Arab Speeches before Congress Are Gone

The importance of Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress cannot be understated. Nor can we downplay the applause his speech received, despite the fact that it was an immoral and empty invitation to complete the genocidal war that Netanyahu is carrying out in Gaza. Unfortunately, Netanyahu is aware that he needs the applause and encouragement of his allies in Washington.

No matter what is said about the visit, it cannot be denied that it occurred with his efforts to continue the war. Netanyahu and his opposition may not agree on all the details, but Netanyahu himself is spreading the idea that the purpose of the war is war itself.

Netanyahu has not done anything other than finance and push the war despite the American presidential candidates insisting on the necessity of a cease-fire. This means nothing in the real calculus of pressure because with time, American interest in a cease-fire fades because of preoccupation with election propaganda and the desperate conflict. Each candidate badly wants to win and this is their last chance.

For Donald Trump, this may be the last time he competes in a presidential election so he will not pass up any chance to win. After the previous election, which Trump lost to President Joe Biden, Trump and his followers almost burned down the United States while claiming they did not lose and rejected the result.

This time around, the situation appears even more complicated for Trump and so his focus is on the fight to win. Trump was closer to [winning] the White House when Biden was his rival in the current presidential race. Now that he is facing off against a younger, more energetic, competitor he realizes the difficulty of winning the election.

The situation is not much different for Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris, who found herself thrown into the ring abruptly, though not too late. She needs to win because her opponent is stubborn, difficult and unpredictable, and the Democrats want to continue their control of the White House after the stumbling and incompetence of the Biden years. Harris may be the first woman to serve as president of the United States after Hillary Clinton’s failure in her last presidential campaign, where she also faced off against Trump.

For Harris, this is an unbeatable opportunity that she would not have had if the competition had occurred in Democratic Party circles in the normal fashion and had President Biden not stepped down from the race due to pressure from those close to him, who encouraged him to cede the opportunity to another.

This means that the war issue will not be on the priority list or a subject of discussion and dispute. It may come up from time to time in the presidential race, but it will only be one among a list of issues.

We should remember that American voters do not choose based on a president’s foreign policy and they will not take foreign policy into account when they select who will represent them. Domestic issues influence American voters’ decisions, the things that touch their lives and affect their quality of life. Domestic issues are broad and varied; however, at their core is the social, health, and tax system and government services.

No one elects a president because the president’s stance on a particular set of issues agrees with the morals they believe in or because the president seeks to care for the deprived and depressed people in this world. What people want from a president is that they take care of their citizens and protect them and defend their interests. Of course, there are those who vote in connection with their morals and perspectives, but even then the principle does not extend to foreign policy.

For example, minorities may elect a person who supports removing immigration restrictions and making the naturalization process easier, but these are still internal policies because they relate to newly naturalized citizens, immigrants and their relationship with their new homeland.

Given this trend, an issue like the war in Gaza will not be critical in any discussion because it is not an internal issue. Still, a person like Trump may find it beneficial to focus on the prisoners in Gaza that Washington says are American citizens while calling for support for the war or for a prisoner exchange to be a domestic American issue.

The war in Gaza will not be one of the issues that affect the American voter’s perspective. The image of Rep. Rashida Tlaib was remarkable as she stood in Congress holding a banner calling Netanyahu a war criminal.

She was alone, wearing a keffiyeh and facing the Jewish lobby’s horrible applause for Netanyahu’s words and his calls for the shedding of more Palestinian blood. Even though Tlaib was alone, this does not mean everyone was with Netanyahu.

There are many efforts which should be taken to redirect Washington’s compass, which was created to always point toward Tel Aviv. These positions cannot last forever. Netanyahu knows the issue is not going his way when he goes to gain influence by speaking to Congress before the election.

The question is, how many times has an Arab leader stood behind the podium in Congress to speak to the representatives of the American people?

The last visit by an Arab leader to speak to an American legislature was in 2007 when Congress was addressed by Jordanian King Abdullah, and before that his late father, King Hussein, in 1994. Anwar Sadat’s speech in 1975 was the first Arab speech to Congress. Netanyahu alone has spoken in front of Congress four times.

In simple terms, American legislators rarely listen to the Arab narrative about the conflict. I know arranging an Arab or Palestinian speech in front of Congress is difficult and requires various approvals and arrangements, but what is the value of the relationships between the Arab countries and Washington if we do not get to express our perspective as Israel does?