Nuke residue?? You are truly insane.
SB posting articles, my posting articles, you posting articles are all the same. Either all spamming or none spamming, Tout idiot. The subject of the article doesn't make some spam, some not. Only in your insane, no room for differing opinion world. You have the nerve to comment on DH's IQ with posts like this????
Funny.............if they agree with an article, its a good article. If they disagree it's spam. Since they don't agree with any of mine, they are all spam. If i don't agree with theirs, I'm anti semetic. Almost every one on this board can be labeled anti-american, simply because they disagree with Obama. Whether you agree with Obama or not, his position deserves a little respect............he is still the president of the greatest country in the world. And no, I don't agree with a lot of what he does.........but he is our president and I have to live with it.
Faisal J. Abbas
Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, he is a renowned blogger and an award-winning journalist. Faisal covered the Middle East extensively working for Future Television of Lebanon and both Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat pan-Arab dailies. He blogs for The Huffington Post since 2008, and is a recipient of many media awards and a member of the British Society of Authors, National Union of Journalists, the John Adams Society as well as an associate member of the Cambridge Union Society. He can be reached on @FaisalJAbbas on Twitter.
"
[h=1]President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran[/h]Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.
The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum” during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during “challenging” times.
In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.
What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei. (Although, the latter never seems to write back!)
"
Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, he is a renowned blogger and an award-winning journalist. Faisal covered the Middle East extensively working for Future Television of Lebanon and both Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat pan-Arab dailies. He blogs for The Huffington Post since 2008, and is a recipient of many media awards and a member of the British Society of Authors, National Union of Journalists, the John Adams Society as well as an associate member of the Cambridge Union Society. He can be reached on @FaisalJAbbas on Twitter.
"
[h=1]President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran[/h]Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.
The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum” during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during “challenging” times.
In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.
What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei. (Although, the latter never seems to write back!)
"
Diana Moukalled is the Web Editor at the Lebanon-based Future Television and was the Production & Programming Manager with at the channel. Previously, she worked there as Editor in Chief, Producer and Presenter of “Bilayan al Mujaradah,” a documentary that covers hot zones in the Arab world and elsewhere, News and war correspondent and Local news correspondent. She currently writes a regular column in AlSharq AlAwsat. She also wrote for Al-Hayat Newspaper and Al-Wasat Magazine, besides producing news bulletins and documentaries for Reuters TV. She can be found on Twitter: @dianamoukalled.
Before last year, mystery, intrigue and frustration surrounded the search for any report, photograph, or fact relating to Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, a division of its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. For more than two decades Soleimani’s mission has been to export the values of Khomeini’s revolution outside Iran, a difficult and major task requiring an uncomfortable blend of religious ideology and the nasty, sometimes brutal work of a security specialist—and always, naturally for a man known to many as the “Shadow Commander,” conducted under a veil of darkness and secrecy.
But now things appear to have changed somewhat...
The usual amateur, low-quality images of Soleimani are no longer that rare, and neither are the videos of him appearing fleetingly at a public event or celebration in Iran. Since a few months, photos of Qassim Soleimani have become plentiful and available in High Definition. And the image of Soleimani smiling to the camera, exaggerating a pose, or even checking on the quality of the camera being used to snap him up, has become a regular sight for those who follow the man’s movements. In those pictures he may appear with his arm around Iranian, Iraqi or Syrian soldiers who have been fighting in Iraq or Syria. Here in Beirut in January he even visited the graves of Hezbollah fighters who died in Quneitra in Syria, with the pictures and news reports all out there in the open.
Qassem Soleimani, chief of the force which is an overseas arm of the Revolutionary Guards, reportedly pictured in Iraq.‘Yes, I am Iran’s strongman’
Soleimani is no longer that secretive personality whose role over the past two decades has lingered been between myth and reality. He is now telling us bluntly: Yes, I am Iran’s strongman who is responsible for the Iranian military's expansion in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine. And, yes, those are photographs of him on foreign soil commanding Iranian soldiers, disregarding the sovereignty of other states. And, yes, in case you are wondering, those soldiers are ready to do everything he commands.
Such images of Soleimani are transformed when seen in light of Tehran’s propagandist perspective, which now boasts unequivocally and unabashedly the Islamic Republic’s foreign exploits. A template excuse for this transformation is of course ready and available: “We are fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] and the takfirists. So these photographs and opinion pieces that sing Soleimani and his movement’s praises present him as someone capable of standing up to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Do you really think it is the international anti-ISIS coalition that has stopped the group’s advance?”
Some of Tehran’s supporters ask an incredibly lame and inane question: “Who would you prefer, Iran or ISIS?”
These are, naturally, the words of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, taken from a recent televised interview during which he mocked the Western powers and tried to ascribe any success in holding back ISIS’s advances in Syria and Iraq to Soleimani.
So, according to the Iranian account, and those of its allies, Soleimani is the only person capable of stopping ISIS. He and his group are the only ones who can truly stand up to this barbarous plague of murderers, decapitators and takfirists.
But let us try and think for a moment; what kind of strategy would Soleimani use to defeat this bloodthirsty group?
Well, in Syria Soleimani has offered his support to the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to fight groups such as ISIS—essentially fighting those who would cut off heads and burn people alive with those who would torture their own people and (also) burn them alive, though in this case using barrel bombs.
In Iraq, a country that represents great strategic importance for Tehran, Soleimani is fighting ISIS using militias and armed groups such as the Shi’ite Islamist Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq and the infamous Badr Organization. How are these militias helping in the fight against extremist groups such as ISIS exactly? A slew of reports have recently flooded in—the most prominent of which was by Human Rights Watch—accusing these groups of carrying out mass killings of prisoners (including burning people alive), as well as torching homes in the Diyala region in the country, where Iranian influence is strong.
Some of Tehran’s supporters use an incredibly lame and inane question when attempting to defend the country against its detractors here: “Who would you prefer, Iran or ISIS?” (As if those were the only two choices available and we could easily just settle for anything or anyone so long as they are “not as bad as ISIS.”)
What is even more galling here is that these selfsame people will then insist that the Badr Organization or Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq or any of these other groups Iran supports offer “less harrowing” alternatives to ISIS. Are they any less harrowing, these groups which carry out acts of mass murder and burn prisoners alive, than one whose preferred method of execution is decapitation?
The truth is that the difference between these groups vanishes as soon as you take away the camera: ISIS glorifies in wanton violence and wants you to see this; the others do it behind closed doors. As for Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq and the Badr Organization, it is Human Rights Watch that will expose them for us. Indeed, the organization’s report on these militias is a must-read, one that fully exposes Tehran’s once-mysterious Shadow Commander, dragging him out into the light for all to see.
This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on March 3, 2015.
[h=1]White House to Netanyahu: You created the crisis, you fix it[/h] [h=2]Though the administration won't say so directly, U.S. officials hint replacing Ambassador Ron Dermer is key to mending ties.[/h] By Barak Ravid | Mar. 5, 2015 | 1:20 AM
WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress is over and the applause has faded, but the crisis in relations between Israel and the United States is still on, perhaps even more so than before.
Senior U.S. officials made clear after the speech that the White House sees Netanyahu as the one who created the current crisis, and so if he is reelected, the responsibility for repairing the breach will be his.
During his address to the convention of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC on Monday, as well as during his speech to the joint session of Congress, Netanyahu tried to send signals of calm and reconciliation in U.S. President Barack Obama’s direction. Nevertheless, senior White House officials considered the attempts too little, too late. Obama’s associates seem to have identified a Netanyahu behavior pattern – first he attacks and creates a crisis, then he rolls his eyes and praises Obama publicly.
Over the past six years, there have been more than a few ups and downs in the Netanyahu-Obama relationship – tensions, crises, public recriminations and wrangling before the cameras. Senior U.S. officials say that to date, ongoing relations between the two countries continue to function despite these strains. But this time, they stressed, there was the feeling that Netanyahu was using these differences – in fact, highlighting and intensifying them – for his own political needs.
“Historians can probably find examples of times when there were similar crises in the U.S.-Israel relations in the past,” said a senior U.S. official. “In the last six years we had big differences over the peace process and on other issues, but the situation now is extremely difficult and feels more politically charged than ever before.”
The White House is following the polls in Israel, but is avoiding any attempt to influence or predict the results. Senior American officials admit that one reason is that they don’t really understand the political dynamics of the Israeli electorate. It’s safe to assume that the White House will shed no tears if Netanyahu is defeated, but the president’s advisers understand that there is at least a 50 percent chance that Netanyahu will occupy the Prime Minister’s Office during the last two years of Obama’s term as well.
Senior administration officials said the White House is not planning any retaliation against Netanyahu, nor is it considering ways to punish him if he wins the election. Nevertheless, the wounds caused by the premier’s address to Congress are far from being healed, and Netanyahu will have to make great efforts to restore good relations with the Obama administration.
“We are not the ones who created this crisis,” said a senior administration official. “President Obama has another two years in office and we wish to go back to a reality where you can work together despite the differences. The prime minister of Israel is the one who needs to find a way to fix this.”
Dermer the instigator
Although White House officials don’t say so explicitly, they seem to imply that one way to repair the relations between Netanyahu and Obama would be to replace Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. The latter is seen as an instigator who concocted Netanyahu’s Congress speech behind Obama’s back with John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.
In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu praised Dermer for standing firm and taking the heat in Washington. If Netanyahu wins the election and continues to back Dermer, the ambassador will find himself isolated in the American capital. As long as Obama is in the White House, nobody in the administration will work with him.
If Netanyahu wishes to work with the White House, he’ll have no choice but to replace his protégé Dermer, who is seen by the Obama administration as persona non grata, even if they don’t say so publicly.
“The prime minister, who is elected, is the one who decides who is the Israeli ambassador to Washington. It is clear to us that Dermer prioritized his relations with Congress over his relations with the administration,” an American official said.
Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who is close to the Obama administration, wrote in an article on Politico Magazine on Tuesday that “Dermer’s ability to function as the Israeli ambassador is now severely weakened, perhaps even fatally so.”
In acting more as Netanyahu’s personal envoy than Israel’s ambassador, Dermer “has lost touch with a large segment of Americans – including a majority of the Jewish community that votes for the Democrats. Ambassadors are an expendable lot – I know from experience – and Dermer has now outlived his usefulness as Israel’s envoy to the United States,” Kurtzer wrote.
In the days before Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, senior White House officials gave leading congress members, especially Democrats, detailed briefings about the negotiations with Iran. However, Obama’s advisers didn’t say anything about the lawmakers boycotting the speech or attending it.
“We didn’t want to create a dynamic that will make people think we want them to boycott the speech,” an official said.
The White House decided to keep a low profile and not to attribute too much importance to Netanyahu’s address. During the speech, Obama himself held a video conference with some European leaders about Ukraine. The president’s first reaction after being briefed on the speech’s content was also intended to downplay its importance.
In the last 18 months, Obama has met and spoken to Netanyahu countless times and always heard from him almost the same things about the attempt to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran, American officials say.
Obama was not convinced then, nor was he convinced after the speech to Congress. “There was no new idea or proposal in the speech that we could use in the talks with Iran,” an official said.
The White House’s main problem with Netanyahu’s speech, apart from the political tension it caused, is that it could enable the Iranians to blame the United States should the talks fail.
“If there’s no deal it’s important for us to make clear that it’s Iran’s fault,” the official said. “We don’t want it to be perceived that Congress prevented a deal. We need to negotiate until the end to try and get a deal. But if we can’t get a deal, we should let Iran be the one who says no. In this case – new sanctions will always be a possibility.”
WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress is over and the applause has faded, but the crisis in relations between Israel and the United States is still on, perhaps even more so than before.
Senior U.S. officials made clear after the speech that the White House sees Netanyahu as the one who created the current crisis, and so if he is reelected, the responsibility for repairing the breach will be his.
During his address to the convention of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC on Monday, as well as during his speech to the joint session of Congress, Netanyahu tried to send signals of calm and reconciliation in U.S. President Barack Obama’s direction. Nevertheless, senior White House officials considered the attempts too little, too late. Obama’s associates seem to have identified a Netanyahu behavior pattern – first he attacks and creates a crisis, then he rolls his eyes and praises Obama publicly.
Over the past six years, there have been more than a few ups and downs in the Netanyahu-Obama relationship – tensions, crises, public recriminations and wrangling before the cameras. Senior U.S. officials say that to date, ongoing relations between the two countries continue to function despite these strains. But this time, they stressed, there was the feeling that Netanyahu was using these differences – in fact, highlighting and intensifying them – for his own political needs.
“Historians can probably find examples of times when there were similar crises in the U.S.-Israel relations in the past,” said a senior U.S. official. “In the last six years we had big differences over the peace process and on other issues, but the situation now is extremely difficult and feels more politically charged than ever before.”
The White House is following the polls in Israel, but is avoiding any attempt to influence or predict the results. Senior American officials admit that one reason is that they don’t really understand the political dynamics of the Israeli electorate. It’s safe to assume that the White House will shed no tears if Netanyahu is defeated, but the president’s advisers understand that there is at least a 50 percent chance that Netanyahu will occupy the Prime Minister’s Office during the last two years of Obama’s term as well.
Senior administration officials said the White House is not planning any retaliation against Netanyahu, nor is it considering ways to punish him if he wins the election. Nevertheless, the wounds caused by the premier’s address to Congress are far from being healed, and Netanyahu will have to make great efforts to restore good relations with the Obama administration.
“We are not the ones who created this crisis,” said a senior administration official. “President Obama has another two years in office and we wish to go back to a reality where you can work together despite the differences. The prime minister of Israel is the one who needs to find a way to fix this.”
Dermer the instigator
Although White House officials don’t say so explicitly, they seem to imply that one way to repair the relations between Netanyahu and Obama would be to replace Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. The latter is seen as an instigator who concocted Netanyahu’s Congress speech behind Obama’s back with John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.
In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu praised Dermer for standing firm and taking the heat in Washington. If Netanyahu wins the election and continues to back Dermer, the ambassador will find himself isolated in the American capital. As long as Obama is in the White House, nobody in the administration will work with him.
If Netanyahu wishes to work with the White House, he’ll have no choice but to replace his protégé Dermer, who is seen by the Obama administration as persona non grata, even if they don’t say so publicly.
“The prime minister, who is elected, is the one who decides who is the Israeli ambassador to Washington. It is clear to us that Dermer prioritized his relations with Congress over his relations with the administration,” an American official said.
Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who is close to the Obama administration, wrote in an article on Politico Magazine on Tuesday that “Dermer’s ability to function as the Israeli ambassador is now severely weakened, perhaps even fatally so.”
In acting more as Netanyahu’s personal envoy than Israel’s ambassador, Dermer “has lost touch with a large segment of Americans – including a majority of the Jewish community that votes for the Democrats. Ambassadors are an expendable lot – I know from experience – and Dermer has now outlived his usefulness as Israel’s envoy to the United States,” Kurtzer wrote.
In the days before Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, senior White House officials gave leading congress members, especially Democrats, detailed briefings about the negotiations with Iran. However, Obama’s advisers didn’t say anything about the lawmakers boycotting the speech or attending it.
“We didn’t want to create a dynamic that will make people think we want them to boycott the speech,” an official said.
The White House decided to keep a low profile and not to attribute too much importance to Netanyahu’s address. During the speech, Obama himself held a video conference with some European leaders about Ukraine. The president’s first reaction after being briefed on the speech’s content was also intended to downplay its importance.
In the last 18 months, Obama has met and spoken to Netanyahu countless times and always heard from him almost the same things about the attempt to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran, American officials say.
Obama was not convinced then, nor was he convinced after the speech to Congress. “There was no new idea or proposal in the speech that we could use in the talks with Iran,” an official said.
The White House’s main problem with Netanyahu’s speech, apart from the political tension it caused, is that it could enable the Iranians to blame the United States should the talks fail.
“If there’s no deal it’s important for us to make clear that it’s Iran’s fault,” the official said. “We don’t want it to be perceived that Congress prevented a deal. We need to negotiate until the end to try and get a deal. But if we can’t get a deal, we should let Iran be the one who says no. In this case – new sanctions will always be a possibility.”
[h=1]The wound Netanyahu left[/h]By E.J. Dionne Jr. Opinion writer March 4 at 7:27 PM
It was disconcerting to watch Congress cheer wildly as a foreign leader, the prime minister of one of the United States’ closest allies, trashed an American president’s foreign policy. It was equally strange that the speaker of our House of Representatives interjected the U.S. Congress into an Israeli political campaign.
It fell to Isaac Herzog, Benjamin Netanyahu’s leading opponent in Israel’s March 17 election, to make the essential point: that Tuesday’s speech was “a very harsh wound to Israel-U.S. relations” and “will only widen the rift with Israel’s greatest ally and strategic partner.”
The rapturous greeting that Congress bestowed on Netanyahu for his attack on President Obama’s approach to negotiations with Iran no doubt created great footage for television ads back home and won him some votes at the right end of Israel’s electorate.
But Herzog’s observation stands: John Boehner’s unprecedented act of inviting the leader of another nation to criticize our president, and Netanyahu’s decision to accept, threaten to damage the bipartisan and transideological coalition that has always come together on behalf of Israel’s survival.
Netanyahu may have spoken the words, “We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” but the rest of his speech painted the president as foolish and on the verge of being duped on a nuclear deal by the mullahs in Tehran.
The Israeli leader reached for the most devastating metaphor available to him, the appeasement of the Nazis that led to the Holocaust. He urged the United States “not to sacrifice the future for the present” and “not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.” This is what he was accusing Obama of doing. No wonder House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) described herself as “near tears” over Netanyahu’s “condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”
Pelosi was on to something here, because the differences between Obama and Netanyahu are not over whether the Iranian regime in its current form is trustworthy. Nobody believes it is. At stake is a balance of risks, a choice between two imperfect outcomes.
On one side is a deal that would buy at least a decade in which Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon and would be subjected to inspections and other limitations. On the other side is a decision to blow up the current negotiations because the guarantees of any likely accord would not be sufficiently airtight.
Yes, the emerging deal does carry the risk that down the road Iran could get nuclear weapons. But failing to reach an agreement will not necessarily stop Tehran from going nuclear, and an end to negotiations would in no way ensure that the rest of the world would return to effective sanctions. Netanyahu’s rhetoric pointed toward his real goal, which is regime change, but how exactly could that happen without armed conflict?
Netanyahu evaded this by offering a thoroughly rosy scenario. “Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,” he said. “They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.” Really? If the Iranian regime is as horrible as Netanyahu says it is, why does he expect its leaders to be as flexible as if they were haggling over the price of a carpet?
The crux of the difference between Obama and Netanyahu is about a bet on the future. The Israeli prime minister argued that “the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.” He added, “I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal.”
Obama’s bet, by contrast, is that a deal opening up space and time would provide the best chance of encouraging political evolution in Iran. Of course there is no guarantee of this, but it’s a reasonable assumption that ending the negotiations would set back the forces of change.
Skeptics of an agreement, Netanyahu included, can usefully push Obama to get the longest timeline and the toughest guarantees he can, and U.S. negotiators can try to use the threat of opposition in Congress to strengthen the final terms.
But Netanyahu never gave a satisfactory answer to the most important question: What is the alternative? As for Netanyahu’s provocative and divisive intervention in U.S. politics and Boehner’s meddling in Israel’s election, the voters of our friend and ally will render a judgment soon.
It was disconcerting to watch Congress cheer wildly as a foreign leader, the prime minister of one of the United States’ closest allies, trashed an American president’s foreign policy. It was equally strange that the speaker of our House of Representatives interjected the U.S. Congress into an Israeli political campaign.
It fell to Isaac Herzog, Benjamin Netanyahu’s leading opponent in Israel’s March 17 election, to make the essential point: that Tuesday’s speech was “a very harsh wound to Israel-U.S. relations” and “will only widen the rift with Israel’s greatest ally and strategic partner.”
The rapturous greeting that Congress bestowed on Netanyahu for his attack on President Obama’s approach to negotiations with Iran no doubt created great footage for television ads back home and won him some votes at the right end of Israel’s electorate.
But Herzog’s observation stands: John Boehner’s unprecedented act of inviting the leader of another nation to criticize our president, and Netanyahu’s decision to accept, threaten to damage the bipartisan and transideological coalition that has always come together on behalf of Israel’s survival.
Netanyahu may have spoken the words, “We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel,” but the rest of his speech painted the president as foolish and on the verge of being duped on a nuclear deal by the mullahs in Tehran.
The Israeli leader reached for the most devastating metaphor available to him, the appeasement of the Nazis that led to the Holocaust. He urged the United States “not to sacrifice the future for the present” and “not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.” This is what he was accusing Obama of doing. No wonder House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) described herself as “near tears” over Netanyahu’s “condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”
Pelosi was on to something here, because the differences between Obama and Netanyahu are not over whether the Iranian regime in its current form is trustworthy. Nobody believes it is. At stake is a balance of risks, a choice between two imperfect outcomes.
On one side is a deal that would buy at least a decade in which Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon and would be subjected to inspections and other limitations. On the other side is a decision to blow up the current negotiations because the guarantees of any likely accord would not be sufficiently airtight.
Yes, the emerging deal does carry the risk that down the road Iran could get nuclear weapons. But failing to reach an agreement will not necessarily stop Tehran from going nuclear, and an end to negotiations would in no way ensure that the rest of the world would return to effective sanctions. Netanyahu’s rhetoric pointed toward his real goal, which is regime change, but how exactly could that happen without armed conflict?
Netanyahu evaded this by offering a thoroughly rosy scenario. “Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,” he said. “They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.” Really? If the Iranian regime is as horrible as Netanyahu says it is, why does he expect its leaders to be as flexible as if they were haggling over the price of a carpet?
The crux of the difference between Obama and Netanyahu is about a bet on the future. The Israeli prime minister argued that “the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.” He added, “I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal.”
Obama’s bet, by contrast, is that a deal opening up space and time would provide the best chance of encouraging political evolution in Iran. Of course there is no guarantee of this, but it’s a reasonable assumption that ending the negotiations would set back the forces of change.
Skeptics of an agreement, Netanyahu included, can usefully push Obama to get the longest timeline and the toughest guarantees he can, and U.S. negotiators can try to use the threat of opposition in Congress to strengthen the final terms.
But Netanyahu never gave a satisfactory answer to the most important question: What is the alternative? As for Netanyahu’s provocative and divisive intervention in U.S. politics and Boehner’s meddling in Israel’s election, the voters of our friend and ally will render a judgment soon.
[h=1]Netanyahu blew it: How he misunderstood Congress & inadvertently ruined his own goals[/h] [h=2]Before Netanyahu's speech was announced, Congress was willing to thwart Obama's plans. Afterwards? Not so much[/h] Jim Newell
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had two goals for his address to Congress. The first was to boost his chances for reelection in a couple of weeks by showing off his sway abroad. I am not enough of an expert in Israeli politics to know if this will work on net, but the controversy that it sparked might cut against whatever gains it made. The second goal, however, was to lobby Congress to use its power to sabotage a nuclear deal with Iran. On this count, he’s failed, because he critically misunderstands how American politics works.
If Netanyahu hadn’t thrown himself into the situation — perhaps that was impossible for him, given his ego — he might have gotten his desired results out of Congress. Had Netanyahu not gone so out of his way to attack the Obama administration, Congress may not have reverted to the partisan posture on two Iran-related bills that had looked like they had a decent chance of making their way into law.
Israel has a lot of friends in Congress. Have you heard? There are many, many Democrats willing to do exactly what Israel wants at any time. Perhaps the only way that Israel can screw this up is to launch a direct, overt assault on the head of the Democratic party. Israel’s hold on Congress is not so strong that Democratic members will choose Israel over their own president.
And that’s what Netanyahu has made them do: rush to the defense of President Obama, even if they had been willing to diverge from his foreign policy approach.
This first came up shortly after the speech was announced, when the Senate was on the cusp of pushing through a new round of sanctions against Iran. Despite President Obama sharp warnings that this would derail negotiations with Iran at a critical juncture, about a dozen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Bob Menendez, were moving ahead anyway.
But as soon as Netanyahu accepted Boehner’s invitation to speak, acknowledging quite openly his goal to persuade a veto-proof majority of lawmakers to vote in favor of the sanctions bill and thereby disrupt negotiations, he thwarted his own objective. Democrats who had been sitting on the fence opted to give the administration more time before bringing up the bill. They signed a a joint letter to the White House promising not to vote for a sanctions bill before March 24, the deadline for P5+1 negotiators to reach a preliminary framework on a deal with the Iranian foreign minister.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had two goals for his address to Congress. The first was to boost his chances for reelection in a couple of weeks by showing off his sway abroad. I am not enough of an expert in Israeli politics to know if this will work on net, but the controversy that it sparked might cut against whatever gains it made. The second goal, however, was to lobby Congress to use its power to sabotage a nuclear deal with Iran. On this count, he’s failed, because he critically misunderstands how American politics works.
If Netanyahu hadn’t thrown himself into the situation — perhaps that was impossible for him, given his ego — he might have gotten his desired results out of Congress. Had Netanyahu not gone so out of his way to attack the Obama administration, Congress may not have reverted to the partisan posture on two Iran-related bills that had looked like they had a decent chance of making their way into law.
Israel has a lot of friends in Congress. Have you heard? There are many, many Democrats willing to do exactly what Israel wants at any time. Perhaps the only way that Israel can screw this up is to launch a direct, overt assault on the head of the Democratic party. Israel’s hold on Congress is not so strong that Democratic members will choose Israel over their own president.
And that’s what Netanyahu has made them do: rush to the defense of President Obama, even if they had been willing to diverge from his foreign policy approach.
This first came up shortly after the speech was announced, when the Senate was on the cusp of pushing through a new round of sanctions against Iran. Despite President Obama sharp warnings that this would derail negotiations with Iran at a critical juncture, about a dozen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Bob Menendez, were moving ahead anyway.
But as soon as Netanyahu accepted Boehner’s invitation to speak, acknowledging quite openly his goal to persuade a veto-proof majority of lawmakers to vote in favor of the sanctions bill and thereby disrupt negotiations, he thwarted his own objective. Democrats who had been sitting on the fence opted to give the administration more time before bringing up the bill. They signed a a joint letter to the White House promising not to vote for a sanctions bill before March 24, the deadline for P5+1 negotiators to reach a preliminary framework on a deal with the Iranian foreign minister.
Faisal J. Abbas
Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, he is a renowned blogger and an award-winning journalist. Faisal covered the Middle East extensively working for Future Television of Lebanon and both Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat pan-Arab dailies. He blogs for The Huffington Post since 2008, and is a recipient of many media awards and a member of the British Society of Authors, National Union of Journalists, the John Adams Society as well as an associate member of the Cambridge Union Society. He can be reached on @FaisalJAbbas on Twitter.
"
President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
"
Threat bigger than nuclear ambitions
Just to be clear, nobody disagrees that ridding Iran of its nuclear ambitions is paramount. And if this can be achieved peacefully, then it would be even better. However, any reasonable man CAN’T possibly turn a blind eye to the other realities on the ground.
Indeed, it is Mr. Obama’s controversial take on managing global conflicts that raises serious questions. A case in point is his handling of the Syrian crisis, where according to his own philosophical views, Obama probably takes pride that he managed to rid the Assad regime of its chemical weapons arsenal without firing a single bullet.
As such, the real Iranian threat is not JUST the regime’s nuclear ambitions, but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing.
What is noteworthy, is that whilst in the past Tehran plotted and implemented most of its terror activities in secret (apart from a few obvious examples such as the 1983 Beirut attack on U.S. Marines); the Islamic Republic seems so at ease today that, as noted by renowned media columnist Diana Moukalled recently, it went public with documenting the appearances of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force.
"
Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, he is a renowned blogger and an award-winning journalist. Faisal covered the Middle East extensively working for Future Television of Lebanon and both Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat pan-Arab dailies. He blogs for The Huffington Post since 2008, and is a recipient of many media awards and a member of the British Society of Authors, National Union of Journalists, the John Adams Society as well as an associate member of the Cambridge Union Society. He can be reached on @FaisalJAbbas on Twitter.
"
President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
"
Threat bigger than nuclear ambitions
Just to be clear, nobody disagrees that ridding Iran of its nuclear ambitions is paramount. And if this can be achieved peacefully, then it would be even better. However, any reasonable man CAN’T possibly turn a blind eye to the other realities on the ground.
Indeed, it is Mr. Obama’s controversial take on managing global conflicts that raises serious questions. A case in point is his handling of the Syrian crisis, where according to his own philosophical views, Obama probably takes pride that he managed to rid the Assad regime of its chemical weapons arsenal without firing a single bullet.
In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region
Of course, in theory, this could be quite an achievement (which only another war philosopher, such as Sun Tzu, would applaud); but in reality, the problem with what happened is that the REAL issue hasn’t been resolved; as such, the Syrian regime continues – until this day – to slaughter their own people (albeit, using conventional weapons, you know… your everyday bullets, missiles and barrel bombs!)
As such, the real Iranian threat is not JUST the regime’s nuclear ambitions, but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing.
What is noteworthy, is that whilst in the past Tehran plotted and implemented most of its terror activities in secret (apart from a few obvious examples such as the 1983 Beirut attack on U.S. Marines); the Islamic Republic seems so at ease today that, as noted by renowned media columnist Diana Moukalled recently, it went public with documenting the appearances of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force.
"
[h=1]Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress[/h] By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 3, 2015
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for a more rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and most Democrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives to thunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conquering hero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to the lectern.
Even Washington doesn’t often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama’s foreign policy.
Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.
His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.
Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction.
Mr. Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would not force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave it with the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not long enough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness of international inspections to deter Iran from cheating.
While an agreement would not abolish the nuclear program, which Iran says it needs for power generation and medical purposes, neither would walking away. Even repeated bombing of Iran’s nuclear plants would not eliminate its capability because Iran and its scientists have acquired the nuclear know-how over the past six decades to rebuild the program in a couple of years.
The one approach that might constrain Iran is tough negotiations, which the United States and its partners Britain, France, China, Germany and Russia have rightly committed to. If an agreement comes together, it would establish verifiable limits on the nuclear program that do not now exist and ensure that Iran could not quickly produce enough weapons-usable material for a bomb. The major benefit for Iran is that it would gradually be freed of many of the onerous international sanctions that have helped cripple its economy.
While no Iranian facilities are expected to be dismantled, critical installations are expected to be reconfigured so they are less of a threat and the centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium would be reduced. Iran would be barred from enriching uranium above 5 percent, the level needed for power generation and medical uses but not sufficient for producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Absent a negotiated agreement, Iran will continue with its program without constraints.
Mr. Netanyahu also denounced Iran’s Islamic regime and the danger it poses to Israel and to regional stability through its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Shiite militias in Baghdad, rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran’s behavior is often threatening and reprehensible, and that is precisely why Mr. Obama has invested so much energy in trying to find a negotiated solution. But a major reason for Iran’s growing regional role is the American-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Mr. Netanyahu supported, although he was not prime minister at the time. Even after a nuclear agreement is signed, some sanctions connected to Iran’s missile and nuclear programs will remain in place.
Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.
The response in Congress suggested considerable opposition to a nuclear deal. But a new poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development shows that a clear majority of Americans — including 61 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats — favor an agreement.
Congress must not forget that its responsibility is to make choices that advance American security interests, and that would include a strict and achievable agreement with Iran. If it sabotages the deal as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, it would bear the blame.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for a more rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and most Democrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives to thunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conquering hero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to the lectern.
Even Washington doesn’t often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama’s foreign policy.
Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.
His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.
Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction.
Mr. Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would not force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave it with the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not long enough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness of international inspections to deter Iran from cheating.
While an agreement would not abolish the nuclear program, which Iran says it needs for power generation and medical purposes, neither would walking away. Even repeated bombing of Iran’s nuclear plants would not eliminate its capability because Iran and its scientists have acquired the nuclear know-how over the past six decades to rebuild the program in a couple of years.
The one approach that might constrain Iran is tough negotiations, which the United States and its partners Britain, France, China, Germany and Russia have rightly committed to. If an agreement comes together, it would establish verifiable limits on the nuclear program that do not now exist and ensure that Iran could not quickly produce enough weapons-usable material for a bomb. The major benefit for Iran is that it would gradually be freed of many of the onerous international sanctions that have helped cripple its economy.
While no Iranian facilities are expected to be dismantled, critical installations are expected to be reconfigured so they are less of a threat and the centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium would be reduced. Iran would be barred from enriching uranium above 5 percent, the level needed for power generation and medical uses but not sufficient for producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Absent a negotiated agreement, Iran will continue with its program without constraints.
Mr. Netanyahu also denounced Iran’s Islamic regime and the danger it poses to Israel and to regional stability through its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Shiite militias in Baghdad, rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Iran’s behavior is often threatening and reprehensible, and that is precisely why Mr. Obama has invested so much energy in trying to find a negotiated solution. But a major reason for Iran’s growing regional role is the American-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Mr. Netanyahu supported, although he was not prime minister at the time. Even after a nuclear agreement is signed, some sanctions connected to Iran’s missile and nuclear programs will remain in place.
Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.
The response in Congress suggested considerable opposition to a nuclear deal. But a new poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development shows that a clear majority of Americans — including 61 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats — favor an agreement.
Congress must not forget that its responsibility is to make choices that advance American security interests, and that would include a strict and achievable agreement with Iran. If it sabotages the deal as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, it would bear the blame.
This is parody, but it's spot on, as The Onion Often is: http://www.theonion.com/articles/netanyahu-assures-critics-he-still-has-utmost-resp,38128/
Netanyahu Assures Critics He Still Has Utmost Respect For U.S. Money
Mar 2, 2015
Netanyahu Assures Critics He Still Has Utmost Respect For U.S. Money
Mar 2, 2015
- WASHINGTON—In a concerted effort to ease growing tensions between the two nations, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his critics Monday that he still has the utmost respect for U.S. money. “Relations between our two countries have at times been strained, but I promise you all that the entire Israeli government, myself included, still holds a high opinion of the United States’ cash,” said Netanyahu, emphasizing that his speech to Congress was not intended to show any disrespect for American funding whatsoever. “I appreciate everything U.S. money has done for Israel. Though we come at this issue from different perspectives, I have no doubt that we can overcome this disagreement and maintain positive relations between Israel and U.S. economic aid, as we always have.” Netanyahu added that he also maintained great respect for the U.S. military’s weapons.
Netanyahu tapped for guest role in fourth season of 'House of Cards'
Director says Israeli prime minister is 'natural choice' to play Republican challenger to President Underwood.
By Eddie Torial Mar. 5, 2015 | 8:43 AM
Prime Mininister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to a joint session of both houses of the U.S. Congress was, Haaretz can reveal here exclusively, more than an opportunity to warn American lawmakers about the dangers of a "bad deal" over the Iranian nuclear program.
According to sources close to Netflix, the Israeli prime minister was actually auditioning for a role in the fourth season of the hit TV show 'House of Cards.'
According to the show's producers, Netanyahu will play the Republican presidential challenger to President Francis Underwood, the Machiavellian lead character played by Kevin Spacey.
Although the script for the fourth season of the show has not yet been written – the third season was released on Netflix earlier this month – it is believed that Netanyahu's character will be based on an amalgam between Mitt Romney, who unsuccessfully challenged President Barack Obama in 2012, and Martin Van Buren.
James Foley, who directed several episodes of the show, told Haaretz that he first contacted Netanyahu's agent after seeing the Israeli prime minister address the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2013.
"The moment I saw him on that stage," Foley said, "I knew I wanted him in my show. The way he managed to speak for half an hour without cracking up was incredible. He's a born actor."
Netanyahu reportedly turned down an offer of a similar guest star role in 'Game of Thrones,' telling producers that, "It's just too close to reality."
Netanyahu would not be the first Israeli leader to cross over into the world of entertainment. David Ben-Gurion famously appeared on the 1965 cover of GQ and Shimon Peres has made cameo appearances in every James Bond movie since 'The Man with the Golden Gun.'
The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on this article, saying it is clearly a Purim spoof.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/1.645323?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Director says Israeli prime minister is 'natural choice' to play Republican challenger to President Underwood.
By Eddie Torial Mar. 5, 2015 | 8:43 AM
According to sources close to Netflix, the Israeli prime minister was actually auditioning for a role in the fourth season of the hit TV show 'House of Cards.'
According to the show's producers, Netanyahu will play the Republican presidential challenger to President Francis Underwood, the Machiavellian lead character played by Kevin Spacey.
Although the script for the fourth season of the show has not yet been written – the third season was released on Netflix earlier this month – it is believed that Netanyahu's character will be based on an amalgam between Mitt Romney, who unsuccessfully challenged President Barack Obama in 2012, and Martin Van Buren.
James Foley, who directed several episodes of the show, told Haaretz that he first contacted Netanyahu's agent after seeing the Israeli prime minister address the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2013.
"The moment I saw him on that stage," Foley said, "I knew I wanted him in my show. The way he managed to speak for half an hour without cracking up was incredible. He's a born actor."
Netanyahu reportedly turned down an offer of a similar guest star role in 'Game of Thrones,' telling producers that, "It's just too close to reality."
Netanyahu would not be the first Israeli leader to cross over into the world of entertainment. David Ben-Gurion famously appeared on the 1965 cover of GQ and Shimon Peres has made cameo appearances in every James Bond movie since 'The Man with the Golden Gun.'
The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on this article, saying it is clearly a Purim spoof.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/1.645323?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
[h=1]Labor MK: Netanyahu is playing with fire in the U.S. and leaving scorched earth behind him[/h] [h=2]Venture capitalist Erel Margalit decries the PM’s bleak address to Congress and his talk of a Gog and Magog war with Iran.[/h] By Chemi Shalev 01:51 05.03.15
0
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a dark and stark address to Congress that played to people’s primeval fears and celebrated them – this is the bleak review of Labor MK Erel Margalit who took part in this week’s annual AIPAC Conference in Washington DC.
Margalit defines the current state of U.S.-Israeli relations as nothing less than "catastrophic." He claims that the deterioration at the top between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama is causing "serious damage" to Israeli security and is being felt in many other areas of the relationship - including some that he is dealing with as head of a Parliamentary Task Force on Development of the Negev and the North.
“I'm sitting with American administration and former administration officials on all sorts of regulations that are needed to enable American cyber companies to take certain projects and to operate in the park we set up in Beer Sheva. This could bring work to 30,000 Israelis. I know it's possible, but you need approval from the administration because there are projects that they are afraid of taking out of America,” Margalit says.
“But in our talks this week,” he adds, “the atmosphere was very difficult, and this is an issue that has no connection to politics. ‘There is a lot of tension in the air,’ we were told. ‘This is not the time for testing new things.’”
Margalit, considered by many to be Israel’s top venture capitalist, says “Israel and the U.S. do a lot of things together but right now there is no trust and no confidence for the kind of joint consultation and behind the scenes dialogue that’s really needed. We stand outside the American circle and outside the circle of world leaders, not only on Iran but on many other issues as well.”
Margalit believes that Netanyahu insulted American lawmakers in his speech. “I think what happened to [Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi happened to a lot of people in Congress on Tuesday,” Margalit said. “Israel has been working with the Americans for many years on security challenges in the Middle East, on Iran, on Hezbollah, on Yemen, on Syria, and yet there was this subtext of 'let me tell you something you’re not aware of' which was, as Pelosi said, an insult to the intelligence. It's okay to talk like that to the general public, which may not know as much, but there was a condescending element when you're talking to people who sit on all the relevant committees and who have been talking to Israelis on these matters for many years.”
Margalit faults Netanyahu for failing to present constructive proposals on Iran in particular and on the Middle East in general. “There was no effort to find a common denominator for the continuation of the nuclear talks and there was no alternative vision to a nuclear Iran in a nuclear Middle East. Why didn’t he mention the new atmosphere in the Middle East, the fact that other countries are fighting extremist groups? After all, Egypt is fighting Al-Qaeda and Jordan is fighting ISIS, and the Gulf countries and Morocco and others are fighting extremist elements – that doesn’t mean anything?”
“Why wasn’t there any ray of light in his speech to AIPAC? And why not a word about the Palestinians, if not an actual solution then at least a presentation of an Israeli leader with a vision? Why present yourself only as someone preparing himself for a war of Gog and Magog with the Iranian arch enemy?”
Margalit was less impressed than others with the warm reception accorded Netanyahu in Congress. “Israel is very popular in Congress, and Netanyahu is a good speaker and is very knowledgeable about American politics, and the pro-Israel lobby, which was in town, has a lot of influence; any prime minister from Israel would be received with pats on the back and applause.”
“But I also saw coolness from many of the benches, both Democrats and Republicans. I saw people who could hardly believe their ears, with a look on their face that said – why are you being so patronizing?
"It’s okay to bring Elie Wiesel,” Margalit says, referring to the tribute Netanyahu paid in Congress to the author and Holocaust survivor – but there was someone else that you should've pointed to: Sheldon Adelson. He was sitting there. Maybe he was the one responsible for all of this event more than anyone else.”
Netanyahu intervened in internal American politics and left “scorched earth” behind him, Margalit adds. “Instead of uniting the Republicans and the Democrats on the Israeli issue you tore them apart. You humiliated the president. You did all sort of things that are none of our business – and this when it’s clear to everyone that you are playing on your own Israeli political field.
“I met with about 30 congressmen and had closed meetings with all sorts of people, some of whom I'm working on with on all sorts of projects, as well as past and present administration people, and the most amazing thing was people asking me whether this relationship was the worst between a president and an Israeli prime minister since 1948. It was a very telling question.
“This challenge to the U.S. president and the office of the presidency is unacceptable and inconceivable for loyal Jewish Americans, even if they are loyal to Israel as well. Netanyahu is playing with fire. It’s as if, knowing he is going to lose in the elections, he is now behaving like the biblical Samson who cried, 'Let me die with the Philistines.'
“What's missing in America,” Margalit says, reverting to unabashed campaign mode, “is an alternative voice of a central Israeli leadership that doesn't take things to the right-wing extreme. We can’t be perceived as being manipulative. What our dialogue with the U.S. needs is a shot of modesty; we should be talking to the U.S. like a senior partner, not like one you’re trying to attack. We have to rebuild the goodwill that we lost, not only with America but with European countries as well. And we need to talk to the entire Jewish community, not just to one part of it. It’s critical to the Jewish people, and it’s critical for Israeli security.”
But to do all that, of course, they first have to win the elections on March 17.
| |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a dark and stark address to Congress that played to people’s primeval fears and celebrated them – this is the bleak review of Labor MK Erel Margalit who took part in this week’s annual AIPAC Conference in Washington DC.
Margalit defines the current state of U.S.-Israeli relations as nothing less than "catastrophic." He claims that the deterioration at the top between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama is causing "serious damage" to Israeli security and is being felt in many other areas of the relationship - including some that he is dealing with as head of a Parliamentary Task Force on Development of the Negev and the North.
“I'm sitting with American administration and former administration officials on all sorts of regulations that are needed to enable American cyber companies to take certain projects and to operate in the park we set up in Beer Sheva. This could bring work to 30,000 Israelis. I know it's possible, but you need approval from the administration because there are projects that they are afraid of taking out of America,” Margalit says.
“But in our talks this week,” he adds, “the atmosphere was very difficult, and this is an issue that has no connection to politics. ‘There is a lot of tension in the air,’ we were told. ‘This is not the time for testing new things.’”
Margalit, considered by many to be Israel’s top venture capitalist, says “Israel and the U.S. do a lot of things together but right now there is no trust and no confidence for the kind of joint consultation and behind the scenes dialogue that’s really needed. We stand outside the American circle and outside the circle of world leaders, not only on Iran but on many other issues as well.”
Margalit believes that Netanyahu insulted American lawmakers in his speech. “I think what happened to [Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi happened to a lot of people in Congress on Tuesday,” Margalit said. “Israel has been working with the Americans for many years on security challenges in the Middle East, on Iran, on Hezbollah, on Yemen, on Syria, and yet there was this subtext of 'let me tell you something you’re not aware of' which was, as Pelosi said, an insult to the intelligence. It's okay to talk like that to the general public, which may not know as much, but there was a condescending element when you're talking to people who sit on all the relevant committees and who have been talking to Israelis on these matters for many years.”
Margalit faults Netanyahu for failing to present constructive proposals on Iran in particular and on the Middle East in general. “There was no effort to find a common denominator for the continuation of the nuclear talks and there was no alternative vision to a nuclear Iran in a nuclear Middle East. Why didn’t he mention the new atmosphere in the Middle East, the fact that other countries are fighting extremist groups? After all, Egypt is fighting Al-Qaeda and Jordan is fighting ISIS, and the Gulf countries and Morocco and others are fighting extremist elements – that doesn’t mean anything?”
“Why wasn’t there any ray of light in his speech to AIPAC? And why not a word about the Palestinians, if not an actual solution then at least a presentation of an Israeli leader with a vision? Why present yourself only as someone preparing himself for a war of Gog and Magog with the Iranian arch enemy?”
Margalit was less impressed than others with the warm reception accorded Netanyahu in Congress. “Israel is very popular in Congress, and Netanyahu is a good speaker and is very knowledgeable about American politics, and the pro-Israel lobby, which was in town, has a lot of influence; any prime minister from Israel would be received with pats on the back and applause.”
“But I also saw coolness from many of the benches, both Democrats and Republicans. I saw people who could hardly believe their ears, with a look on their face that said – why are you being so patronizing?
"It’s okay to bring Elie Wiesel,” Margalit says, referring to the tribute Netanyahu paid in Congress to the author and Holocaust survivor – but there was someone else that you should've pointed to: Sheldon Adelson. He was sitting there. Maybe he was the one responsible for all of this event more than anyone else.”
Netanyahu intervened in internal American politics and left “scorched earth” behind him, Margalit adds. “Instead of uniting the Republicans and the Democrats on the Israeli issue you tore them apart. You humiliated the president. You did all sort of things that are none of our business – and this when it’s clear to everyone that you are playing on your own Israeli political field.
“I met with about 30 congressmen and had closed meetings with all sorts of people, some of whom I'm working on with on all sorts of projects, as well as past and present administration people, and the most amazing thing was people asking me whether this relationship was the worst between a president and an Israeli prime minister since 1948. It was a very telling question.
“This challenge to the U.S. president and the office of the presidency is unacceptable and inconceivable for loyal Jewish Americans, even if they are loyal to Israel as well. Netanyahu is playing with fire. It’s as if, knowing he is going to lose in the elections, he is now behaving like the biblical Samson who cried, 'Let me die with the Philistines.'
“What's missing in America,” Margalit says, reverting to unabashed campaign mode, “is an alternative voice of a central Israeli leadership that doesn't take things to the right-wing extreme. We can’t be perceived as being manipulative. What our dialogue with the U.S. needs is a shot of modesty; we should be talking to the U.S. like a senior partner, not like one you’re trying to attack. We have to rebuild the goodwill that we lost, not only with America but with European countries as well. And we need to talk to the entire Jewish community, not just to one part of it. It’s critical to the Jewish people, and it’s critical for Israeli security.”
But to do all that, of course, they first have to win the elections on March 17.
