There isn't a breach of protocol since Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has the necessary authority.
Then, of course, there's the catch 22 factor. Had Netanyahu refused the invitation, he'd be seen as snubbing the US Congress. Since he was put in the position where he had to snub [i]somebody[]/i] and he (and Israel) has much more friends in the Congress than in the White House, was it any kind of fair to expect him to refuse the invitation? You don't insult your friends to appeace your foes.
Obama's State Department is funding several non-profits who run a full-throated campaign, officially called V15 (V for victory) to unseat Netanyahu in March elections. The campaign is run by former Obama campaign aides like Jeremy Bird, and even their hope-and-change ads are mostly shot in the USA and Israeli landscapes almost don't feature in them. How does that rank on your scale of appaling acts, Cerin?
The simple answer is that Boehner should not have extended the invite in this manner, knowing that it would create a catch 22. Boehner is the one being accused of breaching protocol, not Netanyahu so much. Secondly, you are referring to the White House as a 'foe' of Israel, but that it is not. I submit that this is a calculated and deceitful move by Boehner designed to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, and which won't help either Israel or the United States in the end.
Minardil wrote:There isn't a breach of protocol since Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who has the necessary authority.
While the Speaker of the House might well have the necessary "authority" to extend an invitation to any guest, it is certainly a matter of protocol, tradition, and accepted best practices of the past that when the invitee is a foreign Head of State, that our own Head of State be informed of the invitation in advance.
Speaker Boehner did not follow this procedure, and instead extended the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu without informing the White House. Speaker Boehner has also explicitly stated that his intention for the visit is to give Mr. Netanyahu a forum in which to make HIS arguments against the treaty negotiations currently under way between the Obama Administration and the government of Iran. In essence, Mr. Boehner is attempting to run his own foreign policy separate from the Executive Branch, and THIS is something he most definitely is NOT authorized to do. In fact the Constitution specifically forbids it.
So, is it true that the US State Department is funding "several" non-profit organizations in a "full throated" campaign to unseat Mr Netanyahu?
Well, I read several articles from Israeli papers like the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, and to sum up, yes there IS a group called V15 which is opposed to Mr Netanyahu, this organization is hardly a front for "Obama's State Department", as Storyteller charges. Jeremy Bird was consultant to the Obama campaign and currently IS a consultant to the V15 group, but that's because he is a professional political consultant, one of many American political consultants hired by both sides (or maybe "all sides" would be more fitting) of the Israeli political landscape during this election cycle. It seems Israelis of all political stripes have been hiring American consultants for decades, so the idea that because one of them once worked on Obama's campaign and now works for V15 is neither surprising nor evidence of any wrong doing. The articles from Israeli papers also mention that V15 is accused of accepting foreign donations, including from Americans, but they make no mention of official support from the US government, the donations in question are from private citizens (and I suppose political action groups on the OTHER side of the Israeli political divide are also accepting donations foreign sources, just as Right Wing Israeli campaigns LIKE Mr. Netanyahu's are working with their own American political consultants with ties to prominent Republicans).
I did manage to find one reference to a US State Department grant in the amount of about $230K which had been given to OneVoice, a group aligned with V15, but this grant expired last year, BEFORE the current elections were called and this group is not currently the recipient of any US government funds.
So if that old $230K is the money that Storyteller is talking about which is "funding" this Anti-Netanyahu campaign, then either campaigns are dirt cheap in Israel, or his charge is full of nonsense.
Minardil wrote:I'd also like Storyteller to provide a well documented and verifiable account of an episode of Mr. Obama's "well known vindictiveness", as he called it. Storyteller, tell us what happened, who "offended" the President, and describe what steps the President took as retribution.
Hiring of American consultants is nothing new in the Israeli politics; a former Obama campaign consultant working for Livni or Kahlon would not be news at all. It's the fact that they aren't working for a political party but running a "non-partisan" campaign purely against the sitting Prime Minister. The sheer number of people from Obama's re-election team working for multiple "non-partisan" anyone-but-Bibi campaigns leaves little doubt that the White House has a hand in it.
Hiring of American consultants is nothing new in the Israeli politics; a former Obama campaign consultant working for Livni or Kahlon would not be news at all. It's the fact that they aren't working for a political party but running a "non-partisan" campaign purely against the sitting Prime Minister. The sheer number of people from Obama's re-election team working for multiple "non-partisan" anyone-but-Bibi campaigns leaves little doubt that the White House has a hand in it.
would actually agree... which makes me wonder why the thrust of the Democrats' (or Cerin's) anger isn't directed against Boehner first and foremost
Minardil wrote: Bibi, if you are going to stand at the podium in the House of Representatives and scold America's President for making a bad deal, you damn well better also present some concrete alternative ideas, because if you don't you'll just end up looking foolish. And foolish is how you looked today. Sorry, but "no deal is better than a bad deal" might be a great sound bite for a man who wants to win a few hardline votes at home, but it is hardly a serious proposal for how to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.
Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.
Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.
The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum” during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during “challenging” times.
In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.
What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei. (Although, the latter never seems to write back!)
He is quite specific on the alternative - keep up the pressure, don't be afraid to call Iran's bluff and walk away from the table, exploit the oil prices collapse to your advantage. Insist on maximizing tbe dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and push for a deal that maximizes breakout time. All very much to the point. He also made the important observation that the deal does not put limits on Iran's development of delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
Minardil wrote:And foolish is how you looked today.
Storyteller wrote:Edit - You know Netanyahu's right when even Al-Arabiya praises him:
portia wrote:I did not listen to Netanyau's speech. But I have been repeatedly "impressed" by his (and sometimes Storyteller's) tendency to act as if no one else has any knowledge of the Middle East...
And, I would comment, that several US Presidents and several Israeli Presidents...
Minardil wrote:He is quite specific on the alternative - keep up the pressure, don't be afraid to call Iran's bluff and walk away from the table, exploit the oil prices collapse to your advantage. Insist on maximizing tbe dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and push for a deal that maximizes breakout time. All very much to the point. He also made the important observation that the deal does not put limits on Iran's development of delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the word "specific" means something different in your native Russian?
His comments offered zero specifics. "Hold out for a better deal" is in no way a "specific" course of action. You have to provide actual details of what the better deal should look like, which he didn't.
portia wrote:Gee. . . .I am surprised that "everyone knows that "sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions."
When was that decided? By whom?
The comment that I called Bebe the President, when i know that is not his office, suggests that you have run out of substantial arguments.
People forget that Iran calls for the destruction of the West and Israel on almost a daily basis.
Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House, by the Congress, and that is a valid invitation by any norms.
and some people like our President and his administration fails to hear
so comes Netanyahu who by the way is a Warrior and a combat Vet
that the deal that is being discussed is a terrible deal and that is why it should be dropped, period
ILvEowyn wrote:People forget that Iran calls for the destruction of the West and Israel on almost a daily basis.
The leadership of Iran does this?Netanyahu was invited by the Speaker of the House, by the Congress, and that is a valid invitation by any norms.
Valid? Yes. Normal? No.and some people like our President and his administration fails to hear
Yes clearly Obama hates America and is secretly trying to help Iran destroy it. Is that what you're getting at?so comes Netanyahu who by the way is a Warrior and a combat Vet
so?that the deal that is being discussed is a terrible deal and that is why it should be dropped, period
As has been discussed here already, it's not exactly helpful to say 'the deal is bad' without explaining what about it is bad or what to do in the alternative.
portia wrote:Bebe knows what the world is like in relation to Israel. Not from anyone else's perspective.
portia wrote:The Israeli view of Iran, and some other subjects, should not be ignored, but it is only one view, and there are other factors to be considered.
The US Congress does not represent even one Israeli citizen, nor does the President. The US has a variety of interests and no one should be surprised if something the US does irritates Israel. Heaven knows plenty of what Israel does is irritating to the USA.
Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest