Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on July 24. He was invited by congressional leaders, including Democrats. Congressional Democrats must now decide whether to attend the speech or boycott it.
For anyone with the courage of his or her convictions, the decision shouldn’t be difficult. If you’re anti-Israel or strongly disagree with the way Netanyahu is prosecuting the war, then don’t show up. If not, attend.
Alternatively, Democrats can make their decision based purely on their personal interest. If the political cost of attending is likely to outweigh the political cost of boycotting, then boycott. If the calculation goes the opposite way, then attend.
But some Democrats don’t want to pay any cost for their decision. Thus, in the tradition of Barack Obama voting “present,” they are looking for a way out. Their best solution? Conditioning attendance on assurances that Netanyahu won’t say things that will make them look bad.
That’s Chris Coons’ approach. Josh Rogin reports:
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told me he met with Michael Herzog, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, on Tuesday to convey his concerns about the speech. Coons said he won’t commit to attending until he is assured that Netanyahu is not planning to use it as a partisan and divisive exercise.
Coons is a standard-issue left-liberal who poses as a moderate. It’s not surprising that he’s trying to squirm his way into a better position, politically.
He understands that Netanyahu can make general promises not to be “partisan” or “divisive,” but he can’t be more specific than that. If he gives up his right to present Israel’s position and defend it, he’d be better off not coming to D.C. (More on that option below)
Thus, Coons is making a shrewd play. If he doesn’t get the “assurances” he seeks, he has an excuse not to attend. He can say he’s not boycotting for substantive reasons, he’s just standing up for non-partisanship and unity.
If he gets assurances, then, depending on what Netanyahu says to Congress, he can say he forced the Prime Minister to be non-partisan and non-divisive or else say that Netanyahu broke his promise and that he wouldn’t have attended if the Prime Minister had been honest.
Here is Coons’ stated reason for his demand — probably without precedent in a foreign leader’s address to Congress — for assurances:
“If this is anything like the 2015 speech [Netanyahu delivered to Congress], that is unwelcome and unconstructive,” Coons said. “If it is the prime minister coming to announce a concrete plan for humanitarian relief, Palestinian self-governance or a path forward for the region, I’m interested.”
Actually, Netanyahu’s 2015 speech provides an excellent model for his upcoming address. Far from being partisan, the Prime Minister was effusive in his praise for Barack Obama’s support of Israel. He stated that Obama had helped Israel in numerous ways that he could not describe for reasons of secrecy.
At the same time, Netanyahu stuck up for Israel’s interests, as he perceived them. Specifically, he spoke in opposition to Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
This wasn’t “partisanship.” In Netanyahu’s view, this deal would not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Moreover, it would greatly enrich Iran, the country that poses the greatest threat to Israel’s survival.
In doing so, it would enable that country to generously subsidize groups like Hamas. Without that funding, made possible first by the nuclear deal and then by Joe Biden’s sanction relief, Hamas might not have been able to carry out its October 7 attack.
How, then, could Netanyahu in good conscience not have spoken out against the deal. His job was to protect Israel’s interests, not Barack Obama’s.
Protecting Israel’s interests is still Netanyahu’s job. Thus, I expect him to follow the 2015 model. I expect him to praise Biden to the hilt for the aid he has provided Israel. Then, I expect him to lay out his case for rejecting Hamas’ ceasefire demands; to recount the ways in which Israel tries to protect civilians from harm and provide them with aid; to discuss the righteousness of Israel’s cause; and to explain the need to destroy Hamas’ remaining brigades.
In doing so, Netanyahu will implicitly reject some of Biden’s pronouncements about the war in Gaza. For example, Biden says the war has gone on long enough (it’s been going on for less than nine months). Biden says Israel isn’t doing enough to protect non-combatants and deliver aid. He suggests that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in order to stay in power.
Netanyahu cannot give credence to these views. It’s not his job to make Biden look good by ratifying statements he disagrees with, much less statements that slander him and his country.
Netanyahu is coming to Washington to defend Israel’s interests. If Democrats like Coons don’t want to hear him do so, they should stay home.
All of this is separate from the question of whether it’s a good idea for Netanyahu to deliver a speech at all. Sen. Chris Murphy, a standard issue left-liberal in the Coons mold, notes that Netanyahu’s last address failed to thwart the Iran deal. He also claims that the surrounding controversy deepened fissures between elements of the American political establishment and Israel for years.
But Netanyahu’s speech rallied Republicans against the deal, and Donald Trump later voided it. As for the “fissures,” they likely were mainly the result of Netanyahu’s opposition to Obama’s deal, not his expression of opposition in a speech to Congress. In fact, deep fissures predate the speech. Obama and his gang already hated Netanyahu.
In any case, deep though the fissures may be, the U.S. has continued to supply Israel with the aid it needs. So far, this has been true during Republican and Democratic administrations.
This time around, a Netanyahu speech will have even less impact on long term relations between the U.S. and Israel. Netanyahu’s days as prime minister are likely numbered. His speech may upset Democrats like Coons and Murphy, but once Israel has a new leader, that will be irrelevant.
I’m not saying that Israel will have good relations with Democrats. To the contrary, given the ages of congressional Democrats who support Israel compared to those who dislike the Jewish state, and given the attitudes towards Israel of young Democrat voters, relations will deteriorate pretty rapidly.
But this will be the case regardless of what Netanyahu tells Congress and regardless of whether he gives a speech at all.
Netanyahu should give the speech. It’s his best chance to defend Israel to an American public inundated with anti-Israel propaganda, much of it coming from the mainstream media and some from prominent Democrats.
I wonder if there's a way Speaker Johnson could invite Trump to attend in a prominent seat in the gallery. If so, he should do it. I think it would be a masterstroke. Most of the county still supports Israel, because most of the country still has morals.
The Democrats are pigs. The worst ones in my opinion are the ones who pretend to be moderate and support Israel while betraying her in her our of greatest need. This describes most of the Democratic party with a few honorable exceptions. Among Senate Democrars I think John Fetterman is the only exception. I agree Netanyahu should come. He should come and lay our Israel's just behavior and it's moral prosecution of a war forced on it by psychopaths that the world for insane reasons adores. If the Democrars walk out or boycott it will be their first honest (though deeply dishonorable) act.