speech makes little sense from a practical perspective and damages Netanyahu’s support in the United States and Israel. Moreover, it threatens to derail already precarious negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program. Obama, who favors the negotiations, has split with Republicans and Democrats in Congress who favor imposing greater sanctions instead of diplomacy. A positive sign came when 10 Democrats signed a letter agreeing not to vote on a sanctions bill at least until the March 24 deadline — but Boehner’s actions undid all of that.
Gridlock for the sake of political gamesmanship is one brand of silliness, but gridlock that plays poker with national security chips is a careless sham that is unbecoming of elected officials. Consider the timeline: Netanyahu, who Forbes calls “the Republican Senator from Israel,” is up for re-election on March 17. The deadline for current nuclear negotiations with Iran is March 24. Netanyahu will speak on March 3. When Netanyahu urges Congress to ramp up sanctions, the delicate negotiations with Iran are likely to collapse. It is a move so unprecedentedly dim-witted that Bloomberg reported that Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, has broken ranks with Netanyahu and warned American officials that more sanctions would all but guarantee the breakdown of talks.
A new round of sanctions would also be useless. Not only has the current round of sanctions decimated the Iranian economy, but so too have record low oil prices. New sanctions would be the equivalent of beating a dead horse.
In inviting Netanyahu, Boehner was clearly hoping to force the Democrats into an uncomfortable box: to support the speech (presumably, a call for more sanctions) and be anti-Obama, or to oppose the speech and be seen as anti-Israel, a dangerous path given the massive political clout held by pro-Israel interests like AIPAC.
Fortunately, Boehner has confused being pro-Netanyahu with being pro-Israel, and the speech can only hurt Israeli relations. Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said: “It’s advisable to cancel the speech to Congress so as not to cause a rift with the American government.” The White House released a statement saying that because of protocol, Obama would not meet with Netanyahu due to the closeness of his visit to the upcoming Israeli elections. Forbes even called the speech Netanyahu’s “fatal political mistake” due to a poll that puts the Labor-Hatnuah coalition ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud Party in the election.
The move may backfire for sanction-hungry Republicans on the home front, too. The New York Times argued that Boehner’s move might actually bring Obama and pro-sanction Democrats closer together by strengthening the Democrats’ resolve to be patient on increasing sanctions until after the negotiation deadline. When it rains for Republicans, it pours.
For a party so indebted to the Constitution, the Republican House leadership’s decision to receive Netanyahu shows that they are willing to selectively ignore the law of the land when it befits their politics. According to Michael Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego, inviting Netanyahu to speak is unconstitutional. While Netanyahu himself cannot violate the Constitution because he is not bound by it, Congress has no Article 1, Section 8 authority to receive foreign leaders. That power is exclusively reserved for the president in Article II, Section 3: “he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.” The Netanyahu debacle underscores why such a clause exists: If the nation were unable to speak with one voice on diplomatic matters, foreign policy would be a disaster, and Congress might as well have their own secretary of state.
Netanyahu should cancel the trip, or Boehner’s office should rescind the invitation. At the very least, Netanyahu (or Boehner) should delay the speech until after the negotiation deadline and during the Israeli “lame duck” period. By allowing the negotiation to run its course, Netanyahu could offer his thoughts on the future with Iran that would not go unheard. Following protocol, Obama would also be able to meet with Netanyahu, the only caveat is that due to the speech stunt, Obama’s guest might be the former, and not the incoming, Israeli prime minister.
Nathaniel Haas is a junior majoring in political science and economics. His column, “State of the Union,” runs Fridays.
I think we should help Abbas and his dear friends and allies Hamas create a Palestinian state. Since Hamas is more popular than Abbas let’s call it Hamasistan. It could be based on all the other Islamist states. Women would have zero
rights. Gays would be hung. Jews would be verboten. Non-Muslims would be killed unless they convert to Islam or pay a crippling tax that is designed just for them.
I think this makes a lot of sense and is something college punks should march for, shout about, and pretend they care about. The world needs another Islamist state. What will we do without one more cesspool Islamic state…especially if it replaces the only Jewish state in the world – a productive state contributing advances in all walks of life.
In Hamasistan criminals will be punished by being tied to the back of jeeps and skinned to death on dirt roads. The lucky criminals will simply be pushed off
rooftops, and if they’re really lucky the rooftop will be very, very high.
In Hamasistan they will blame all their problems on Israel that way the politicians can line their Swiss Vaults with endless international aid money and not be held accountable.
In Hamasistan they will shoot rockets into Israel during rush hour and when schools get out. That’s the way they do things in Hamasistan. Then they will blame Israel for making them do it.
Yes, this will solve all the problems just ask any leftist, liberal, dreaming moron and he will scream it at you as if there is no doubt about it.
I find it very strange that the editors of the DT or this writer have censored my response to this article.. Why? My comments were not hateful or nefarious in any way. I provided a counter commentary and approved of the position of @Counterofbeans…. Where’s the ability for open, honest discourse these days?
Open discourse and debate in the free market of ideas are
founding principles of our country, and should be the essence of a USC
education. So it is very surprising to read a student editorial which argues
that anyone’s ideas should not be heard. The US Administration does not control
Congress (another sacred founding principle) and should not try to dictate who
may address Congress. The Prime Minister of Israel’s sole objective is to get
the world to understand that the present course of “negotiations” (in
quotes since Iran has given nothing in the P5 + 1 discussions, and received
billions in return) is leading to a Iran in possession of nuclear weapons.
Iranian leaders have stated that they intend to obliterate Israel, and there is
no reason to doubt them. Congress does not want to impose additional sanctions
during the current negotiations; they only want to ensure that additional
sanctions will be imposed on Iran if there is no deal. Sanctions brought Iran
to the table, and it is only the threat of additional sanctions that will
motivate them to give up their nuclear ambitions.
Open discourse and debate in the free market of ideas are founding principles of our country, and should be the essence of a USC education. So it is very surprising to read a student editorial which argues that anyone’s ideas should not be heard. The US Administration does not control Congress (another sacred founding principle) and should not try to dictate who may address Congress. The Prime Minister of Israel’s sole objective is to get the world to understand that the present course of “negotiations” (in quotes since Iran has given nothing in the P5 + 1 discussions, and received billions in return) is leading to a Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Iranian leaders have stated that they intend to obliterate Israel, and there is no reason to doubt them. Congress does not want to impose additional sanctions during the current negotiations; they only want to ensure that additional sanctions will be imposed on Iran if there is no deal. Sanctions brought Iran to the table, and it is only the threat of additional sanctions that will motivate them to give up their nuclear ambitions.
Nathaniel,
I’m constantly congratulating liberals on their being elected as spokes’tards for Islam.
Additionally Republicans are constantly bringing up the founding fathers, Maybe they should read what GW and TJ had to say; “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”: it was George Washington’s Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”
” it threatens to derail already precarious negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program”. Iran is not interested in negotiating with Obama. The leaders of Iran know they are facing a total whimp who will give them whatever they want. Obama took the missle shield away from Poland and the Czech Republic and got nothing in return from Putin. In Syria he drew red line in the sand and when push came to shove he folded his cards. When Putin occupied parts of the Crimea last year, Obama did nothing. He also did nothing when a Russian missle shot down that Malaysian airliner. He negotiated with the Castro Brothers to restore diplomatic relations and got nothing. At least when JFK negotiated with Fidel over 50 years ago he got 1,200 cuban cigars for his troubles. Obama didn’t even get one cigar and he did nothing to improve freedom for the Cuban people. Neogitiations with Iran over the nuclear weapons has hit one deadline after another and each time nothing happened. Obama is tougher on our best ally in the Middle East then he is on Iran. It isn’t Netanyahu who is the chickens__t but Obama.
With friends like Israel who needs enemy’s?
– In 1952 in the so-called Lavon Affair the Israelis were prepared to blow up a U.S. Information Center in Alexandria and blame it on the Egyptians.
– In the 1960s Israelis stole enriched uranium from a lab in Pennsylvania to build atom bombs. They also obtained nuclear triggers through a spying operation run by Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan that included current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
– In 1967, the Israelis attacked and nearly sank the American vessel USS Liberty in international waters, killing 34 crewmen. President Lyndon Johnson subsequently blocked an investigation into what had occurred, a cover-up that has persisted to this day.
– In 1987, Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in the history of the United States, was convicted of carrying out espionage for Israel. He is up for parole next year.
– And Israel gets away with literally and directly killing individual American citizens in the cases of Rachel Corrie in 2003 and Furkan Dogan of the Mavi Marmara in 2010.
“Israelophobia,” on the other hand, is steeped in centuries of
anti-Semitic stereotypes, but it has now taken on an intense life of its own, often rich in contemporary fabrications — for example, that historically Jews have never lived in Jerusalem; that IDF soldiers harvest the organs of Palestinians; that the “wall of separation,” built to keep out terrorists, is a form of apartheid — and through these falsehoods gushes forth a hatred for Jews. Israelophobia is a block of hatred crystallized around a piece of land, around an idea. Anti-Zionism today, from Malmö to Qom, arises and multiplies entirely from prejudice against Israel: many of its most vicious critics have never even set foot in the state.
These attacks on Israel are all too often made up of devastating classical anti-Semitic projections, lies and distortions to delegitimize Israel — the blood libel that Jews kill non-Jewish children to use their blood to bake matzah; bottomless greed; indifference, and savage cruelty toward anyone who is not Jewish. Even legitimate geopolitical decisions — such as the right to self-defense, or not being expected to hold territory in perpetuity until such time as one’s sworn enemies might perhaps decide not to threaten annihilation, with no cost for the delay; or ignoring other countries accused of “occupation,” such as Turkey in Cyprus, Pakistan in Kashmir or China in Tibet, while singling out only Israel for opprobrium. These accusations are often translated not just into judgments against Israel, but then go viral against any Jew.