Senator Elizabeth Warren (D:Mass) did not attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday morning speech to Congress.
A possible 2016 presidential candidate, Warren was the highest profile senator to join the list of senators and representatives who were no-shows.
In a statement before the speech, Warren said she is “deeply concerned” about the prospect of a nuclear Iran but said Speaker Boehner’s actions “have made Tuesday’s event more political”.
Warren was among 8 senators and 48 representatives who announced in advance that they would not attend, according to a count by The Hill.
“Skip the speech” numbers were slow to grow, thanks to the robotic fear that continues to grip members of Congress any time an Israeli leader pushes their Pavlovian buttons.
Ironically, this time it was not AIPAC pushing the buttons. It was Netanyahu, with his U.S. media, economic and political Fifth Column soldiers, doing the button pushing. That team got what it wanted. Netanyahu delivered what is essentially a “campaign speech” to the U.S. Congress.
“Campaign speech” in this instance is both for Netanyahu’s reelection as Prime Minister of Israel March 17, and his campaign to build a veto-proof U.S. Senate that will undermine President Obama’s peace negotiations with Iran.
Many of Israel’s ruling political elite, its military leaders, and its security leaders sent word to sympathetic U.S. journalists that the speech was a bad idea. Al Monitor’s Israel Pulse writer Ben Caspit explains why even that opposition is not enough to evoke AIPAC’s open opposition to the speech.
“AIPAC”, Caspit writes, “is Netanyahu’s lobby and not the reverse”.
This has always been the case. Whichever party or political force runs Israel, it is AIPAC’s assignment to serve that power.
Netanyahu pinned his political future on Tuesday’s speech. This is his career “crunch time”. Caspit again:
The invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before both houses of Congress March 3 was secretly cooked up by House Speaker John Boehner (Republican) and Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer (who some consider ambassador to Las Vegas because of his relationship with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson). The news struck AIPAC heads like a thunderbolt.
They had not been briefed about it. They didn’t know about it, and “they didn’t believe such a thing could happen to them.”
One AIPAC leader told Caspit “in a private conversation after the invitation was publicized. “This is the lowest point we have ever reached.”
In shock over the secret invitation that sent AIPAC to its nadir point, the Lobby leaders have been forced into actions rare for them They are forced into a desperate effort “to minimize the damage”.
To smart and sensitive politicians, those, for example, who do not want to be left at the station when the next train departs, this is the moment to think creatively. Members of Congress had to decide whether or not to attend.
To skip the speech, and then see Netanyahu win on March 17, is scary for a politician. If he loses, the next government might commend those who stayed away. Or not. A new prime minister may wonder if he or she can depend on the U.S. Congress to be as loyal as it has been trained to do.
Some members may decide to put principal over politics and hope the future treats them well. Representative Jan Schakowsky surprised political watchers when she joined the no show list.
She did not attend the speech even though her love for the state of Israel is “in her DNA”.
Virginia Senator Kaine’s decision to skip the speech was another surprise. It was a risky move for a senator believed to be a strong contender to run for vice president on a 2016 ticket headed by presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton.
Kaine was one of the 8 senators on the no-show list, joining Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic Senators, Pat Leahy, of Vermont, Brian Schatz, Hawaii, Warren, of Massachusetts, Al Franken, Minnesota, Martin Heinrich, New Mexico, and Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island.
Warren’s decision not to attend was a huge relief to progressive Democrats who are not PEPs (“Progressive Except on Palestine”) and who have been urging her to contest former Senator Hilary Clinton for the 2016 nomination.
No Republican skipped the speech, of course, because it has become a Republican rule that the party opposes anything that favors President Obama.
Two other Democratic senators, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Chuck Schumer, of New York, had a good reason to stay away from the House chamber Tuesday.
Durbin and Schumer invited Netanyahu to a private meeting during his visit. Netanyahu refused the meeting, dismissing two of Israel’s strongest Senate supporters with the same arrogance he had demonstrated when he arranged his speech behind Obama’s back.
This is not chutzpah, Yiddish for “arrogance with a flair”. It is the arrogance of a politician desperate to win a reelection campaign back home and solidify his control of the U.S. Senate.
So far, Durbin has suffered his public rejection in silence. Schumer meekly responded to his insult by urging his congressional colleagues to attend the speech.
The Obama administration has brought its big guns into play to express its anger over the speech. The president, vice president and Secretary of State John Kerry will ignore Netanyahu.
Secretary of State John Kerry had earlier hit back at Netanyahu with an even stronger reminder that this is not the first time Netanyahu has intruded into U.S. political decision-making.
Philip Weiss reported that:
“Secretary of State John Kerry said Netanyahu was “wrong” to oppose the U.S. preliminary deal with Iran and criticized Netanyahu for his advice to the U.S. before we invaded Iraq in 2003.
‘The Prime Minister was also profoundly forward-leaning about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.’
At the time, discussing the impending attack on Iraq, Netanyahu said on CSPAN, to a congressional panel in Washington:
“If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region… The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region.”
“Kerry’s criticism”, Weiss writes, “links Netanyahu implicitly with the neoconservatives who pushed the war to transform the Middle East, and makes all but explicit the idea that the neocons pushed the war out of concern for Israel’s security.”
Israel’s military and security leaders have made clear that they do not agree with Bibi’s insistence that Iran is well along to developing its very own nukes. On this issue, Bibi stands largely alone in his paranoia.
Those members of Congress who attend the Tuesday speech will cheer a foreign leader who is in Washington to lobby them to defy their own president.
Robert Naiman, writing in Truth Out, offers this background on Bibi’s rationale for speaking to Congress, quoting Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi’s explanation of why Netanyahu is giving the speech:
“The Republicans know, as the president has already made clear, that he will veto this legislation. So in order to pass legislation that overcomes the veto, two-thirds are required in the Senate. So if the prime minister can persuade another one or two or another three or four, this could have weight,” he said.
Naiman explains the Netanyahu logic this way: To get a two-thirds majority in the Senate, Netanyahu needs to pressure Democrats. No show Senators Leahy, Sanders, Schatz and Kaine, will not be on Netanyahu’s whip list.
Ten Senate Democrats who are on Netanyahu’s must whip list, Naiman surmises, are what he calls the “Menendez 10”, senators who have openly voiced “their potential willingness to undermine the President’s diplomacy”:
Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Charles Schumer (D-NY); Richard Blumenthal (D-CT); Gary Peters (D-MI); Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA); Ben Cardin (D-MD); Chris Coons (D-DE); Joe Manchin (D-WV); Joe Donnelly (D-IN); and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
Netanyahu already has his anti-Obama 52 Republican senators and, presumably the “Menendez 10” Democrats. With a few more Democratic stragglers, Netanyahu would be, writes Naiman, “within striking distance of a veto-proof Senate majority for war”.
The “skip the speech” campaign no doubt helped to raise the final count of those Democrats who chose not attend. They avoided the embarrassment of having to cheer what was a cheerleader’s plea against President Obama.
The Washington Post this week reminded us that Wednesday of this week (February 25) this nation reached a milestone for peace. There have been no U.S. deaths in combat for 75 straight days, starting on December 11, 2014. This is the longest span of time without a U.S. military combat death since 9/11.
,A sober thought for the members of the House and Senate who decided on Tuesday between supporting President Obama or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Portions of this posting appeared in an earlier version of Wall Writings, dated February 28.
The picture of Netanyahu above is from the New York Times. It is by Doug Mills. The picture of Jan Schakowsky is by Nancy Stone from the Chicago Tribune.
In those 75 days, how many serving or retired military committed suicide?
Thanks for this post that admirably clarifies the ‘skip the speech’ campaign as it plays out in American party politics, as well as underscores the high substantive stakes relating to tension-reducing and war-avoiding diplomacy being intelligently pursued by the Obama presidency. It does not dwell on the impact that the speech might have on Jewish support for Israel and bipartisan unconditionality that has underpinned the US/Israel relationship for decades. From these latter perspectives, I believe it is actually useful that the speech to be made by Netanyahu revealing the outrageous underlying reality of the Republican Party & Netanyahu distinct games, and it is even more helpful if Netanyahu wins the March 17th elections and stays the public face of Israel. As it would be naive to suppose that alternative leadership would change more than the rhetoric of Israel’s one-sided approach to ‘peace’ with Palestine. There is a tradeoff between achieving a diplomatic solution with Iran and seeking a far more balanced approach to Israel/Palestine that takes seriously Israel’s defiant attitude toward international law, and its undermining of all reasonable efforts to achieve a JUST PEACE. To make any progress toward balance means disrupting the unhealthy consensus on policy toward Israel that has seemed unchallengeable until now in Washington.
It’s interesting that Israel, a rogue nuclear power, can claim such moral outrage at Iran – a signer of the NPT. Additionally, why would Netanyahu have an audience in the US when his own program is completely clandestine? To whom does Iran owe a guarantee of this sort? Iran should demand that Israel meet the same requirements or there is no deal.
Jim, Thanks for your outstanding article. You are absolutely right. There is a media campaign against the Obama Administration that is already underway.
Today’s New York Times (2/28/2015) had a full one-page ad that condemned US National Security Advisor, with the title, “Susan Rice Has a Blind Spot: GENOCIDE, Both the Jewish people and Rwanda’s”, sponsored by a Zionist organization called, “This World”. I am sure we will se more of that in the next week.
In the same N.Y. Times issue, on page ONE, there was an article about Jeremy Bird, entitled, “Former Obama Campaign Aid Now Works to Oust Netanyahu”.
Like you said, Jim, it is obvious that pro-Zionist media is attempting to supplement the Neo-con Republicans efforts to “equalize intervention” in internal affairs by, “both”, the US and Israel.
Contrary to the fanciful “Biblical” image he is attempting to portray to “Christian Zionists” and mainstream Christians, Netanyahu is a FAKE Prophet who wants to bring on a US-Iran war and then claim that he was right about calling for it, in the first place.
There is only one way to resolve the “Nuclear Issue”. The entire Middle East, including Israel, has to be declared a “Nuclear Free Zone”. No if’s , or but’s about it.
All else will ultimately fail.
Good going Jim, but you failed to mention Uri Avnery’s comment that “All the empty (congressional) seats will be filled by staff”. So viewers will NOT see any of the empty seats by the 2 dozen or so brave congress-persons who want to register their disapproval of Boehner’s and Dorner’s tactic of showing opposition to Obama.
I agree with Mr. Falk. The appearance by Bibi might open the door to discussion as never before about the wisdom of the blank-check endorsement of any and everything any current Israeli administration proposes–which is the case right now. Perhaps the rank-and-file American will finally say: “Maybe we DON’T HAVE to be supportive of Israeli policies–each and every one, no matter what.” Kerry (on a talk show this a.m.) admitted the several hundred times the US has supplied “cover” for Isr in the UN and in international “fora” (which must be the plural of “forums” 😉
May that day finally be ending, once and for all. JRK
Thank you, Jim. As usual you have been very helpful with your analysis and comments.
Never mentioned by anybody, or any media:..The alleged Iranian “nuclear threat” is a total fraud.
Numerous international inspections and spying, including our own espionage, have shown that Iran wants to enrich uranium to about 5% for peaceful uses of atomic energy, e.g. electric power..
To make nuclear weapons, enrichment must reach 20% or more. Iran can’t do that and is not trying to do that.. But Iran demands the right, which is to enrich uranium for non-weapon purposes.
Jim: Well done. Right on target. From JP at Park Place