The Netanyahu Invitation

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun
NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

Congratulations are in order for the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. The event is set for March 3 and will make the Israeli premier the second foreign leader — the first was Winston Churchill — to address a joint meeting three times. President Obama is said to be annoyed that Mr. Boehner failed to consult him about extending the invitation, but the president has been so condescending toward Congress over the Middle East crisis that it’s hard to see what incentive Mr. Boehner would have for playing by Queensbury rules.

More to the point, the issue on which Mr. Netanyahu has been asked to speak is not one that invites a lot of coquetry. Congress wants to know what the government in Jerusalem makes of the situation with Iran. Mr. Obama used his state of the union speech — normally a vehicle for wooing and inspiring the Congress — to threaten a veto if the solons dast pass Menendez-Kirk, also known as the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. The act is designed to restore sanctions if the mullahs fail to live up to any agreement they strike with Mr. Obama.

One would think that any negotiator acting in good faith would be thrilled to have that kind of backing. But Mr. Obama has taken umbrage. The other day he went so far as to insult the integrity of the outgoing chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey. Mr. Obama did this at a Democratic Party strategy session, where, according to a terrific scoop in the New York Times, the president suggested that the backers of Menendez-Kirk were bowing to pressure from campaign donors. Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, call your office.

Mr. Menendez may be a Democrat, but he’s nobody’s fool. According to the New York Times, he stood up and told the president to his face that he took offense. Then, at the State of the Union address, Mr. Obama materially misrepresented what the Menendez-Kirk legislation would do. He presented an overly negative view of the proposed law and an overly credulous view of the mullahs. This was well-marked after the speech text was released in a series of emails from Omri Ceren and Josh Block, Washington legs of the Israel Project, which covers the Mideast beat.

In one of their cables, Mr. Block noted that for more than a year the administration has been claiming that Iran’s nuclear program has been “frozen” and their “progress halted” during the talks. Mr. Obama used the word “halted” his State of the Union speech. We were given to believe that talks would last but six months. In June we’ll be coming up on 19 months. Yet far from having “halted” its nuclear work, Iran has enriched what Mr. Block characterizes as “at least one more bomb’s worth of material” and “advanced its plutonium track to 87% completion.”

Mr. Obama suggested in his speech that Congress was set to pass “new sanctions.” That’s disingenuous. Menendez-Kirk wouldn’t impose any sanctions absent a default by Iran. There is no doubt that the act would place America on Israel’s side if Israel determines it has to attack Iran, but that’s one of its virtues. Mr. Obama, after all, has been vowing that he’ll have Israel’s back; if he means it, this would give him legislative authority from the get-go. One could go so far as to call it the “We’ll Have Israel’s Back Act of 2015.” All the more reason for Congress to welcome Mr. Netanyahu back.

No doubt there are risks. Professor Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago sent around an email this morning expressing a concern in respect of whether bringing Mr. Netanyahu to Capitol Hill at this juncture might “make support of Israel even more partisan than it already is.” It’s a serious question, to be weighed against the risks in allowing the appeasement of Iran to go unchecked by Congress. It was neither the Congress nor the Republicans who have endangered the bipartisan nature of support for the Jewish state. It is one of the disappointments of the Obama years. Mr. Netanyahu’s appearance on Capitol Hill need not become a partisan event; this is a moment to enable the Congress to gain a credible report that it’s having a hard time getting at home.

NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use