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

[Jingthing]

The fact that rabid "anti-Zionists" are doing cartwheels at the prospect of the political damage to the Israel-USA relationship from this Netanyahu speech should really give pause to the supporters of this speech. There are pros and cons to any political action ... to me the downsides are just too great.

[Jingthing]

Well, as an American Jew who definitely supports the existence of Israel and opposes Iran getting nukes, I can definitely relate to this:

bibistayhome.jpg

The petition, with some 20,000 signatures, according toThe New York Times, is meant to show that while the prime minister may represent Israelis, "He certainly cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States."

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/J-Street-petition-against-Netanyahus-Congress-speech-rallies-20000-signatures-390575

But to add some balance, a pro speech view is presented here. I just can't get past the potential damage being done to the history of the USA relationship with Israel NOT being a partisan issue. I get the "existential" threat thing ... I just don't think this U.S. partisan politics divisive speech is the way (even more so as most American Jews are DEMOCRATS):

You have to,consider which way the wind is blowing, the Muslim population is growing rapidly and they will vote democrat, at a price. Like it or not Israel may eventually become a partisan issue, though I doubt that will apply during the next decade and certainly not as soon as Obama leaves office.

The U.S. Muslim population isn't growing that rapidly. The U.S. isn't France and U.S. Muslims really are much more moderate then European Muslims in general. A bigger danger is the overall mainstream left becoming more like the European left which has indeed morphed into an antisemitic left. So much of the BDS movement gaining ground on U.S. campuses is tainted with Jew hatred. Netanyahu's move may accelerate something that is already happening more slowly, but why throw fuel on the fire?

[Ulysses G.]

The fact that rabid "anti-Zionists" are doing cartwheels at the prospect of the political damage to the Israel-USA relationship from this Netanyahu speech should really give pause to the supporters of this speech. There are pros and cons to any political action ... to me the downsides are just too great.

I don't agree. Canceling the speech would be much more damaging to supporters of Israel. Obama is the one making a mountain out of a molehill and acting like a spoiled baby. Screw him.

[ggold]

It looks like Netanyahu won't be able to rely on the Israel-hater and Obamabot vote in this election.

The most recent polling data from the Times of Israel shows that:

A plurality of Israeli's think Netanyahu should cancel the speech.

25% of all voters say they are undecided, but more of them are leaning away from Netanyahu.

Likud is dropping fast.

And as for their opinion of Netanyahu himself:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-israelis-still-undecided-but-more-of-them-leaning-toward-herzog/

Netanyahu overplayed his hand with this political stunt of trying to give a campaign speech before a joint session of congress.

Netanyahu has done what Israel's greatest adversaries could only have dreamed of doing: He forced Israel into becoming a partisan issue in the US.

Still a few weeks to go, this is hardly a definitive poll.

[Steely Dan]

Well, as an American Jew who definitely supports the existence of Israel and opposes Iran getting nukes, I can definitely relate to this:

bibistayhome.jpg

The petition, with some 20,000 signatures, according toThe New York Times, is meant to show that while the prime minister may represent Israelis, "He certainly cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States."

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/J-Street-petition-against-Netanyahus-Congress-speech-rallies-20000-signatures-390575

But to add some balance, a pro speech view is presented here. I just can't get past the potential damage being done to the history of the USA relationship with Israel NOT being a partisan issue. I get the "existential" threat thing ... I just don't think this U.S. partisan politics divisive speech is the way (even more so as most American Jews are DEMOCRATS):

You have to,consider which way the wind is blowing, the Muslim population is growing rapidly and they will vote democrat, at a price. Like it or not Israel may eventually become a partisan issue, though I doubt that will apply during the next decade and certainly not as soon as Obama leaves office.

The U.S. Muslim population isn't growing that rapidly. The U.S. isn't France and U.S. Muslims really are much more moderate then European Muslims in general. A bigger danger is the overall mainstream left becoming more like the European left which has indeed morphed into an antisemitic left. So much of the BDS movement gaining ground on U.S. campuses is tainted with Jew hatred. Netanyahu's move may accelerate something that is already happening more slowly, but why throw fuel on the fire?

I understand your thinking, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation; which came first, leftist antiSemitism or Muslim antiSemitism. I note Obama again mentioned a supposed Iranian fatwa stating that nuclear weapons were contrary to their religious beliefs. No evidence that this fatwa ever existed has been demonstrated. If negotiations with Iran are based on an assumption that said fatwa exists then any deal relying on this is built on quicksand.

[Jingthing]

The fact that rabid "anti-Zionists" are doing cartwheels at the prospect of the political damage to the Israel-USA relationship from this Netanyahu speech should really give pause to the supporters of this speech. There are pros and cons to any political action ... to me the downsides are just too great.

I don't agree. Canceling the speech would be much more damaging to supporters of Israel. Obama is the one making a mountain out of a molehill and acting like a spoiled baby. Screw him.

He shouldn't have entertained it in the first place. But I see your point, cancelling it now would be messy.

[dexterm]

I may have written this before, but I am genuinely shocked at how many American posters are "Israel-Firsters".

Can you produce any evidence at all of any American posters suggesting anything like this? Of course not, because, as usual, you are making it up. It is a lot easier arguing with a made up straw man than with reality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man

How about your last post.

I don't agree. Canceling the speech would be much more damaging to supporters of Israel. Obama is the one making a mountain out of a molehill and acting like a spoiled baby. Screw him.

[NeverSure]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

[Morch]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

How do these figures compare with previous years, though?

[NeverSure]

Even Hillary Clinton came out in support of Israel in the aftermath of the bombing. According to an interview in the left-leaning newspaper The Atlantic, Clinton vociferously defended both Israel and Netanyahu:

“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she told me. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”

I asked her if she believed that Israel had done enough to prevent the deaths of children and other innocent people.

“[J]ust as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians,” mistakes are made, she said. “We've made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position—that hasn't made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas.”

LINK

[Morch]

It looks like Netanyahu won't be able to rely on the Israel-hater and Obamabot vote in this election.

The most recent polling data from the Times of Israel shows that:

A plurality of Israeli's think Netanyahu should cancel the speech.

25% of all voters say they are undecided, but more of them are leaning away from Netanyahu.

Likud is dropping fast.

And as for their opinion of Netanyahu himself:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-israelis-still-undecided-but-more-of-them-leaning-toward-herzog/

Netanyahu overplayed his hand with this political stunt of trying to give a campaign speech before a joint session of congress.

Netanyahu has done what Israel's greatest adversaries could only have dreamed of doing: He forced Israel into becoming a partisan issue in the US.

Still a few weeks to go, this is hardly a definitive poll.

Most polls actually show Netanyahu's party having a bit of lead, or both main parties getting about the same amount of seats/

It doesn't matter one bit as far as putting together a coalition, though - there's currently no constellation in which the opposition can politically outmaneuver Netanyahu. It is true, though, that his approval rating are falling, the issue being his rivals not being able to capitalize on that. And yes, a lot of criticism within Israel regarding the invitation fiasco (and not all from the opposition). This sort of thing is very much how Netanyahu's entire political career looks - getting in and out of trouble and for very little that couldn't be gained anyway.

[NeverSure]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

How do these figures compare with previous years, though?

I don't know. I'm giving the latest I found from a reputable source. However, with even Hillary Clinton on board (see post above) the Dems are being squeezed.

Edited February 11, 2015 by NeverSure

[Morch]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

How do these figures compare with previous years, though?

I don't know. I'm giving the latest I found from a reputable source.

Citing figures out of context makes it impossible to judge if there a decline in support.

[NeverSure]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

How do these figures compare with previous years, though?

I don't know. I'm giving the latest I found from a reputable source. However, with even Hillary Clinton on board (see post above) the Dems are being squeezed.

Citing figures out of context makes it impossible to judge if there a decline in support.

I don't understand. You're welcome to google it.

[Ulysses G.]

"...57 percent of likely American voters support Israel over Palestine in the current Gaza conflict. Only 8 percent, however, sided with the Palestinians." LINK

I don't think Congress has anything to worry about. I think Obama and his Dems do if they throw a tantrum.

How do these figures compare with previous years, though?

I remember reading that it was almost exactly the same as the last big flare up in Gaza in 2008, but I'm not going to search for the information again.

[ggold]

Are the Democrats behind Obama because they agree with his approach to Iran and are happy for Iran to have a nuclear potential, Or are they just doing in the name of the party? Or dare I say it, when it comes to the President of the US being slighted, Americans stand behind the President regardless of him being wrong?

[Jingthing]

Are the Democrats behind Obama because they agree with his approach to Iran and are happy for Iran to have a nuclear potential, Or are they just doing in the name of the party? Or dare I say it, when it comes to the President of the US being slighted, Americans stand behind the President regardless of him being wrong?

That's a fair question and it's hard to speak for democrats in general. My personal opinion is that the vast majority of all kinds of Americans agree with the goal of preventing Iran to have nukes and also the majority is skeptical about the deal Obama might get. But I also think there is a distaste for foreign leaders, even friends, getting involved in U.S. partisan politics.

I would be skeptical of any deal ANY U.S. president might get with Iran. They have been playing the U.S. for decades ... but nobody wants war with them either. Tough problem.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Are the Democrats behind Obama because they agree with his approach to Iran and are happy for Iran to have a nuclear potential, Or are they just doing in the name of the party? Or dare I say it, when it comes to the President of the US being slighted, Americans stand behind the President regardless of him being wrong?

Likely voters support Netanyahus address to Congress - even over the objections of President Obama - by a margin of 42 to 35%, with 23% undecided and - unsurprisingly - the approval mostly comes from democrats.

[Ulysses G.]

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of all kinds of Americans agree with the goal of preventing Iran to have nukes and also the majority is skeptical about the deal Obama might get.

We agree on that. Most Americans do not trust him when it comes to preventing Iran from getting nukes. I am virtually certain that he will sell us out in order to obtain another counterfeit "achievement".

[Jingthing]

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of all kinds of Americans agree with the goal of preventing Iran to have nukes and also the majority is skeptical about the deal Obama might get.

We agree on that. Most Americans do not trust him when it comes to preventing Iran from getting nukes. I am virtually certain that he will sell us out in order to obtain another counterfeit "achievement".

Perhaps ... but does contributing to help make support for Israel a partisan issue help Obama get a better deal, or the opposite?

[Exsexyman]

Netanyahu’s well-funded Jewish conservative backers say they may use their funds to draw attention in the districts and states of any Democratic lawmaker who is not present at the US Capitol.

A similar threat was made during Netanyahu's ludicrous 'Speech of a Lifetime' where he received 29 standing ovations and showed to the world the U.S. is absolutely in thrall to a foreign power.

'AIPAC staffers who prowl congressional offices daily, let it be known that videos of the Members listening to Bibi would be kept on file and insinuated that how the Member’s performed during his speech to Congress would be taken into consideration when planning this summer’s Jewish fundraising events.'

This piece explains how Bibi got his 'spontaneous' standing ovations... http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/05/franklin-lamb-is-the-arab-spring-spreading-to-us-congressional-staffs/

I do hope Netanyahu attends. The damage he did to U.S. prestige around the world (as if there were any left), last time, was colossal.

Twenty nine orchestrated standing ovations! Even Stalin would have struggled to match that!

[ggold]

Are the Democrats behind Obama because they agree with his approach to Iran and are happy for Iran to have a nuclear potential, Or are they just doing in the name of the party? Or dare I say it, when it comes to the President of the US being slighted, Americans stand behind the President regardless of him being wrong?

That's a fair question and it's hard to speak for democrats in general. My personal opinion is that the vast majority of all kinds of Americans agree with the goal of preventing Iran to have nukes and also the majority is skeptical about the deal Obama might get. But I also think there is a distaste for foreign leaders, even friends, getting involved in U.S. partisan politics.

I would be skeptical of any deal ANY U.S. president might get with Iran. They have been playing the U.S. for decades ... but nobody wants war with them either. Tough problem.

The think is this would never of kicked off had there not been deadlock between the President. with threats of veto's or Reps voting down his agreement with Iran. From that point of view Netanyahu shouldn't go. But the more noise that is made about it, I think he should go. Because It seems more about who controls the business of political in the US rather than the actual policy. Obama has nothing to lose, he is gone anyway. Which makes him dangerous!

It could be argued that it is the hosts that are abusing their future guest because the hosts don't agree with what to serve on the table. In certain respects it is irrelevant if Netanyahu goes or doesn't, He is all in politically, win or lose. It may still play in his favour. How would it look to Israelis if congress was empty when BiBi comes to speak. That for Netanyahu would be pure gold, either way when it comes to security Netanyahu is the one people would vote for. None of the other candidates would have a chance if the perception was that, Israel stands alone. So this may be Netanyahu's calculation.

So the threat of America and Israel falling out plays into Bibi's hands, and damage will be restricted to this presidency, come 2017 America will be as eager as Israel to resume good relations. Fact is America has lost influence with Obama in power, will they become more isolationist or will they want to reinforce their global influence?

If Israel becomes a bipartisan issue then it is the Dems that will make it so.

Should we be watching what is going on with these two? Is this all a distraction from the Ukraine, that is one issue that would unit both US parties. That is what makes Obama dangerous IMO

[losworld]

No surprise this man is not a statesman nothing more than a dressed up mobster.

[Ulysses G.]

Twenty nine orchestrated standing ovations! Even Stalin would have struggled to match that!

According to some nutty far-left blog. Really convincing.

[Jingthing]

No surprise this man is not a statesman nothing more than a dressed up mobster.

He dresses sharp. He should be a slob?

[Ulysses G.]

If Israel becomes a bipartisan issue then it is the Dems that will make it so.

Exactly, but there are a lot of democrats who support Israel and don't trust Obama. There is a very good chance that when push comes to shove, they will refuse to be bullied into his boycott. If they allow him to get away with this, I predict that he will make a stupid deal and we will all come to regret it.

[Jingthing]

If Israel becomes a bipartisan issue then it is the Dems that will make it so.

Exactly, but there are a lot of democrats who support Israel and don't trust Obama. There is a very good chance that when push comes to shove, they will refuse to be bullied into his boycott. If they allow him to get away with this, I predict that he will make a stupid deal and we will all come to regret it.

All this just seemed unnecessary. Israel has established channels to voice concerns. I don't see the value of this congress noise. Anyway, I think Hillary will be the next president and she will be more hawkish than Obama.

[up-country_sinclair]

I predict that he will make a stupid deal and we will all come to regret it.

Taking into account your horrible track record of politics based predictions, we all can rest assured that everything will work out fine.

[Ulysses G.]

You must be referring to the imaginary predictions that only you are privy to.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

If Israel becomes a bipartisan issue then it is the Dems that will make it so.

Exactly, but there are a lot of democrats who support Israel and don't trust Obama. There is a very good chance that when push comes to shove, they will refuse to be bullied into his boycott. If they allow him to get away with this, I predict that he will make a stupid deal and we will all come to regret it.

All this just seemed unnecessary. Israel has established channels to voice concerns. I don't see the value of this congress noise. Anyway, I think Hillary will be the next president and she will be more hawkish than Obama.

You might be right, but it will probably be too late by then. Once Iran has nukes or the capability to produce them very quickly, the nuclear arms race in the Middle East will likely spin out of control.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ulysses G.