Now we know why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to address a joint session of Congress: He needed to go where he would be applauded unreservedly and could not be challenged.
Netanyahu could not give the same speech in Israel because Israelis are tired of Netanyahu and more than 72 percent want him to resign — a figure which has remained remarkably consistent since the Hamas massacres of Oct. 7.
To give proper credit, Netanyahu is an excellent orator, especially to an American audience with basic but superficial knowledge. Netanyahu hit on key talking points — as if it were a State of the Union address.
One point all could agree on is that Iran is behind Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — and constitutes a serious threat to American, Israeli and Western interests.
Curiously, though Republicans were vociferous applauders, they don’t appear to have made the connection between Iran and Russia — that Iran has been Russia’s key arms supplier in the Ukraine war and even sold Russia a drone manufacturing facility. Republicans held up a vote on Ukrainian aid for over four months.
Netanyahu, however, conflated many atrocities committed against Americans with zero connection to Iran. Most notably, the dual 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania — which killed 213 people.
Those bombings were the work of al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. While both al Qaeda, who are Sunni Muslims and Iran, which is largely Shia Muslim, are radical threats to Western interests they are very different and anathema to each other. Keeping them separate intellectually is important.
There were other areas in which Netanyahu was less than candid.
Hostages: When Netanyahu brought up the hostages in his speech — Hostage Square in Tel-Aviv reportedly erupted in boos and catcalls. Virtually no one in Israel believes that Netanyahu cares about the hostages – except as political props.
Racism: Netanyahu correctly stated that Hamas’ ideology is racist. Netanyahu, however, is beholden to two far-right parties with leaders accused of racism for his governing coalition. Itamar Ben Gvir (Jewish Power) and Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionists) have both been called out for racism by critics in Israel and worldwide. Netanyahu also managed to forget the 2015 Israel election when it was reported on election day that voter turnout among Israeli Arabs was high. Netanyahu released a video to his supporters in which he claimed ”Arab voters are coming out in droves” and being bused in by leftists. In the end, Arab turnout was not much different from previous elections, but Netanyahu did energize his base to vote in the waning hours of the election and won.
Day After: On the “day after” Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would remain in Gaza for the foreseeable future — that’s what having “security control” means. He also said that Gaza should be run by Palestinians with no ties to Hamas. That sounds great. But, where will you get thousands of Palestinians to run Gaza when Netanyahu has rejected a role for the Palestinian Authority? Will there simply be random people off the street? For 15 years Netanyahu created a symbiotic relationship with Hamas — whereby he allowed millions in cash to be funneled to Hamas (there are now credible allegations that Netanyahu may have pocketed some of that). Netanyahu’s strategic goal was to build up Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority so he could claim there was no one to negotiate a solution to the Palestinian issue with. Be careful what you ask for.
Political Violence: It was interesting to hear the call for no political violence from Netanyahu. In 1995, Netanyahu not only ignored protestors who repeatedly called then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a traitor during a political event in Jerusalem, but did not call them out or tell them to stop. Interestingly, prior to Netanyahu’s speech, I attended a modest rally on Capitol Hill led by UnXeptable, a group of mostly Israeli and American Jews opposed to Netanyahu. When someone started to lead a chant “Netanyahu is a traitor” he was immediately silenced by the leaders of the rally and the people around him.
The gravest omission by Netanyahu was his role in the lead-up to Oct. 7 — not just simply by funding Hamas, but by his proposed judicial reform — which tore the country apart until Oct. 6.
The leaders of the anti-coup demonstrations, including former high-ranking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officers and members of the Startup Nation high-tech community, were vilified by Netanyahu. IDF’s chief of staff tried to meet with Netanyahu on multiple occasions to brief him on how the judicial “coup” was harming IDF preparedness, but Netanyahu refused to meet with him.
The political theater of Netanyahu’s speech was undeniable, but its substance was less than credible.
Jonathan D. Strum is an international lawyer and businessman based in Washington and the Middle East. From 1991 to 2005, he was an adjunct professor of the Israeli Legal System at Georgetown University Law Center.
Source link
