Categories
Editorial Opinion

“No Deal”

It has only been a few weeks since the speaker of the House of Representatives, without seeking the concurrence of the president of the United States or even bothering to consult him, chose to invite the head of state of another nation to

address a joint session of the Congress. And it was on a matter, moreover, which was even then the subject of delicate negotiations between this country and a potential adversary, Iran.

As expected, that leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, had a view of the issue that was diametrically opposed to that of President Obama. No problem on that point: People and nations differ. The timing, however — just as negotiations with Iran were reaching the crucial point and (no accident, either) just before Netanyahu faced an election back home — was atrocious. And the issue — the very sensitive one of a deal with Iran to restrain that country’s ability to make a nuclear weapon — was no small matter. Neither was the matter of this country’s constitutional checks and balances, which Speaker John Boehner’s partisan power move, at the very least, put in jeopardy.

Steve Cohen, the 9th District congressman who happens to represent Memphis, more or less said all the above back then, and we were happy to quote his words editorially, deferring to him as a Jewish American, a lifelong supporter of Israel, and a patriot.

Putting all the breaches with tradition and good sense aside, the fact is that Netanyahu spoke well and forcefully in his address, the point of which was to condemn the proposed agreement with Iran as a “bad deal,” which, in his view, made it worse than no deal at all.

But there was something terribly wrong with his logic, as there is, to an even worse degree, with a follow-up letter by 47 Republican senators to the reigning Ayatollah of Iran instructing him, in essence, to disregard the proposed deal — to reject it, rather, on grounds that the Republican Congress had the power to strike the deal dead by not ratifying it and would almost certainly do so.

Now this effort to scuttle a pending treaty, to further hobble the elected chief executive, and to nullify, not just weaken, the checks and balances of our political system, is not only egregious, it is patently in violation of the Constitution, both in letter and in spirit. It is in fact, borderline treasonous. Once again, though, leaving that aside, it ignores the fundamental point of view, as did Netanyahu, that the five other nations participating in negotiations with Iran — Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany — have made it clear they will not join the United States if it should follow Netanyahu’s advice and jettison the pending deal. They, in fact, are likely to forgo the existing multi-national sanctions they have adopted in deference to the U.S. position and to resume trade with Iran, leaving the United States out of the loop and Iran home free to do as it chooses with its nuclear program. That’s what’s wrong with Mr. Netanyahu’s logic and with that of  the GOP barn-burners in Congress. And, along with a trampling of the Constitution, that’s the bottom line of what “no deal” actually means.  Iran wins outright.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Cohen On Netanyahu

Close study of major changes in official American policies and attitudes reveals a principle that has been informally given the name of “Nixon-Goes-to-China” — a reference to President Richard Nixon’s historic 1971 diplomatic opening
to a country that U.S. officialdom had always withheld recognition from.  

During Nixon’s early prominence, he was a scourge of what he and other Cold Warriors scorned as “Red China,” and it was only from that well-established position that he could so dramatically change positions and tilt for a change in policy.

So we come to the current controversy over a decision by the Republican leader of the House of Representatives to issue an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and to do so not only without consulting Democratic President Barack Obama but to make sure the president knew nothing of the invitation in advance.

Who better to come to grips with the matter than our own 9th District congressman, Steve Cohen, who, in a public statement, identifies himself as both “a supporter of the state of Israel and a Jewish American.” His views on the Netanyahu matter derive from an undeniable sincerity.

Cohen has declared that he will not attend Netanyahu’s speech before Congress. He noted the insult to Obama and the breach of precedent involved in the invitation by Boehner. He pointed out that the Israeli prime minister is a candidate in forthcoming elections in his own country, and that Netanyahu has improperly used video footage of previous speeches before Congress in his electoral campaigns, making the United States government an involuntary campaign supporter by proxy.

Cohen then noted the uses to which the Netanyahu visit will likely be put: “The Speaker’s invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu is political gamesmanship and it is a very dangerous game. The prime minister’s use of the U.S. House chamber as a stage to argue against the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which is currently being negotiated among Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, is reckless.

“While Americans and members of Congress may disagree on anything, even foreign policy, providing a forum of such immense prestige and power to the leader of another country who is opposing our nation’s foreign policy is beyond the pale. It endangers the negotiations, insults the good faith of the other nations involved in the negotiations, and emboldens Iran who may well view this schism in our government as an opportunity for advantage. While we can disagree with our president, we as a nation should be as one on our foreign policy and any disagreements should be presented in a respectful, appropriate and time-honored manner.”

Cohen concludes: “[M]y support of Israel has not wavered but I believe that this speech at this time and brought forth in this manner is dangerous to Israel as well as inappropriate. Nothing should come between our two nations. The actions of the Speaker and the Prime Minister have caused a breach between Democrats in Congress and Israel as well as the administrations of the United States and Israel. My lack of attendance does not mean I will not be aware of the content of the speech nor does it mean I won’t follow the commentary both pro and con, but I will not be part of the spectacle.”

Agree or disagree as you will, this is well and powerfully said.