Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm

[Lite Beer]

Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm
By CHARLES BABINGTON

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Israeli prime minister's upcoming speech to Congress without President Barack Obama's blessing has angered Democratic lawmakers, but they see little remedy except to hope for minimal damage to their party and to U.S.-Israel relations.

Democrats simmered in frustration last week as they faced a thankless choice between defending their president and defending the Jewish state they consider a crucial ally.

Some gleeful Republicans predicted Democrats' complaints about Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 speech will drive Jewish voters to the GOP. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Democrats are making a "catastrophic mistake" by protesting Netanyahu's plans.

"Traditionally, supporters of Israel have been really even-handed in supporting candidates of both parties," Wilson said, but now "Democrats are slapping the friends of Israel in the face."

Democrats reject such talk, saying Republicans have repeatedly overstated their appeal to Jewish voters. Obama got 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008, and 69 percent in 2012, according to exit polls. Congressional Democrats won two-thirds of Jewish votes in last fall's midterm elections, an especially bad year for their party.

Republicans want to portray Democrats as less supportive of Israel, "but no matter how much they try, they can't move Jewish voters on this issue," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal pro-Israel group J Street.

House Democrats say Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, showed disrespect to the president — and perhaps cynical political goals — when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted.

Many Democrats object for three reasons: The invitation rebukes Obama; the speech, scheduled three weeks before Israel's elections, might be designed to boost Netanyahu's re-election hopes; and Netanyahu is certain to back new sanctions on Iran that the administration and Western powers argue could scuttle sensitive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

The speech comes three weeks before the deadline for the U.S. and its international partners to reach a framework nuclear agreement with Iran, one that could provide an outline for a more comprehensive deal to be finalized by late June.

Netanyahu says an accord could make it easier for Iran eventually to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Obama says he will reject any deal that doesn't safeguard Israel and other countries.

Nonetheless, some congressional Democrats want tougher sanctions against Iran. But they weren't pleased by Netanyahu's acceptance of Boehner's invitation. Soon after its announcement, several Democratic senators postponed their push for new sanctions against Iran, giving Obama and the negotiators more time.

Obama's chief concern about the break in protocol, his spokesman Josh Earnest said, "is to ensure that the strong relationship between the United States and Israel is protected from partisan politics."

In the House, some Democrats say they won't attend Netanyahu's address. The way it was scheduled was "an affront to the president and the State Department," said Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina called Boehner's actions unprecedented, and said Netanyahu has "politicized" his U.S. visit.

The speaker of the House and the vice president traditionally sit behind the featured guest during a congressional address. But the White House said Friday that Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling abroad that day.

Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York, Congress' only Jewish Republican, said if lawmakers boycott Netanyahu's speech, "it's a horrendous, irresponsible message to send to Israel." He called Israel "a free, democratic society thriving in an area of the world where radical Islamic extremism is growing most rapidly."

Zeldin predicted many more Jewish voters will embrace Republicans because of Obama's policies regarding Israel.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, another critic of the speech's arrangements, says she will attend. Lawmakers often skip such addresses for different reasons, she said, so even if some seats are empty, "don't even think in terms of the word 'boycott.' Members will go or they won't go, as they usually go or don't go."

Pelosi and other top Democrats have hinted they want Netanyahu to postpone his speech until after Israel's elections, and/or hold it somewhere other than Congress.

Conservatives see little incentive to do that. Boehner is happy to have Democrats grouse while Israel's leader addresses a Republican-run Congress, they say. And Netanyahu probably benefits politically by speaking to Congress and criticizing Iran.

Obama and Netanyahu have clashed repeatedly over the years, even though both say a close U.S.-Israel alliance is essential. Only days ago, the White House again criticized Israel's policy of building Jewish settlements on West Bank and East Jerusalem areas that Palestinians claim.

Obama says a Mideast peace deal must include a Palestinian state based on territory Israel captured in 1967, with "mutually agreed upon swaps" to ensure Israel's security. Netanyahu rejects a return to those borders, and the Jewish settlements complicate efforts to divide territory.

Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu during his U.S. trip.

Numerous U.S. activists and lawmakers predict the quarrel over the March 3 speech will die down soon. There's no need "to pile on," even though the speech's arrangement was a mistake that triggered "a lot of blowback, both in Israel and here," said Democratic Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont.

Josh Block of the Israel Project said Israel remains broadly popular in America, and "it's likely we'll see folks calm down."

___

Associated Press writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Andrew Taylor in Washington contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-07

[Credo]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

[Morch]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

He had nothing new to say about this for a while now, nothing changed. The content of the speech is not half as intriguing as guessing which silly prop he will use this time.

[dexterm]

I find this Israeli cringe mentality totally weird.

Democrats seething with anger because Netanyahu is bad mannered enough to accept an invitation secretly above the head the POTUS, but unable to voice their feelings for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote. While Republicans gleefully applaud the Democrats’ frustration and the humiliation of their own President

This episode alone dismisses all counter claims as to who exactly is running the most powerful country in the world...the elected government (twice) or some pariah state 6.000 miles away, rapidly descending into racist tribal mayhem.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. It could happen nowhere else in the world.

I would be bemused if it had not such tragic consequences for the people in the Middle East.

[sirineou]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

[sirineou]

I find this Israeli cringe mentality totally weird.

Democrats seething with anger because Netanyahu is bad mannered enough to accept an invitation secretly above the head the POTUS, but unable to voice their feelings for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote. While Republicans gleefully applaud the Democrats’ frustration and the humiliation of their own President

This episode alone dismisses all counter claims as to who exactly is running the most powerful country in the world...the elected government (twice) or some pariah state 6.000 miles away, rapidly descending into racist tribal mayhem.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. It could happen nowhere else in the world.

I would be bemused if it had not such tragic consequences for the people in the Middle East.

Washington DC is one of the Israeli occupied territories

[Credo]

There is a house just down the road from the capitol that seems to be disputed territory.

[sirineou]

There is a house just down the road from the capitol that seems to be disputed territory.

and Netanyahu is coming to put him in his place

[Morch]

I find this Israeli cringe mentality totally weird.

Democrats seething with anger because Netanyahu is bad mannered enough to accept an invitation secretly above the head the POTUS, but unable to voice their feelings for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote. While Republicans gleefully applaud the Democrats’ frustration and the humiliation of their own President

This episode alone dismisses all counter claims as to who exactly is running the most powerful country in the world...the elected government (twice) or some pariah state 6.000 miles away, rapidly descending into racist tribal mayhem.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. It could happen nowhere else in the world.

I would be bemused if it had not such tragic consequences for the people in the Middle East.

Politicians taking care not to upset voters is something new? Unique to the USA?

How does that amount to "running the most powerful country in the world", exactly?

Your usual wishful thinking about Israel being "pariah" is not actually supported by anything, you just keep repeating it hoping for it to catch on, somehow. Israel was no kicked out of any international organization lately, and is on reasonable terms with many countries. Try harder.

IMO, this is more about the current state of partisan politics in the USA, and the constant petty tit-for-tat which goes with it. As far as I recall, AIPAC was not even directly involved in the invitation fiasco. Not sure what the Democrats are scared of, really, the notion that the Jewish voters will change their traditional voting patterns en masse over this is not realistic. There are enough Jewish voters who do not approve of Netanyahu's speech.

[chuckd]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

[jazzyfrosty]

There is no reason what so ever for Netanyahu to address congress, he is not an elected official, he is a war criminal on top of that! What needs to be done is to arrest him the minute he steps out of El Al and charge him with crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and go after Boehner for treason! That would be a step in the right direction towards rehabilitating The US Government from its addiction to Zionism and genocide.

[JDGRUEN]

The thread topic title shows an obvious bias by the AP .. how ridiculous ... it is not 'Israelis' speech -- it is Netanyahu's speech... And millions upon millions of Americans respect Netanyahu and what he does in fighting Islamic Radicals to defend Israel

... The U.S. Congress (both Houses) is now Republican controlled and a large proportion of Republicans are Conservatives... Netanyahu is a Hero to Conservative Americans and to many Christians too. We yearn for a President with the integrity and fortitude of Netanyahu. But he can't be President of the U.S. because his is not American... (does that matter anymore?) ... 555/

[Scott]

A post with an incorrect quote has been removed along with a reply.

[sirineou]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted. Especially when the speech and the speaker have foreign policy implications!!!!!!!!!!!

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

Edited February 7, 2015 by sirineou

[Jingthing]

Jewish American voters will continue to vote overwhelmingly democratic, as usual. Bring on Hillary!

[Morch]

There is no reason what so ever for Netanyahu to address congress, he is not an elected official, he is a war criminal on top of that! What needs to be done is to arrest him the minute he steps out of El Al and charge him with crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and go after Boehner for treason! That would be a step in the right direction towards rehabilitating The US Government from its addiction to Zionism and genocide.

Netanyahu was not even on trial for anything of the sort. Get in touch with reality. There was not a single legal opinion I am aware of that even went close to accusing Boehner of treason. Fantasy too stronk.

[chuckd]

There is no reason what so ever for Netanyahu to address congress, he is not an elected official, he is a war criminal on top of that! What needs to be done is to arrest him the minute he steps out of El Al and charge him with crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and go after Boehner for treason! That would be a step in the right direction towards rehabilitating The US Government from its addiction to Zionism and genocide.

Love your avatar. Your message leaves a little bit to be desired.

Since when are only elected officials permitted to speak before a joint session of Congress?

Check out this link for a list of speakers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_joint_sessions_of_the_United_States_Congress

PS: Pope Francis is scheduled to speak on September 24, 2015.

[JDGRUEN]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted.

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

obama is quite adept at political game playing ... trying to nullify the 2014 November election surges by unilaterally announcing an unconstitutional amnesty just after the election to defuse the effect of such a loss... Disrespect to the president ... obama deserves no respect... his entire Administration record is anti-American ... The words respect and obama are oxymorons ...

[sirineou]

Jewish American voters will continue to vote overwhelmingly democratic, as usual. Bring on Hillary!

Sorry JT

but as the Dem's were salivating over the aspect of Romney 2016

so are Republicans over running against Hillary, way to much baggage there.

Edited February 7, 2015 by sirineou

[Jingthing]

Jewish American voters will continue to vote overwhelmingly democratic, as usual. Bring on Hillary!

Sorry JT

but as the Dem's were salivating over the aspect of Romney 2016

so are Republicans over running against Hillary, way to much baggage there.

They aren't remotely similar.

[snarky66]

Bibi is coming to discuss the danger posed by Iran. I for 1 am a little sick of obama pandering to the mad mullahs.

[JDGRUEN]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted. Especially when the speech and the speaker have foreign policy implications!!!!!!!!!!!

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

Foreign policy is not the sole prerogative of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government ... never has been... There are Congressional oversight committees for every conceivable Foreign Policy venture, activity or blunder... has been for as long as I have been alive... Where have you been?

[Jingthing]

Bibi is coming to discuss the danger posed by Iran. I for 1 am a little sick of obama pandering to the mad mullahs.

He may be doing that but his tactics and diplomatic skills are questionable on this one. You don't diss the president. It doesn't help.

[chuckd]

Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards.

Sounds like solid advice to me.

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted. Especially when the speech and the speaker have foreign policy implications!!!!!!!!!!!

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

The current President has often become involved with legislation Congress is preparing or voting on.

Why is that not interference on his part?

Do I think Netanyahu's speech will have diplomatic or legislative impact? I don't know and neither do you.

Credo gave a very wise answer to that question earlier. It is quoted in this post.

Credo said..."Perhaps they should listen to what he has to say first. There's plenty of time to get angry afterwards."

Sounds like solid advice to me.

[JDGRUEN]

Bibi is coming to discuss the danger posed by Iran. I for 1 am a little sick of obama pandering to the mad mullahs.

He may be doing that but his tactics and diplomatic skills are questionable on this one. You don't diss the president. It doesn't help.

obama is the world class expert on Dissing people... he just got out done this time ...

[sirineou]

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted.

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

obama is quite adept at political game playing ... trying to nullify the 2014 November election surges by unilaterally announcing an unconstitutional amnesty just after the election to defuse the effect of such a loss... Disrespect to the president ... obama deserves no respect... his entire Administration record is anti-American ... The words respect and obama are oxymorons ...

This Thread is about Natanyahu's speech to joint house, do you have any argument against what I said in the subject, or is your argument that the President does not deserve respect? so no governing protocol apply

[JDGRUEN]

Report: Obama White House Told Black Caucus to Boycott Netanyahu’s Congressional Speech

‘I’m not saying the president called anyone personally,’ a current White House staffer told Daily Mail Online. ‘But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.’

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/report-obama-white-house-told-black-caucus-to-boycott-netanyahus-congressional-speech/

[snarky66]

Obama doesn't want to meet with Bibi because it's too near the Israeli elections. Obama should shut his pie hole.

[JDGRUEN]

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted.

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

obama is quite adept at political game playing ... trying to nullify the 2014 November election surges by unilaterally announcing an unconstitutional amnesty just after the election to defuse the effect of such a loss... Disrespect to the president ... obama deserves no respect... his entire Administration record is anti-American ... The words respect and obama are oxymorons ...

This Thread is about Natanyahu's speech to joint house, do you have any argument against what I said in the subject, or is your argument that the President does not deserve respect? so no governing protocol apply

No - the thread is about "Replying to Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm" ... the headline does not mention Netanyahu's name .. But actually - BOTH.

obama is the king of disrespect displayed to Netanyahu and others and he deserves no respect in any matter. obama is an EMPTY SUIT and has nothing of intellect or consequence to say ... My post to your post is self-explanatory.

[sirineou]

I don't think they are angry about what he has to say, but about the processes used to invite him to speak.

but I like your suggestion, is that a policy we should apply to all world leaders or just Israeli?

The three branches of government are separate but equal.

Congress has the right to invite whomever they wish to address their body. Why should they get the permission of the Executive Branch to invite a speaker?

Using your logic, the Judicial Branch might need to request input from the Legislative Branch as to which cases the SCOTUS should hear.

Following that same train of thought, the Executive Branch perhaps should have consulted the Judicial Branch to see if the many Executive Orders and Memoranda were Constitutional before the President signed them.

None of that happened nor is it required.

it is not my logic,I am just telling you why they are angry

Speaker John Boehner showed disrespect to the president – and perhaps cynical political goals – when he invited Netanyahu to address a House-Senate gathering next month. Presidents can't veto congressional speakers, but they usually are consulted. Especially when the speech and the speaker have foreign policy implications!!!!!!!!!!!

​as you said the different branches are independent, and do have different functions , Foreign policy is a function of the Executive, and Legislative is the function of Congress,

do you think Netanyahu's speech would have legislative implications or do you think it would have a foreign policy aspect.

​If as you said , you support the separation of power, then you surely must reject , Congress's thinly veiled attempt to inject it's self in foreign policy, affect the election in Israel in three weeks!! and in the process score some points with Jewish voters in the US.

Foreign policy is not the sole prerogative of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government ... never has been... There are Congressional oversight committees for every conceivable Foreign Policy venture, activity or blunder... has been for as long as I have been alive... Where have you been?

Thank you for an intelligent reply, I appreciate and enjoy intelligent discourse

Though you are right in your reply, the flowing argument can be made against it.

They do that through the legislative instrument, and the power of the purse

There would be no problem with Netanyahu appearing before an oversight comity to shape the legislative agenda concerning the laws a president has to follow when applying foreign policy, or control the funding of such foreign

policy

The problem is with Congress attempting to directly affect

a) The Israeli election in three weeks (or with they be inviting his opponents to speak?)

b ) undermine the US negotiations with Iran (Netanyahu is an outspoken opponent of the Iran process, an I am sure he will have something to say about that in his speech).

and in the process perhaps swing some Jewish votes the republican way , some one said that the Dem's will overwhelmingly get the Jewish vote. The Republicans are not attempting to win the Jewish vote, what they want is enough of a swing to positively affect the outcome to their favor.

Edited February 7, 2015 by sirineou