…by Jonas E. Alexis
Netanyahu must be depressed once again—even though he seems to be “singing and dancing” in public and thinking that he has achieved great things over the years, such as the settlements. Knesset member Erel Margalit is already predicting that the mad man who literally made a fool of himself last week will not be rescued from political oblivion.
But you must give this mad man some credit for being one of the greatest jokers in the political landscape. Netanyahu tells lies—big lies—and some people swallow them. He invents stories and his largely Republican crowd listens without asking deep questions.
Netanyahu used his U.S. speech to expand his political horizon, but he failed miserably and pathetically because that speech proved to be his doom. He loves to plant his feet in a swamp of contradictions, but his Zionist fans and puppets would not douse him with a bucket of water.
Also, Netanyahu can invent ideas that are really stupid and wicked and his largely Republican crowd just nods their heads in confirmation. He once got caught with his pants down by saying things like,
“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction. They will not bother us. Let’s suppose they [the Bush administration] will say something.
“So they say it — so what? Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd! We have such [great] support there! And we say… what shall we do with this [support]?”
Netanyahu, as we all know, used to talk on both sides of his mouth and he got away with it for years. He loved to be on a platform where he could get dozens of standing ovations.
But the White House seemed to have been tired of this man’s mumbo jumbo. Over the past few years, unnamed U.S. officials have called him a “chickenshit,” “recalcitrant,” “myopic,” “reactionary,” “obtuse,” “blustering,” “pompous,” and “Aspergery.”
In Israel, one former Mossad chief views his political interpretation as “bullshit.” Slate magazine calls him “bully” and a “hypocrite.” Bill Clinton could not stand him. Clinton “once responded to Bibi’s antics by exploding, ‘Who’s the fu$king superpower here?’”
What is so sad for Netanyahu now is that he is losing his political power at an alarming rate. Netanyahu is almost certainly going to be out of the political landscape, and he knows it. Gordon Duff predicted Netanyahu’s fall right after his speech. Duff rightly said that Netanyahu’s political show was
“An epic failure on a Homeric scale…a humiliation he can never recover from…Netanyahu will never be officially invited to the United States again, he can’t, he has burned down that bridge.”
In a similar vein, Jim Fetzer made the point that
“The speech was a masterpiece artfully woven of lies, deceit and deception. The distance between Bibi’s words and reality was like that between the Capitol and Gaza. Iran has not attacked another country since 1775. Washington was inaugurated in 1789.”
Stephen M. Walt of Harvard has argued that Bibi “blows up the special relationship.”
Those assessments are not without merit, for we know that Netanyahu always beats the war drum and aspires to create conflict where conflict should not exist. Scholar Trita Parsi rightly observes that Netanyahu views peace between the United States and Iran as an existential threat. Parsi writes,
“Netanyahu has always opposed diplomacy with Iran. Not because he feared it would fail, but precisely because he feared it would work. When President Obama took office in 2009 and began his outreach to Tehran, Netanyahu launched a campaign to undermine Obama centered on four key areas.
“First, he pressed Congress to impose new sanctions on Iran before talks began, presumably to ensure that the escalatory measure would ensure that diplomacy never took off at all. Second, he pressed Obama to adopt the Bush administration’s completely unrealistic goal to eliminate all Iranian uranium enrichment. Again, such a measure would ensure that diplomacy never took place — the breakthrough in diplomacy took place once the US dropped that demand.
“Third, Netanyahu wanted Obama to continue Bush’s rhetoric of insisting that the military option remained on the table. Obama had famously stated that the conflict with Iran could not beresolved by issuing threats, and wanted to create an atmosphere conducive to diplomacy. Making war threats would achieve the opposite, which Netanyahu undoubtedly understood.”
Parsi is not the only person to say this. Jewish writer Fred Kaplan declares that “The only outcomes that could please [Netanyahu] are Iranian regime change or outright war.” Netanyahu’s speech, Kaplan continues to say, was “a disturbing spectacle: shallow, evasive, short on logic, and long on cynicism.”
But the mad man seemed to have made his last threat last week in the United States. His performance ended up crippling him and depriving him of his political maneuvering.
The greatest showman has recently admitted that he might lose the election. “Our security is at great risk because there is a real danger that we could lose this election,” he said. “If the gap between the Likud and Labour continues to grow, a week from now Herzog and Livni will become the prime ministers of Israel in rotation, with the backing of the Arab parties.”
The man must be really sad at this moment because he thought he could have fooled people once again. He moved the hearts and minds of at least fifty Republicans, who ended up signing a letter to Iran saying that a nuclear deal will not last. But Netanyahu once again probably did not calculate that this could backfire very badly. Get this:
“More than 155,000 people by Wednesday had signed a petition to the White House urging charges be filed against 47 Republican senators who they say committed ‘treasonous’ offenses by writing Iran’s leaders about ongoing nuclear negotiations.”
Zionist puppet John McCain seemed to have a second thought because the letter did not help the Zionist cause. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is,” he lamented. But to many observers, signing the letter was a sign that McCain was not worth a dime in 2008. A writer in the The LA Times observed:
“Our government is becoming the laughingstock of the world. Lawmakers are like animals fighting over a bone; if there is nothing to fight over, they dig up some dirt. At all costs they avoid working together and getting something accomplished for the good of the country…
“I am ashamed of Congress, whose members should lose their jobs for inviting the Israeli prime minister to speak without clearing it with the Obama administration and then sending a letter signed by 47 Senate Republicans to Iran’s leaders.
“We need to get rid of the two political parties. Vote into office ‘regular people’ who are willing to work, not just there to see what they can get. Perhaps then we’d get back on track.”
The writer is not too far from the complete truth, but her letter would never have reached the LA Times had she named the central forces which hold both political parties in bondage.
It gets worse. People in Israel simply are exhausted as well. Opponents in Israel are currently saying “Anyone but Bibi.” “They have sent any number of signals making it unmistakably clear that Benjamin Netanyahu is screwing up the US-Israeli relationship.”Others are simply tired of being manipulated by the Israeli regime.
“Machne Yehuda has been known for decades as a stronghold of support for the Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing ruling party.”
But that is changing very quickly. One voter declared, “I’ve always voted for the Likud, but I’m giving up. The politicians are all liars.” J. J. Goldberg of the Jewish Daily Forward has recently written,
“In an hour’s stroll around the market, talking to one stall-keeper after another, I found only one who intends to vote Likud on March 17. The rest are either not voting, undecided or voting for minor parties…
“If Netanyahu and the Likud are in trouble in Machne Yehuda market, they’re in trouble pretty much all across Israel. And in fact, Likud party poll analysts are now reported to be seriously worried about the trend lines in public opinion. The Likud’s trends are pointing down.”
Goldberg has also declared that Bibi has a storm coming his way—and he is probably not ready for it. The mad man is certainly losing political ground at an astronomical rate. The evidence indicates that Israel’s Sephardic Jews are moving away from Netanyahu. Rabbi Daniel Gordis told Bloomberg that
“It has been a steep and precipitous fall since those glory moments on the podium before the U.S. Congress. Netanyahu is clearly in trouble.”
This is really a bad rap for the Zionist machine.
Right after Netanyahu burned down the U.S./Israel bridge, a number of Jewish Neocons and Zionist puppets tried to pick up the crumbs and build the same bridge from scratch and started defending their political savior, but it was already too late. Ruth Wisse of the Weekly Standard compared Iran to Nazi Germany.
Even before the speech, people like Bill Kristol began to spread flattering words and say some “nice” things about Netanyahu. Zionist puppets like Ted Cruz tried to rescue Netanyahu from political oblivion by saying that the Iran
“deal being negotiated…is reminiscent of Munich in 1938. And when the administration comes back to America and promises peace in our time, we shouldn’t believe them now any more than we should have believed them then. If this deal is implemented, it will lead, ineluctably, to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.”
Has the Republican Party sunk that low? Cruz is so hoodwinked by this Zionist ideology that he cannot string to rational thoughts together without violating logic.
Netanyahu is almost certainly going to be absent from the political realm, and he should take people like Cruz with him. As Jim W. Dean has recently put it, this is a time to “overthrow the Neocon hoodlums.” That would be good riddance, too.
If you think otherwise, listen to this. Jewish Neocon Joshua Muravchik, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, now thinks that “war with Iran is probably our best option.”
Listen to his argument very carefully here:
“The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any ‘good deal’ or by cheating.”
Ladies and gentlemen: this man is at Johns Hopkins University! Here is a man who ought to know the literature on this issue and who is supposed to be a scholar, but he is deliberately postulating lies and propaganda. As the old saying goes, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Muravchik is not finished. He’s got more stupid ideas to propound:
“Ideology is the raison d’etre of Iran’s regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond.
“A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Iran’s power to achieve that goal.Such visionary regimes do not trade power for a mess of foreign goods. Materialism is not their priority: They often sacrifice prosperity to adhere to ideology. Of course, they need some wealth to underwrite their power, but only a limited amount.”
Then Muravchik implicitly moved on to tell us that the best way to deal with Iran is the Talmudic or Rabbinic way: “The United States would have to make clear that it will hit wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s program.” This means that the United States could hit civilian populations.
Perhaps Muravchik needs to look at himself in a mirror and realize that the enemy is not located in Iran, which abides by international law with respect to nuclear weapons. The enemy is located in Tel Aviv and in the U.S, where people like Muravchik have poisoned the minds of many Americans. Muravchik should also come to terms with the fact that he is part of the enemy because evidence, logic, historical truth and moral reasoning do not seem to matter to people like him.
If America is to move forward, then we should be very careful in allowing people like Muravchik propagating lies as brute facts. If Brian Williams was let go, perhaps it is high time to start firing all the Neocons who continue to lead America into a bloody conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere. That would be great riddance.
 Jodi Rudoren and Jeremy Ashkenas, “Netanyahu and the Settlements,” NY Times, March 12, 2015.
 Erel Margalit, “Why Netanyahu Will Lose to Herzog,” Huffington Post, March 13, 2015.
 Shocker! Benjamin Netanyahu Uses Speech to Congress in Campaign Ad,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 13, 2015; Steve Benen, “Netanyahu’s fortunes fall following GOP partnership,” MSNBC, March 12, 2015.
 “Netanyahu Approval in US Drops After Congress Speech,” Times of Israel, March 11, 2015.
 Quoted in Naomi Zeveloff, “What Do Israelis Think About Americans? Start With Disdain,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 8, 2015.
 Quoted in Marc A. Thiessen, “Why Netanyahu is right to go around Obama to Congress,” Washington Post, January 26, 2015.
 William Saletan, “The Gross Hypocrisy of Benjamin Netanyahu,” Slate, March 3, 2015.
 Stephen M. Walt, “Bibi Blows Up the Special Relationship,” Foreign Policy, March 2, 2015.
 Trita Parsi, “To Netanyahu, Peace is an Existential Threat,” Huffington Post, March 2, 2015.
 Fred Kaplan, “Netanyahu’s Deadly Gambit,” Slate, March 3, 2015.
 Quoted in Burgess Everett, “Iran letter blowback startles GOP,” Politico, March 11, 2015.
 J. J. Goldberg, “I Went to Israel To Ask Voters What They’re Really Feeling. They’re Confused,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 11, 2015.
 Allyn Fisher-Ilan, “Will Israel’s Sephardic Voters Desert Benjamin Netanyahu?,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 10, 2015.
 J. J. Goldberg, “The ‘Perfect Storm’ That’s Hitting Bibi’s Campaign,” Jewish Daily Forward, March 10, 2015.
 See for example Jonathan S. Tobin, “The Problem with Anti-Bibi Derangement Syndrome,” Commentary, March 8, 2015; Rick Richman, “The Hidden Message in Netanyahu’s Speech,” Commentary, March 8, 2015.
 Ruth Wisse, “Rising to the Occasion,” Weekly Standard, March 16, 2015, Vol. 20, NO. 26.
 Bill Kristol, “Netanyahu’s Moment,” Weekly Standard, March 9, 2015, Vol. 20, NO. 25.
 Quoted in Betsy Wooddruff, “Ted Cruz Compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain and Iran to Nazi Germany,” Slate, March 3, 2015.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.