NEW YORK
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a contentious speech Tuesday to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in which he reiterated his opposition to a nuclear deal with Iran.
Although the speech revealed nothing new about Israel's position on the issue, the fact that Netanyahu addressed Congress without seeking the approval of the Obama administration has been a source of broad speculation over a potential rift.
Commentators held different views on whether this rift was within the U.S. government, between Washington and Tel Aviv, or if there was no rift at all.
"(The) Israeli prime minister's speech to the U.S. Congress today created waves in Washington, unveiling a divided government on the issue of a possible interim deal with Iran," Walid Phares from the Washington-based Global Policy Institute told The Anadolu Agency.
Although the disagreement was made public between the Israeli PM and President Barack Obama, Phares believes the real division seems to be Washington.
"On the one hand, you have the Obama administration and their supporters in Congress committed to a possible nuclear deal with Iran, and on the other hand, you have a large majority in Congress with a Republican large majority and a group from the Democratic Party," he said.
More than 50 Democrats boycotted Netanyahu's address and were absent from the House chamber.
The prime minister’s speech followed a controversial invite from House Speaker John Boehner for Netanyahu to address Congress. The White House was not notified about the invitation, irking the Obama administration, which labeled it a breach of protocol.
"Many in the international community perceived Netanyahu's speech as a thrust into U.S. politics, but reality is that the division within Washington was what brought Mr. Netanyahu to DC," Phares said. "Without a majority in Congress to invite him, the visit wouldn't have taken place."
He said it appeared less likely that Congress would approve a possible nuclear deal with Iran.
Despite the Israeli prime minister’s opposition, the Obama administration has maintained that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and negotiators from the P5+1 group of world powers – the U.S., China, France, the U.K., Russia, plus Germany – have until the end of the month to hammer out a political framework agreement with Iran.
A final deadline for a comprehensive accord is set for the end of June.
Prof. Ebrahim Moosa from of Notre Dame, Indiana, said Netanyahu's speech offered nothing new and was designated to scuttle American efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"This might be a watershed moment in U.S.-Israeli relations and a possible sign of egregious Israeli overreach that might hurt in the long term," he said.
In his speech, Netanyahu called for lawmakers to oppose a nuclear deal with Iran, saying, “This is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.”
Reacting to it, President Obama said the speech to Congress contained “nothing new” and offered no “viable alternatives.”
Moosa said the fact that Netanyahu dedicated his speech solely to the Iran topic could be seen as an effort from him to deflect from the pressing domestic issues of reaching a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians.
"His rhetoric has also exaggerated a number of realities in the Middle East in order to give a more alarming picture of things in the region in order to bolster his and Israel’s standing in the eyes of the U.S. political establishment and public."
Meanwhile, Jennifer G. Loewenstein from the University of Wisconsin-Madison believes U.S.-Israeli relations are as secure today as they have ever been.
"There is no danger that Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress will have a 'destructive' effect on our commitment to Israel’s security," she said in published on political magazine CounterPunch.
Although disagreements over Iran may dominate the headlines, Bill Van Esveld, an Israel and Palestine researcher at Human Rights Watch, said Democrats and Republicans who are concerned about Israel’s security should realize Israel's illegal settlement-building efforts in occupied Palestinian lands also pose a problem.
"Israel typically justifies its harsh policies in the West Bank on security grounds, but since Benjamin Netanyahu took office in 2009, Israel has begun construction on more than 10,000 housing units there for Israeli civilians," he said.
International law views the West Bank and East Jerusalem as "occupied territories" and considers as illegal all Jewish settlement constructed on the land.
Van Esveld called on the Obama administration to put more pressure on Israel to dismantle these settlements, saying it "would help bolster, not endanger, security."
Hamas unfazed by Netanyahu speech to US Congress
"Netanyahu is the world leader of evil," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told The Anadolu Agency.
"His speech before the U.S. Congress won't help whitewash his crimes against the Palestinians," he added.
Abu Zuhri described Netanyahu's address as an attempt to "portray the aggressor as the victim before international public opinion," adding that Hamas was "unfazed" by the Israeli PM's threats.
"We will continue to pursue all means necessary to protect the Palestinian people from Israeli aggression," he asserted.
On Tuesday, Netanyahu delivered a contentious speech to U.S. Congress in which he thanked Washington – long regarded as Israel's strongest ally – and U.S. President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu thanked the U.S. administration for its ongoing military assistance to Israel, some of which, he said, had been used to fund Israel's "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system, which is used to detect and intercept rockets fired at Israel by Palestinian resistance factions.
In July and August of last year, more than 2,160 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed – and some 11,000 injured – during a devastating Israeli military onslaught against the blockaded Gaza Strip.
Israel's offensive, launched with the ostensible aim of staunching rocket fire from Gaza, destroyed numerous homes, hospitals, schools and public facilities across the Hamas-run coastal enclave.
Israel PM: US speech offered 'alternative' to Iran deal
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that his Tuesday address to the U.S. Congress had offered a "practical alternative" to a proposed nuclear deal between Iran and western powers.
"In my speech before the congress, I presented a practical alternative, which would impose tougher restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, extending Iran's breakout time by years," Netanyahu said in a statement upon his return to Israel from Washington.
He added: "I also called on the P5+1 [the U.S., China, France, the U.K., Russia, plus Germany] to insist on a deal that would link the lifting of those restrictions to Iran's ceasing its sponsorship of terrorism around the world, its aggression against its neighbors, and its calls for Israel's destruction."
On Tuesday, Netanyahu addressed both houses of U.S. Congress, urging U.S. lawmakers to oppose a nuclear deal with Iran.
"This is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it," he asserted.
Netanyahu's address came just hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian counterpart Mohammad Zarif in Switzerland to continue talks ahead of a critical end-of-June deadline.
"I return to Israel knowing that many around the world heard what Israel has to say about the impending deal with Iran," Netanyahu said.
"I heard encouraging responses from both Democrats and Republicans," he added. "They understood that the current proposal would lead to a bad deal and that the alternative is a better deal."
