"AIPAC prepared a detailed presentation that was given to Netanyahu with all the negative repercussions they believe would result from the controversial invitation to Congress and the cumulative damage. On Feb. 25 behind closed doors, one of the heads of AIPAC said, to paraphrase: All the things we warned him of, are materializing. We foresaw the domino effect that took place, the boycott by more and more Democratic Congress members, the significant deterioration in relations with Democratic legislators, the talks about boycotting the AIPAC convention (that is also being held at the beginning of March) by the administration. We protested, we warned. And who wasn't impressed? Netanyahu. He’s coming.
In anticipation of the speech, the sides have been increasing the stakes on an almost daily basis. First, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Feb. 24 that Netanyahu’s speech is “destructive to the fabric of the relationship” between the two countries. She added, “The relationship between the US and Israel has always been bipartisan and we have been fortunate that politics have not been injected into this relationship. But what has happened over the last several weeks … is that on both sides there have been injected some degree of partisanship.”" Al-Monitor
AIPAC thinks that the speech to Congress in defiance of the president is a bad idea? Really? If that is so, then who, pilgrims, thinks it a good idea? Is it Derner, the former American who is now Israeli ambassador in Washington? Is it Bonehead, errr Boehner? This man can't get his own caucus to vote to fund DHS. Is it the WAR PARTY among the menagerie of Rotary Club strategists, xenophobes (except for Israelis) and primitive Saracen haters that now seem to be the Republican Base? Is there any doubt that Israel's political position will be damaged by the arrogance and contempt displayed for American government in this adventure? pl
"“What the president objects to is not that Mr. Netanyahu will speak to Congress, but the content of what he intends to say,” Dershowitz argues, dismissing protocol objections by noting that “President Obama sent British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress with phone calls last month against conditionally imposing new sanctions on Iran if the deal were to fail.” He adds that Congress has full constitutional authority to participate in foreign policy and invite speakers.
Dershowitz has harsh words for those Democrats–fewer than two dozen–who are planning to boycott the speech.
“As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama, I am appalled,” he declares, warning that they are turning Israel into a partisan issue. “This will not only hurt Israel but will also endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I certainly would never vote for or support a member of Congress who walked out on Israel’s prime minister.”
Dershowitz has twice endorsed Obama for president, but has also warned repeatedly that Obama could become America’s version of Neville Chamberlain if he allowed Iran to become a nuclear power.
Obama’s promise to prevent that “seems to be in the process of being broken,” Dershowitz notes, “as reports in the media and Congress circulate that the deal on the table contains a sunset provision that would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons after a certain number of years." Breitbart
IMO Dershowitz is a rational man until what he sees as Israel's interest is involved, then he begins to threaten and snarl at those who on any other issue would be his "friends."
He threatens the president of the United States and members of Congress over the interests of a foreign country?
It appears that for him Israel is not a foreign country. pl
"Genêt's goals in South Carolina were to recruit and arm American privateers who would join French expeditions against the British. He commissioned four privateering ships in total, including the Republicaine, the Anti-George, the Sans-Culotte, and the Citizen Genêt. Working with French consul Michel Ange Bernard Mangourit, Genêt organized American volunteers to fight Britain's Spanish allies in Florida. After raising a militia, Genêt set sail toward Philadelphia, stopping along the way to marshal support for the French cause and arriving on May 18. He encouraged Democratic-Republican societies, but President Washington denounced them and they quickly withered away.
His actions endangered American neutrality in the war between France and Britain, which Washington had pointedly declared in his Neutrality Proclamation of April 22. When Genêt met with Washington, he asked for what amounted to a suspension of American neutrality. When turned down by Secretary of StateThomas Jefferson and informed that his actions were unacceptable, Genêt protested. Meanwhile, Genet's privateers were capturing British ships, and his militia was preparing to move against the Spanish.
Genêt continued to defy the wishes of the United States government, capturing British ships and rearming them as privateers. Washington sent Genet an 8,000-word letter of complaint on Jefferson's and Hamilton's advice " Wiki on Genet
It has been a long time since a foreign political leader or ambassador attempted to seize control of American foreign policy on behalf of his own government's desires. In Genet's time even the Francophiles like Jefferson rejected foreign interference in our affairs. Today, the Zionist 5th column advances the foreign leader's agenda. pl