Anti-Israel and Jew-Ambivalent in Congress

On December 5, 2022, 126 members of Congress sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging a comprehensive government response to the scourge of anti-Semitism. Many people did not sign the letter despite historic comments that they strongly support Jews, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Other names missing from the letter were not surprising.

Consider the nine members of Congress who voted against supplying Israel with funding for its defensive Iron Dome system against Palestinian rockets: Cori Bush (D-MO), Andre Carson (D-IN), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marie Newman (D-IL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). None of them signed the letter.

In another vote, several members of Congress voted against supplying Israel with American made weapons in May 2021, as Israel fought against terrorists in Gaza. Co-sponsors included Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Betty McCollum (D-IL) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in addition to Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar. None of them signed the call to combat anti-Semitism letter.

In February 2020, members of Congress voted to send money to the terrorist enclave of Gaza. In addition to Pocan and Debbie Dingell (D-MI), signers to the letter included Don Beyer, Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, André Carson, Judy Chu, Danny K. Davis, Peter A. Defazio, Mark DeSaulnier, Ruben Gallego, Jesús G. “Chuy” García, Raúl Grijalva, Deb Haaland,  Jared Huffman, Pramila Jayapal, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Dan Kildee, Barbara Lee, Betty McCollum, James P. McGovern, Gwen S. Moore, Ilhan Omar, Chellie Pingree, Donald M. Payne Jr., David E. Price, Bobby L. Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Jackie Speier, Rashida Tlaib, Paul Tonko, and Peter Welch. Of this list, the only signers to the letter to fight anti-Semitism were Bonamici, Dingell, Lee and Schakowsky. All of the others did not sign the letter to fight Jew hatred.

While many New York members of Congress signed the fight-anti-Semitism letter including Sen. Kirtsen Gillibrand, Rep. Ritchie Torres, Rep. Grace Meng, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, Rep. Lee Zeldin, Rep. Thomas Suozzi, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Mondaire Jones, several in the tri-state area did not.

Jamaal Bowman, who rejected the Abraham Accords and declined speaking to an American Jewish Committee electoral event, did not sign the letter. Hakeem Jeffries, who is slated to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi as leader of House Democrats also declined to sign. Other anti-Israel New Yorkers like AOC and Paul Tonko also did not sign. Click on the links above to write them voicing your displeasure.

During the 2022 election campaign, J Street, a pro-Palestinian lobbying group which markets itself as “pro-Israel”, wrote checks to 138 members of Congress. Very few of those recipients signed the letter to combat anti-Semitism. Omissions included: Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI), Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA) and many others including those voting for anti-Israel measures listed above, such as Bowman, Newman, McCollum, Tonko, Jayapal, Pocan, Garcia, Carson, Chu and Davis.

Members of the anti-Israel squad all declined to sign the letter urging President Biden to address anti-Semitism

When so many anti-Israel members of Congress also refuse to join decent voices in Congress to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism, it offers another response to the question of whether anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are one and the same.

Related articles:

As Democrats Become More Liberal And Anti-Israel, DMFI Sticks Fingers In The Dike

Anti-Israel Lobbyists Dwarf Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

In San Francisco Schools, Anti-Zionism is Anti-Racism

Is Intersectionality Anti-Semitic?

Catherine Parker Is Coming For Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s Congressional Seat

Catherine Parker, a resident of Rye, NY, is running for Congress in New York’s newly redrawn 16th district, one of the most Jewish districts in the country. She has much to say about the district’s current representative, Jamaal Bowman, and it’s and not pretty.

Parker agreed to be interviewed about issues of concern to the Jewish community, as she gets her message out to her constituents.

Catherine Parker, active in politics in lower Westchester for 15 years, is running for Congress to unseat Rep. Jamaal Bowman

On Israel and United Nations

Among the three people running for the seat in the Democratic primary, Parker is the only one who put Israel on her website as part of her agenda. Her website specifies:

Israel is an important ally to the United States, and in Washington, Catherine will be a steadfast ally of the Middle East’s only democracy. Unlike her opponent who has consistently opposed U.S. policy supportive of Israel, Catherine would have voted in support of Israel’s right to defend itself and protect its citizens and she would have voted for funding of the Iron Dome.

“Catherine opposes the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement which aims to end international support for Israel. She believes wholeheartedly in a two state solution. When it comes to a deal with Iran regarding nuclear – a new Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – we need to see that it will be more protective and longer, stronger and broader than what was negotiated by President Obama in 2015. And unlike her opponent, Catherine supports strengthening the Abraham Accords and would have voted in support for the Israel Relations Normalization Act of 2021.

These very supportive statements about the Jewish State served as a basis for our conversation.

On BDS, Parker said that it’s “just a version of anti-Semitism.” She believes that it should have no standing or support in our government.

She said that aid to Israel should not be conditional, much as President Biden has stated. She offered that Israel’s security has enhanced America’s security, and with “Israel being attacked all the time from terrorist groups like Hamas, it [Israel] deserves our support.”

Parker added that she supported the Taylor Force Act which limited funds to the Palestinian Authority as long as it pays the families of terrorists. “If the PA is going to be paying stipends to terrorists, then as a country, we shouldn’t be providing economic aid [to the PA].”

Parker added that she doesn’t think that the United Nations is fair in regards to Israel. In particular, she pointed to the UN Human Rights Council which continues to target Israel, a theme the State Department discussed a few weeks ago. She had no comment about the unique perpetual agency devoted to the descendants of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, and said she would look into it.

Parker has never been to Israel but aligns herself with the Jewish State. While she has no position on Israelis living east of the Green Line in “settlements,” she is eager to visit the country and to learn more.

Iran’s Nuclear Program

Parker called the Islamic Republic of Iran “bad actors.” She was disappointed that Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s attempt at diplomacy had seemingly broken down, and said she is “open to listening” to alternatives to deal with the menace, including military action.


Parker supports the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. She discussed her family’s long connection to former Rep. Nita Lowey and supports having Holocaust education in every school in the country. Parker views this as important to combat anti-Semitism and to benefit all of society.

Why She’s Running: Bowman

Parker went through a lengthy list of reasons why she’s running for Congress and it centers around Rep. Jamaal Bowman.

She said that she believes that Bowman’s advocacy for “Defund the Police is absolutely ridiculous.” The country has “many wonderful people serving us” and the key to combating some rogue officers is to have “implicit bias training” for active police officers.

Parker thinks that Bowman has made terrible policy decisions for the lower Westchester district and for the country, including voting against the infrastructure bill, against aid to Ukraine, and against supporting Israel.

She contrasted her style with Bowman who has a terrible working relationship with fellow Democrats in Westchester (writer’s note: I have repeatedly heard the same criticism). Parker commented about how she strives for bipartisanship in her dealings with Republicans and Democrats in passing laws that benefit the community, and wants to bring that kind of care to Washington, DC. She pondered that Bowman seems to be driven by personal motivation or his ties to the socialist fringe of the party, and clearly not to his constituents.


Catherine Parker is a seasoned local politician who is learning about the larger national and international issues that concern her Westchester constituents, including Jews. Her instincts seem good and she avoided wading into unfamiliar topics until learning more. I would not be surprised to see her win endorsements for her positions on anti-Semitism and Israel from a variety of groups including Democratic Majority For Israel (DMFI) which normally doesn’t fight incumbents, AIPAC, America’s Pro-Israel lobby, as well as other pro-Israel Democrats like Rep. Ritchie Torres (NY-15), just to the south of her district.

By way of comparison, Bowman is supported as part of the extremist “squad” endorsed by the Sunrise Movement and the Working Families Party, which also support Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush, all of whom have cast votes and made comments deeply hurtful to the Jewish community. Consider that the DC Chapter of the Sunrise Movement actually banned progressive Jewish groups from an event, including the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC), the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs (JCPA). Even far left groups like Americans for Peace Now were appalled at the Sunrise Movement’s action, as the president and CEO said “This is boycotting groups because they are Jewish and state a general … support of Israel,” even though it’s not a core component of their mission, making the action blatantly anti-Semitic.

The differences between Bowman and Parker are dramatic.

The Democratic primary will be held on August 23rd with early voting beginning on August 13.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MN), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), members of the far-left “squad.” (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Related articles:

Rep. Ritchie Torres Doesn’t Want To Be the Only Progressive Pro-Israel Unicorn

Vedat Gashi, Running To Unseat Jamaal Bowman in Congress, Talks to The Jewish Community

The Disgraceful Promotion of Refugee-Washing ‘Nakba’ In The U.S. Congress

Politicians In Their Own Words: Why We Don’t Support Defending Jews

The Right Number of Anti-Semites in Congress

Re-destricting Will Bring More Anti-Israel Members of Congress

The spectacle of Congress voting to replenish the Iron Dome funding was heart-breaking. Voting to replenish the interceptor missiles that saved hundreds – if not thousands – of civilians in Israel was a no-brainer, but nine members of Congress thought that any support of Israel was too much.

Democratic leadership noted that their eight anti-Israel colleagues (there was one Republican that also voted to block the funding) were a small minority and the vast majority of Democratic members of congress voted in favor of defensive support. The leadership insisted that those who pointed out the fracturing of the party were trying to inflate the radicals.

But polls of American civilians show that the left-wing has already pulled away from Israel.

In June 2021, a AP-NORC poll showed the left was pushing the administration for greater support of Palestinians over Israelis. Three times as many (47% to 15%) liberal Democrats as Conservative Republicans thought that the United States is too supportive of Israel. Three times as many (61% Conservative to 17% Liberals) thought that the US wasn’t supportive enough of Israel.

The same poll showed the opposite in relation to support of Palestinian Arabs. Eight times as many (58% Conservatives to 7% Liberals) think the US is too supportive of Palestinians, while seven times as many (62% Liberals to 9% Conservatives) thought the US should devote more support to Palestinian Arabs. To lay that out more directly, 62% and 47% of Liberals think the US should be more supportive of Palestinians and less supportive of Israel, respectively. That’s in sharp contrast to 61% and 58% of Conservatives who think the US should be more supportive of Israel and less supportive of Palestinians.

A University of Maryland poll held around the same time yielded similar results with different questions. Regarding the May fighting between Israel and Gazans, ten times as many Democrats as Republicans blamed Israel for the violence (34.8% Democrats to 3.7% Republicans). Conversely, seven times as many Republicans as Democrats blamed the Palestinians (59.1% Republicans to 8.1% Democrats). Not surprisingly, seven times as many Democrats than Republicans (43.7% to 6.3%) want the US to apply more pressure on Israel, including withholding aid. Many more Republicans (49.0%) prefer applying pressure including withholding aid on the Palestinians than Democrats (8.5%). Independents were much more neutral on the issue.

These poll results show a very different dynamic than argued by Democratic politicians. The far-left (and growing) fringe of their party is becoming more anti-Israel. This makes it easier for the leaders of deep blue districts to vote against Israel in concert with their base.

The redistricting that is occurring around the country based on the 2020 census will certainly change Congress at the next election. It will also likely produce a large increase in the anti-Israel voices in congress.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN), leading anti-Israel voices in Congress

Related First One Through articles:

The Right Number of Anti-Semites in Congress

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

Anti-Israel Lobbyists Dwarf Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Hamas’s Willing Executioners

Rep. Ritchie Torres Doesn’t Want To Be the Only Progressive Pro-Israel Unicorn

Voices of/to the House Foreign Affairs Committee

The Mourabitat Women of Congress

Excerpt of Hamas Charter to Share with Your Elected Officials

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Right Number of Anti-Semites in Congress

There is a growing movement for the U.S. Congress to look much like America. The argument goes that a representative government should resemble its constituents which would be better able to incorporate their perspectives when passing laws.

In the early years of American democracy, the halls of government were populated by White Christian men. Over time, women and Blacks were given the right to vote and ultimately began running for and winning seats in government.

The tapestry of America can be seen in a picture of the 117th Congress.

Members of 117th Congress being sworn in, January 2021 (photo: Franmarie Metzler)

In addition to outward appearance is the lived realities of people’s experiences, feelings and emotional state.

There are Americans who are mentally unstable. Who are racists and misogynists. Who are psychopaths, anti-Semites and abusers. These individuals are represented by members of Congress and are also members of Congress. It was true when America was only governed by White Christian men and is true now with people with a spectrum of backgrounds.

America’s government looks and thinks more like swaths of America.

Some of today’s notable anti-Semites in Washington, D.C. are Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). While the passions of Jew haters have representation in government, are there enough people to properly represent Americans’ animosity towards Jews?

According to the Anti-Defamation League 2015 poll, 10% of Americans hold anti-Semitic beliefs. With 100 senators and 435 members of the House, the right number of anti-Semites in government should be 53 politicians. The three infamous anti-Semites may stand out because they have to pull above their weight. Americans may crave more voices disparaging Jews. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) seemingly know as much, and are leaning in to be carried by the tailwinds of hate.

A Congress that speaks and votes like the worst parts of America thinks, is being showcased by Representatives Omar, Tlaib and Greene today. They are a mirror of the ugliest parts of our society. That frame will only widen and darken should we fail to collectively change course.

Related First One Through articles:

Farrakhan’s Democrats

The Veil of Hatred

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

The Insidious Jihad in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Will A Reliable Pro-Israel Congressional Seat Flip?

Congresswoman Nita Lowey has served in the United States Congress for several decades. Representing New York’s 17th District covering Lower Westchester County and all of Rockland County, Lowey has been and consistent supporter of Israel since she entered Congress in 1989. Now, at age 82, she is retiring.

A long list of Democrats are lining up to compete for her seat. Almost all are quite to the left of Lowey politically, unabashedly “progressive” with the exception of David Carlucci. The candidates’ records and statements on Israel have been quite mixed as well. Below is a summary.

First, the Pro-Israel and Anti-antisemitism candidates: Buchwald and Carlucci

David Buchwald

David Buchwald, 41, is the most aggressively pro-Israel candidate among the Democrats.

He fought actively against the Iran nuclear deal as it left Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons intact. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Assembly and notably supported President Trump’s declaration that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.

Moreover, Buchwald has stated that U.S. military aid to Israel cannot be used “as a bargaining chip” to pressure Israel into making decisions which it feels undermines its security.

New York State Assemblyman David Buchwald

Justin Brasch, a member of White Plains City Council said that “David is by far the most pro-Israel candidate by every measure. He also is the most vocal against Iran due to their support of global terror and the terrorist group Hezbollah.

Buchwald’s full position paper on Israel is here.

David Carlucci

David Carlucci, 39, is a New York State Senator with an Italian father and Jewish mother. He is probably best known for working across the aisle with Republicans in New York State government for years, often making him an outsider with the current Democratic party pushing to the far left.

Carlucci has been active fighting antisemitism, including introducing the Social Media Hate Speech Accountability Act after Jews in Monsey (in Rockland County) were attacked during Channukah, and a bill that would categorize graffitiing as a hate crime if it targets a person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation. He was particularly appalled by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio calling out the Chasidic community during the pandemic.

Regarding Israel, he is in favor of a two-state solution. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Senate and notably supported the decision to move Israel’s capital to Jerusalem. He was critical of a letter sent by Democratic leaders to President Trump opposing Israel applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria. Like Buchwald, he is against any conditioning of aid to Israel.

In regards to the Iranian deal, Carlucci’s campaign office sent me the following to clarify his position:

“I oppose re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 for many reasons, including  most concerning is that it did not stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, it did not address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, it lacked inspections at military sites, it allowed Iran to continue its research into what could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it did not prohibit development of ballistic missiles.  Now that we have been removed from the Iran deal, we must restart negotiations as soon as possible with the goal being that Iran never get control of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.  These new negotiations must have these parameters in place to guide a productive resolution.”

Meh-Israel candidates: Farkas, Fine, Jones and Schleifer.

Evelyn Farkas

Evelyn Farkas, 52, is supported by J Street, a far-left group that was in favor of sanctioning Israel at the United Nations, labeling Jewish Israelis living east of the Green Line as “illegal settlers,” and the Iranian nuclear deal which gave the leading state sponsor of terrorism which calls for the destruction of Israel, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons.

Farkas worked in the Obama administration’s Defense department and has been endorsed by former Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shaprio.

Not surprisingly, Farkas’s positions on Israel are similar to the Obama administration: in favor of a two state solution and at odds with various Trump initiatives in the region.

Allison Fine

Allison Fine, 55, is also supported by J Street. She is far more left-wing than Farkas, having served as past chair of NARAL, a pro-abortion organization and also less sophisticated about international relations.

Fine views everything through a feminist lens, stating about her run for Lowey’s seat, “this is a woman’s seat and I think it should stay a woman’s seat.” Speaking in defense of the four progressive members of “the squad” who have been critical about Israel, she saidI think we need to support women once they are in office because the level of harassment that elected women receive is far larger than what men receive.

She has been happy to visit Israel several times and her website states “We must stand with the State of Israel and ensure both economic assistance and political support are never in question.

Mondaire Jones

Mondaire Jones, 33, is even more alt-left than Allison Fine, endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Ayanna Pressley and others on the extreme fringe. Not surprisingly, he is also supported by J Street.

Jones viewed Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal as “great” and was strongly opposed to Trump’s withdrawal.

While his website states nothing about Israel, he worked with the Jewish Insider to post his position about the Jewish State. In it he states “I strongly oppose the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.” He opposed Trump’s recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and believes the city should be divided by Israel and the Palestinians. He does, however, recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Adam Schleifer

Adam Schleifer, 38, has a background in law as a former US assistant attorney in California and NY State Consumer Protection Regulator. He is most famous for his parents – Leonard, who is the CEO of Regeneron, the Tarrytown-headquartered pharmaceutical giant and Harriet, President of the American Jewish Committee.

Schleifer doesn’t have much to say about Israel other than he disagrees with President Trump’s “style” and doesn’t believe it will create an enduring peace.

He is vocal about combating antisemitism, placing it in the number 7-of-12 slot on his policy goals.

For those people who want to see Nita Lowey’s seat remain in pro-Israel hands, there are really only two choices: David Buchwald and David Carlucci. Democratic primary date is June 23.

Related First One Through articles:

Liberal Senators Look to Funnel Money into Gaza

J Street is Only Considered “Pro-Israel” in Progressive Circles

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

The Insidious Jihad in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Congress should Vote on the Deal, not on the Disappointment nor on the President

The long saga of global bodies negotiating over Iran’s nuclear program ended a significant phase on July 14, 2015, when the parties concluded a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in Vienna, Austria. The negotiation has now entered the “approval” phase by various bodies including the US Congress. The initial reviews and comments of the JCPOA have been heated and ugly.

The Disappointment

On August 7, 2015, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote an op-ed piece entitled “3 U.S. Defeats: Vietnam, Iraq and Now Iran”. Brooks enumerated the various points that make many Americans angry about the terms of the JCPOA, specifically, the failure to realize the stated goals set out by the Obama administration:

  • Prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power
  • Dismantle the nuclear infrastructure
  • Remove their ability to enrich uranium
  • Close the Fordow Heavy water reactor enrichment facility
  • Force Iran to disclose all past nuclear activities
  • Anywhere, anytime inspections
  • No sanctions relief until all of the above have been accomplished

Brooks concluded that none of Obama’s stated objectives were realized. He referred to the agreement as a “partial surrender” to Iran that came about because of the poor tactics of team Obama.

However, that is not the question before Congress. If Congress were to vote on whether the JCPOA produced a disappointing result, the vote would be nearly unanimous (with the exception of a few Obama puppets).  But Congress is not being asked to opine if this was the best deal that could have been achieved, but whether the deal is good enough.

The President

On August 10, 2015, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke out against the president’s tactics in aggressively trying to sell the JCPOA. In “White House Should Leave Politics Out of Iran Deal,” Bloomberg admonished Obama for name-calling opponents of the deal war-mongers and for threatening payback against any politician who dared to vote against the deal. For his part, Bloomberg concluded that the JCPOA was extremely marginal at best, and that Obama’s forceful defense of the deal was “grossly overstating” his case.

The “especially disappointing” behavior by the White House was politics at its worst, particularly when so much is on the line, according to Bloomberg. Politicians should not vote on this significant agreement based on politics or party loyalty; they must vote based on the deal’s merits.

The Deal

On August 7, 2015, New York Senator Charles Schumer detailed his rationale for not supporting the JCPOA. He analyzed the deal based on three criteria:

  • Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons over the next ten years
  • The position of Iran’s nuclear capabilities at the sunset of the deal
  • The cost of the agreement in terms of giving Iran sanctions relief

In terms of the negotiating team’s primary mission of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, Schumer stated that there “are serious weaknesses in the agreement,” including the lack of anytime-anywhere inspections and that the US would need approval of a majority of China, Russia and the Europeans to enforce inspections. Overall, he thought the deal’s terms were not compelling.

On the second point, Schumer was even more negative and stated “we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

Regarding the non-nuclear components of the deal, Schumer was extremely clear in opposing the enablement of a state-sponsor of terrorism to obtain billions in funds and access to ballistic missiles: “When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”

Senator Schumer analyzed and articulated his assessment of the deal. He avoided voting based on the deal’s disappointment, and based on his president’s rhetoric.

NY Senator Charles Schumer
(photo: Getty images)

Vote Ramifications

President Obama has stated that the only alternative to this deal is war. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that there is no “better deal” out there nor is there an opportunity to renegotiate this one.

Yet, those claims are far from clear. Based on behavior of both Obama and Kerry, it would be easy to conclude that these are just their opinions dressed as facts as they attempt to forcefully push through the JCPOA.

There is no clear answer as to the impact of the US voting down the JCPOA.  While procedurally, it is understood that Obama outmaneuvered Congress in only needing one-third instead of a two-thirds vote to secure his deal, what happens if Congress does manage to have the votes?  Obama claims that Iran gets the best of all worlds and gets sanctions relief from the rest of the world while it moves forward with a nuclear program.  That is hard to imagine. That inherently implies that the rest of the world doesn’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons and it is only the USA that is applying the pressure.  If Obama really believes that, then a negative US vote is an opportunity to renegotiate.


Disappointment: The JCPOA is clearly a disappointing result, especially considering the many years that tough sanctions were imposed on Iran as well as the severely depressed recent price of oil applied intense pressure on the regime that will be hard to ever replicate. Together with significant American troops next door in Afghanistan, the P5+1 had tremendous leverage to force complete capitulation by Iran.

The President: Obama is overselling his weak deal as a “strong deal” (in his words) and is bullying his fellow Democrats into submission. If the deal is as strong as he claims, it should be able to stand on its own merits.

The Deal: The deal by itself seems borderline at best. Perhaps it is better than nothing- but only if it costs nothing. The significant sanctions relief and various deal terms make the marginal deal appear unacceptable.

Ramifications: Congress must vote on the deal based on its merits and not based on the disappointing terms nor Obama’s threats. But it must also better understand the ramifications of rejecting the deal.  Kerry’s losing face is not a reason to alter one’s vote on something so important.

Congress and the American people must understand the actual ramifications of turning down the JCPOA without the aggressive salesmanship of the White House.

Related FirstOneThrough articles:

The Obama Administration Lays Foundation of Blame at Israel for a Potential War with Iran

Obama’s White Lie on his Red Line

The Gap between Fairness and Safety: WMDs in Iraq and Iran

The New Nuclear Normal

Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

Summary: Obama has asked Netanyahu to trust him on an issue (Iranian nuclear power) that is an existential threat to his country, even though Obama hasn’t earned that trust on more basic issues. Obama then compounds Netanyahu’s fear by stating Obama will act completely alone in controlling the outcome. Netanyahu’s nightmare is not just becoming “1938 Czechoslovakia”, but “2014 Ukraine”.

 obama netanyahu2
Netanyahu and Obama


Trust is the bedrock of a functional relationship. It enables one party to rely on the other. A trust that includes both intention and capability permits a sharing of responsibility and workload.

The relationship between US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu started off badly and further deteriorated over the years. Personalities aside, the lack of a shared vision about the path to peace and security in the violent Middle East damaged relations.  However, it was a series of bad decisions which destroyed the trust between the two leaders.

Negotiation with Palestinians. Obama’s actions early in his presidency, hurt his credibility with Netanyahu. Obama insisted on an Israeli settlement freeze as a pre-condition to negotiations with the Palestinians- a pre-condition that was never introduced before, even by the Palestinians. Despite Netanyahu’s serious reservations, he instituted a ten-month freeze on building new homes in the west bank of the Jordan River. In exchange, Obama could not get acting-Palestinian President Abbas to even show up to talk for the first nine months, and when he did, all Abbas offered was extending the freeze even longer.

When US Secretary of State John Kerry tried another round of negotiations with Abbas in the fall of 2013, the US again asked Israel to give up something to start talks while it made no demand of the Palestinians. Israel released dozens of terrorists that were convicted of murder from its prisons. In exchange, Kerry could not even get Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, let alone any compromises for a Palestinian state. The negotiations failed again.

In both situations the US pressured Israel to give up something just to initiate negotiations and asked nothing of the Palestinians. In the end, the Palestinians continued to give exactly the same: nothing.

Giving it away upfront. The Obama administration has used the tactic of giving away bargaining points upfront in the hope of gaining something in the negotiations down the road. In Cuba, Obama has pulled back sanctions, in the hope that the country reforms. In Iran, the US eased sanctions to get Iran to consider allowing monitors to watch it build nuclear power.

Netanyahu does not believe in such negotiating tactics and it has not worked out well for Israel.

Giving up on Allies. The disagreement on negotiating style is only part of Netanyahu’s issue.  Israel and the Middle East watched the Obama administration turn its back on its allies. Egyptian President Mubarak was once a close ally of the United States. One day, the Obama administration decided it would no longer stand by its ally and called for Mubarak’s ouster. He was rushed off to jail.

The US’s Middle Eastern allies were dumb-founded by Obama’s action. A senior Arab government official stated “[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we—this isn’t how you handle issues in region.”

Failure to Understand Regional Dynamics. Obama’s turn on Egypt’s Mubarak was followed by an embrace of the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s infatuation with the “Turkish model” of democratic Islam made him welcome the new Egyptian ruler Mohammed Morsi. Morsi reopened Egypt’s ties with Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza) , much to the chagrin of Israel’s Netanyahu. Those actions also undermined the more moderate (on a relative basis) acting PA President Abbas.

Obama back-tracked from his support of democracy in Egypt by not objecting to the replacement of Morsi via a takeover by Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. El-Sisi clamped down on Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood which won praise in Israel. From Israel’s perspective, a mistake was rectified to some degree, but the damage done by Obama of not standing by an ally and not appreciating the regional dynamics was etched in memory.

Obama not standing by Treaties or Comments. In addition to not standing by allied leaders, Obama has not stood by his own word or by US treaties with governments. For example, Obama’s declared “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons came and went without ramifications for Syrian President Assad. While Obama claimed credit for negotiating a solution to get rid of Syria’s known chemical weapons, there was no personal penalty for Assad. Assad continues to remain in power and murder his countrymen.

Saudi Arabia was incredulous and stated“We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white…When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.”

obama syrian red line
Obama asserting a “red line” on Syrian chemical weapons

The Ukrainian situation is even more telling. In 1994, Ukraine signed onto the Budapest Memorandum which was to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. While it adhered to its upfront part of the bargain by giving up its weapons, the Obama administration refused to enforce its end of the agreement by coming to the aid of Ukraine when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian leader Putin correctly assessed the temperament of Obama that he would fail to honor his obligation, just as he failed to take action in Syria. Putin has continued to move past Crimea to other parts of Ukraine while the US not only fails to come to the defense of Ukraine, but drags its feet in sending weapons to defend itself.

The situation is not lost on Netanyahu (while it is on the knee-jerk liberal New York Times which stated in its lead editorial on March 12, 2015 that “Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.”  As detailed above, Obama has made very clear that HE has diminished America’s commitments, not the Republicans).

Obfuscation. The last loose thread in the unraveling fabric of trust is the lack of transparency.

While Obama touted his goal of transparency when he ran for office, his administration has been one of the least transparent. Witness Obamacare, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said “We have to pass the bill to that you can find out what is in it.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran her own email server outside of the State Department and deleted emails at her own whim. Now, Obama refuses to provide details of the Iranian negotiations with Israel.

The trust between Obama and Netanyahu is broken.


Compounding the Israeli frustration with the lack of trust in the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, is the unilateral course that Obama has taken. Obama has effectively barred Israel from attacking Iran and is attempting to seal negotiations without legislative approval.

Blocking an Israeli attack. As soon as Obama began to negotiate with Iran, it became impossible for Israel to attack Iran. How could Israel attack the facilities while the US was pursuing a diplomatic initiative? The start of Obama’s talks signaled the end of Israel’s ability to destroy their nuclear program.

Skipping Congress. Obama repeatedly stated that he does not believe that he needs congressional approval to sign a deal with Iran. As such, he has asserted that he has complete authority to negotiate and finalize a deal.  The Republicans, which now have majority control of both the House and Senate, strongly disagree and have taken steps to make their position known to both the Obama administration and Iran itself.


Israel’s Netanyahu is left in a precarious situation.  As his country is under threat of annihilation by Iran, its close ally has put itself in the lead seat in negotiations.  However, Netanyahu is looking at the current US president as:

  • Lacking an understanding of regional dynamics;
  • Incapable of negotiating;
  • Refusing to be transparent about the negotiations;
  • Unwilling to stand by statements and treaties in support of allies;
  • Determined to act alone without the legislative branch of government

The Trust in Competencies and Fear of Consequences leaves Israel in a vulnerable and lonely spot.  While Israel fears it will be sacrificed at the alter of larger players like Czechoslovakia in 1938, it sees how the lead negotiator will not enforce any security agreements that may be struck, as in the embattled Ukraine today.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Arab states agree with Netanyahu in speech to Congress:

Conservative focus on safety:

Obama’s Iranian red line:

The need for a global public reaction to Iran’s nuclear aspiration:

On Accepting Invitations

Summary: While Obama can pretend to be insulted by Netanyahu’s failure to follow protocol in accepting an invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress, Obama did much worse to Netanyahu in 2013. It shows that if you are a friend, you forgive, and if you want to be angry, you can always find a cause to validate your anger.

bibi congress
Israeli PM Netanyahu addressing US Congress May 2011

There is a brouhaha over Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accepting an invitation from US Speaker of the House John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress in March 2015 about Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons. The complaint, according to the White House, is about a failure to follow protocol – one would imagine, a forgivable error. However, the comments from an unnamed senior source at the White House fumes that accepting the invitation was a direct insult to the president, and that Netanyahu “spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.

Netanyahu’s acceptance of an invitation specifically addressed to him, to discuss a topic that he considers an existential threat to his country, to speak to an incredible audience that also cares deeply about the subject of Iran doesn’t seem to be a snub to Obama at face value. However, if one considers that the audience does not agree with the president’s current course of action, and that Netanyahu’s opinion does not fit squarely with the president’s approach, well, that’s a different story- that could theoretically have been a snub and attempt to bypass the president that is…what’s the word? Familiar.

Obama Declined Invitation to Speak to the Israeli Knesset

In March 2013, Israel invited US President Barack Obama to visit Israel and speak to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. Both of the two previous US presidents, Bill Clinton (1994) and George W Bush (2008) addressed the Knesset while they were in office. Obama declined the invitation.

clinton knesset
Present Bill Clinton Addressing Israeli Knesset 1994

This US administration wanted to bypass the Israeli government and address the Israeli citizens directly, saying that Obama had a speech for “the Israeli public and that really was our priority.” The White House arranged to have an audience of students from Israeli universities (except he did not allow students from schools on the West Bank of the Jordan) to hear his remarks.

  • Was declining an invitation to speak to the Knesset a nice thing to do? It is not something Israel extends to most world leaders.
  • Was it appropriate to use that same time slot to speak to “the Israeli public” instead? Did Obama not realize that Israel is the democracy and the politicians are elected by the people and represent the people? (As opposed to his “New Beginnings” address to the Egyptian government in 2009.
  • Obama cherry-picked his “Israeli public” to be those young people who may have been more receptive to his remarks than an audience that truly represented the broad opinions of the citizens of the country and the Knesset.

How did Netanyahu react to these insulting actions of the White House? Did he take umbrage? Did he refuse to see Obama and did Bibi direct members of his political party to ignore Obama on his visit? Not at all. He acted like a perfect host.

Note that these various 2013 actions of Obama were not a single failure to coordinate as it was for the 2015 Netanyahu invitation. Obama carefully scripted the entire Knesset-snub, direct-to-some of-the-people message.

In Obama’s opening remarks to the student body he said: “any drama between me and my friend, Bibi over the years was just a plot to create material for Eretz Nehederet (an Israeli comedy show)”. I wonder how Obama will react if Bibi opts to make a similar joke about his buddy “Barack” in his address to Congress in March.

obama israelUS President Obama speaking to Israeli STUDENTS 2013

And what was the crux of Obama’s speech in March 2013? Why did he feel the need to give a cold-shoulder to the Knesset and Netanyahu?

On the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama argued that a “strong and principled diplomacy is the best way to ensure that the Iranian government forsakes nuclear weapons….But Iran must know this time is not unlimited.  And I’ve made the position of the United States of America clear:  Iran must not get a nuclear weapon.“ Words that sounded nice to a generation that believed “hope” was a policy.

Obama knew that the Israeli Knesset and Prime Minister Netanyahu were very skeptical about Obama’s push to curtail sanctions on Iran. Obama therefore opted to bypass them and speak to a select audience that would applaud his vision.

Netanyahu Accepts Invitation to Speak to US Congress

Now, two years have passed and Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Obama scaled back Iranian sanctions and has continued to delay the timetable he laid out to stop their nuclear program. The majority of Congress doesn’t like the situation and they don’t agree with Obama’s process.

As such, the House Speaker asked a close ally which is in the crosshairs of the Iranian regime to call out the president for the failed process. Netanyahu’s response: “As Prime Minister of Israel, I am obligated to make every effort in order to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons that would be aimed at the State of Israel. This effort is worldwide and I will go anywhere I am invited in order to enunciate the State of Israel’s position and in order to defend its future and its existence.”

Does Obama really lack complete sensitivity to Israel’s fears about a nuclear Iran that he would inflate a matter of protocol over an invitation to such a degree?  Or is it just a ploy for Obama to influence Israel’s elections by trying to put downhis friend Bibi”?

 Emily Post Five Points on Accepting an Invitation

There are a good number of people who have suggested that Netanyahu should cancel his March speech. Of course, they include his political opponents in Israel, but they also include some Democrats in the US Congress and leaders of Jewish organizations.

Emily Post, the expert of etiquette, suggests five key steps to responding to an invitation:

  • “RSVP: reply promptly”: done
  • “Reply in the Manner Indicated”: done, but partially outside of normal protocol
  • “Is that Your Final Answer?” SEE BELOW
  • “May I bring…?”: not relevant
  • Say “Thank you”: done

According to invitation etiquette, there are very few instances to change a response:

  • Changing a ‘yes’ to a ‘no’ is only acceptable on account of: illness or injury, a death in the family or an unavoidable professional or business conflict. Call your hosts immediately.” Vice President Joe Biden and some Democrats seem to be manufacturing this excuse for not attending now.
  • Canceling because you have a “better” offer is a sure fire way to get dropped from ALL the guest lists.
  • Being a “no show” is unacceptable.
  • Changing a ‘no’ to a ‘yes’ is OK only if it will not upset the hosts’ arrangements.”

In short, it is inappropriate for Netanyahu to turn down the invitation at this time. It would be up to Speaker Boehner to consider changing the date of the invitation, should he choose to smooth this inflated side-issue to get everyone focused on the main issue.