Netanyahu’s Speech and the U.S. Congress

Prime Miniaster Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before a combined session of the U.S. Congress yesterday was a thoroughly surreal experience. In the speech, Netanyahu pretended to be putting forth major concessions toward Palestine that could lead to the resumption of peace talks between the two parties, but the speech in fact was nothing more than standard Likud boiler plate that broke no new ground and was–as Netanyahu knew as he delivered it–totally unacceptable to the Palestinians (who promptly rejected it as “disappointing”). Everyone in the room or watching on television should have known that th speech was simply Bibi’s standard stump speech, but the U.S. Congress, interrupting him two dozen times with standing ovations, seemed to respond as if they were listening to a Churchillian oration. It was not, and the Congressional response was, in a word, unseemly.

Netanyau wasted no time demonstrating that he was not carrying an olive branch. Citing standard right-wing Israeli talking points, he reiterated that Judea and Samaria (J&S), as the Israelis like to refer to what the Arabs (and most of the rest of the world) refer to as the West Bank, was Israel’s, given to them by God in the Old Testament, and that the Israelis, despite this proper ownership, would be generous in making concession to carve out a Palestinian state somewhere on this piece of disputed ground that would include the abandonment of some of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank (oops, J&S). Those concession would not, however, include any part of Jerusalem, which he declared was the sole possession of Israel and its capital in perpetuity.

These two provisions alone gave away the seriousness of any peaceful intent that Netanyahu brought to the forum. Haaretz, the Israeli paper that opposes the Netanyahu regime across the board, referred to the speech as the “same old messages”  that included endless conditions that have no relation to reality.” If reality entails meaningful concessions that will reactivate the peace process, their assessment is exactly correct, since the Netanyahu conditions leave very little territory to be negotiated as the basis of Palestine and set the context that any concessions will be the result of Israeli largesse.  The speech effectively slammed the door not only on President Obama’s proposals of last week; they effectively end any prospects of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for as long as Netanyahu is in office. Haaretz concludes that Netanyahu “is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel’s isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration.” I find it hard to argue with that conclusion.

Then there was the Congressional response. The assembled Senators and Representatives hung on and cheered every hard-line word that Netanyahu spoke, and one can assums that there will be lots of Israeli TV commercials documenting that support when the next Israeli election is held. Did they know what they were cheering? Does the United States Congress reject the idea of meaningful dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians, which is the inevitable result of Netanyahu’s speech? Or were the collected members, ever vigilant to instant polls, election prospects in 2012 and how full their reelection coffers would be, simply pandering to what they assume was American opinion on this subject?

It is incoceivable to me that the 500+ rpresentatives and others in attendance did not recognize Netanyahu’s speech for what it was: a basic, if nicely presented, reiteration of the standard right-wing, pro-settler Israeli position that broke no new ground and was not intended to be a diplomatic outreach but a simple statement of political position. Recognizing that politics no longer ends at the water’s edge, the speech was also a condemnation of the position of the government of the United States, and like that position or not, those Congressional “spring butts” (a term I learned at the US Aifr Force Command and Staff College as the reflexive response of some officer “brown nosers”) were cheering against their own government. Where was the “America, Love It or Leave It” crowd on that part). If you are a Palestinian today, you can only conclude, rightly or wrongly, that the Congress of the United States is your enemy. Is that what the members sought to convey?

Those who support the Netanyahu position, both here and in Israel, will no doubt respond negatively to these words. That is fine: the heart of dialogue is accepting contrary views and working from them. Having said that, I find it shocking, and yes, surreal, that this event occurred the way it did. To put it simply, a foreign official was invited to speak to the legislative branch of another country, where he berated and openly opposed the foreign policy of his closest ally to the cheers of that legislative body. Simply unbelievable!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Netanyahu’s Speech and the U.S. Congress”

  1. william bilek, m.d. Says:

    Wrong again!

    “the speech in fact was nothing more than standard Likud boiler plate that broke no new ground ”

    The Likud Charter calls for:
    “The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in “Judea, Samaria, and Azzah”. Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as “the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel”.
    The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”

    Netanyahu stated in Washington: “Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.

    I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace.

    Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy…

    … because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland. And you have to understand this: In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers….Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included. So why has peace not been achieved?

    Because so far the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

    I stood before my people — and I told you it wasn’t easy for me. I stood before my people, and I said, “I will accept a Palestinian state.”

    It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”

    How much clearer can Benjamin Netanyahu be?

    ” what the Arabs (and most of the rest of the world) refer to as the West Bank, ” a name imposed by Trans-Jordan on the area it conquered in 1948. The West Bank has been the West Bank for all of 19 years; (the same amount of time that eastern Jerusalem was “Arab East Jerusalem”).

    “The name West Bank, a translation of the Arabic term ad-difa’a al-gharbiya, was coined by the Jordanians after the territory, conquered by Jordan’s Arab Legion in 1948, was annexed to Transjordan, forming the new Kingdom of Jordan in 1949/1950. The term was chosen to differentiate the “West bank of the River Jordan”, namely the newly annexed territory, from the “East Bank” of this river, namely Transjordan. Until that point, the area was known under different names in English, among them by the historic names (for 2000 years) of its two regions – Judea and Samaria, the term used by the Israeli military and civilian administration today.” (Wikipedia).

    “the Netanyahu conditions leave very little territory to be negotiated as the basis of Palestine and set the context that any concessions will be the result of Israeli largesse.”

    These are neither “conditions’, nor “pre-conditions” to negotiations. They are Israel’s “positions,” just as the Arabs have “positions”.

    Netanyahu clearly said: “The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations.” “the precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated.” On Jerusalem, he said, “I believe that with creativity and with goodwill, a solution can be found. ”

    In the face of these direct quotes, working for a negotiated solution, how can it be said that, “The speech effectively slammed the door not only on President Obama’s proposals of last week; they effectively end any prospects of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for as long as Netanyahu is in office.”?

    As for Congress, “the speech was also a condemnation of the position of the government of the United States.” And here, as a former Canadian, I was led to believe that Congress was indeed, an equal participant in “the government of the United States”. If, on the other hand, I am not misinformed, and the Legislative Body is an equal part of government with the Executive Body, how, then, could it be “cheering” against itself?

    Indeed, “a foreign official was invited to speak to the legislative branch of (THE GOVERNMENT OF) another country, where he berated and openly opposed the foreign policy of (THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT OF) his closest ally to the cheers of that legislative body (which, obviously, in an overwhelming majority, did not agree with the policies of that Executive Branch, and, together with the invited foreign official, saw it as dangerous to the security and existence of Israel.)

    Why is that so “unbelievable”?

    Netanyahu has broken with a century-long position of the Likud, and has openly expressed his acceptance of a Palestinian Arab state, the parameters and conditions of which are to be determined by negotiations. The Arabs have a century-long position of refusing to accept, or negotiate the acceptance of a nation-state of the Jewish people in a small part of its ancestral homeland. Repeated polls show that the American people, and their representatives in Congress, support the position of the democratically elected government of Israel.

    And you disagree. Simply unbelievable!

  2. Extract Image from Video…

    […]Netanyahu’s Speech and the U.S. Congress « What After Iraq?[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: