Question:
In Netanyahu's speech before the US Congress on March 3, 2015, he emphasized his rejection of America's negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program. This visit occurred outside the usual protocol, meaning without seeking permission from Obama or even his Democratic Party in Congress, which some observers described as an insult to Obama. Does this mean that American relations with the state of the Jews have entered a phase of rupture or hostility? Do these events relate to the elections in both the Jewish state and America? Furthermore, what are the expected outcomes of these elections for both parties? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
To clarify the answer, we review the following matters:
1- The Jews cannot sustain themselves independently except through a cord from Allah and a cord from the people, as the Almighty said:
ضُرِبَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الذِّلَّةُ أَيْنَ مَا ثُقِفُوا إِلَّا بِحَبْلٍ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَحَبْلٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ
"Disgrace has been struck upon them wherever they are found except for [when they take] a rope from Allah and a rope from the people." (QS. Ali 'Imran [3]: 112)
They severed the cord of Allah after the era of their prophets, so nothing remains for them but to parasitize other countries and attach themselves to them to continue their existence. This has been observed throughout history. In the modern era, they sought refuge with Britain, which facilitated their occupation of Palestine and the establishment of their state that usurped Palestine. Today, they parasitize America and cling to it. Therefore, it is unlikely that their situation would reach a state of hostility toward America, no matter the level of friction.
2- Through their dependency on other countries, the Jews try to achieve their own interests. They serve major powers and attach themselves to them not just to serve those countries, but to realize their own interests as well. The Jewish parties do not differ in this regard; whether the ruler is from the Labor Party or Likud, they follow America and cling to it to achieve the interests of the Jews, not just to serve America. In this matter, they differ from the rulers in Muslim lands. The rulers of the Muslims are agents of the West who achieve the interests of other countries, not in exchange for the interests of their own countries, but simply to remain on their thrones.
3- During Rabin’s second premiership starting in 1992, which coincided with the Democratic presidency of Clinton starting in 1993, Rabin believed that the interest of the Jewish state lay in agreeing to the solutions Clinton proposed. He was later assassinated by other Jewish parties in 1995. After that, it became clear that the Labor Party leans toward the US Democratic Party, while the Likud Party leans toward the US Republican Party. This has somewhat colored the political relationship between the ruling establishments in both America and the Jewish state.
4- In countries that follow the Capitalist Democratic system, election periods are times of exposure and scandal, where there are no red lines. Every party uses its means, ethical or unethical, and they clash and blame one another, airing their dirty laundry in public. Currently, in the Jewish entity, early elections are scheduled for March 17, as announced. There are also elections in America at the end of next year, in November 2016. Both sides try to exploit appropriate opportunities to win; thus, the relationship between Likud and the Republicans, and Labor with the Democrats, becomes prominent, as each supports its counterpart according to available means.
5- The general line followed by Netanyahu in serving America and achieving Jewish interests is closer to the policy of the Republican Party, as mentioned earlier. It clashes in style and means with the policy of Obama and the Democratic Party. This friction or disagreement began since Obama took office. Netanyahu came to power at the same time Obama did, and the friction between them appeared early, particularly regarding the issue of Palestine and then the Iranian nuclear issue. During this time, he tried through the Jewish lobby in America to exert continuous pressure on the Obama administration to obtain the maximum possible in these two matters.
6- This friction is fueled by two factors: first, as mentioned, the relationship between the parties, and second, the temperaments of Obama and Netanyahu. This involves a difference in perspectives regarding political engagement. Netanyahu's vision is more rigid, based on the necessity of hard power—"military force first"—to shape political events in the region in favor of the Jewish state. Acting unilaterally is a hallmark of his policy, a vision common among American Neo-conservatives. He presents himself alongside the Neo-conservatives of the Bush administration and members of the Republican Party. Daniel Levy (who served as an advisor to former Jewish Prime Minister Ehud Barak) said of Netanyahu's political outlook: "I think Bibi, meaning Netanyahu, has always been close to the American right; he received his political education from them." [Obama and Netanyahu: A difference in perspectives, not just personalities, CNN, March 2, 2015]. Netanyahu realizes this and knows the Republican Party supports him.
As for Obama, he is a thorough realist and opposes the political viewpoint of the Neo-conservatives who dominate the Republican Party. He follows the principle of mixing hard power and soft power (diplomacy, loans, and other inducements) and sees it necessary to follow this policy to shape political events in America's favor. Furthermore, realists avoid unilateralism if circumstances allow, preferring to execute political actions through alliances and coalitions committed to implementing American plans.
7- Despite all this friction and disagreement, both the Republican and Democratic parties compete in declaring their protection for the security of the Jewish state. The Republican Party strongly supports the Jewish state, even to the point of backing it in any crime it commits. This support was striking during the era of Bush Jr. However, Obama's support has not been less. Netanyahu even mentioned this in his speech to Congress and thanked Obama for it, saying: "We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel, as well as supporting us with more interceptor missiles during our operations last summer... I will always be grateful to President Obama for this support. Israel is grateful to you, and the US Congress, for your support, especially in generous military aid and missile defense, including the Iron Dome." These statements increase as elections approach, under the pretext of needing the votes of the Jewish lobby, which Jewish propaganda inflates many times its actual size!
8- From the above, it is clear that this friction between Netanyahu and Obama is not a state of hostility toward America or a rupture with it. Rather, it was produced by the different relationships between Likud and the Republican Party versus Likud and the Democratic Party. This friction appeared prominently because it coincided with the election cycles in both countries. Netanyahu realizes that public opinion in the Jewish entity fears Iran obtaining nuclear weapons; therefore, he exploited Obama's visible leniency with Iran on the nuclear issue. Netanyahu positioned himself as the defender of the Jewish entity against the nuclear threat. Furthermore, he exploited the Republican opposition's policy toward Obama's negotiation style to side with the Republican Party so that both parties would benefit electorally. This was a response in kind to the meeting between Democrats Biden and Kerry with Herzog, the leader of the Labor Party and Netanyahu's main rival in the upcoming elections, on the sidelines of the Munich Conference on February 7, 2015. These two meetings were not on the agenda. Herzog said in a speech at the Munich conference, describing Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress: "Netanyahu’s speech, which was born in sin as an 'electoral' production, threatens the security of Israel's citizens and the special relationship between Israel and the United States." At the same time, Biden's office announced that "the Vice President will be out of the country and will not attend Netanyahu's controversial speech on Iran before Congress on March 3."
Summary:
a- From all this, it is clear that Netanyahu and Obama are at odds for the reasons mentioned, and each supports the other’s opponent in the upcoming elections. In this context came Netanyahu's visit to the US Congress by direct agreement with the Republican Party, bypassing the White House or at least an agreement with the Democrats in Congress. His visit reflected a real dispute between the two men and the two parties, exacerbated by the heat of the election atmosphere in America and the Jewish entity. Thus, the leader of the Zionist entity, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to speak at a joint session of Congress in the United States on March 3, 2015. This was unusual because the invitation did not come from Obama to Netanyahu but from the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner. This indeed pushed tensions between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration into the open, receiving significant media coverage.
The Obama administration criticized the invitation, while the US President announced he would not meet Netanyahu. Similarly, Kerry left Washington for a trip abroad during Netanyahu’s presence there. A war of statements ensued between the administration and Congress, indicating that the Republican Party wants to act electorally to win the largest number of votes from the Jewish lobby as part of its competition with the ruling Democratic Party, adding more votes to its balance for the presidential elections next year.
b- As for Netanyahu, he spoke in Congress against Obama's negotiations with Iran, describing the deal Obama wants to conclude as bad. Netanyahu said: "The international powers pledged to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but it seems they have abandoned this commitment." He added: "I respect the White House and the President of the United States, but on a fateful issue like this that could determine our existence or non-existence, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger to Israel." He stated, "The offer made to Iran will enable it to threaten the survival of the State of Israel." (CNN, February 10, 2015). All of this was to portray himself as the protector of Jewish interests to benefit electorally, especially since some polls indicate the success of the US Republican Party in the upcoming elections, based on their success in the midterm elections late last year. Consequently, Likud's favor with the Republicans increases. Beyond his conviction not to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, Netanyahu’s government has been agitated for several years to strike Iran under the pretext of the nuclear program at the end of 2011. Europe was encouraging this to embarrass America; France provided the Jewish entity with satellite images of Iranian nuclear facilities, Germany sent the latest missile-carrying submarines, Britain provided military and intelligence information—with the British Chief of Staff visiting the Jewish entity for three days specifically to prepare for the strike—and Italy allowed Jewish aircraft to train in its skies for long-distance flight and aerial refueling. America was working to "rein in" the Jewish state, pressuring it not to escalate, arguing that sanctions were enough and Obama's policy was effective. The Jewish state submitted to the pressure until this visit by Netanyahu occurred in coordination with the Republican Party in an election atmosphere.
c- Regarding the expected election results, they will be close in the Jewish entity. The opposition, led by the Labor Party, highlights that this friction between Netanyahu and Obama harms America's interests and that the lack of US support will cause significant harm to their state. They also try to highlight Obama's statements on preserving Jewish security and that his nuclear policy is proceeding to prevent the Iranian nuclear threat through a precise strategic policy. They expect this to win support from the Jewish lobby in America and simultaneously create calm within the Jewish state to gain many votes. Conversely, Netanyahu's proximity to the Republican Party—which they expect to win the next US elections—and his portrayal of himself as the guardian of Jewish interests and the repeller of the nuclear threat, will gain him support from the Jewish lobby and votes within the Jewish entity. Thus, it is expected that both parties, Labor and Likud, are close in their arguments. Obama's support for Labor and the Republican support for Likud are somewhat balanced, unless Obama plays his role as President skillfully and uses it to forge strong relations with the Labor Party, which might then affect Netanyahu's success. However, it is unlikely that Obama will act with such force against Netanyahu, especially since Obama is not eligible to run for the next presidential term. This means the opportunities are likely to be close between Netanyahu and his rival Herzog from the Labor Party. It will be difficult for either to succeed in forming a government unless it is a weak coalition, as it is difficult for the two major parties to coalesce. Instead, each party will be forced to partner with small minorities that will impose conditions larger than their size, making any future government formed in the Jewish entity weak, unless the two parties can move closer together.
As for the elections in America, published polls make the probability of a Republican Party victory high, based on the previous midterm elections where the Republican Party controls the majority of Congress, especially since Obama has not been satisfactory in dealing with international crises, neither in the domestic American situation nor the foreign situation.
d- As for the state of hostility or rupture with America, this is unlikely, as mentioned before. Rather, the Jewish entity will continue to be attached to America and parasitize it. They have no life without a cord from the people, which in these days is America. But this cord will be severed, by the will of Allah, when the nations feel that the extension of the cord between them and the Jewish state that usurped Palestine is a calamity upon them, through the strength of Islam, its people, and its state. And this will surely happen, by Allah’s will:
وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ
"And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time." (QS. Sad [38]: 88)