Congress invites Netanyahu to rebut Obama on Iran, and White House slams ‘breach of protocol’

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/sanctions-congress-netanyahu

Israel was down to one mention in last night’s stirring and progressive State of the Union Speech, and Palestine didn’t even get a name-check. Two states living peacefully side by side? Nope; President Obama seems to be walking away from the futile peace process.

Israel came up in the context of the big political battle Obama faces, Iran sanctions. Last night he vowed to veto any new sanctions bill. Few people would have known just what was at stake as the president made that declaration, saying the American people want him to talk to Iran, not go to war:

Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies — including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict. There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.

Obama was warning the Israel lobby; bug out of these negotiations. That’s the line he drew in the sand in the New York Times last week, criticizing donor pressure on Democratic senators.

[shira]

1. Are u against Iran being allowed to make nukes? n/t

[azurnoir]

5. are you opining that Obama will allow Iran to make nuclear bomb's?

otherwise what's the point of your comment?

[shira]

12. I'm just asking. You're deflecting. n/t

[azurnoir]

26. There's nothing for ME to deflect from, it's your own statement not mine

unless of course you're saying that Obama and I want to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, is that it?

[sabbat hunter]

2. That is a huge

breach of protocol

[Jefferson23]

3. Yes. n/t

[King_David]

4. Do you have a different source? Mondoweiss not the most accurate.

Mondoweiss is a vanity blog, so best not used as a source on DU.

[azurnoir]

6. Guess you'll just have to remain in doubt or maybe read the article which quotes several sources

or perhaps check out Israeli papers

[King_David]

8. Well , if thats the case , unless alternate source, I advise caution when reading this article,

Best self source to a different publication to verify accuracy.

[azurnoir]

9. why? the article sites several other sources with links or are you implying something else?

be clear here please

[Fred Sanders]

7. Bibi will just sneak into America like he did France...he is an equal opportunity opportunist.

A great Double Standard is now about to unfold.

Bibi, as an Israeli citizen, does need a visa to come to America to try to juice his sagging election fortunes, the juice from his unwelcome sojourn to France without a visa was a bitter disaster, he needs this, he needs it bad.

Democrats should boycott. Poor precedent to invite foreign leaders for a stump speech on the eve of elections, as if it were a campaign stop......how desperate are Bohener and Bibi to remain relevant!

Treating a foreign leader with more respect than your own....that is the hidden message.

[Jefferson23]

10. Behind Obama's back: How Netanyahu's U.S. trip was cooked up

Speaker Boehner's invitation was preceded by weeks of contacts between Republican leadership and Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer, who is pushing lawmakers for new Iran sanctions.


By Barak Ravid

The official invitation extended on Tuesday by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress on Iran on February 11, had been preceded by contacts between Netanyahu advisers and Boehner and other congressional Republicans that totally bypassed the White House.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.638396

[Fred Sanders]

11. A shadow government that does not respect the established political diplomatic protocols is unacceptable.

[branford]

13. Would you care to cite a single actual law broken by Congress inviting Netanyahu to speak?

Under our constitutional republic, we have separation of powers, and Congress, a co-equal branch of government with the executive, can invite whomever they want to speak. While you might not agree with Congress, and I quite often do not, they are hardly a "shadow government." Speaker Boehner, just like the president, has a phone and pen at his disposal. Elections have consequences.

And in response to your earlier post, and much to the dismay of you and others here, not only will Democrats not boycott, Netanyahu will, as he has repeatedly in the past, almost certainly receive a strong bipartisan welcome. Do not forget that new Iran sanctions are popular with a great many Democrats in Congress, and that will be the subject of Netanyahu's speech. In fact, I've read a number of articles today, including from writers on the left, concerned that the new Iran sanctions may be ripe for a veto override by Congress.

Of course, there is no doubt that Boehner invited Bibi to tweak President Obama, but the move was certainly legal, and actually quite shrewd and politically astute, particularly since Israel (and the Iran sanctions) receives strong bipartisan support among all elected officials. Bibi will be well received by everyone from Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

[Fred Sanders]

14. As well put as any Republican could who wants to justify abandoning all historical protocol with

the intent to torpedo Iran negotiations, boost a foreign nations foreign person's re-election campaign, insult the Democratic President and cause a media storm to distract from all their other insanity.

All while communicating behind the back of the Democratic Party President.

Keep up the support for them.....good for you.

[Jefferson23]

15. That's it, in a nutshell..yea. n/t

[branford]

16. I see you carefully didn't address any of my points.

For the Republicans, causing the president political grief is a feature, not a bug. I'm surprised it took them this long to react after the President's unilateral and controversial actions concerning immigration relief and Cuba. Threatening a veto of new and bipartisan Iran sanctions in the State of the Union was like waiving a red cape in front of a bull.

More importantly, could you cite to any notable Democratic congressman or senators (or any non-WH Democratic loyalist) who actually objects to Bibi addressing Congress about Iran. Whether you like it or not, Congress has expressed both strong bipartisan support for new Iran sanctions and Israel generally, and Bibi personally. Do not forget, Bibi's already addressed joint sessions of Congress on two prior occasions to great acclaim.

Congressional Democrats are not particularly concerned if Obama is embarrassed by the Bibi invite and speech. Obama's relationship with Congress has always been rocky and deteriorating, and now that Obama is at the end-point of his term, his influence over them is even more diminished. I additionally expect Democratic presidential contenders like Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren to endorse the content of Bibi's speech, and Biden will simply say nothing to not embarrass the president.

[Fred Sanders]

17. "End point of his term"? You wish. I also do not address Flat Earthers, my avoidance was very careful.

[geek tragedy]

18. It is true that a strong majority of Congress supports apartheid

and prolonged Palestinian suffering. Israel/Palestine is one area where people like Warren are to the right of the Tea Party. The difference between Congress and a Likud convention on Israel/Palestine is that there is at least criticism of Bibi in the latter, albeit from the neofascist right.

Where you are off-base is your full-throated defense of rightwing legislators actively conspiring with a foreign power in an unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol to kneecap their own government instead of, you know, passing bills and choosing to govern in a responsible manner.

Bibi, Boehner, and the PBA. You certainly have an interesting array of causes to champion here.

[branford]

20. Whether you like it or not, support for new sanctions on Iran is very bipartisan,

and quite possibly sufficient to override a veto. Congress is under no obligation to acquiesce to the president on any matters, including Iran. In fact, our system of government, with its separation of powers and other checks and balances, is designed to prevent one branch from steamrolling the others.

You comments about right-wing legislators is almost comical. Have you listened to liberal senators like Bob Menendez (D-NJ), ranking Democratic on the Foreign Affairs Committee, condemning President Obama’s State of the Union talking points on Iran, characterizing them as coming “straight out of Tehran?” Heck, even the president only wants to wait before new sanctions and only opposes new legislation as bad negotiating strategy, Obama has never has supported or endorsed your Israeli apartheid and related positions, and it is nowhere to be found in the Democratic Platform.

Simply, Congress believes inviting Bibi is good for Congress and their support for Iran sanctions legislation, and Bibi believes speaking before Congress is good for him. Congress, Democrats and Republicans, didn't "kneecap" our government or conspire with a foreign power, they're lawfully playing political hardball with the president on an issue where they strongly disagree with his position. If the voters don't like how their legislators act, they can punish them in the next election. However, as you acknowledge, when you have everyone from Ted Cruz to Elizabeth Warren basically sharing the same position, not to mention the results of the 2014 elections, I guess all you're left with is vague and ridiculous claims of near treason by your political opponents, apparently now including most of the Democratic congressional caucus.

I don't need to champions the Republicans on the issues of Iran or Israel, I need simply back the innumerable Democrats who are in total agreement, including both my Democratic senators from NY and my Democratic congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney.

[geek tragedy]

21. Congress didn't invite him, Bibi invited himself and got Boehner to sign off

on it. Just like he tried to meddle in the 2012 elections.

The parties to this invitation were Bibi and the Republican Party.

Lots of Democrats were eager to pimp Bush's war with Iraq just like Neocons like Menendez want a war with Iran now.

Obama takes the problems in the Middle East seriously. Unlike the warmongers in Congress who are anxious for us to bomb a new country into the Stone Age now that Afghanistan and Iraq are late in the cycle.

New York Democrats in Congress are uniformly awful on Israel, and always have been, with most incapable of recognizing that Palestinians are human beings with rights.

So you and Bibi and Dick Cheney can all go ahead and wave your Pom-poms in favor of war with Iran, beginning with attempts to torpedo negotiations. But don't expect those of us who aren't AIPAC sycophants to appreciate you any more than we appreciated Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and the other co/sponsors of the Iraq War Resolution.

Congress has never done anything--not one single thing--aimed at advancing a two-state solution. Congress has always stood for enabling the occupation in perpetuity, and pretty much rubber-stamping whatever the Israeli rightwing wants.

As rightwing and racist as Israel is, our Congress is extremist by Israeli standards.

[branford]

22. It's clear that your complaints really don't concern Boehner inviting Bibi to speak.

Your issue is that in addition to the Republicans, virtually all elected Democrats, including the president, as well as the official Democratic Platform, do not reflect your views concerning Israel. You're also not truly surprised about Bibi's anticipated third speech to a joint session of Congress, so much as angered that a strong pro-Israel position in Congress is one of the few bipartisan areas of agreement, and that Bibi will be welcomed so warmly.

You are free to hold any views concerning Israel that you wish. However, I, like most of my fellow Americans, including a clear majority of Democrats, are in accord with the prevailing views and policies concerning Israel. What you consider "awful" positions from Democratic senators such as Schumer, Gillibrand and Menendez, most of your fellow Democrats, no less everyone else, believes are prudent, wise and relatively uncontroversial.

[geek tragedy]

24. Your defense of a nakedly partisan stunt concocted

by a rightwing foreign government and the most powerful rightwing politician in the USA is not one I have heard from any Democrat.

By endorsing the Boehner/Bibi scheme, you are not supporting current policy. You are supporting war with Iran and the de facto end of US support for a two-state solution.

That is the position of rightwing radicals.

Rightwingers like to claim that enabling Israel to destroy the prospects of a two-state solution, and to encourage war with Iran, makes them pro-Israel whereas those like Obama who are opposed to war with Iran and would prefer that Israel not go the way of Botha-era South Africa are outside the mainstream.

Transparent.

I'll side with President Obama and diplomacy. Seeing You and John Boehner and Netanyahu and Ted Cruz on the other side is reassuring. As it is on every other issue.

[branford]

25. The purported "right wing radicals" include virtually every elected Democrat.

Just complaining about Boehner and Cruz is simply disingenuous and ignores one of the few and notable areas where Democrats and Republicans are in agreement.

Even Obama doesn't even come close to supporting your positions concerning Israel. With respect to the Iran negotiations, he hasn't even ruled out new sanctions, he's just asked for a little bit more time for negotiations, which have already dragged out far longer than initially agreed with little to show for efforts. That is precisely why Congress is so annoyed, and the president fears Netanyahu, whose opinion about Iran is well known. Moreover, if Congress passes new sanctions, and overrides a presidential veto, a definite possibility, that will become the new de facto American policy. That's how our democracy works.

[geek tragedy]

27. Most Democrats want war with Iran and want to scuttle

negotiations over Palestinian statehood?

Because that is what Boehner and Bibi want.

A plurality of Congressional Democrats probably do, but that is because our elite political class is much more fanatically devoted to Israel than are ordinary, patriotic Americans who believe the conversation should begin and end with "what is best for America" not "how can we kiss Netanyahu's ass?"

Most Americans want us to be an independent, neutral actor. not a de facto servant to a country halfway around the world.

Yes, Americans generally prefer Israel over Palestine, but this is not a country known for its love of Arabs or Muslims. And generalized preference does not mean they care more about Israel than they do their own country.

We'll see if this attempt to undermine and humiliate President Obama by the state of Israel is rewarded at the UN Security Council going forward.

At the very least, that nasty little thug should be denied a WH meeting.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. ...

[grossproffit]

32. Excellent post.

[azurnoir]

34. Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you on Bibi's trip to DC

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, said that Boehner blundered when he invited Netanyahu to address the Congress amid sensitive negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program and in the shadow of Israel’s elections.

“If that’s the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit two weeks before his own election, right in the midst of our negotiations, I just don’t think it’s appropriate and helpful,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday at her weekly news conference. The speech, Pelosi suggested, could give Netanyahu a political boost in elections a few weeks later and inflame international talks aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-snub-obama-wont-meet-netanyahu-during-us-visit/#ixzz3PZmnA8eK

[branford]

36. Let's discuss it after Bibi's speech when, as before, I expect Pelosi

will have given numerous standing ovations to Bibi, as will virtually all other Congressman and Senators.

If you've read other articles, Pelosi also primarily complains that Boehner did not coordinate Bibi's trip with the White House, rather than objecting to trip and speech itself, and she took her time to issue any statements, probably because the White House had to plead their case to avoid further embarrassment.

In any event, speech or no speech, neither Pelosi, Obama or any other notable Democrat has taken the less than unequivocal pro-Israel positions espoused you and others in this thread and sub-forum.

[azurnoir]

38. so undermining the Democratic POTUS is a ProIsrael position?

Pelosi's complaint covers a variety of issues and as you'll notice the date of the visit has been changed from 2/11 to 3/3

and it was indeed only Republicans that enlisted this trip you you seem to be so vocally supporting here

[branford]

41. The date of the speech was changed

because Netanyahu was already scheduled to be in Washington for the 2015 AIPAC Policy Conference March 1-3.

The original date was suggested because it was the 36th anniversary of the Iranian revolution.

Bibi was also invited to speak about the need for new Iranian sanctions and Islamic terrorism. These issues have strong bipartisan support in Congress. It's the reason why Obama implored Congress to hold-off in the State of the Union and issued a veto threat. You may view it as opposing the president, but I and most others see it as supporting the positions of a clear majority of elected Democrats. In any event, Obama is still strongly pro-Israel. The discussion about Bibi and Iran sanctions among our party is little more than quibbling about the best Democratic strategy to ultimately support Israel. The president, congressional Democrats and the party has not come close to adopting you positions concerning Israel.

[azurnoir]

42. Is undermining the POTUS as Boehner is obviously doing a ProIsrael position ?

[branford]

44. It depends.

The Republicans, a great many Congressional Democrats, American Israel supporters, and much of the general public from across the political spectrum appear to believe it is. Obama has already acknowledged that his Iran negotiating position is not popular with almost everyone in the USA (and Israel).

Ironically, even without new Iran sanctions, the already extended negotiations still have a significant chance of failing. The White House is more concerned about the political blow-back of this scenario, than a carefully choreographed visit from Bibi, which is not uncommon and where Bibi will not directly criticize Obama.

[geek tragedy]

40. "I just don't think that's appropriate or helpful."

Your effort to turn Pelosi into a Bibi-worshipping Cheneyite who wants war with Iran are not very convincing.

This is two-rightwing parties--Likud and RNC--interfering in the political system of each other's countries in a sick, decisively un-patriotic symbiotic relationship.

No person left of Ted Cruz or Naftali Bennett would approve of this.

[branford]

43. Are you just unable to accept that virtually all elected Democrats

share the same positions as Republicans concerning Israel.

[geek tragedy]

45. Most Democrats consider Palestinians to be human beings

with human rights, so no they are not the same as the Republicans.

Sorry, the hasbara line about all Democrats lining up behind your heroes Bibi and Boehner is just bullshit.

Democrats are devoted to Israel, but they also support the president's efforts to avoid a war--with a few odious exceptions as we see in this thread.

In short, there is a difference between Obama on one hand and folks like Romney and yourself on the other.

[geek tragedy]

46. U mad bro? This little stunt looks to have blown up in your side's face.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/23/democrats-obama-boehner-netanyahu-congress-visit

The White House is growing more confident it can withstand efforts to frustrate its policy of nuclear talks with Iran, as a furore over the intervention of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, appears to be encouraging wavering Democrats to rally around their president.

In the first White House press conference since the Republican House speaker, John Boehner, sparked controversy by inviting Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress amid calls for a tougher approach to Iran, administration officials claimed there was support for their argument that planned legislation authorising new sanctions, if talks fail, would be counter-productive.

“I think there is plenty of indication that the … at least some members of Congress have found this rather plausible line of argument pretty persuasive,” the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, told reporters.

...

The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, called on Boehner to rescind the invitation, arguing: “I certainly support the sanctions [on Iran] if the [diplomatic] deal doesn’t come through, but having said that, the invitation and acceptance is ill-advised for either side. It is too important an issue to politicise it.”

[azurnoir]

47. Such pretty pictures that mean nothing in this case as Pelosi sides with Obama on Iran

Siding squarely with Obama, Pelosi warned that the congressional push for new sanctions could be a setback to the international negotiations aimed at dismantling Iran's nuclear program.

“We all agree that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” she said. “The problem is this could seriously undermine the delicate diplomacy that is at work.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/230393-pelosi-slams-netanyahu-invite

[azurnoir]

28. who will be in charge of Netanyahu's security while he visits the US?

does the Legislative branch have the authority to order US security to such a task or to allow foreign security to enter the country?

The problem that you fail to see here is it is the Executive branch not the Legislative that is in charge of foreign policy, the Legislative holds the purse strings but the Executive has the decision making authority, so while the Legislative branch can allocate the money for a given item the Executive can indeed decide on whether or not to actually use it
also just who is paying for this trip, the American people by who's authority will that happen?

[branford]

30. You need to reread the Constitution and a good deal of federal law.

The president is not a monarch, even when it comes to foreign policy.

For instance, the power to approve treaties is within the sole discretion of the Senate. Moreover, apart from the power of the purse, which is substantial, the president must still follow federal law when carrying out our foreign policy. If Congress passes Iranian sanctions without waiver authority, and overrides an expected presidential veto, sanctions will become our foreign policy concerning Iran. Or for another example, with respect to Cuba, Obama can lift certain travel and related restriction, but most of the actual embargo requires Congressional approval.

Are you really also stating that Netanyahu, the prime minister of an American ally, should not be allowed to visit the USA at the invitation of Congress, a co-equal branch of government to the executive, because the Capital Police will have to provide security? Diplomats, including of nations less than friendly to the USA, routinely travel to and from our country, and the local police provide security. We maintain diplomatic relations and entertain dignitaries from virtually all countries, good and bad. Even countries that are outwardly hostile, such as Iran, have diplomats travel to our country, primarily to the United Nations in New York, where the NYPD and other law enforcement provide security. I deal with these individuals all the time as I live, quite literally, across from the UN in NYC.

In the unlikely and moronic event that the White House tries to prevent Bibi from traveling because of Obama's inconvenience or cost, Congress would no doubt retaliate. As you note, Congress has the power of the purse, and we have been running our government on short-term continuing resolutions. Congress could easily fire back at the White House by cutting funding to the unpopular State Department, presidential security, or even the United Nations or Palestinian Authority (something Congress is considering regardless of the Iranian issue). Iranian sanctions will no doubt pass as well with a veto proof majority, if for no other reason, for Congress to assert its independence and authority.

I expect that Bibi will come to speak at the joint session of Congress, and as before, will be warmly received. He'll probably end up having another frosty, yet banal, meeting with Obama. Bibi will probably additionally grant interviews with all the major networks, and then travel to NYC or LA for some more fundraising and schmoozing.

[azurnoir]

31. your lengthy and there for I guess 'impressive' answer really did not address my question

and once again does Congress have authority over the local police in Washington DC? Your list of Republican retaliations is noted but you do realize that a 2/3rds majority is needed to over ride a veto and right now even Democratic POTUS hopeful Hilary Clinton is siding with Obama on Iran but do keep your fingers crossed

[geek tragedy]

35. Well, Pelosi threw ice water on Bibi's campaign speech

and Obama will not have the time of day for him.

As it turns out actual Democrats are doing the opposite of what you want them to do.

As is usually the case.

[branford]

37. Obama is trying to save face, and I actually agree that he should not meet

with Bibi so close to Israeli elections.

Are you also seriously suggesting that Pelosi will not warmly welcome Bibi once he arrives and congratulate him on his speech? Pelosi, probably due to pleading from the White House, is simply engaged in some damage control for the president.

Bibi doesn't need to meet with Obama, as his speech will be sufficiently newsworthy by itself. However, the absence of a presidential meeting will no doubt be part of story, and give it greater prominence in the news cycle.

Most importantly, what other major elected Democrats have complained about the speech, and can you cite to anything that demonstrates that Pelosi's extremely strong pro-Israel bona fides are now in doubt and she's adopting even a sliver of your viewpoint?

If your great victory on this matter is highlighting how Pelosi would have preferred Boehner and Bibi to have coordinated with the White House, effectively so Democrats could have received as much positive political pr as the Republicans, I can assure you that I and the majority of pro-Israel Americans, including a majority of Democrats, will sleep soundly.

[geek tragedy]

39. She objects to your rightwing heroes trying to torpedo diplomatic negotiations in a move

that will make war much more likely, if not inevitable.

Because, you know, she isn't a rightwing warmonger posing as a Democrat.

She's pro-Israel (too much so) but also anti-war.

I know your crowd can't process the fact that someone would be both pro-Israel and anti-war, but there it is.

[geek tragedy]

19. Congress is beyond awful on Israel/Palestine and always has been. Cheney on his worst day

was more responsible than our Congress, which is split between those who share Bibi's commitment to impose apartheid via deceit, those who support a more honest imposition of apartheid, and those who favor ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians.

The international neocon alliance is on full display here.

[Sparky 1]

23. Its probably all orchestrated on both sides to create more war.

War is about the only economy this nation has.

How's that for cynical?

[Israeli]

29. The senator from Jerusalem will take all the help he can get these days.

Ahead of close elections, Congress gives Bibi a prime-time appearance

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on February 11. Coincidently, Netanyahu’s speech will take place a month and a half before the Israeli elections.

According to most polls, Netanyahu is extremely vulnerable, and is still far from an absolute majority that will win him another term as prime minister. If you think this is the real reason he was invited to Washington, you are in good company. Netanyahu’s campaign, which is having some trouble taking off, is all about his position as “the responsible adult” and “the internationally recognized leader.” Bibi, who doesn’t usually attend funerals of Israeli terror victims, rushed to Paris along with Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman for a photo-up with world leaders after the recent terror attacks in the French capitol. But the invitation to Congress is much better – in his previous speech, Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations. Nobody will stand in his way for a photo-op the way people did in Paris.

It is not surprising that the GOP is in the tank for Bibi. After all, Netanyahu all but endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential elections. Israeli and American politics have almost merged in recent years and the debate over America’s Middle Eastern policy sounds to the Israeli ear like a battle between Labor and Likud. This is why the U.S. cannot play a positive role in the peace talks – the American positions duplicate the Israeli debate, and as a result, are completely disconnected from Palestinian point of view. Americans always end up being either surprised or angered by every move Fatah or Hamas make – just as Israelis are.

Going back to the elections, it’s clear that the GOP is much smarter in its Israel politics than the democrats will ever be. Boehner and his party will not only help Netanyahu, but they could end up embarrassing the president on the eve of an agreement with Iran. The problem is that there will be a considerable number of democrats who will rush to their help – such as those who joined Boehner in inviting Bibi without consulting the White House (UPDATE: The response from the White House suggests potential complications here). Sometimes you get the feeling that some democrats actually like embarrassing the White House on Israel, since unlike republican support for Bibi, which can now be taken for granted, democrats who go against their president are gaining a lot more in return.

What effect will this “bipartisan” support have when the Israeli polls open? It’s difficult to guess. I think Bibi’s problems are of a very local nature. Israelis are simply tired of him, so I am not sure another high profile public appearance will change a lot, especially when a lot of the anger has to do with the feeling that Netanyahu is disconnected from the concerns of the average Israeli. The troubling aspect of this timely invitation is not so much with the prospect of tilting the elections, but what it says about Israeli politics, and more so, about America’s.

Source: http://972mag.com/ahead-of-close-elections-congress-gives-bibi-a-prime-time-appearance/101671/