19 thoughts on “Rising Tide of Congress Members Say ‘No’ to Bibi’s Speech – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

      1. I always find apologists for eliminationist Kahanism and the Israeli right/far-right crying about “terrorism” or otherwise “but look how bad these people are” to be screamingly hilarious.

        I’m of course referring to that blog– where one can apparently laud the idea of ethnic cleansing or genocide when it’s directed at “filthy Arabs”. Truly a cesspool.

    1. I think Victor is a professional hasbarista. The same link is posted on 972 mag with exactly the same ‘introduction’, the headline in the link use ‘raised’, but both Victor and some Jackdaw use ‘hoist’.
      Seems his dayjob as defense attorney doesn’t take up much time.

      1. @ Deir Yassin: I alread banned “jackdaw.” If I find “Victor” & “jackdaw” are the same I will ban “Victor.” Using different identities to comment here is absolutely prohibited.

        Can you get me the 972 link please?

          1. @Deir Yassin: Thanks for good detective work. He’s clearly either the same person or two people working closely with each other. Or perhaps part of the Hasbara Collective!

  1. The hoopla and free publicity surrounding ‘the speech’ does nothing but boost Bibi’s stature and helps ensure his re-election in two weeks.

    If Israeli voters attention hadn’t been distracted, maybe they’d focus more on Bibi’s domestic failures and vote him out.

        1. @ Victor: Yeah, Bibi’s a rockstar & you’re a Supreme Court justice. First, Chuck Schumer says they’re selling hotter than latkes. Schumer is a ball boy for the Lobby. His fundraising depends on sucking up to donors who love Bibi. Second, anyone who does want to see the speech is probably hoping to see a car wreck. Third, Bibi is finished as a figure in U.S. politics till the end of Obama’s term. Obama won’t even let him in the servant’s entrance to the White House. So much for being a rock star.

          Oh and if he were a rock star the name of his group would be Churchill and the Deaf-Tones.

          New rule for you, Victor. No more than 3 comments in any 24 hour period. Just to prevent monopolizing the threads.

  2. The hoopla around Bibi is inversely related to the maintenance of bilateral American support. So the more hoopla the better.

    It is, though, as if the Israeli right has known in its bones that the story of the tail wagging the dog was too dreamlike to last. To soften the rude awakening it has been two-timing the US with China (remarkably Hillary noticed that of Australia preferring to remain blind to what that other partner was doing in this regard – to have “no daylight” in the relation came in handy here). But China is two-timing Israel with Palestine and Hamas. The tail will never find such a responsive dog again.

  3. Sorry to burst your bubble. I just watched the speech online. It was brilliant:
    1 The auditorium was packed
    2 The members of Congress gave Netanyahu a standing ovation at least 25 times.
    3 He wont change Obama’s mind but now millions of people will understand why its a bad deal.
    4 Netanyahu comes out of this stronger than ever.

    1. @ Rabbi Yakov Lazaros: Your comment violates the comment rules. It was off-topic. But more importantly it treats the Middle East like a soccer game. Commenters don’t root for a team to win & cheer them on. Bibi doesn’t need a fan club. He’s got Bibiton for that.

      Commenters write substantive comments containing an argument backed by facts and sources. Your comment was none of those things. Follow the comment rules or you will be moderated.

  4. That part of the “people’s representatives” in the mighty hall of congress jumped up and down like trained monkeys won’t have increased the respect, both at home and internationally, for that august assembly. Nancy Pelosi was in tears afterwards and deplored the “condescending tone” of this particular ringmaster’s address and the insult it contained to their intelligence. Yes, perhaps her intelligence – but looking at the reactions of some of her adversaries I am not too sure.

    However things have gone as they should be. The speech has in all likelihood weakened bilateral support for Israel and reinforced Netanyahu’s electoral chances. When he gets back into power the wolf Israel will unmistakably remain in wolf’s clothing. That can only clarify the perception of international leaders about who and what they are dealing with.

    As to the internal logic of Netanyahu’s speech (not that the trained monkeys care much about logic) Paul Waldman put his finger on the sore spot in the Washington Post:

    “He had nothing to say about why this might happen if we weren’t negotiating, other than that we should “keep up the pressure.” That’s his alternative: Do nothing, and instead of just going ahead and developing nuclear weapons, Iran will see the light and completely reverse everything it’s been doing.
    To call that position “absurd” is too kind. You don’t have to be some kind of foreign policy whiz to grasp that there’s something weird about arguing that 1) Iran is a nation run by genocidal maniacs; 2) they want nuclear weapons so they can annihilate Israel; and 3) the best way to stop this is to abandon negotiations to limit their nuclear program and just wait to see what they do. But that’s the position Netanyahu and his supporters in the Republican Party are now committed to. “

    1. “As to the internal logic of Netanyahu’s speech”

      One of the readers at the New York Times nailed it best when he writes “and as for No-Ideas Netanyahu”…

      I wouldn’t mind the bombast quite so much if Netanyahu had followed it up with a well-considered and eminently-practical alternative.

      But, nup, just No-Ideas Netanyahu bemoaning “a bad deal” when he can’t even be bothered to come up with a plausible alternative.

      Not that he can, of course, because what he really wants is (a) war that is (b) fought by the USA.

      1. “Not that he can, of course, because what he really wants is (a) war that is (b) fought by the USA.”

        I’m not so sure if this is true. Please provide evidence of this as usually only substantive comments based on fact are made here, please provide the link thanks.

        1. @ Marwan: Cool yer jets, bud. When someone writes a comment that is self-evident I don’t see the need to produce links for your edification. If you can’t understand why Bibi wants a war with Iran, preferably started by the US, then you haven’t been reading years worth of media coverage saying precisely that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link