I loathe Netanyahu and his cabal of far-right Israelis as much as I hate our own far-right cabal ~ but this gives reality to one of my worst nightmare scenarios ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Republicans’ Netanyahu outreach changes the game
01/22/15 12:54 PM—Updated 01/22/15 01:28 PM
By Steve Benen

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. A Republican president and his team, believing they have an opportunity for a foreign-policy breakthrough, partner with U.S. allies to launch sensitive, international talks.

As the negotiations slowly continue, congressional Democrats announce that they’ve decided to try to sabotage the Republican president’s efforts. In fact, Democrats in this scenario go so far as to circumvent the executive branch and partner with a foreign government to derail the American-led diplomacy, even while the talks continue.

Try to imagine what the response to this hypothetical would be. Think about the kind of words Republicans and the Beltway media would use. Consider just how serious a scandal this would be.

And then realize that this isn’t really a hypothetical at all – it’s effectively unfolding right now, except it’s a Democratic administration in the midst of international nuclear negotiations with Iran, and it’s primarily Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, who intend to undermine American foreign policy by partnering with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Max Fisher had a good overview of the story overnight:


Yes, and it’s arguably a major break with the way that U.S. foreign relations are supposed to work. We’ve talked before about the ways in which congressional Republicans have actively sought to undermine American foreign policy in the Obama era, but yesterday’s gambit seems to push the envelope in ways that were hard to even imagine.

That said, the new formality of the GOP/Netanyahu partnership seems to have changed the game quite a bit over the last 24 hours.

For example, last night, France’s minister of foreign affairs, Britain’s foreign secretary, Germany’s federal minister for foreign affairs, and the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs wrote a joint piece for the Washington Post, urging Congress to allow the talks to continue. This was no small development – the piece was written by the chief diplomatic officer (the equivalent of the U.S. Secretary of State) of some of America’s closest allies on the planet.

If there are Republicans who argue that these allies aren’t as important as Israel, they should remember that even some top Israeli officials themselves believe that Netanyahu and GOP officials are pursuing the wrong course.


It’s going to be tough for anyone to argue that the international negotiations are anti-Israel when the Mossad is arguing otherwise.

What’s more, note that the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman also believes the Republican gambit is a mistake. Foxman urged Boehner to rescind the invitation and urged Netanyahu not to accept it.

So what happens now? At Netanyahu’s request, the prime minister’s speech was moved this morning to March 3, which means he’ll enjoy the congressional spotlight literally just two weeks before his own re-election bid in Israel. President Obama announced this morning that he will not meet with Netanyahu during this trip – the president, following long-standing U.S. practices, “does not meet with heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections.”

It would appear Congress is unconcerned with this custom.

As for the specific legislative plan, opponents of the international diplomatic effort intend to move forward on a bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, which would force Iran from the negotiating table and scuttle the talks. President Obama would, of course, veto those sanctions, in order to allow the process to continue, and it’s unclear if there would be enough votes to override that veto.

Politico had an interesting piece today noting that some congressional Democrats are inclined to vote for the new sanctions, but they’re far more hesitant about overriding a presidential veto.

It’s also worth emphasizing that while much of this dispute is partisan – Republicans and Netanyahu on one side, the White House and Democrats on the other – there are notable exceptions. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), for example, has practically adopted a Republican posture, using genuinely outrageous rhetoric while condemning the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on the other hand, have expressed public skepticism about the value of sabotaging the international talks with Iran.

That said, those are more the exceptions than the rule. Max Fisher’s report concluded that it’s Republicans who are “siding with a foreign country over their own president,” which is “bad for America’s ability to conduct foreign policy.”

This is also arguably the biggest and most direct threat Republicans have posed to American foreign policy in many years. As a rule, GOP efforts are rhetorical, and largely consist of complaining about the administration on Sunday shows and in press conferences. This time, however, there’s a possibility that their drive to undermine the sitting U.S. president will have real-world, adverse consequences.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-netanyahu-outreach-changes-the-game#break

So there really is no such thing as treason. Good to know.

Treason? How so?

By reaching out to Netanyahu directly and setting up a visit without the knowledge of the White House

Good for Obama! ~ I'd love it if no Dems attended that session ~ Sooz

Obama Won't Meet With Netanyahu When He Comes To Address Congress
By Dylan Scott Published January 22, 2015, 12:51 PM EST

President Barack Obama will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Netanyahu comes to Washington, D.C., in March to address a joint session of Congress at House Speaker John Boehner's invitation.

Boehner's invitation for Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran was described by experts as an "unprecedented" rebuke of Obama, but White House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said that the president would not meet personally with Netanyahu because of the upcoming elections in Israel.

“As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country," she said in an email to TPM. "Accordingly, the President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress."

The White House had previously called Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu, extended without any consultation with the Obama administration, a breach of diplomatic protocol. Boehner said that he didn't think he was "poking anyone in the eye."

Netanyahu will address Congress on March 3. The Israeli elections are March 17. Multiple experts noted to TPM on Wednesday that Netanyahu's address to Congress could have political benefits to him at home as his party faces a tough campaign.

"The one thing that the opposition can play is, 'Look, you're screwing up relations with the United States.' But if Netanyahu's invited, then that's moot," Jonathan Rynhold, a politics professor at Bar-Illan University near Tel Aviv, said. "It's a good time, it's a good issue. It works politically because it's founded on what these people actually think."

Meehan added that Obama had made clear his intentions to veto any legislation passed by Congress that would place new sanctions on Iran because they would disrupt ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program. Netanyahu has at times been a forceful critic of the international negotiations.

"The President has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community," she said. "The President has had many conversations with the Prime Minister on this matter, and I am sure they will continue to be in contact on this and other important matters.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-no-netanyahu-meeting-congress

And good for John Kerry! ~ Sooz

TPM LIVEWIRE
Kerry Also Won't Meet With Netanyahu During US Visit
By Dylan Scott Published January 22, 2015, 2:37 PM EST

Like President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry won't meet with Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to Washington, D.C., in March to address Congress at House Speaker John Boehner's invitation.

According to Reuters, the State Department said that Kerry wouldn't meet with Netanyahu because of the March 17 Israeli elections. Netanyahu will address Congress on Iran on March 3. The department also confirmed to TPM that Kerry and the prime minister would not meet.

The White House gave the same explanation earlier Wednesday for why Obama would not meet with Netanyahu.

Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu, extended without consultation with the White House, has proven contentious. The White House has called it a breach of diplomatic protocol, and experts told TPM that it was an "unprecedented" rebuke of Obama.

Daniel Strauss contributed to this report.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-kerry-netanyahu-congress-visit

I can't see how that's "treason" Chaos.

Short-sighted stupidity maybe, but that's not a crime.

trea-son

noun


1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.


2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.


3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

(And I would add....especially if it's a person that is part of said government)

So where's the alleged treason?

I would say #2 or #3, with #3 being the most applicable. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor a legal expert, but I think any good prosecutor could make a case. If not a criminal case, maybe some sort of ethical case (or something. words escape me right now. got a lot going on in this tiny old brain with work issues)

Can't agree. Though the invitation breaks protocol there's no treachery whatsoever. I don't see any ethical issue either.
All that has been accomplished so far is that Boner looks like a jerk.

ok. All that has been accomplished so far is that Boner <STILL>looks like a jerk.

He's an expert at it.

I reckon you could make a case for unethical behavior, but to call that "treason" is overstepping the mark. Certainly it doesn't fall into any legal definition of "treason" or anywhere close to it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Like Dubya's grandaddies?

John Boehner is a prime example of the worst of politics ~ playing games to enhance his own sense of self-worth ~ I would dearly love to see him charged with violation of the Logan Act ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine, and there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Did John Boehner Violate the Law by Inviting Netanyahu to Address Congress?
The right thought Nancy Pelosi was breaking the law when she visited the Syrian president.
By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet / January 23, 2015

House GOP leader John Boehner (OH) made headlines in multiple countries with the announcement that he had asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress just weeks before the Israeli election.

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have already announced they will not meet with him, as it is a breach of diplomatic protocol for an Israeli leader to visit Congress without first talking to the president. But Boehner may have run afoul of more than protocol – he may have also violated the law itself.

The Logan Act, passed in 1799 and amended in 1904, states that no citizen of the United States can act on behalf of the United States government without its explicit approval. Boehner, as a Member of Congress, is not authorized to conduct foreign policy dealings that are explicitly the purview of the executive branch.

While there have been no prosecutions under this law, the right was insistent that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated in when she went to visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2007. Although Boehner did not make that charge against Pelosi, he did say the only reason she carried out the visit was to “embarrass the president.”

If the right thought Pelosi visiting the Syrian president in Syria was a possible violation of the law, how can it justify Boehner explicitly coordinating with a foreign leader to address Congress to change U.S. policy?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/did-john-boehner-violate-law-inviting-netanyahu-address-congress

There have been several developments in this issue over the past week ~ here is Josh Marshall's take [which I agree with] ~ and I'll post Jeff Goldberg's article next, which is a great read ~ Sooz

Grand Illusion
By Josh Marshall Published January 27, 2015, 7:16 PM EST

Jeff Goldberg walks through the Boehner/Netanyahu Pact on every conceivable path and can't find one where it's not a disaster. Too true. Painfully true. To be clear, he's talking about a disaster for Israel and its security - not necessarily Netanyahu's electoral fortunes. He doesn't address that. Jeff also sees the move - or at least does so in this article - exclusively through the lens of Netanyahu's Iran fixation. I tend to think domestic politics plays a very large role as well. I would find the nature of the Iranian threat to Israel more convincing if the leaders of Israel's defense establishment saw it the way Netanyahu does. And they do not. Unlike Rabin, Barak or Sharon, he is no military man, though he served in one of the IDF's elite units as a young man. But that question is almost secondary to the key point Jeff makes, which is that in a fight he almost certainly cannot win (coercing Obama into abandoning his Iran policy) he is directly and immediately threatening - and more than threatening, concretely damaging - a lynchpin of Israeli security: the US alliance. The damage is not just with this President, who after all will be out of office in less than two years, but with Democrats and even American Jewry.

There's another point though that Jeff gets to toward the end of the piece. In that article last year most known for the "chickenshit" blind quote, Jeff reported that Netanyahu has told associates that he's "written off" Obama.

This is frankly insane. The problem is not one of ingratitude or wrongheaded policies but a profound estrangement from reality.

For an Israeli leader to "write off" a sitting American president - almost whatever his disagreements with him - is akin to a cardiac patient 'writing off' his cardiologist when there is none other available. Maybe he'll be replaced by another cardiologist in a couple years. Or maybe he won't.

This is a topic that I've thought a lot about in the last few years. It is almost as if the US-Israel bond and alliance has become so strong, so all-encompassing and fulsome that Israeli leaders have simply lost touch with reality.

I told you earlier that there's a core on the far-right in Israeli politics that genuinely thinks that Israel has put up with quite enough grief and hectoring from the United States. And it needs to tell the US to bugger off, find some new great power allies and get on with kicking ass unfettered. This is truly insane. As a Jew and a Zionist I would find this hilarious if it were not so insane and potentially tragic.

Obviously Netanyahu and his clique doesn't believe this. But they do appear to see the relationship as entirely one of taking and have little sense that the relationship is one to be managed as a sheet anchor of state security as opposed to a relationship between equals in which the alliance is frequently subordinated to the momentary needs of coalition politics. No sense of limits or grounding in fundamental realities. It summons up an image of the man standing out on the branch who takes out his saw and imagines he's sawing off the tree.

If Netanyahu truly believed that Iran was a singular and existential threat - and perhaps he does, which only makes him doubly a fool - he would not fritter away good will and trust on housing tenders, lectures to US officials, repeated refusals to accommodate even the most marginal US policy initiatives. Again, it is as though the relationship has become so fulsome that it's left the likes of Netanyahu (and worrisomely the public who places him in office) in a sort of dream world in which there's is no balancing of threats and advantages, no discernment between wants and needs.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/grand-illusion

IMO, Jeff Goldberg nails this commentary ~ Sooz

The Netanyahu Disaster
The Israeli prime minister has two main tasks, and he's failing at both.
Jeffrey Goldberg | Jan 27 2015, 11:16 AM ET

Benjamin Netanyahu believes he has just one job, and that is to stop Iran from getting hold of nuclear weapons. He might argue that this description of his mission as Israel’s prime minister is too limiting, though such an argument would not be particularly credible. Israel’s very existence, he has argued, consistently, and at times convincingly, is predicated on stopping Iran, a country ruled by a regime that seeks both Israel’s annihilation and the means to carry it out.

Netanyahu’s options are limited. A country possessing scientific knowledge, material resources, and the will to cross the nuclear threshold is very difficult to stop. One way for Netanyahu to stop Iran, or to slow down its progress toward a bomb, would be to launch a preventative attack on its nuclear facilities. He has threatened to do so (credibly, according to officials of the Obama administration) but he has not yet done it, perhaps because American warnings against such a strike have been dire; perhaps because he understands that such an attack might not work; or perhaps because he is by nature cautious, despite his rhetoric.

Whatever the case, the only other way for Netanyahu to stop Iran would be to convince the president of the United States, the leader of the nation that is Israel’s closest ally and most crucial benefactor, to confront Iran decisively. An Israeli strike could theoretically set back Iran’s nuclear program, but only the U.S. has the military capabilities to set back the program in anything approaching a semi-permanent way. And only the United States has the throw-weight to organize sanctions regimes of lasting consequence.

For several years, Netanyahu and President Obama, despite their mutual loathing, worked more or less in tandem on this issue. Netanyahu traveled the world arguing for stringent sanctions, and Obama did much the same. In fact, Obama used Netanyahu’s tough posture to America’s advantage: On several occasions, Obama and officials in his administration played good cop/bad cop, telling other world leaders that toughening sanctions on Iran would be the only way to forestall an Israeli attack, and this line of argument often proved effective.

Obama, who has argued that a nuclear Iran poses a “profound” national-security threat to the U.S., believed that pressure was a means to an end—the end, of course, being negotiations. A negotiated neutralization of the Iranian nuclear threat would be in the best interests of the U.S. and its Middle East allies, he argued, and he has worked assiduously to keep Netanyahu from taking precipitous action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, even as he used the threat to his advantage.

Netanyahu does not appear to believe that negotiations will bring about an end to the Iranian threat. He believes that any settlement agreed to by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, would necessarily be, from the Israeli perspective, hopelessly weak. There is good reason to be sympathetic to this argument. Doubts about Iranian intentions are warranted, as is skepticism about the zeal with which the West is seeking such an agreement. But there is good reason to sympathize with Obama and his negotiators as well. They believe that a negotiated settlement that promises to keep Iran perpetually a year or more from the nuclear threshold, and provides for intrusive inspections of Iranian facilities, is far from perfect, but better than the alternative, which is eventual confrontation.

Thus, a conundrum, one with greater consequences for Netanyahu and his country than for Obama and his, because of Israel’s small size, relative lack of power, and close physical proximity to Iran.

Faced with this conundrum—an American president who he believes is willing to strike a flawed deal with Iran—Netanyahu has made the second-worst choice he could make. He has not attacked Iran, which is good—an Israeli attack holds the promise of disaster—but he has decided to ruin his relations with Obama.

To be sure, the Obama administration does not make it particularly easy on Netanyahu. For instance, early in Obama's first term, senior officials in his administration were quasi-openly rooting for Tzipi Livni to replace him as prime minister.

But, unfortunately for Netanyahu, it is incumbent upon the junior partner in the Israel-U.S. relationship to maintain an even keel in the relationship. Netanyahu, grappling with a fear that Obama will go wobbly on Iran, could have tried a long time ago to create a discreet, continuous, and respectful dialogue in advance of the conclusion of negotiations, in order to try to shape the president’s thinking, and—this is important—to work with Obama on issues that interest the United States (advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, for instance, by taking the initiative once in a blue moon) in order to make the American side understand that his government is interested in giving, not merely in taking.

Instead, Netanyahu chose to make a desperate-seeming end-run around the president and attempted to appeal directly to Congress to oppose a decision Obama has not yet made. In a plan concocted by Ron Dermer, who serves as Netanyahu’s ambassador to the U.S., the speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, invited Netanyahu to address Congress on the dangers of a nuclear deal and the need for tougher sanctions, without first informing the White House.

The flaws in this approach are many. Obama administration officials have already felt disrespected by Netanyahu (recall his condescending, and public, Oval Office lecture to the president), and so this latest violation of protocol set their teeth on edge. Another flaw: The Obama administration is trying to create conditions so that if the negotiations do collapse, it will be the Iranians who get the blame, not the Americans. Legislating new sanctions—even delayed, triggered sanctions—would give the Iranians the excuse to quit negotiations and blame the U.S. Such a situation would not help Obama maintain the strong international sanctions regime that has stayed in place through the past year of talks. (Actually passing legislation now also seems superfluous; only the most obtuse Iranian leader would fail to realize that a failure in the negotiations process would lead to more sanctions.)

An even more obvious flaw: John Boehner is not the commander-in-chief, and does not make U.S. foreign policy. Netanyahu might find Boehner’s approach to Iran more politically and emotionally satisfying than Obama’s, but this is irrelevant. Yes, Congress can pass new sanctions against Iran, but it is the executive branch that drives U.S. Iran policy. Barack Obama will be president for two more years, and it makes absolutely no sense for an Israeli leader to side so ostentatiously with a sitting American president’s domestic political opposition.

Netanyahu appears to believe that his mission is singular, but Israeli prime ministers, in fact, have two main tasks. The first is to protect their country from existential threats. The second: To work very hard to stay on the good side of the president and people of the United States. Success in accomplishing this first task is sometimes predicated on achieving this second task.

Israel has been, for several decades, a bipartisan cause in Washington. Bipartisan support accounts for the ease with which Israeli prime ministers have historically been heard in Washington; it accounts for the generous aid packages Israel receives; and it also explains America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge.

Netanyahu’s management of his relationship with Obama threatens the bipartisan nature of Israel’s American support. His Dermer-inspired, Boehner-enabled end-run has alienated three crucially important constituencies. First, the administration itself: Netanyahu's estrangement from the Obama White House now appears to be permanent. It will be very difficult for Netanyahu to make the White House hear his criticisms of whatever deal may one day be reached with Iran.

Netanyahu has also alienated many elected Democrats, including Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill. One Jewish member of Congress told me that he felt humiliated and angered by Netanyahu’s ploy to address Congress “behind the president’s back.” A non-Jewish Democratic elected official texted me over the weekend to say that the damage Netanyahu is doing to Israel’s relationship with the U.S. may be “irreparable.”

A larger group that Netanyahu risks alienating is American Jewry, or at least the strong majority of American Jews that has voted for Obama twice. Netanyahu’s decision to pit U.S. political party against U.S. political party—because that is what his end-run does—puts American Jewish supporters of Israel in a messy, uncomfortable spot, and it is not in Israel's interest to place American Jews in a position in which they have to choose between their president and the leader of a Jewish state whose behavior is making them queasy.

Why doesn’t Netanyahu understand that alienating Democrats is not in the best interest of his country? From what I can tell, he doubts that Democrats are—or will be shortly—a natural constituency for Israel, and he clearly believes that Obama is a genuine adversary. As I reported last year, in an article that got more attention for a poultry-related epithet an administration official directed at Netanyahu than anything else, Netanyahu has told people he has “written off” Obama.

I should have, at the time, explored the slightly unreal notion that an Israeli prime minister would even contemplate “writing off” an American president (though I did predict that Netanyahu would take his case directly to Congress). I still don’t understand Netanyahu’s thinking. It is immaterial whether an Israeli prime minister finds an American president agreeable or not. A sitting president cannot be written off by a small, dependent ally, without terrible consequences.

As Ron Dermer's predecessor in Washington, Michael Oren, said in reaction to this latest Netanyahu blow-up: "It's advisable to cancel the speech to Congress so as not to cause a rift with the American government. Much responsibility and reasoned political behavior are needed to guard interests in the White House."

Oren, though appointed ambassador by Netanyahu, is now running for Knesset on another party's line. When he was in Washington, he worried more about the state of Israel's bipartisan support than almost any other issue. He recently criticized Netanyahu, albeit indirectly, for risking Israel's relations with the US: "Today, more than ever, it is clear that Israel-U.S. relations are the foundation of any economic, security, and diplomatic approach. It is our responsibility to strengthen those ties immediately."

There is hypocrisy in the discussion of the Netanyahu-Boehner end-run. It is not unprecedented for foreign leaders to lobby Congress directly; the Arab states opposed to Iran do it all the time, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, lobbied Congress earlier this month on behalf of Obama’s Iran policy, and against the arguments of the Republicans.

But the manner and execution and overall tone-deafness of Netanyahu’s recent ploy suggest that he—and his current ambassador—don’t understand how to manage Israel’s relationships in Washington. Netanyahu wants a role in shaping the Iranian nuclear agreement, should one materialize. His recent actions suggest that he doesn't quite know what he's doing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/Netanyahu-vs-Obama-on-Iran/384849/

Has Ted Cruz a great relationship with Netanyahu?

only the U.S. has the military capabilities to set back the program in anything approaching a semi-permanent way

Complete and utter nonsense. Enough that I stopped reading the OP.

I hope Boehner pays a VERY high price for this ~ ~ Sooz

Boehner: I Told Ambassador Not to Tell Obama
By Josh Marshall Published January 29, 2015, 9:14 PM EST

I had not seen this statement put up by Speaker Boehner's office trying to explain away the Boehner-Netanyahu speech debacle. For starters, the statement appears geared to suggest that reports questioning the incident are part of some sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory - claims that the Israelis "orchestrated" the invitation. But to the point, the statement has Boehner instructing Amb. Dermer not to tell the White House what they were agreeing to.

"The Speaker made it clear [to Amb. Dermer] that it was his prerogative to inform the White House. We then went about identifying potential dates for an address. On the afternoon of January 20, the day of the State of the Union, we informed Ambassador Dermer of our intent to issue the invitation and our intent to notify the administration of the invitation. He accepted and acknowledged our intent to do so."

On the off chance this is true, this makes the whole thing only more comical. The Ambassador is presumably a grown up and knows about diplomatic protocol and how to be an Ambassador. He really lets himself be drawn into this sort of skullduggery and tricksterism within an allied government, his government's prime international protector? Really? So he allows himself to be drawn into what is - take your pick - a dispute between political parties in the host country or between branches of government?

This isn't a constitutional issue per se - though some actually do see it that way. But contrary to Boehner's claim, Congress is not a coequal branch of government when it comes to handling diplomacy and receiving diplomatic missions from foreign states.

In any case, the new Boehner line is that Dermer is such a rube he allowed himself to be drawn into a domestic political dispute in which he was on the opposite side of the head of state. Of course, somehow he happened to be on the side of the political party he worked for as a political operative back when he was an American citizen.

Go figure.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lol--3

Fine with me ~

Sooz

If anything, this Boehner/Netanyahu "mutual admiration society" is dividing people in both countries ~ I was so angry at first that I just saved commentaries surrounding it to "read/maybe post later" ~ now my anger has simmered down to total disgust ~ here's the first of several commentaries to follow ~ Sooz

A Step Too Far
By Josh Marshall Published January 25, 2015, 10:12 AM EST

There seems to be a growing backlash to the Netanyahu-Boehner speech stunt, both in the United States and Israel. As you can see from our current feature story, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has said the speech threatens a rift with the US and should be canceled. I want to say more about Oren's remarks and their context. But before getting to that, a few other developments.

There is a must-read column by Chemi Shalev in Haaretz which you can read in English. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) gave a statement to Haaretz roundly trashing Netanyahu's visit - both for the breach of diplomatic protocol and for the substance of what Netanyahu is trying to do: blow up US diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement with Iran.


Feinstein's willingness to speak so aggressively is a good measure of the damage caused by Netanyahu's actions. But just as notable in Shalev's reporting is that the speech debacle appears to be weakening Democratic support for the Menendez-Kirk bill to push forward a new round of sanctions on Iran - the bill President Obama has promised to veto. At least in the context of US politics and politicking around Iran, Netanyahu's move appears to be backfiring.

If that holds up, it's an astounding development. It means Netanyahu's norm-breaking behavior and decision to subordinate Israel-US ties to his reelection campaign have managed to overcome - at least in certain cases - Democratic senators' usual unwillingness to get outflanked to the right on security issues tied to Israel. The level of affront is almost unprecedented: we now know that Israeli Ambassador Dermer - a primary architect of the effort to align Israel around the GOP and himself a former Republican political operative - met with Secretary Kerry for several hours the day before the Netanyahu speech was announced and never mentioned it to Kerry. In almost any other case, such bad faith and duplicity would lead a host country to ask that an ambassador be withdrawn.

The Israeli press is also reporting more and more examples of the negative reaction to Netanyahu's move in the US. Most Israeli dailies have items reporting the fact that even Fox News has trashed the visit, with Chris Wallace calling the move "wicked." Even Fox News, etc.

In short, the whole trip is seeming like a net liability for Netanyahu, not the coup it was treated as just after it was announced. And we still have six weeks before the speech. So there's plenty of time for the news to marinate in the stew of the lead-up to the Israeli election in mid-March.

But let's go back to Michael Oren.

Let's start by noting that Oren is not just any former Israeli Ambassador the US. He was Netanyahu's appointee to the job who served from 2009 to 2013. He was the Israeli government's chief advocate in the US and Netanyahu's less than two years ago. You'll remember I discussed Oren in my post from late December looking at hints and defections that might signal Netanyahu's political demise. So let's return to that. Because it's key to understanding the import of what Oren said.

Oren, as I said, is a former Ambassador to the US. He's also an historian of some note. Last month he announced that he was joining and running on the Knesset list of the new Kulanu party, which was just founded by former Likud MK Moshe Kahlon. So far Kulanu has not been performing quite as well as some expected in the polls. And to the extent Kahlon's revealed his politics, he's focused on cost-of-living and economic issues. But in announcing his decision to join the party (and by doing so, break with Netanyahu), Oren focused squarely on Israel's mounting diplomatic isolation and the central role of the Israel-US alliance. From his statement announcing his decision ...


Now, we should take as a given that Oren's comments are inherently political. He is after all running against Netanyahu's government. But he speaks with a unique weight and credibility on this issue. He is seen in Israel as someone with a keen understanding of Israel's diplomatic position and even more someone with a keen understanding of the United States. He was not only Ambassador. He was also born in the United States. (He emigrated to Israel in 1979 - when he was 24 years old.)

Here's the key part of the remarks from yesterday.

"The behavior over the last few days created the impression of a cynical political move, and it could hurt our attempts to act against Iran. It's advisable to cancel the speech to Congress so as not to cause a rift with the American government. Much responsibility and reasoned political behavior are needed to guard interests in the White House."

The point is pretty clear: Netanyahu is too reckless to safeguard the Israel-US alliance. He hits all the key points, the mix of recklessness and placing political opportunism above the national interest.

In the present circumstances, Israeli public opinion on US politics and the Israel-US alliance are complex, to put it mildly. Obama is not terribly popular. But the underlying knowledge that the US alliance is an existential imperative is well understood across most of the political spectrum. Threats to it stir a anxiety in the Israeli national psyche. Oren is definitely going there.

Now, I don't have a sense yet precisely how this all plays in an electoral context. There are a multitude of issues on the table in this election. And there are so many parties in an Israeli election that it's very hard to make anything remotely like the kind of zero sum analysis that the US two party system makes possible. But Netanyahu is very much on the ballot, in addition to the more literal competition between the dozen or so parties. And whether Netanyahu's kick-the-can-down-the-road policies, amidst deepening international isolation, are working is a key question. The central point of the December post I referred to above was that key figures in the center-right of Israeli politics were placing their electoral chips on the argument that Netanyahu's policies, far from providing security, were leading the country toward the abyss.

One thing to keep an eye on is how much and how successfully players in the US and Israel can keep this controversy roiling over the next six and eight weeks. We should take it as a given that President Obama and his advisors would like nothing better than to see this speech debacle become a defining issue in the election which sinks Netanyahu for good. And there are myriad things they can do to provoke and exacerbate the tensions surrounding it. But to be seen too clearly to be doing so could easily backfire in both countries. Doing so effectively would require immense deftness. (The same of course applies to every electoral player outside the Likud in Israel - just with less deftness required.) From what's shaken out over the last few days it does not seem to be a winning issue for Netanyahu, though whether it's damaging is not clear. But it is a controversy with moving parts in Israel and the US, and thus one that will be challenging for Netanyahu to manage as he might (and often does deftly) a controversy entirely contained within Israel. Saying the speech should be canceled, in essence because it endangers Israel's vital interests, throws down the gauntlet in a very big way. The next question is whether that question, that framing, becomes an issue in the election in its own right

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-step-too-far--2

A very solid commentary ~ there are some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Netanyahu to American Jews: Get Lost
By accepting Speaker Boehner's invitation to address Congress, the Israeli leader has chosen to side with political forces opposed by many US Jews.
— By David Corn | | Tue Jan. 27, 2015 6:00 AM EST

It was not so shocking that House Speaker John Boehner would seek to undermine President Barack Obama and his attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to deliver an address to Congress, in which Netanyahu will presumably dump on Obama's efforts. Nor was it so shocking that Netanyahu, who apparently would rather see another war in the Middle East than a deal that allows Iran to maintain a civilian-oriented and internationally monitored nuclear program, agreed to mount this stunt two weeks before the Israeli elections—a close contest in which the hawkish PM is fighting for his political life. Certainly, Netanyahu realized that this audacious move would strain his already-ragged ties with the Obama administration and tick off the president, who will be in office for the next two years and quite able to inconvenience Netanyahu should he hold on to power. (Even Fox News talking heads acknowledged that Boehner's invitation and Netanyahu's acceptance were low blows.) But what was surprising was how willing Netanyahu was to send a harsh message to American Jews: Drop dead.

For the past six years, one big question has largely defined US politics: Are you for or against Obama? The ongoing narrative in Washington has been a simple one: The president has tried to enact a progressive agenda—health care, gun safety, a minimum-wage hike, climate change action, immigration reform, Wall Street reform, gender pay equity, expanded education programs, diminishing tax cuts for the rich—and Boehner and the Republicans have consistently plotted to thwart him. The GOP has used the filibuster in the Senate to block Obama initiatives and routine presidential appointments. The House Republicans have resorted to extraordinary means—shutting down the government, holding the debt ceiling hostage, ginning up controversies (Benghazi!)—to block the president. All this has happened as conservative allies of the Republican Party have challenged Obama's legitimacy as president (the birth certificate) and peddled vicious conspiracy theories (he's a Muslim socialist who will destroy the nation). Throughout the Obama Wars, one demographic group that has steadfastly stood with the president is American Jews.

Jews have voted for Obama in strong numbers. In 2008, Obama drew 74 percent of the Jewish vote (maybe up to 78 percent). In 2012, he won about 69 percent. Yes, there was a drop-off, but it was consistent with Obama's decline within other constituencies. The second time around he was slightly less popular with everyone. Moreover, in the 2014 congressional elections, 69 percent of Jewish voters, according to one poll, voted for a Democratic congressional candidate. That survey found that 57 percent of American Jews approved of Obama's performance as president—a much higher number than the 43 percent approval rating among the general population. As the Hill noted:


And there's this. The poll asked American Jews to cite two issues of importance to them. Only 8 percent mentioned Israel, which put this subject in 10th place, far behind the economy and health care. Another survey conducted earlier in 2014 showed American Jewish voters overwhelmingly supporting Obama and listing the economy and the growing gap between the rich and poor as their top issues. As the New York Times reported, "Concern about Israel or Iran ranked very low, even when respondents were asked for the second most important issue that would determine their vote for president." The paper quoted Robert Jones, head of the Public Religious Research Institute: "We show no slippage in Jewish support for President Obama."

It's no news flash that American Jews tend to be liberal. In 2013, the Pew Research Religious and Public Life Project spelled out the obvious:


And this Pew report noted that most Jews support Obama's stance on Israel: "Obama receives higher marks from Jews by religion than from most other religious groups for his handling of the nation's policy toward Israel. The strongest critics of Obama's approach toward Israel are white evangelical Protestants, among whom just 26% approve of his performance in this area."

By RSVPing to Boehner's invitation, Netanyahu is choosing sides and embracing the folks whom most American Jews oppose. He is butting into US politics and enabling the never-ending Republican campaign to undercut a president widely supported by American Jews.

That is not good for Jews in the United States or Israel. Israeli politicians have long counted on Jewish support in the United States—and support from conservative evangelicals. Yet there have been signs that non-Orthodox American Jews are not all that happy with Netanyahu's policies. A 2013 poll found that only 38 percent of American Jews believed that his government was "making a sincere effort to bring about a peace settlement" with the Palestinians. Close to half believed Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank was a bad idea. (Only 17 percent said it helped Israeli security.) That is, Netanyahu's right-wing approach—even if supported by AIPAC and other American Jewish establishment outfits—was not popular with many American Jews.

And now Netanyahu is partnering up with Boehner to kick Obama in the teeth and sabotage one of the president's top diplomatic priorities. He is essentially telling American Jews to get lost: I have no regard for the president you support and no regard for your own political needs and desires.

The leader of a foreign country ought to place his own assessment of national security imperatives first. But the relationship between the Israeli government and American Jews is an important and sensitive matter for both sides—and perhaps more so for Tel Aviv. After all, Israel, which receives about $3 billion in US aid annually, needs the United States more than vice versa. Yet Netanyahu has decided to snub American Jews and to insult the leader they strongly back. This speech might help Netanyahu in the Israeli elections; it could also backfire if Israeli voters decide to punish him for further weakening Israel's special relationship with Washington. But Netanyahu's scheming with Boehner against Obama could also end up alienating many American Jews from the Israeli government. By enlisting with Boehner, Netanyahu is conveying a brazen sign of disrespect for a community he and his country depend upon. What chutzpah.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/netanyahu-boehner-congress-american-jews-get-lost

Another solid commentary ~ Sooz

Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu backfires on them both
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer January 29 

The political ramifications are clear: House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a colossal mistake by conspiring behind President Obama’s back, and the move has ricocheted on both of them.

The big, scary issue underlying the contretemps — how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program — is a more complicated story. I believe strongly that Obama’s approach, which requires the patience to give negotiations a chance, is the right one. To the extent that a case can be made for a more bellicose approach, Boehner and Netanyahu have undermined it.

First, the politics. Why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to arrange for Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress without telling Obama or anyone in his administration about the invitation?

Yes, Congress has an important role to play in international affairs. And yes, the days are long gone when disputes among officials over foreign policy ended at the water’s edge; members of Congress routinely gallivant around the globe and share their freelance views of what the United States should or should not be doing. But inviting a foreign leader to speak at the Capitol without even informing the president, let alone consulting him, is a bald-faced usurpation for which there is no recent precedent.

Pending legislation, which Obama threatens to veto, would automatically impose tough sanctions against Iran if the drawn-out, multiparty nuclear negotiations fail. If Boehner wanted to build support for sanctions, he failed spectacularly.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and a vocal hawk on Iran policy, announced Tuesday that he would not vote for his own bill imposing automatic sanctions — at least not until after a March 24 deadline for negotiators to produce the outlines of an agreement. Nine of his pro-sanctions Democratic colleagues in the Senate joined him, meaning the bill is unlikely to win the necessary 60 votes for passage.

If Boehner’s aim was to paint Obama as somehow soft on Iran, he failed at that, too. The speaker inadvertently turned the focus on himself and has had to spend the week explaining why he went behind the president’s back, not even giving the White House a heads-up until hours before the March 3 speech was announced.

Netanyahu, for his part, may have thought this was a way to boost his prospects in the upcoming Israeli election, scheduled for March 17. Or he may have fantasized that somehow, by openly siding with the Republican Party, he could snatch U.S. foreign policy out of Obama’s hands. Judging by the pounding he is taking from the Israeli media, he was mistaken on both counts.

Note to all foreign leaders: We have one president at a time. Americans respected this fact when George W. Bush was president, for better or worse. And we respect it now.

The speech episode borders on farce, but the larger debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions could not be more serious. The central issue is whether a negotiated deal will leave Iran with the theoretical capability to build a nuclear bomb if it were to decide to do so. No amount of diplomatic legerdemain, it seems to me, can avoid answering this question with a simple yes or no.

If you say yes, as Netanyahu does, then Iran must be stripped of all ability to enrich uranium. It is easy to understand why the Israeli government sees a ­nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat — and also worries that other regional powers concerned about Iran’s growing influence, such as Saudi Arabia, might decide that they, too, need to get into the nuclear game.

Iran insists, however, that it has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. The government in Tehran is unlikely to give up that right but may be willing to limit itself to low-grade enrichment that produces material incapable of being used in a bomb. At least some infrastructure for high-grade enrichment would remain, however — and so would some risk of an eventual Iranian bomb.

[Video accessible via end link]

Is this good enough? If the alternative is war with Iran, it may have to be.

I do not believe that war is in the interest of the United States. I also do not believe that war is in the interest of Israel, but of course Netanyahu has the right — he would say the duty, if he concludes that force is required — to disagree. Nothing that remotely resembles a perfect outcome is in sight. It must be better to keep talking than start bombing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-boehners-invitation-to-netanyahu-backfires-on-them-both/2015/01/29/4636fbf0-a7f4-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html?postshare=3221422630343412