The speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Murderer Benjamin Netanyahu is over, and he didn’t say anything unexpected. He ranted about how close Iran is to gaining nuclear weapons, a prediction he first made decades ago, but he seems to think it still plays well.
Mr. Netanyahu’s goal in speaking to his employees, which is what Congress and the president must be seen as, since the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has bought and paid for them, was mainly to sabotage the current negotiations that the United States and several other countries are conducting with Iran, in order, for some inexplicable reason, to prevent that country from building nuclear weapons. Now, this writer is firmly opposed to nuclear weapons, but if the world allows Israel to have them, then there is no logical reason not to allow Iran to have them. Regardless, the Israeli Prime Murderer wants nothing more than complete dominance of the Middle East, and a nuclear-armed Iran would thwart that goal. Congress members, who only remember how much AIPAC funnels into their campaigns, conveniently forget that Mr. Netanyahu, in the same lofty halls of Congress, encouraged the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and proclaimed what a boon that would be towards peace and stability in the Middle East. We all know how well that turned out.
Additionally, Mr. Netanyahu no doubt felt that pictures of him instructing Congress to do his bidding would play well in his own re-election campaign, encouraging voters to support him at the polls later this month.
However, there might have been some miscalculations in these formulas for success, both in the U.S. and Israel.
The most remarkable thing about Mr. Netanyahu’s address to Congress was that nearly sixty members of Congress boycotted it. This is the real news; clear evidence of a widening crack of the U.S. Congress’ solidarity with Israel. Might not his Zionist fans back home be troubled about this? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they will see that, by violating political protocol, and accepting an invitation to speak that bypassed the U.S. president, then appearing before Congress to thwart the president’s international goals and dictate U.S. foreign policy, Mr. Netanyahu may have damaged that all important relationship with the U.S? This has been a hot topic of conversation not only in the U.S. capital, but in Tel Aviv as well. Any thought that that most generous largesse of the U.S. to Israel, totaling over $3 billion annually, may be in jeopardy, might certainly cause Israeli voters to reject the person who risked it. What Mr. Netanyahu may have thought was a brilliant political maneuver was seen by many as an obvious and ill-conceived campaign stunt.
In the hallowed halls of Congress, there are also mutters of discontent. While all of Congress supports Israel, with their constituents starting to feel somewhat differently, they may need to adjust their positions to please their voters. There comes a tipping point where even AIPAC can’t buy their seats in the House or Senate, and if they want to keep them, they will have to think outside of the box, and this may include such an unusual action as being responsive to the voters in their district.
U.S. President Barack Obama, who still has nearly two years left in office, has done nothing to hide his utter contempt for Mr. Netanyahu. The reverse is also true, as the Prime Murderer continues to build illegal settlements after the U.S. asks him not to, and then, at the same time, demands that the U.S. thwart any attempts by the world community to recognize the basic human rights of the Palestinians. And the U.S. has always acquiesced. But one thinks that perhaps even Mr. Obama has his limits; if he does, this writer can’t imagine what would be required if Mr. Netanyahu hasn’t now pushed him beyond them.
And let’s consider again the huge amounts of money that Israel relies on from the U.S. One thinks that the U.S. could alter Israeli policies by making that money conditional on something, say, ending the blockade of the Gaza Strip, or perhaps removing the illegal settlers from the West Bank. It wouldn’t appear to the casual observer that tying contributions to adhering to international law is an outrageous move, but it is apparently one that the U.S. hasn’t considered.
It is possible that that could change. Mr. Obama, although no friend of Palestine, has little to lose, and much to gain, by bold action. Does this writer think he will seize the moment, stand up to Israel and make history? Does he think pigs fly?
The liberation of Palestine will not be through revolution; that beleaguered nation is too tightly controlled and brutally oppressed for that to occur. Rather, it will be an evolutionary process, and Mr. Netanyahu may have just greatly advanced the cause. The unanimity that the Republicans and Democrats shared over Israel was unlike any other area of public policy; that just goes to show what enough money will do. But now there has been a rift, a small opening, and no amount of sugar-coated words can heal it. It may be covered up for a time, hidden behind a bandage, but the wound will fester, ooze and eventually have to be dealt with. The old cure, which is god-like worship of Israel, will no longer work; the world has ‘been there, done that’, and the results weren’t good. It is the new model that should have Israel and Zionists everywhere concerned.
They will fight tooth and nail to assure themselves and the world that the U.S. remains blindly and stupidly committed to Israel. But the damage is done, and there is no going back.
Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).