Posted on Mar 2, 2015
Will Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress have a major impact on US Mideast policy?
12.2K
126
46
2
2
0
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow. Will his address have an impact on US Mideast policy and the Administration's efforts to reach a nuclear arms agreement with Iran?
Foreign Affairs
Israel
Iran
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
12
11
1
- Will PM Netanyahu's speech to Congress have a major impacton US Mideast policy? Unfortunately no for the following reasons:
1. The Obama administration has shown over the past 6 years that it does not work well with others (either US internal or external with US allies) and does not work in a collaborative manner. Unilateral action is the trend both internally and externally.
2. The administration has shown that it will not let facts get in the way of what it wants do. Several examples of this to include but not limited to Obamacare (if you like your doctor you can keep him, if you like your plan you can keep it) and Radical Islam (ISIS is a JV team, we are winning against terrorism).
3. The administration has shown that it punishes those who do not sing from their sheet music (pick any SECDEF over the past 6 years) while rewarding those who do even if they are ineffective (VA, AG). Punishment has various levels of severity ranging from public attacks to termination to merely cutting out of the loop. Want to guess where PM Netanyahu falls within range?
4. Will be interesting to see the administration position on a possible nuclear arms agreement with Iran. Is this a treaty requiring Senate approval or an "agreement" that the administration can pursue unilaterally? I am guessing it will be the latter and not the former.
1. The Obama administration has shown over the past 6 years that it does not work well with others (either US internal or external with US allies) and does not work in a collaborative manner. Unilateral action is the trend both internally and externally.
2. The administration has shown that it will not let facts get in the way of what it wants do. Several examples of this to include but not limited to Obamacare (if you like your doctor you can keep him, if you like your plan you can keep it) and Radical Islam (ISIS is a JV team, we are winning against terrorism).
3. The administration has shown that it punishes those who do not sing from their sheet music (pick any SECDEF over the past 6 years) while rewarding those who do even if they are ineffective (VA, AG). Punishment has various levels of severity ranging from public attacks to termination to merely cutting out of the loop. Want to guess where PM Netanyahu falls within range?
4. Will be interesting to see the administration position on a possible nuclear arms agreement with Iran. Is this a treaty requiring Senate approval or an "agreement" that the administration can pursue unilaterally? I am guessing it will be the latter and not the former.
(12)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
Even Israeli Hawks Are Angry at Netanyahu
A group of military commanders and political observers are furious that Bibi would play politics with Israel’s most important strategic asset: its relationship with the United States.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it ma...
CPO Bill Towart - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FkNbtkgps
global warming 50 years from now is more important than global cooling vic Israel and Iran in about 7 years after judgement day from IRAN...
global warming 50 years from now is more important than global cooling vic Israel and Iran in about 7 years after judgement day from IRAN...
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think the Obama Administration cares what Prime Minister Netanyahu says. It obviously wasn't important for the President or he would have met with him.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
Decrying 'insult,' some Democrats seethe after Netanyahu's address
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was met with rounds of applause and repeated standing ovations Tuesday while addressing a joint meeting of Congress but make no mistake: Democrats were by no means joining in the acclaim.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Barney Gaumer
God be with Israel in the coming months! I already know one fixed wing guy that said he would disobey any order to fire on an Israeli aircraft and then stand-by for his replacement.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think so, but those 56 Democrats will have some explaining to do to their Jewish constituents. Seventyfive percent of Jewish registered voters are Democrat. They will not appreciate the snub.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Polling says that those who did not walk out will be in trouble. But hey people like to make things up all the time.
(1)
(0)
SGT Francis Wright
Like I said the ones that were there; were there because of their constituents. The ones that were there because they like what they do.
(1)
(0)
SGT Francis Wright
Chief, you have a right to your opinion. But if our represen- tatives do not get it together we will be at it again. Fighting like our fathers and grandfathers did during WW II. Just goes to show if you don't learn from history, you will be doomed to repeat it. But this time instead of Europe or Asia; it will be in our backyard. Hope I'm wrong, but I think not.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Netanyahu says U.S. is on verge of ‘bad deal’ with Iran over nuclear program
The Israeli prime minister forcefully argued that a deal to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check would have the opposite effect.
(1)
(0)
SSG Leonard Johnson
My main man is right....I don't think I have ever seen such open hostility to a current ally...wow...we invite hajji Bi__h hood here to listen to known murders and we wont address our best ally.....tired of looking like a weak country
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
On one side of the isle we have the moderately pro-Israel party and on the other we have the fervently pro-Israel party. Why on earth would a smart man risk that by becoming embroiled in partisan politics?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The primary support for Israel is from Evangelical Protestants. Americna Jews are more interested in social and economic issues. In general they do not support the current government of Israel. The PM risks alienating them by siding with a party they overwhelmingly oppose.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Unfortunately, seems as though party politics will play out......I understand one side (dems) plan on not being there - walking out before he gets there.
Hope the voters take note and send them sorry butts home.....we need more veterans as our elected officials anyway.
Hope the voters take note and send them sorry butts home.....we need more veterans as our elected officials anyway.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I see this may be retaliation for members of the President's campaign team going over to Israel & meddling in the elections over there. It is intriguing to see what he will say.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Yup. What i was referencing, though, is that the President's election staff is now over in Israel working FOR Bibi's opponent, actively trying to get Bibi out of office.
But, you're right. Watch what this hand is doing, never you mind what the other does.
But, you're right. Watch what this hand is doing, never you mind what the other does.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
It will not make a difference to Obama. He is hell bent on getting a bad deal with Iran. He is the king of bad deals. For those of you concerned about foreign leaders and dignitaries speaking to a joint session on Congress it has happened 114 times in our history. This is nothing new.
Below is a list of all of them. We had one as recently as September 18th of 2014 (President of Ukraine, you know the guy getting whacked by the Russians that we refuse to provide any arms to defend themselves). This one was done without much fanfare.
Because this is Bebe who will make Obama look like the clueless clown that he is on the international stage, this one has become a big deal. Obama doesn't want you to see what a real world leader that understands the threats in the world looks like. He will pale in comparison.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Joint-Sessions/
Below is a list of all of them. We had one as recently as September 18th of 2014 (President of Ukraine, you know the guy getting whacked by the Russians that we refuse to provide any arms to defend themselves). This one was done without much fanfare.
Because this is Bebe who will make Obama look like the clueless clown that he is on the international stage, this one has become a big deal. Obama doesn't want you to see what a real world leader that understands the threats in the world looks like. He will pale in comparison.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Joint-Sessions/
Joint Meeting & Joint Session Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries...
The purpose of a Joint Meeting has usually been for Congress to hear an address from an important figure—generally a visiting foreign leader. This practice became a standard part of foreign leaders’ state visits to the United States after 1945. In the early Congresses, a Joint Session or a House Reception was often used for the address.There are two known instances of unofficial addresses by foreign leaders to the House and Senate in the House...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Keith Benoit. You don't like it probably because you are an Obama supporter which is fine. No laws or even protocol were violated. It they were, give me a chapter/verse that was "violated". Congress can invite who they like to speak before their body. They need no permission, they are an equal branch of government. They are making no policy they are stepping on no one's toes. I've now asked you twice to point out the protocol, law, requirement etc you seem to believe was breached. You've offered nothing. You've admitted no law was broken so will you now admit no protocol was broken?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
It is really simple, protocol in Washington DC is document so it is followed. There should be a manual, a paper, a document, a brochure, something. I have gone looking for it and cannot find it. You keep referencing it but cannot produce it.
Do you know how many world leaders have addressed a joint session of congress? I assume you are an Obama supporter because you are trying to make a point in support of him being jilted with zero proof it actually happened or there is anything that proves he was treated incorrectly.
Do you know how many world leaders have addressed a joint session of congress? I assume you are an Obama supporter because you are trying to make a point in support of him being jilted with zero proof it actually happened or there is anything that proves he was treated incorrectly.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Keith Benoit . Well why didn't you say your teacher told you so. Well then, it should be very easy for your professor to point to a protocol document that states all invitations to a head of state to speak before a joint session of Congress must come from the White House. We have protocol officers all over the government (D State Dept, House, Senate etc) so if something exists it would have been produced wouldn't you think?
If you are hanging your hat on the "it is unwritten protocol" then feel free but unwritten protocol is not protocol at all. Your baseball anology doesn't work either. There are reasons during a no hitter in the 9th inning you would bunt to win a game. (pitcher with no hitter going walks a batter in the bottom of the 9th, you are down 1-0 or tied 0-0, you need to move the runner to second to get him iin scoring position, the bunt is on).
I'd like some prood that al 114 of those invitations come from the Executive Branch. Even the White House admitted that "typically" the invitation to speak comes from the Executive Branch. Typically does not equal always.
You have presented the argument that you cannot back up. I have only counter argued that there is no requirement, law or protocol that you insists exists. You've offered nothing but hearsay from your professor and a baseball anology.
I don't mind being wrong here. I have admitted I have looked for the prototol and cannot find anything on it. Perhaps it does exist, I simply cannot find anything on it and you have not either.
If you are hanging your hat on the "it is unwritten protocol" then feel free but unwritten protocol is not protocol at all. Your baseball anology doesn't work either. There are reasons during a no hitter in the 9th inning you would bunt to win a game. (pitcher with no hitter going walks a batter in the bottom of the 9th, you are down 1-0 or tied 0-0, you need to move the runner to second to get him iin scoring position, the bunt is on).
I'd like some prood that al 114 of those invitations come from the Executive Branch. Even the White House admitted that "typically" the invitation to speak comes from the Executive Branch. Typically does not equal always.
You have presented the argument that you cannot back up. I have only counter argued that there is no requirement, law or protocol that you insists exists. You've offered nothing but hearsay from your professor and a baseball anology.
I don't mind being wrong here. I have admitted I have looked for the prototol and cannot find anything on it. Perhaps it does exist, I simply cannot find anything on it and you have not either.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google