PM Netanyahu's Powerful Messages at AIPAC and US Congress


Israel is back in business.
PM Binyamin Netanyahu delivered two speeches this week: one at the AIPAC Conference and another before the Joint Meeting of Congress. The AIPAC speech was a good prelude to the brilliant one delivered to the House of Representatives.
Therefore, we are going to look at the main messages sent by the Head of the Jewish State, and briefly offer our take on the criticism that arose after the delivery.

“For 2000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.  We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us.  We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks.  We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves. Well, no more, no more.” – PM Netanyahu

AIPAC
PM Netanyahu began by clarifying that the Israel-US relations are not in an all time low “(..) reports of the demise of the Israeli-U.S. relations are not only premature, they’re just wrong.” (therefore it would be interesting to know why the so-called pundits, and media networks, insist upon being wrong), then he moved on to say that he is grateful to President Obama for all he has done for Israel and so should all Jews and Pro-Israel Activists (a clear guideline: move on, for using Israel to attack Pres. Obama doesn't work).

But the main message delivered at the conference was that Israel has never been and never will be America's lackey. When the interests of the Jewish State are at stake, the Israeli government will make its own decisions and act accordingly – even when it displeases the US.

“In 1948, Secretary of State Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood. But Ben-Gurion,understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence.“ -- idem

“In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck,the United States warned Prime Minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act — acted alone to defend itself.” -- idem

It's 2015, if Israel must act alone to defend itself, yet again, it will. Israel doesn't go to war to impose democracy, or impose its vision of the world, the Jewish State is forced to go to war in order to survive.

Joint Meeting of Congress
The main two messages behind this speech were:

 1. The US can't possibly be fighting ISIS while at the same time assisting Iran in expanding its power, when the only difference between ISIS and Iran is that one is actually an Islamic Republic, an acknowledged sovereign state with sophisticated weaponry; and the other while aspiring to be an Islamic State, is not acknowledged as such and fights with less sophisticated weapons – notwithstanding, their main goal is the same.
 2. If the US strikes a bad deal with Iran, one that is absolutely detrimental to Israel's national security, then the Jewish State will have to act alone.

The Israeli PM, however, is willing to make a concession: not to seek a regime change in Iran, if only they'll change their behaviour – this guarantee comes only come through a good deal that satisfies Israel and the Gulf nations.

Our take on the criticism
Some individuals have accused Bibi Netanyahu of not having offered an alternative, despite his eloquent speech; but either they didn't pay attention or they have difficulties with interpreting words, for the Israeli Prime Minister did offer three alternatives:

 1. Don't lift sanctions before the Revolutionary Islamic Republic changes its behaviour
 2. Don't go for regime change, if they're prevented from making a bomb
 3. Go ahead with an apparent self-serving agreement (that jeopardises Israel's security) and we'll study a way to deter the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran.

Some say that the Obama Administration is fuming over the PM's words; well, then it would be probably because the Israeli leadership has put the administration in a position where they will have to explain the American people what exactly comprises the deal with Iran – because, so far, they haven't explained it very well. Leaking that the Iranian Foreign Minister screams at State Secretary Kerry at the negotiations table is purely a distraction; the American people deserve a proper explanation.
But let's assume that the Israeli PM hadn't indeed offered alternatives:

  • Was he invited to the negotiations table, even though Israel is the main interested party in all of this? No. 
  • Was he invited to Congress to inform and explain the dangers of a bad deal? Yes, and he did it well.
  • Was he to dictate what the US should do? No, and that interference would have been inappropriate. 

I understand the American Plan concerning Iran. I can see where they are coming from. It can be a good plan if the US can give guarantees that it will stay put when the time for action arrives.
We have to remember that while the CIA (until 1998) and the NIE (in 2007) insisted that Iran's nuclear programme was being developed for civilian purposes, the Supreme Leader of the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran was overseeing the development of nuclear weapons (in spite of being a signatory of the NPT). Under the nose of two US Presidents, secret nuclear plants were built. This means that the Revolutionary Iran is duplicitous by nature and the US, today, cannot offer full guarantees that after sanctions are fully lifted they won't proceed with their plans – specially now that Saudi Arabia is reportedly seeking its own as well. So, what's America's alternative to a deal that will be certainly breached by the present Iranian regime?

“This is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” -- PM Netanyahu

Shema Am Yisrael - no matter what - Israel will stand בע"ה

(Image: Reuters)

Comments

  1. I wish that you had a "Like" button. Long live Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      I will see what I can do, my friend :).
      Long Live Israel, indeed.

      Cheers for your comment :D.

      Delete
  2. "So, what's America's alternative to a deal that will be certainly breached by the present Iranian regime?" - this says it all!
    The ball is on America's court, on Obama's court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon :D!

      Yes, the ball is in the Obama administration's court.

      Cheers for your comment :D. I appreciate it.

      Delete
  3. I still have goose bumps just thinking about that speech, it was freaking amazing! Wouldn't it be great if Portugal had such a PM? Bibi is patriotic, he loves his country and his people, and he's willing to do whatever to protect them! Excellent.
    Obama is disappointing nowadays, isn't he? His stupid reaction after the speech was nothing less than ridiculous: what did he mean by Bibi said nothing new? Did he even watch the speech or was he out playing golf?

    Iran refused his latest 10-year freeze plan, what's he gonna do now?
    And if they ever breach the final agreement, what's America's alternative to prevent the end of the world, huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Celeste :D!

      It was excellent, indeed. Would the Portuguese ever understand a politician like PM Netanyahu? No. Would Portugal deserve a Prime Minister like PM Netanyahu? No. Therefore, it would be great if the Portuguese would mature before deserving a PM like Binyamin Netanyahu.
      President Obama is being cautious, I'd say. A lot of hurdles, a lot of menaces, a lot of difficult circumstances...nevertheless, he should be careful not to ruin his legacy for good with the way he chose to manage politics.

      He may just allow the Senate to do what they said they'd do...
      Good question; one that I'm waiting to see answered.

      Cêcê, thank you so much for your comment, darling :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. My non-contrarian note is that there is this thing called the "Constitution of the United States" which gives the senate the authority to approve or reject (by 2/3 vote) treaties negotiated by the president, although traditionally temporary arrangements have been done unilaterally by presidents. Congress also has the authority to void these unilateral presidential agreements. Since the issue here is a permanent adjustment to military power, I would think that this would be the prerogative of the senate. But things are more complex in the age of sophistry. We will likely get a new concept, "Executive Action Treaties", which should take about 10 years to wind their way through the courts. Another possibility is that the president ignores the congress and the courts find that there is no one with standing to bring a case against the Executive Branch. The third possibility is one that has already happened: That a dispute between congress and the president over the treaty is ruled a political dispute, not a constitutional one, therefore the courts have no standing to act as referees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looney, legalese and constitutional proprieties apart, I personally think that doing a deal with Iran now is wrong. You already have a volatile nuclear situation close by with Pakistan and India both with nuclear arms and one more in the region is asking for big trouble.

      Delete
    2. Certainly it is a horrible deal, which no sane person would agree to. Thus, I was considering the range of extra-constitutional legal shenanigans that are likely to be employed to both achieve the agreement and keep it in place.

      Delete
    3. Hi Looney :D!

      Your comment reminds me of the following piece of news:
      Senators Tell Iran: A Deal You Sign with Obama Ends in 2016
      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192339#.VP3QUfmsXdo

      'Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.'

      So, what do you make of this interesting warning to Iran (and to the Obama administration)?

      Looney, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    4. Max,

      The fussing on this has increased. My take is that both Republicans and Democrats are in full agreement that the US is a Constitutional Republic. The Republicans naively think that the Constitution was a document written two centuries ago. The Democrats, along with the western media and the university professors know the truth, however, that our current president is the Incarnation of the US Constitution, thus, any disagreement with the POTUS constitutes a rejection of the constitution and is an attempt to overthrow the foundations of our government. Anyway, that is what I am learning from the news.

      We won't mention what the geniuses approved of and disapproved of on this subject prior to the current administration.

      Delete
    5. Looney,

      LOL I like your sense of humour...

      No, need to mention that...at all :)

      Delete
  5. A different read finally! I read some American articles that were disrespectful of PM Bibi and they made me doubt of the ability of some folks to think. No, Iran can't have the bomb but what if it already has it? Israel has to be ready to act and it's obvious that it can't count on US!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Leila :D!

      I read some too, especially from the Democrat camp: terrible. And they lacked objectivity too.
      Many state that Iran already has the bomb and that these talks are simply a distraction, but for what exactly if they already have it?
      Don't worry, if it comes to that, Israel will be ready to act.

      Leila, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  6. Yep, it was a good trip over to America! I am just crossing my fingers to have this man forming a government after next week's elections!
    Right Wingers: go to the polls!! Don't sit around on your ass, vote and vote for Bibi!! Don't let Buji get votes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ana Raquel :D!

      It was. The polls are scary but let's not forget that in 2009, Tzipi Livni won the elections but Netanyahu was the one capable of forming the government. I hope the same happens this time around. But you know what? These polls are good, because the Right gets too confident, too comfortable and then they don't go out to vote. So they need to vote if a government is to be formed with double confidence.
      Buji wants to form a coalition with the Arab parties (the same that militate against Israel): what the hell?

      Ana, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. If Israel elects Herzog then she will be fucked, pardon my french.

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      Mind your language. But I totally understand what you mean and I agree. Can you imagine an Arab joint-list being part of the next Israeli government? Everybody knows some of them collude with Hezbollah and others with Hamas: what would happen if they'd have access to state secrets?

      Delete
    4. I'm so proud of Israeli right wingers: they went to the polls and voted for Likud! Bibi is in power and Obama: eat your heart out! You had some nerve to send that boy to Israel to try and bring Bibi down HAAAAA!

      Delete
    5. Ana Raquel, I'm very pleased at his victory as well. Check out my post on it.
      Cheers

      Delete
  7. Bibi said one thing that to me was the most important thing he could ever say: Israel can kick ass. This speech actually changed the game cause Israel emerged as a strong power, not as the victim. You're right Iran will betray everybody so we want to know what America is prepared to do when they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michael :D!

      Exactly. Great assessment.
      That's right, we'd like to know what the US is prepared to do then....

      Mike, thank you for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers