How Netanyahu Lost the Iran Deal

[DonViejo]

Washington Post: “Many say AIPAC’s efforts were doomed to fail in the aftermath of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s combative speech to Congress in March — an appearance brokered by Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. along with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) without White House consultation.”

“Several Democratic lawmakers pointed to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as poisoning the political environment surrounding the Iran deal debate even before an agreement was reached. Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC’s annual conference the night before his congressional address, arguing vehemently against the Iran negotiations. Several Democratic members boycotted the speech, arguing Netanyahu’s appearance was inappropriate as Israel was preparing for national elections.”

###

http://politicalwire.com/2015/09/03/how-netanyahu-lost-the-iran-deal/

[PoliticAverse]

1. Yes that was a bonehead Boehner move. n/t

[longship]

2. Plus, there's the fact that Bibi is a bit of a jerk.

Or maybe just a big fat jerk.

So he's got that going for him.

Take a bow, Bibi. I'll turn my back.

[karynnj]

5. Netanyahu manages to sound rational and even reasonable on US TV, where he is accorded

far more respect than John Kerry - or even our PRESIDENT - are given when speaking on Iran. In addition, the media made this a Netanyahu vs Obama issue -- when, as Kerry said in his Philadelphia speech on Iran there now had 100 countries that have publicly spoken in favor of the deal -- while one (which kerry left unnamed) is against. (Incidentally, I wish this speech had received the coverage of any of Trump's idiotic rants.)

Reading the English version Israeli media, there is an image of Netanyahu, completely different than the image in the US - of an intelligent, strong, almost soft spoken guy. He was willing to make outrageous anti Arab comments and say that the 2 state solution would never happen under a Netanyahu government when he was leaning right to steal votes from the far right party. The day after the election, he seemed surprised that anyone took any of that at face value. The surprise to me was the reaction of the media -which put down to Netanyahu being willing to say anything to get anything he wants and that he had the ability to lie easily.

This had happened before in 2014, when Israel was bombing the Gaza. Netanyahu was quite happy when the Palestinians rejected the first ceasefire deal that Egypt proposed, which he then scrambled to accept. When the West, including Kerry, met to try to develop a second ceasefire proposal, Netanyahu was furious - as some to his right in his government referred to it "they needed to cut the grass" and did not then want a ceasefire - especially as they were not the ones blamed for rejecting it. Given the strange rules that most countries will not speak directly to Hamas, the western powers had received, via Qatar, the proposal Hamas wanted. As in previous times, that proposal was then passed to Israel by the US, to get their counter proposal. Instead, Netanyahu took that proposal to an emergency meeting of the Knesset and labeled it the US plan - and argued that it be rejected, which it overwhelming was. Many of the RW Republican Jewish groups repeated the Netanyahu line as truth -- and blasted Obama. The US, of course denied it and defended Kerry and the others who had been involved.)

In stories about Netanyahu setting up his government, there were many many stories of him having reneged on promises made before the election and before he got pledges from other parties. Even in his own party, there were stories of people who were lied to and who absolutely hate the man. In stories of him as a person, he is very mean spirited, corrupt and a liar. Yet, because he is the Prime Minister of Israel, he is given more deference than I have seen for any foreign leader.

In contrast, both President Obama and Secretary Kerry are people of integrity. In the rest of the world, they are very very respected - as can be seen whenever they represent the US abroad. (or even in the UN sessions) Netanyahu, on the other hand, may be welcome JUST in Israel and the US. When he had a trip planned to the UK, there was a petition to Parliament that got 85,000 signature that he should be arrested as a war criminal. (http://www.newsweek.com/more-85000-sign-petition-benjamin-netanyahus-arrest-during-uk-visit-365972 ) The government response was that he was protected as head of state. What it shows though is that he has achieved Bush/Cheney like negatives in many normally friendly countries.

[herding cats]

3. Netanyahu has done serious damage to the RW pro-Israel lobby in the US.

He very foolishly turned the relationship between his government and ours into a partisan issue in the US. His insulting our president started before the speech. The speech just took it to a different level that left many US citizens staring with gaping mouths at his level of disrespect for our system of government, and by extension all US citizens.

As for AIPAC, they'll have to reevaluate the relations they have with current politicians they've caused to resent them over the course of the past year. If they were to take a long hard look at themselves, they'd reevaluate how they attempt to lobby from top to bottom. They totally disregard the current voting population of this country and what they're thinking, feeling and paying attention to now. Times have changed and AIPAC hasn't kept up.


My only hope is that now that the rift has been exposed, some of the more liberal pro-Israel lobbying groups can step up to fill the gap.

[Hydra]

4. Ironically, he made this peace agreement possible

President Obama was stepping very carefully around him and his crusade until they overplayed their hand. After that, there was a palpable "Ya, there are adults talking right now- head back to the kids table" effect after that.

[flamingdem]

6. He bit the hand that fed

big time.

[geek tragedy]

7. The point was never to prevent an Iran deal, it was to help his party in Israel's elections

and help the Republicans in our elections.

His scorched earth policy in the US was designed not to stop the deal, but to push Jewish voters and donors into the Republican camp.

The Republican party, the Israeli rightwing (Likud and its partners) are really part of one transnational political party and movement. There is zero daylight between them on any issue. Once one realizes that Likudniks are Republicans and Republicans are Likudniks, everything makes a lot more sense.

[karynnj]

8. It was complete chutzpah that he even tried -- and he got further than should ever have happened

Look back even 5 years ago, Lugar was ranking member of the SFRC and he had substantial leverage with many senior Republicans. Without his support, Kerry's excellent committee work and defense on the floor of the Senate of the START treaty, respected even by some like Mccain who voted against it, would likely have been in vain. Lugar's strong support is what ultimately drove the Republicans who voted for it to do so. Ex- Senator Lugar strongly supports the deal and wrote an op-ed saying so with Sam Nunn -- important as their names Nunn/Lugar are synonymous with the effort to secure nuclear material that could otherwise go astray. (Note Nunn was as conservative a Democrat as you could find -- and he also supports this)

Consider that this also had the support of ex Senator John Warner, who had shaire the Armed Services Committee before he opted not to run for re-election in 2006. (Here, he is better than his Democratic replacement, Webb. who thankfully was too bored or lazy to run for re-election.) Warner was also a person thought to have some power in moving his fellow Republicans - as was Chuck Hagel, who also opted not to run for re-election. (I don't know what Olympia Snowe would have done.)

Five years ago, this same deal would have had some Republican support and likely few Democrats would have had any trouble supporting it. Consider this won the UNANIMOUS support of the UN security council and led to international (except Israel) applause. It is trite to say "no deal is perfect", but it is telling how many Democrats had to say just that even while supporting it. THAT is a measure of the power of Netanyahu and AIPAC. Consider how few Democrats actually lavished either much praise or congratulations to Secretary Kerry or President Obama for what was a successful conclusion to an immensely important effort that was never considered to have much chance of success. Obama was a profile in courage for putting his prestige behind this and Kerry did an incredible job. That there was almost no jubilation showed that starting long before the last push to get a deal, there were many in this country actually hoping for failure. I suspect this included many Democrats, hoping to avoid a choice between Obama and their President. (Forget what was better for peace, the US, or the world)

It is possible that what we are seeing is mostly a measure of the rightward change in the Republican party even in the last 5 years -- which has led to NO Republican having the guts to challenge the party's position on this -- even as many of their former National security experts support it. It might also be a measure of their desire to get AIPAC support in their races, even as the majority of American Jews continue to support Democrats.

Fortunately for us, the fight AIPAC and Netanyahu had to win to succeed was JUST for Democratic support. So, far, they have failed to get anyone - other than Schumer, who they always had (and who might wonder if this impacts his perceived ability to influence his peers) and Menendez, who is under indictment and very bad on both Cuba and Iran. If that is all, this will be an incredible defeat for AIPAC.

Meanwhile, it has driven a wedge through the American Jewish community like I never saw before. There already was a rejection among young Jews of the idea that they should speak in just one voice on Israel -something once accepted, even though that voice was AIPAC's and it backed Likud, even when they were out of power. This may accelerate that. One professor who spoke to our synagogue on his research on this spoke of how this actually made the American Jewish diaspora more typical -- having more contact with Israel and Israelis - and lining up with many diverse parties in Israel.

[KG]

9. piss on him.