[Prefatory Note: Initially, this post was a response to these three questions posed by a Brazilian journalist, Rodrigo Cravereiro on 7/25//24. The actual speech, its roots in an invitation from Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, was quite shocking, not only due to its bellicose tone, but its inflammatory content, especially its warmongering portrayal and provocations directed at Iran. This was most untimely, insensitive to the recent election in Iran of a president who cast himself as a moderate, seeking diplomatic normalcy with the West, including the US.
On reflection, I think about what an undeniably discrediting spectacle this was for many thoughtful Americans and persons of conscience everywhere. For those in the Global South the Netanyahu event dismayed the strong perceptions of Israeli genocide in Gaza. Additionally, the celebratory reception of Netanyahu in this honorific appearance before the US Congress must recall how the West revered and elevated to political eminence the perpetrators of the worst criminal abuses of colonialism.
True, somewhat over 50 Democratic Party lawmakers boycotted the Congressional event and a large angry protest event involving many groups, including Jewish Voices for Peace, demonstrated in the streets of Washington as close to the Capitol as the police and politicians allowed. These signs of dissent with respect to Israel are part of a rising tide of opposition to this seemingly unbreakable twinning of the governments in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Many persons, among whom I would classify myself were mystified and ashamed that a notorious war criminal of Netanyahu’s magnitude would be give such an invitation accompanied by a hero’s welcome in the nation’s capital. Netanyahu’s visit was further ‘normalized,’ if that is the right word, by highly publicized, comparatively discreet, private meetings with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the candidates seeking the American presidency in November. The visiting Israeli dignity was also gifted with a White House formal session hosted by the sitting president, Joe Biden.
Thankfully, Harris chose not to preside in Congress, which is the normal prerogative of the Vice President at such joint sessions for foreign dignitaries, failing even to attend the Netanyahu speech. Yet Harris pointedly did not overtly oppose the Netanyahu visit. She did insist on the importance of a ceasefire deal that would release hostages still held by Hamas and expressed notable sympathy for Palestinian suffering and civilian losses, and committed herself to speaking out critically about Israel’s continuing reliance on massive, indiscriminate violence.
Harris almost overrode these welcome distancing gestures by seeking to cover all the bases. She undid much of her good efforts by inappropriately seizing this inopportune moment to reassure Americans and Israelis that the underlying US underlying security commitment to Israel was as strong as ever and could never be broken. Undoubtedly, she was thinking of retaining support in the forthcoming election of most Jewish voters, who like Israelis, repudiated Netanyahu while reaffirming Israel as a State firmly in the Western camp.
At the same time, we must give Harris credit for at least separating herself from the fury unleashed by Netanyahu’s diatribe that outdid Orwell by making language serve his tasteless distortions of the Gaza genocide rather than reflect the reality of their criminality, cruelty, and irrelevance to Israel’s security as a State. Not only the centerpiece of Netanyahu binary shortsightedness by drawing a contrast between Israel and the US as the guardians of ‘civilization’ and Hamas and Iran as the patrons of ‘barbarism.’ Even those spared much of the horror by the self-censoring media platforms of CNN or Al Jazeera came to understand that the label of barbarism applied more meaningfully to Israel’s response to October 7 than to the atrocities committed during the single Hamas attack.
In what seemed like a carefully calculated effort by Kamala Harris to draw red lines between the relationship between the US and Israel as eternal partners, no matter what critics might say, and the visit, policies, and personality of Netanyahu, which are provocative but not fundamental enough to require rethinking the relationship between the two countries. She herself badly blurred her own red lines by the gratuitous putdown of the pro-Palestine protesters. What a different image of Harris would have emerged had she joined the protesters for even just a few minutes of symbolic affirmation, which would have then put the discharge of her official duties as VP to meet with Netanyahu, an official visitor present due to a formal invitation, in a quite different light.
At this stage, as a pro-Palestinian supporter, we can say somewhat sheepishly, ‘she’s better than Trump.’ I would much rather be saying Kamala Harris is ‘a great choice’ to be the next American president. Hopefully, that day may yet come to pass, but until then it is ‘a matter of the lesser of evils,’
and not only because of Israel/Palestine, but also for different reasons, Ukraine, China, Iran, and even Russia.
1– In his speech in Capitol, Netanyahu advocated for Israel-US alliance and praised Trump. How do you see this attempt of Netanyahu to be closer of Trump?
It is my view that Netanyahu was trying to make clear that he was not favoring either Democrats or Republicans in the upcoming US presidential elections. He is visiting the White House and meeting with Biden and Kamala Harris at separate places and times behind closed doors, and so he sought balance by also meeting with Trump in what appears at present to be a very close American election. Hi controversial, significantly boycotted speech to the US Congress was a response to a bipartisan invitation, and he wanted to keep it that way in the future.
2– During his speech Netanyahu called protesters outside of Capitol as “useful idiots” for Israel´s enemies. What do you think about it?
It is outrageous. To my ears, worse than the protesters claiming Netanyahu to be a reincarnation of Hitler. The protesters are by and large angered by the honorific invitations to Netanyahu, a clear advocate by word and deed of a genocidal response to the Hamas attack of October 7, which itself was in part a justifiable act of resistance to Israeli provocations, although included international crimes by Hamas that included the killing of civilians and hostage-taking. In a political democracy, protests that are nonviolent should be seen as valid expressions of citizen dissent and the right of the people to challenge policies and practices of the state that in their view violate international law and morality. Elected US officials had an obligation to object to Netanyahu’s insulting language to those who engaged in lawful protest activity, who have quite a/ different status from that of the Israeli Prime Minister for whom the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has recommended the issuance of an arrest warrant to enable prosecution for a series of international crimes (although omitting ‘gennocide’).
3– Due to fact Netanyahu will meet Trump, do you believe his is interested in building a path for strengthening Israel-US relations in an eventual Trump´s government?
As suggested the apparent primary reason for Netanyahu meeting with Trump is to project an image of impartiality with respect to the outcome of the elections, with the objective of continuing bipartisan support for Israel that has been severely tested by its behavior in Gaza and its defiant attitude toward international institutions and procedures. In fact, many suspect that Netanyahu prefers Trump over Harris, with his impeccable credentials as an unconditional supporter of whatever Israel does even if in direct violation of international law (e.g. settlements, land seizures, collective punishment).
A secondary goal, particularly if Netanyahu prefers or predicts a Trump victory in November is to plan a cooperative strategy in the wider pursuit of his coalition government to complete the Zionist Project by establishing Greater Israel that involves the extension of Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank and parts of Gaza, and permanent retention of the unlawful sovereign incorporation of East Jerusalem. Such ambitions if acted upon will provoke resistance from Palestinians and enhanced solidarity initiatives from around the world, perhaps resembling the effective anti-apartheid campaign against the racist regime in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, which is widely credited with contributing to the release of Nelson Mandela from jail after 27 years, the dismantling of the apartheid regime, and the peaceful transition to democratic constitutionalism based on the major premise of racial equality.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 