What do you call it when the (soon-to-be) House Majority Leader sits down with a visiting head of state and assures him that he and his party can be counted on to side with his country against the president of the United States?
This isn’t a hypothetical, by the way. It’s not like I’m asking what would have happened if Joachim von Ribbentrop had sat down in Sam Rayburn’s office in 1939 and received assurances that Rayburn and the Dems could be counted on to support Germany and block anything Roosevelt did to try to force concessions. Because, in a case like that (which did not happen) we know what we would call it. We know what Eric Cantor would call it.
But, there I go again, bringing up Nazis, which is in such bad taste in this case.
Last night, Netanyahu met in New York for over an hour with incoming House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is set to become the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in history. The meeting took place at New York’s Regency Hotel, and included no other American lawmakers besides Cantor. Also attending on the Israeli side were Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, and Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Uzi Arad.
Israeli sources characterized a one-on-one meeting between an Israeli prime minister and a lone American lawmaker as unusual, if not unheard of.
Cantor was understandably feeling delighted with his sense of self-importance and could not help but provide a readout of the meeting for the press. Part of that readout said:
“Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout continued. “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”
This isn’t boilerplate. The president is trying to facilitate a peace agreement between two parties, only one of which is Israel. In that process, Israel must make concessions. Eric Cantor is promising to undermine that process.
And that quite clearly harms our national security. Let me remind you of General Petraeus’s testimony from back in March, as reported by Haaretz:
U.S. General David Petraeus said on Wednesday that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment due to the perception of U.S. favoritism towards Israel.
Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus explained that “enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.”
“Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region],” Petraeus said.
Look, I hate how people lazily throw around accusations of dual-loyalty. But Cantor can’t behave this way. He just can’t. It’s completely unacceptable.
It’s totally acceptable.
Nothing will happen to him and Netanyahoo will just continue to stall and hold our for a GOP president.
Hold out.
Don’t put this on the Republicans. Democrats have been and are in Israel’s pocket more than Republicans.
Do you understand why you can’t play nice with these people anymore? Yeah. I know what Friedrich Nietzsche said(and which U2 quoted on the album liner of a live CD), but that doesn’t cut it anymore. Ever wonder why some of us say we’re headed the way of the Roman Empire? You just answered that question with this post.
I call it a violation of the Logan Act. But then, we’ve stopped prosecuting violators who have wealth, fame, or power.
Logan Act (had to look it up) or not it is in exceedingly bad taste and adds to the hopeless situation of the Palestinian people. Cantor should be made to live in his promised land, but on the Palestinian side of the wall, and try to harvest some freaking olives while the settlers are burning his trees. Jerusalem is not the Israeli capitol! Its not in Israel.
In bad taste, but not unexpected for a Jewish neo-conservative. The more serious issue is that it is against the law for a private citizen to negotiate in the name of the US.
It’s time to pull in the foreign aid chips on Netanyahu.
Cantor needs a stern reprimand. Sounds like a separation of powers issue, as international negotiations are under the executive, i.e. State Department. That would be Hillary, I believe. Didn’t she just a word with Bibi yesterday? What a coincidence.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/11/world/la-fg-mideast-20101112
Boo,
None dare call it treason. In fact, it’s NOT treason, it’s merely a violation of the separation of powers entailing a commitment to commit treason. But will Cantor “honor” that commitment?
You know, for all the people in this country and abroad who advocate hardline military remedies for the crisis with Iran, I have never, ever, read or heard verbally an explanation of the plan for Day Two.
On Day One, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and god-knows-what rain down on Iran like a holy plague of Locusts. This barrage will weaken the IRG, retard the progress of the contested nuclear program, and somewhat inhibit Iran’s options for a response. It will also kill untold thousands of Iranians, many of whom will be civilians. Seems like most of the right, and most of the unconditionally Pro-Israel crowd, agree on this part.
But what happens on Day Two? Iran has a massive response in the works, which will begin to play out. They will fire untold numbers of missiles and rockets into the major urban centers of Israel. It is likely that their allies in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza will erupt with mirror barrages. A ground assault against Israel, or an uprising in the territories, may even occur.
American troops in Iraq will also be targeted with missiles and guerilla attacks. American troops in Afghanistan will be targeted. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and their affiliates will disrupt US supply lines, leaving our troops vulnerable to rout by the Taliban. The government in Pakistan may be overthrown, with control of their nuclear / biological / chemical arsenal in question.
There will likely be terror attacks within the US and Europe within days, if not weeks, leading to a state of panic. It is likely we will formally declare war, and the Constitution may be suspended outright. Obama will have very little choice; along with all those Iranian civilians and pieces of military hardware, many options will evaporate.
What will be the response from America and Israel to the large-scale Axis counterattack? That will depend on the success of said counterattack. The more Americans, Israelis, and our allies perish, the more intensely we will be inclined to respond. Given the likely devastation that will be wrought, it’s fair to say our response will be decisive.
Nuclear response is not off the table. If Israel’s existence is threatened, their cities decimated, either they or we will have the cause to respond with crippling force.
Obviously, the price of oil will go from its already sky-high $3 per gallon to an unlimited ceiling. With the global economy already in distress, the effects of this disruption cannot be overestimated.
It is conceivable that an Israeli or US strike on Iran could set off, in very short order or perhaps slightly more protractedly, a massive global conflagration and economic depression, and possibly even a nuclear exchange.
But you don’t hear anyone talking about Day Two. I don’t hear about anyone’s plan for Day Two. Just like you didn’t hear the Tea Party / Republicans talking about what they would specifically cut from the budget, during the campaign. They’ve thought this through, but they know that no one would support it if they stated it in plain terms. The same thing is happening with Middle East policy, and it would be really nice if the Democrats started talking about Day Two.
I realize that many of us are ready to immanentize the Eschaton, but for those of us who would rather not turn the world into a cinder just yet, hopefully things will calm down. Because we haven’t even touched on what Day Three would look like.
There wouldn’t be a Day Two. Want to know what the response would be? Iran and it’s proxies, and friends, would unleash all sorts of attacks. Israel would likely respond with nuclear weapons. Basically, an attack on Iran would turn the Middle East into complete mess. Many leveled cities, you name it. You ask a good question, because it’s one you never hear from the TradMed. You know how Obama says nothing is off the table about Iran? I wonder why no one ever asks him what good it would do to bomb Iran. Because nothing good would come of it. It would basically be the start of WWIII.
You should probably read my comment before “responding” to it. What did you do, read the first line?
As a US president, imo, you cannot take “anything off the table.” It’s just what you say.
Unacceptable?
HAAHAHAHAHAA!!
Nothing is unacceptable in America as long as Obama, Mexicans, and Muslims are brown-skinned.
republicans are just trying to turn Obama in Michael Steele.
Is anyone actually surprised at this?
Not even a little bit.
Didn’t a bunch of Republicans to go to Copenhagen when Obama was there discussing environmental/global-warming policies? And the R’s were AGW skeptics undermining the U.S. position.