Hollow, an insult, no rhyme or reason…

Assessments by 1) Ynet, 2) NY Times, 3) Haaretz, with inset from Kevin Connolly, BBC.

Members of Congress greeted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday. Photo Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Why is Netanyahu treating Obama so badly?

While US president hasn’t expressed his love for Israel publicly, his military-security and diplomatic aid to Israel has been impeccable; yet for six years, Israel’s prime minister has failed to develop a relationship of trust with him.

By Alon Pinkas, Ynet Op-Ed
March 03, 2015

It’s reasonable to assume that the term “chickenshit,” which was hurled at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu several months ago at the White House, is one of the gentle, moderate and considerate terms currently raised by the mention of his name and visit to Washington.

Ungrateful, irresponsible, working in the Republicans’ service and performing tasks and missions for their big donors, forcibly and blatantly bringing Israel into the American political arena, oddly and dangerously “Israelizing” the Iranian issue, righteously talking about his “moral obligation to speak out against the agreement with Iran,” while his goal is the elections in Israel and an attempt to influence the 2016 US presidential election – that’s what people in Washington have been thinking about the Israeli prime minister in the past few days. Not about Israel, about the Israeli prime minister. Not about the US-Israel relations, but about the Israeli prime minister.

More than anything, US President Barack Obama can’t understand Netanyahu’s rude behaviour. Granted, Obama isn’t expressing his love for Israel publicly, as the Israelis have gotten accustomed to from former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but under any test and measure of material, military-security and diplomatic aid – Obama’s list of donations is impeccable.

And what has Obama got in return? Cries and wails that he is “throwing Israel under the wheels of the bus,” a patronizing lecture in front of the cameras at the White House about the history of the Jewish people, public sympathy for his 2012 presidential rival, Mitt Romney, as well as abuse, swearing and insults hurled at his secretary of state, John Kerry. And then came “the speech.”

On both sides of the dispute over the benefit, importance, timing and ramifications of the prime minister’s speech, there is a wild exaggeration mixed with quite a lot of hysteria. Those who support the speech explain that it’s the last chance, that Netanyahu must cry out for something in return ahead of an Iranian calamity, that it’s a bad agreement which must be thwarted in advance.

None of these arguments stands the test of reality. For six years, Netanyahu has failed to develop a relationship of trust and reliable and quiet communication channels with the US president. His criticism – which is legitimate – is perceived as covering up lack of success. The speech’s target – the Congress – is not the right place. The form of the invitation and the strong partisan scent raise questions as to the sincerity of his intentions.

On the other side we have the cries of despair among those who oppose the speech: Netanyahu is destroying Israel-US relations, an exceptionally strong American “punishment” will follow, he is disconnecting Israel from its real power base, which is the Democratic Party, he is dividing the US Jewry in a rift which cannot be mended, and by doing all that he is abandoning Israel’s security.

He is not destroying, because the relations cannot be destroyed, definitely not because of one speech. The US will not punish an ally, the Nimitz aircraft carrier will not bomb Haifa on Wednesday, and Israel’s security is not being abandoned.

Nonetheless, Obama is allowed to ask a simple question: Seriously, Mr. Netanyahu, what do you really think you are achieving here that you couldn’t achieve in a different, less confrontational and less arrogant manner?

Alon Pinkas served as Israel’s consul-general in New York

The ‘kind of television images you cannot buy in an election campaign – the Houses of Congress rising repeatedly in standing ovations’. See Kevin Connolly.

Mr. Netanyahu’s Unconvincing Speech to Congress

By the Editorial Board, NY Times
March 03, 2015

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for a more rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and most Democrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives to thunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conquering hero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to the lectern.

Even Washington doesn’t often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama’s foreign policy.

Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction.

Mr. Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would not force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave it with the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not long enough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness of international inspections to deter Iran from cheating.

While an agreement would not abolish the nuclear program, which Iran says it needs for power generation and medical purposes, neither would walking away. Even repeated bombing of Iran’s nuclear plants would not eliminate its capability because Iran and its scientists have acquired the nuclear know-how over the past six decades to rebuild the program in a couple of years.

The one approach that might constrain Iran is tough negotiations, which the United States and its partners Britain, France, China, Germany and Russia have rightly committed to. If an agreement comes together, it would establish verifiable limits on the nuclear program that do not now exist and ensure that Iran could not quickly produce enough weapons-usable material for a bomb. The major benefit for Iran is that it would gradually be freed of many of the onerous international sanctions that have helped cripple its economy.

While no Iranian facilities are expected to be dismantled, critical installations are expected to be reconfigured so they are less of a threat and the centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium would be reduced. Iran would be barred from enriching uranium above 5 percent, the level needed for power generation and medical uses but not sufficient for producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Absent a negotiated agreement, Iran will continue with its program without constraints.

Mr. Netanyahu also denounced Iran’s Islamic regime and the danger it poses to Israel and to regional stability through its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Shiite militias in Baghdad, rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran’s behavior is often threatening and reprehensible, and that is precisely why Mr. Obama has invested so much energy in trying to find a negotiated solution. But a major reason for Iran’s growing regional role is the American-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which Mr. Netanyahu supported, although he was not prime minister at the time. Even after a nuclear agreement is signed, some sanctions connected to Iran’s missile and nuclear programs will remain in place.

Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.

The response in Congress suggested considerable opposition to a nuclear deal. But a new poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development shows that a clear majority of Americans — including 61 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats — favor an agreement.

Congress must not forget that its responsibility is to make choices that advance American security interests, and that would include a strict and achievable agreement with Iran. If it sabotages the deal as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, it would bear the blame.

Unique electoral boost for Bibi

Kevin Connolly, BBC news
March 03, 2015

Benjamin Netanyahu’s rivals in Israel’s election face a dilemma as the applause from the speech in Washington begins to die down.

It’s been hugely frustrating for them to watch him walking the world stage and worse still watching the speech on television.

They are the kind of television images you cannot buy in an election campaign – the Houses of Congress rising repeatedly in standing ovations.

But if they repeat their warnings that Mr Netanyahu is endangering Israeli security by alienating the White House they risk protracting a story which has played to the prime minister’s advantage.

Many of them, like the opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog, feel they’re just as tough on Iran as Mr Netanyahu – they just don’t have access to the world stage as he does.

Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party is already asking voters if they can imagine any other Israeli politician making such a speech.

The opposition want to start talking instead about the cost of living and the other issues where they feel they have an advantage – they just hope images of Mr Netanyahu basking in a warm bath of applause fade before polling day in two weeks’ time.

Netanyahu’s splendid speech and the carnage in its wake

Golden boy Bibi delivered the goods for his campaign and for the Republicans, leaving behind embittered Democrats, a fuming White House and no change on Iran.

By Chemi Shalev, Haaretz
March 04, 2015

Members of U.S. Congress greeted Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday as if they were the Likud Central Committee, in its better days, and he was the revered Menachem Begin, or the lionized Ariel Sharon: you could almost see them breaking out in a rendition of “Bibi King of Israel.” Cynical Israelis may feel they’ve seen it all, especially at election-time, but it’s still an extraordinary experience to witness an Israeli leader being received in the legislature of the world’s superpower as local hero and rock star.

Netanyahu was given a royal welcome. At times it seemed as if this was a presidential State of the Union address, but for the fact that the applause was more extended, the ovations more standing and the cheers much more enthusiastic than those accorded Barack Obama in recent years. Outside the Capitol, Washington seemed to stand still as the Congressional showdown turned into a daytime drama that attracted not only political junkies, but millions of thrill-seekers as well. In coffee shops and restaurants and on the street, ordinary people discussed the pros and cons of Netanyahu’s speech as if he was an all-American boy.

The address actually started off surprisingly lame. Netanyahu seemed hesitant, his throat was parched and he needed some shots of water, a la Marco Rubio; five minutes into his address, he may have tranquilized many Iran-weary Israelis who go into a coma whenever they hear the words “Ayatollah” and “nuclear” uttered in the same sentence. But just like Susan Rice, who opened her Monday night speech at AIPAC with boundless love and shameless flattery before courageously informing her listeners that their positions vis a vis Iran were off the wall, so Netanyahu paid lip service to Obama’s generous support for Israeli security and wellbeing before launching an all-out blitzkrieg on the “very bad” Iranian deal that the administration, in its naiveté if not stupidité, insists on achieving. It was, at its core, a very nasty rebuke.

Under the watchful eye of the ginger-haired Sheldon Adelson, Obama’s red flag, and what has now become his regular coterie of Netanyahu cheerleaders – Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of the infamous “Rice=Genocide” ad – Netanyahu steadily turned up the heat, worked his audience like the pro that he is, took his listeners from one rhetorical peak to the next oratorical pinnacle, bringing the Republicans repeatedly to their feet with boundless joy and nakhes. From their point of view, John Boehner’s invitation gambit went off like clockwork, golden boy Netanyahu delivered the goods as if he was Ronald Reagan incarnate, and the White House, under its veneer of professed disdain, was obviously fuming with rage.

On the very same day that official election propaganda started to air on Israeli television channels, Netanyahu stood at the center of a campaign ad that no money could buy: filmed in one of the most exclusive studios in the world, with a cast of hundreds of top flight thespians, in the eye of an international storm, preaching against all odds for his people and against their enemies. It’s not clear what effect the event will have on Israeli voters, if any, but one thing cannot be said of Netanyahu, even if he loses: that he didn’t give it all he’s got.

The question remains, however, what effect all of this may have on the nuclear talks with Iran, the alleged reason for the whole shebang, and at what price. Netanyahu’s speech sparked an unprecedented and widespread boycott by several dozen Democratic lawmakers – including most of the party’s African-American representatives as well as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the liberal left. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi’s sour face during the speech, and her harsh verdict that it as “an insult to our intelligence” after it was over, was testament to the bitterness that the prime minister leaves behind him throughout the Democratic Party, with the possible exception of its hawkish wing.

Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer listen to Netanyahu. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Netanyahu didn’t make any new fans in the White House, either. Despite his promise/threat to reveal new, hitherto unknown details, U.S. officials said that the prime minister’s speech was a rehash of the same things that he has been telling Obama for the past two years. The officials view Netanyahu’s latest moves as much ado about nothing, a rampage with no visible returns, a “destructive” move with no rhyme or reason. Netanyahu’s speech probably won’t divert the Iranian talks from their track but it will leave a lot of bad blood its wake – a fair price to pay, Netanyahu would probably respond, if its helps his return to power.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s speech, superbly delivered as it may have been, was no game-changer. The ultimate decision about Iran’s nuclear future still lies, as it did before, with Ayatollah Khamenei in Tehran and not with Netanyahu and Congress in Washington. If the Iranians decide to accept the proposals currently before them, it’s hardly likely that its opponents in Congress would be able to face down a determined president. And if by chance they do, Iran will have an easy time accusing Netanyahu and the Jews of sabotage and this time, especially if the resulting impasse deteriorates to armed conflict, Americans might ultimately agree.

From this point of view, Netanyahu is entirely right: for Israel, it’s an existential danger.