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

[Jingthing]

Perhaps Israel may not need America ... that's debatable, but there is no logical reason to unnecessarily damage the relationship either. Unless you actually think this controversial speech is going to get Israel such benefits related to USA-Iran relations that the damage will be worth it. It don't see that belief as defensible.

Be clear, I am certainly not an Obama is always right type person and I'm also concerned that Obama is so eager to get a deal with Iran that he is going to get a very bad deal. I just don't see how Netanyahu's move is helping with that. As far as the bad personal relationship between Obama and Netanyahu of course both are to blame, but Israel being more logistically vulnerable to Iran's potential aggression, personally I blame Netanyahu more, the stakes are higher for Israel on this and he could have done more to avoid this mess in the first place. A diplomatic genius he's not.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Someone needs to stop Obama from allowing Iran to obtain nukes and pressure from both parties and the American people is the only thing that might be able to do that. Netanyahu has a lot of support on both sides of the political aisle and he is a lot more trusted, when it comes to stopping terrorism, than the so-called commander in chief. He has been invited by congress. Let the man speak!

Edited February 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Come on now, we pretty much already know what he is going to say. Not sure why this can't be communicated by a phone call to Obama rather than so publicly dissing Obama. It's not really the speech content that is going to be controversial, that is very predictable, rather the diplomatic protocol of deciding to go ahead with this when the white house is so clearly against it.

[up-country_sinclair]

Well, that didn't take long.

Netanyahu just threw Speaker Boehner under the bus:

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides"

--Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi

Once this story got legs in the both the US and Israel it was only a matter of time before Netanyahu needed cover, and I would guess that even Boehner's aides probably saw this coming. Maybe now congress will catch up with the rest of the world in realizing that Netanyahu is pathologically self-serving and wholly untrustworthy.

[Ulysses G.]

How do you know that this is not exactly what happened? You DON'T. If Boehner misled them, it is a very valid complaint.and as far as I know, he has not denied it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-israel-usa-congress-iran-idUSKBN0LA1AG20150206

Edited February 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[ggold]

Perhaps Israel may not need America ... that's debatable, but there is no logical reason to unnecessarily damage the relationship either. Unless you actually think this controversial speech is going to get Israel such benefits related to USA-Iran relations that the damage will be worth it. It don't see that belief as defensible.

I agree. But who really upset who? Was it Boehner who Upset Obama, Or Boehner and Netanyahu? Or Just Obama throwing the toys out the pram? And is it really the American relationship that is being damaged. Netanyahu has left himself some room, saying he thought the invite was bipartisan. So he may not go after all. But I'm guessing he calculates it would be worth it if he decided to go. Defensible from the point that if this was about slighting Obama he would have been given the nod that it would not damage relationships. This wasn't about damaging Obama, more about putting another view other than Obamas. It was the Republicans who used Netanyahu against Obama, even if willingly on Bibi's part!

Maybe if Obama hadn't threatened to veto any opposition and push rough any agreement with the Iranians, the Reps wouldn't have bothered to invite Netanyahu. But regardless of whether Netanyahu goes before congress or not. It seems pretty obvious that what ever agreement is made with Iran, The next government is going to overturn it regardless of which party that may be.

If not then American influence in the world will be reduced. In fact would we be having worries over the Ukraine, if anyone but Obama were President now? Would Syria have been allowed to continue with the slaughter under any other President? Would the US have withdrawn from Iraq so quickly under any other etc etc!

What exactly has American foreign Policy been under Obama? other than allowing Iran Nukes what has it achieved?

[Wat dee]

Can You explain why USA needs Israel ? And by the USA, I mean taxpayers not religious nuts or shareholders.

[Ulysses G.]

Come on now, we pretty much already know what he is going to say. Not sure why this can't be communicated by a phone call to Obama rather than so publicly dissing Obama.

Obama IS the problem. The whole point is to go straight to the American people, before he can give away the store and pretend that giving Iran nukes is some kind of "victory".

This is one of the most important issues of our time and few experts believe that the West is going to come out on top with Barack Obama controlling the narrative.

[ggold]

Well, that didn't take long.

Netanyahu just threw Speaker Boehner under the bus:

"It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides"

--Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi

Once this story got legs in the both the US and Israel it was only a matter of time before Netanyahu needed cover, and I would guess that even Boehner's aides probably saw this coming. Maybe now congress will catch up with the rest of the world in realizing that Netanyahu is pathologically self-serving and wholly untrustworthy.

and what planet do you live on? Talk about twisting things around. Didn't really matter to you what Netanyahu would have done it would still be his fault in your eyes!

[Jingthing]

Come on now, we pretty much already know what he is going to say. Not sure why this can't be communicated by a phone call to Obama rather than so publicly dissing Obama.

Obama IS the problem. The whole point is to go straight to the American people, before he can give away the store and pretend that giving Iran nukes is some kind of "victory".

This is one of the most important issues of our time and few experts believe that the West is going to come out on top with Barack Obama controlling the narrative.

I prefer political actions that are actually potentially productive rather than more like a bull in a China shop type stunts which will probably make things worse.

[Credo]

Can You explain why USA needs Israel ? And by the USA, I mean taxpayers not religious nuts or shareholders.

Well, for one thing, if anything happens to Israel, and there are millions of refugees, who do you think is going to get to resettle them?

[ggold]

Can You explain why USA needs Israel ? And by the USA, I mean taxpayers not religious nuts or shareholders.

What and you think this is about taxpayers?

[Ulysses G.]

Come on now, we pretty much already know what he is going to say. Not sure why this can't be communicated by a phone call to Obama rather than so publicly dissing Obama.

Obama IS the problem. The whole point is to go straight to the American people, before he can give away the store and pretend that giving Iran nukes is some kind of "victory".

This is one of the most important issues of our time and few experts believe that the West is going to come out on top with Barack Obama controlling the narrative.

I prefer political actions that are actually potentially productive rather than more like a bull in a China shop type stunts which will probably make things worse.

How can letting Iran get nukes, which Obama will likely do if he is not stopped, be any worse than what we are very close to now? They are also near to having ICBM missiles, with nuclear warheads, that can reach the West, so this is not just Israel's problem.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I agree Iran shouldn't get nukes and is probably headed towards getting nukes. I don't agree Netanyahu's piss poor diplomacy is going to help with that. Netanyahu's opposition in Israel ALSO doesn't want Iran to get nukes. Sure Israel has every right to do "something" to try to stop Iran ... is an affront to Obama the right and effective "something" that is going to stop Iran? I don't see it.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Well it is Netanyahu's piss poor diplomacy or just letting Obama proceed with capitulating to Iran.

[Jingthing]

Well it is Netanyahu's piss poor diplomacy or just letting Obama proceed with capitulating to Iran.

I don't see the choice as that simple or black and white. You are presuming the speech stops Iran. I am presuming it doesn't and actually damages U.S-Israel relations instead.

[ggold]

Iran negotiator says progress made, time for nuclear deal now

Read more: Iran negotiator says progress made, time for nuclear deal now | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-negotiator-says-progress-made-time-for-nuclear-deal-now/#ixzz3R9FTsDqm

Following the talks with Kerry, Zarif told the conference that progress had been made in the past months, and that there was now a window of opportunity to come up with a final deal.

On Friday, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was unlikely a deal would be signed before the deadline.

The Question is, What are the Politicians in such a hurry for when you have the IAEA saying they are still waiting for answers!

[Ulysses G.]

Well it is Netanyahu's piss poor diplomacy or just letting Obama proceed with capitulating to Iran.

I don't see the choice as that simple or black and white. You are presuming the speech stops Iran. I am presuming it doesn't and actually damages U.S-Israel relations instead.

I am not presuming anything. I am HOPING that something stops Iran and Netanyahu is lot more likely to stop them, than the guy in the White House at this moment. If he can convince the American people to to put a stop to Obama's foreign policy of appeasement, we might have a chance.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

The republicans and Netanyahu are playing a very dangerous game of politics. I have a feeling that Obama has his eye on the Iranian Nuclear program better than a lot of people think. But there are consequences. A lot depends on how occupied Russia is with Ukraine and economic matters. It also depends on what China is up to. Then there is the messy little problem of ISIS.

Israel and the US need to cooperate closely on Iran. Obama's policies do not necessarily reflect weakness, but they do reflect a desire to keep us out of a war.

It appears as if Netanyahoo and the Republicans would like to see this escalate into something more serious than taking out Iran's nuclear program.

[Jingthing]

Why the rush?

Good question.

I guess the cynics are saying Obama finally wants to earn his "Peace" prize.

But I think it could be more about ISIS ... Iran and the U.S. have a common enemy there.

I think the nuclear deal and the ISIS fighting deal are probably linked, even if nobody on either side will admit it.

Also Rouhani ("moderate" for an Iranian) is politically vulnerable. if this deal fails, he fails.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

It appears as if Netanyahoo and the Republicans would like to see this escalate into something more serious than taking out Iran's nuclear program.

Hogwash. It is pretty obvious that they want to put a stop to Iran's nuclear program before it is too late and that is the end of it. Israel has done it in Iraq and Syria already, without further aggression, and the whole world was thankful in retrospect.

[Morch]

Looking at the long term bigger picture here, regardless of how people feel about Obama, which is of course divided. In the long term Israel is damaging the OVERALL relationship with the U.S. and the only question is how badly. This development I am sure pleases anti-Zionists ... it doesn't please me.

Also of course Obama is not Muslim, not that there is anything wrong with being an American Muslim any more than being an American Hindu/Jew/Buddhist/Christian, etc., but realistically the U.S. is not going to have a Muslim president for a very long time (if ever).

Right wingers, whether American, Israeli, Jewish or not, consider the knee jerk support of Netanyahu dissing Obama just because you hate Obama is really questionable considering that anti-Zionists are thrilled to see the USA-Israel relationship damaged.

I think it has more to do with the democratic party trying to save it self. They blindly think it is by standing behind Obama! I note that Obama seems to have upset the Christians, by trying to compare ISIS with the crusades! Are you sure he is not Muslim?

I am not sure how that overall relationship plays out now. I understand what you mean, But for Israel it goes deeper than any one relationship. "Never gain" is the philosophy. Israel would turn to Russia or China. America already warned Israel about getting to close to China! So Maybe this is about how much influence America has over world affairs when so much damage has been done by/and the lack of respect Obama has from those allies! Other than the usual puppies who still jump when told to!

If Israel needs America, America needs Israel on an equal basis. I know a lot is made of the financial help, and the Jewish lobby. But that financial help is mostly military, America benefits from that as much as Israel, not just financially. So that leaves the Jewish lobby! well if push comes to shove, they can go get screwed.

Obama may have shown Israel that Israel may not need America!

Israel could turn to Russia, only Russia can hardly take care of itself these days. Strike one.

Israel could turn to China, only China doesn't really do long distance power projection, and got troubles of its own. Strike two.

USA needs Israel on an equal basis? On which alternate reality is this going on? Is Israel a global superpower? Is its economy more than a blip compared to the USA's? strike three.

[Morch]

Almost no one other than the far left. They would be more than happy to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons to show how "fair" they are to Muslims. They would do the same thing if ISIS grew strong enough and so would Barack Obama.

Would be nice to see some non-partisan poll results on this, rather than taking the generic definitive "almost no one other than the far left" as gospel.

[ggold]

Why the rush?

Good question.

I guess the cynics are saying Obama finally wants to earn his "Peace" prize.

But I think it could be more about ISIS ... Iran and the U.S. have a common enemy there.

I think the nuclear deal and the ISIS fighting deal are probably linked, even if nobody on either side will admit it.

Also Rouhani ("moderate" for an Iranian) is politically vulnerable. if this deal fails, he fails.

seems like a high price to pay for the sake of keeping a moderate in power.

Yet there may come a time where Iran is the one with WMD! At one time I thought the prevailing sentiment was to see the end of the Ayatollahs control over Iran. Isn't it also giving Iran rather too much influence over that part of the world are they really needed to fight against ISIS, some might say it wouldn't be such a bad thing if ISIS confronted the Iranian leaders who are after all are rather worried about loosing their control of Iran anyway.

What would happen if ISIS did overrun a Nuclear Iran? What about the Saudi's wanting to get their hands on a Nuke as insurance against Iran.

So why the rush to make a deal, when the reality is a nuclear capable Iran would be bad news not just for the ME but the World. If that isn't an exaggeration, one wonders if Obama is the Anti Christ.

[Jingthing]

Sometimes especially with Middle East matters, there are no good choices, only figuring out which is the least bad choice, and lots of room to debate what that is.

[sirineou]

We, the American people want Bibi to speak to a joint session of Congress. obama's opinion doesn't matter. His personal animosity toward Jews! Benjamin Netanyahu and the state of israel is well known. He likes to throw tantrums when he doesn't get his own way.

I don't think Obama is antisemitic but I do think he doesn't like Netanyahu and it's personal. That feeling is obviously mutual. It's unfortunate.

aside any personal differences Obama might have with Netanyahu there are foreign policy issues involved here.

firstly, there is a national election in Israel in three weeks, this Congressional address will boost Netanyahu's and his parties prospects,

Secondly , Netanyahu is an outspoken opponent of Obama's policy to negotiate with Iran over it's nuclear program, and sanctions and I am sure he will take this opportunity to undercut Obama's policy in his speech

and thirdly it is a calculated attempt for political upmanship for political gain, with disregard of US interests.

Obama and his administration have every right to be upset wit all three of the above points

and thirdly it is a calculated attempt for political upmanship for political gain, with disregard of US interests

OK so for 40 odd years US interests did not include Iran becoming a Nuclear power. Now it is in the US interests that Iran become one! Really?

Yet having got rid of nuclear missiles from Cuba, The US was incapable of making peace with a small island 90 miles of it's coast for more than 60 years and counting!

right now I'm wondering what is in the US interest?

This is really the failure of US politicians and the disfunction of the US government body as a whole. Netanyahu has got in the middle of that fight between Democrats and republicans. What he has to say about Iran becoming Nuclear is very much in the interests of the US Just not it's President!

are you kidding me?

the negotiations with Iran are so that Iran does not pursue ambitions for developing nuclear weapons capability.if indeed they have such ambitions, guaranty that that nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and bring Iran back in to the family of nations .

Netanyahu is opposed to any such negotiations and want's them to fail,that's part of the problem with his invitation to address the congress, with out Obamas approval.

Why is it so difficult to understand the following concept?

Inviting Netanyahu to address Congress, undercuts Obama's ability to successfully negotiate a nuclear weapon free Iran it is sending a message to the Iranians that the American government is not united in this goal.

[Morch]

How do you know that this is not exactly what happened? You DON'T. If Boehner misled them, it is a very valid complaint.and as far as I know, he has not denied it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-israel-usa-congress-iran-idUSKBN0LA1AG20150206

They tried to run a somewhat similar version not long ago through the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer - didn't go down too well. As for the linked version - interview ought to be taken more in the context of upcoming elections in Israel, and the source got quite a track record of not telling the truth.

Could it be true? Maybe, I dunno. Pretty sure USA politicians could pass classes on half-truths, lies and plausible deniability. And, sure, it could have been an honest (or dishonest) mistake, a misunderstanding.....whatever. The point is that if this was true there was nothing stopping Netanyahu from bringing this up clearly to begin with, in a way that would settle things more amicably. More to the point - it would mean that Netanyahu's pet ambassador is totally incompetent if he didn't pay attention or did not see this manure storm coming. Of course, Netanyahu could have backed down at any step, could have said he's considering it, rather than accepting.

[Morch]

Come on now, we pretty much already know what he is going to say. Not sure why this can't be communicated by a phone call to Obama rather than so publicly dissing Obama.

Obama IS the problem. The whole point is to go straight to the American people, before he can give away the store and pretend that giving Iran nukes is some kind of "victory".

This is one of the most important issues of our time and few experts believe that the West is going to come out on top with Barack Obama controlling the narrative.

I prefer political actions that are actually potentially productive rather than more like a bull in a China shop type stunts which will probably make things worse.

How can letting Iran get nukes, which Obama will likely do if he is not stopped, be any worse than what we are very close to now? They are also near to having ICBM missiles, with nuclear warheads, that can reach the West, so this is not just Israel's problem.

I do not think anyone (publicly, at least) have a clear idea of how close Iran is to developing nuclear warhead capability. Doesn't mean that there is no threat, or that the two other threat components are not bad enough by themselves, but no need to get too carried away with scaremongering. Its a wee bit more complicated than stuffing da bomb inside the tip of a rocket.

[Ulysses G.]

Its a wee bit more complicated than stuffing da bomb inside the tip of a rocket.

Once they have complete nuclear capability, it will be too late. The "scaremongering" is more than justified at this point in time. Netanyahu and his inner circle believe that the planned address in Congress may turn the tide and help save the world from a really stupid deal with Iran. It is time to stop the Mullahs from stalling while continuing with their nuclear weapons program. There is not much time left.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[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. 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.

Really??? And what about Obama reaching into the area of the Legislative Branch with his executive actions. Obama does this and thinks its OK? Now, Obama is complaining about Boehner inviting a foreign dignitary to speak to the world, through an invite from Congress? Give me a break! Sorry Obama, you brought this on yourself.

you are absolutely right, Obama was wrong to do that, and I am opposed to it

as it is equally wrong for Boehner to invite Netanyahu

two wrongs never made a right