Between Protocol and Survival
Published in El Universal
(Venezuela) on 10 February 2015
by Elias S. Farache (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 10 February 2015
by Elias S. Farache (link to original)
Translated from
by Rachael Robinson.
Edited by Eva Langman.
Obama and Netanyahu
In January 2015, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Republican John Boehner, invited Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech at a very important forum in Washington. His appearance is scheduled for March 3, 2015.
At first, the Israeli prime minister accepted the invitation. However, protocol was violated. As a general rule, invitations to Washington are offered by the president of the United States. As such, President Barack Obama announced that he would not be receiving Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Furthermore, [in addition] to this breach in protocol, he stated that receiving the prime minister on the eve of elections in Israel, which are scheduled for March 17, 2015, would be interfering with the Israeli electoral process, something that the administration does not want to do in any way whatsoever. This would be the first time that an Israeli prime minister is not welcome in the White House for an official visit.
This situation involves various actors, and we need not feel fainthearted when reading this. Obama has not been the best of friends with Netanyahu. The Israeli leader would have preferred a Republican president to a Democratic one: in short, not Obama. And Obama would feel more at ease with a Labor Party prime minister, not Netanyahu. The Republicans want to be firmer with Iran, and a good way of putting pressure on the country is to invite the person or the state that would suffer the most under a nuclear Iran in order to disclose concerns, fears and facts. The Democrats resent such a Republican move.
The Israeli opposition claims that in the case of Netanyahu going to the United States and infuriating the U.S. president, it is a risk that should not be taken. This opinion, which is a logical and acceptable one, asserts that Israel’s greatest ally deserves more respect. Indeed, a brilliant speech by Netanyahu at the congressional forum could mean several votes in the current fierce electoral campaign in Israel.
To be honest, this is an awkward situation. [It is not as though] the head of the House extended an invitation to a guest who was also invited by another member of the House. Even though Obama and the Democratic Party may feel offended, the Republicans will certainly feel offended at this point if Netanyahu refuses the invitation. In the world of protocol and courtesies, everything is very delicate, and details are subtle.
But the names of those involved and the current national electoral circumstances notwithstanding, certain aspects need to be highlighted.
Protocol and courtesies aside, Israel has been threatened by Iran several times. Iran’s discourse and that of its allies is coherent and vehement. [Wanting] to wipe Israel off the map, denying the Holocaust, and other accounts of [affronts of] a similar magnitude have been noted on numerous occasions. Israel is valiantly fighting Hezbollah and Hamas. Both are connected to Iran and receive Iranian funding. An Iran, with nuclear weapon capabilities, is a danger of extreme concern for Israel. A nuclear Iran is a danger for many countries, but Israel is number one on its list of [potential] victims. Actions involving nuclear weapons are no joke, and there are no second chances.
The main objective of the prime minister of Israel, whoever he or she may be and to whichever party he or she may belong, is to ensure the security of the state of Israel and its people. If there is an important forum being held where the prime minister could convey his or her concerns, warn of new dangers and influence certain policies and actions, shouldn’t that person attend? On the one hand, there is protocol, courtesy and good manners. On the other hand, there is survival. A nuclear Iran will plunge the world into an atmosphere of apprehension, and Israel into a state of profound anguish and desperation.
Each and every Israeli prime minister has had disagreements with former U.S. presidents and administrations due to different outlooks regarding the Middle East. On one occasion, Menachem Begin wrote to Ronald Reagan, saying that Israel had been considered an ally and friend of the United States. When Reagan took the initiative to launch a peace plan without consulting Israel, Begin wrote the following to him:
“Mr. President, you and I chose for the last two years to call our countries ‘friends and allies.’ Such being the case, a friend does not weaken his friend, an ally does not put his ally in jeopardy. This would be the inevitable consequence were the ‘positions’ transmitted to me on Aug. 31, 1982 to become reality.”
The content of this message seems to apply to this situation, with a change in dates and characters. Furthermore, Reagan and Begin, the United States and Israel, ended up being on good terms.
When protocol infringes upon survival, should it be breached?
In January 2015, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Republican John Boehner, invited Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech at a very important forum in Washington. His appearance is scheduled for March 3, 2015.
At first, the Israeli prime minister accepted the invitation. However, protocol was violated. As a general rule, invitations to Washington are offered by the president of the United States. As such, President Barack Obama announced that he would not be receiving Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Furthermore, [in addition] to this breach in protocol, he stated that receiving the prime minister on the eve of elections in Israel, which are scheduled for March 17, 2015, would be interfering with the Israeli electoral process, something that the administration does not want to do in any way whatsoever. This would be the first time that an Israeli prime minister is not welcome in the White House for an official visit.
This situation involves various actors, and we need not feel fainthearted when reading this. Obama has not been the best of friends with Netanyahu. The Israeli leader would have preferred a Republican president to a Democratic one: in short, not Obama. And Obama would feel more at ease with a Labor Party prime minister, not Netanyahu. The Republicans want to be firmer with Iran, and a good way of putting pressure on the country is to invite the person or the state that would suffer the most under a nuclear Iran in order to disclose concerns, fears and facts. The Democrats resent such a Republican move.
The Israeli opposition claims that in the case of Netanyahu going to the United States and infuriating the U.S. president, it is a risk that should not be taken. This opinion, which is a logical and acceptable one, asserts that Israel’s greatest ally deserves more respect. Indeed, a brilliant speech by Netanyahu at the congressional forum could mean several votes in the current fierce electoral campaign in Israel.
To be honest, this is an awkward situation. [It is not as though] the head of the House extended an invitation to a guest who was also invited by another member of the House. Even though Obama and the Democratic Party may feel offended, the Republicans will certainly feel offended at this point if Netanyahu refuses the invitation. In the world of protocol and courtesies, everything is very delicate, and details are subtle.
But the names of those involved and the current national electoral circumstances notwithstanding, certain aspects need to be highlighted.
Protocol and courtesies aside, Israel has been threatened by Iran several times. Iran’s discourse and that of its allies is coherent and vehement. [Wanting] to wipe Israel off the map, denying the Holocaust, and other accounts of [affronts of] a similar magnitude have been noted on numerous occasions. Israel is valiantly fighting Hezbollah and Hamas. Both are connected to Iran and receive Iranian funding. An Iran, with nuclear weapon capabilities, is a danger of extreme concern for Israel. A nuclear Iran is a danger for many countries, but Israel is number one on its list of [potential] victims. Actions involving nuclear weapons are no joke, and there are no second chances.
The main objective of the prime minister of Israel, whoever he or she may be and to whichever party he or she may belong, is to ensure the security of the state of Israel and its people. If there is an important forum being held where the prime minister could convey his or her concerns, warn of new dangers and influence certain policies and actions, shouldn’t that person attend? On the one hand, there is protocol, courtesy and good manners. On the other hand, there is survival. A nuclear Iran will plunge the world into an atmosphere of apprehension, and Israel into a state of profound anguish and desperation.
Each and every Israeli prime minister has had disagreements with former U.S. presidents and administrations due to different outlooks regarding the Middle East. On one occasion, Menachem Begin wrote to Ronald Reagan, saying that Israel had been considered an ally and friend of the United States. When Reagan took the initiative to launch a peace plan without consulting Israel, Begin wrote the following to him:
“Mr. President, you and I chose for the last two years to call our countries ‘friends and allies.’ Such being the case, a friend does not weaken his friend, an ally does not put his ally in jeopardy. This would be the inevitable consequence were the ‘positions’ transmitted to me on Aug. 31, 1982 to become reality.”
The content of this message seems to apply to this situation, with a change in dates and characters. Furthermore, Reagan and Begin, the United States and Israel, ended up being on good terms.
When protocol infringes upon survival, should it be breached?