“Even if Israel Has to Stand Alone, Israel Will Stand”

“This is a bad deal — we’re better off without it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.S. Congress this morning, at the invitation of Speaker of the House John Boehner. His primary topic was the current nuclear weapons deal with Iran being negotiated by the “P5+1”, which is reportedly close to being finalized.

Below is a CSPAN video of the entire speech:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was not happy with Mr. Netanyahu’s address. During the applause after his climactic line — “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand” — she turned her back on the prime minister (the photo below is a screen cap of that telling moment).

Afterwards she expressed her displeasure to the press:

“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States,” she fumed in a statement afterward, adding that she didn’t appreciate “the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

President Barack Obama did not attend the speech, and said he did not watch it. A video of his response to Mr. Netanyahu is available here.

26 thoughts on ““Even if Israel Has to Stand Alone, Israel Will Stand”

  1. This current diplomatic theater begs the question as to what the United States of America is doing in its attempt to negotiate a treaty with a country whose governing religion does not allow any covenants with infidels, much less the relations necessary for a treaty that will guarantee the conduct of the signatory parties. I cannot understand how we could be able, and with a straight face, to negotiate with an entity that is foresworn to our destruction. To add insult to injury, you have the endorsement by not only the Qur’an but also of Mahomet’s conduct of prevarication, deceit and fraud. The ‘treaty’ with the people of Mecca should serve as a warning to the dangers of any rapprochement. Bibi has it right, and knows better than to trust anything of Islam. O’Bama & Co. have it dead wrong and I am concerned that we will be dragged down their primrose path to perdition.

  2. Pelosi is so ignorant, of such meager intelligence, and so arrogant regardless of those things that condescension is always appropriate towards her. Someone needs to get through to her just how low functioning she really is. Her brain is 100% devoted to the social cognition of figuring out whatever is most trendy and popular among her ignorant supporters so she can make herself popular enough to gain power and wealth. She’s little more than a robot avatar for mob groupthink stupidity.

    And the more I read about taqiyya the more convinced I am that Obama seriously is a Muslim who is claiming to be Christian under taqiyya doctrine in order to further the goal of Islamic superiority. That would be perfectly consistent with other examples from history as discussed here http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/taqiyya-about-taqiyya/

    You have to pay attention to his actions, not his words. Under Obama the Muslim Brotherhood gained control of Egypt, and ISIL has gained control of significant territory including large parts of Libya. These things would have been impossible without Obama.

    Now, Iran is going to be making nukes full speed ahead unless congress manages to get veto-proof support to stop it.

    I guess we’ll get to figure out pretty soon if the U.S. has any defense against an EMP attack.

    • “Now, Iran is going to be making nukes full speed ahead unless congress manages to get veto-proof support to stop it.”

      Any U.S.-Iran agreement will be in the form of a treaty. Correct?
      Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says, “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

      So ratification of such a treaty will require the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senators (there are presently 100 of them). The House of Representatives (435 members) is irrelevant to treaty ratification.
      (Congress = Senate + House of Representatives)

      • I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to what’s going on. Now that the executive order can be used to make and change laws, Obama isn’t going to bother with a formalized treaty. He already started dealing with Iran under the table, so expect more executive orders to just give Iran whatever it is they want.

        Actually, veto proof majority isn’t really the issue anymore. Doing anything about an Iran deal when you have a president that ignores the law is probably going to require impeachment, and when 47% of democrats believe the president should be able to ignore the judicial branch, fat chance of that happening.

  3. I am particularly taken by how inept our governing body is. They stand up and clap but I don’t think they think it is as serious as I think it is.
    I wished that as Mr. Netanyahou was speaking that Israeli and American forces were bombing Iranian installations.
    Yeah… In real time.

    • What bothers me is that even after 9/11 neither the congress nor the American public really take any threat to the U.S. seriously. Before the Japanese bombed perl harbor, everyone thought that the Japanese were too backward and inept to be any sort of threat. Afterward though they found that they had a serious fight on their hands.

      Now it seems that even after the jihad perl harbor there’s still this attitude that the enemy is too backward and incompetent to be any real threat. This can probably be explained by the extreme degree to which the public and government is vulnerable to the taqiyya and tawriya tactics in use. Too many people have become too mentally weak to fight the taqiyya jihad.

      Unfortunately this is probably just not going to change until a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere, or the whole power grid is taken down. And unfortunately at that point it might be too late.

      • “Before the Japanese bombed perl harbor, everyone thought that the Japanese were too backward and inept to be any sort of threat. ”

        The British thought that too about the Japanese. The fortress of Singapore had its guns pointing out to sea, and the Japs cycled down backroads through Malaysia, whilst out armies were posted on main roads. How did the Japs know to do this? Japanese living in Singapore and Malaysia had spent years mapping and photographing the country and sending that information back to Japan.

        The situation in the west is the same. Look at France: even with 10,000 soldiers deployed on the streets, they are not coping. http://m.france24.com/en/20150305-tired-soldiers-could-mean-france-unable-stop-terror-attack-vigipirate-charlie-hebdo/ It is not long now before the lies of the elite will be exposed.

        The situation is like that at the start of WW2. Only this time, our “leaders” are actually lying to cover up the actions and motivations of the Japanese.

  4. “I Pelosi was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States,” she fumed in a statement afterward, . . . ”

    For goodness sake what is she talking about? Netanyahu’s speech was perfect, sincere, and truthful. That’s how real statesman should be: to diagnose the problem objectively, weigh it scientifically from every angle then decide feasible solution that is safe for oneself, not a solution that’s dictated by the enemy.
    No one on this planet likes peace and peaceful solutions like Israel. Israel does not need more enemies. Only Israel knows how it hurts and feels its own pain.

    Pelosi ‘s action was expected. Surprised she was present at all. Where was Hussein, Biden and Kerry. Oh they had other commitments. They had no time. If it were Abbas they would have found time somehow.

    What he is doing he is appealing to a world where it has lost its conscience and commonsense, the last ditch effort to awaken the comatose west. And what if he is proven correct in 10 or fifteen years.

    If Pelosi, the Congress and Hussein had done the right thing over the last 50 years, Netanyahu would not have needed to take this stance today. The last thing he wants is to be seen as aggravating the gap between the two Parties. But he has no choice but to come and cling to any helpful straw.
    Hussein said there was nothing new. Of course because these things mentioned by PM have been there for the last 20 years and no one listens to him. Simply because Israel is in immediate danger not the west . . . at least for now.

    “Israel is trying to pressure us, to make Iran cave in,” he added. “No way that will ever happen.”
    Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was eagerly anticipated by many Iranians, not because they believe he would be able to halt the nuclear talks, but because they said they hoped the Israeli leader’s blunt approach would turn American public opinion against him. The strains between the United States and Israel, known by some hard-liners here as the “great and little Satan,” have become increasingly public as Washington and Tehran seek to conclude an agreement that would limit Iran’s ability to continue developing its nuclear capacity. That’s the best deal possible we can get. In other words we are weak and Iran is determined to oppose us. We cannot admit defeat , so we will cover our defeat by declaring a deal “was reached”. @## Why will Americans be upset at Netanyahu’s blunt statement ( = he tells things as they are, realistically without fooling himself), while they don’t notice the recklessness and rigidity of Iran in negotiations, where all western powers are rendered ball-less. During Netanyahu’s speech the hybrids went astray: Kerry is abroad, Hussein “created” an important meeting at UN. Sending these signs they are assuring Iran that “don’t worry be happy. We will grant you the deal you strive for and even more.”

    Compare this to the Kerry and Zerif holding each other’s hands in Switzerland, as betrothed fiancés, and Zarif being the alpha male.

    “This speech shows the deal is imminent, this is why Mr. Nethanyahu is desperate,” said Farshad Ghorbanpour, a policy analyst in Iran close to the government of President Hassan Rouhani. “It is not important what he says in Congress, the deal is coming.”
    Just feel how Iran is sure by USA and western position to get the deal of her dream unhindered, and will applaud it on TV screens, for local consumption, that they “imposed” a deal on Iran and tamed it.

    Of course the west will go the extra 3 miles to get a “deal” because Iran is a muslim country it is not Yugoslavia.
    Who could have thought the west would sink to this low level?

    • “Netanyahu’s speech was perfect, sincere, and truthful.”

      “Who could have thought the west would sink to this low level?”

      So true (sadly), and so well written.

  5. I wonder what all those standing ovations to Bibi’s speech will achieve?

    Last count, I believe it was 20 – extraordinary!

    Is the Speaker of the House about to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Dictator in Chief after such a damning speech?

    Is Tom Cornyn or Mitch McConnell or anyone else in the GOP about to press Boehner for that impeachment if he doesn’t look like pushing it himself?

    The advertised stupidity of Nancy Pelosi is just so typical of the arrogance of those who profess to know everything without even trying to understand why it is they think they know everything.

    Here was a man invited to talk to Congress, and talk he did, about the very real problems his country faces and also the rest of the world, and all they can give him is standing ovations? Where is the commitment to comprehending and taking on board what Netanyahu has spoken of? Do we get that from the Dictator in Chief or do we get what Obama’s real agenda is – the ending of the United States as a world power at the behest of those who have worked tirelessly for many decades to bring that about, the Kissinger’s and the Brzezinki’s and the many others on the payroll of the Rockefellers, the Big Banks and Corporations, not to mention the mighty industrial/military complex we were all warned about, inter alia Eisenhower and Kennedy?

    What a sorry state we now find ourselves in and the best that can be offered to a man who tells the truth is nothing but standing ovations.

    • “Here was a man invited to talk to Congress, and talk he did, about the very real problems his country faces and also the rest of the world, and all they can give him is standing ovations?”

      But you forget! Congress also has “given” us and Israel a Muslim on the House Intelligence Committee…. The better to hurry along our hoped-for destruction, no doubt.

  6. Baron,

    Thank you for the link to Obama’s response to Netanyahou. Obama sounded reasonable, and it’s better to deal with the arguments of opponents as rationale statements, rather than trying to win with invective.

    Nevertheless, one can make some conclusions from the inner logic of statements.

    Obama’s argument was, that Netanyahou proposed no mechanism of enforcement to stop Iran’s nuclear development, if the negotiators failed to conclude a deal. The deal offered by the US and allies included control and verification, and thus was better than no enforcement.

    The problem is, Netanyahou proposed a continuation of sanctions, and sanctions were the only mechanism by which the US brought Iran to negotiations. In other words, Netanyahou’s enforcement mechanism was at least as strong as the enforcement currently available to the US.

    Netanyahou went on to argue that 1) Iran had a history of purposely concealing nuclear developement and was caught; 2) the proposed agreement allowed unrestricted nuclear development after 10 years; and 3) the hundreds of thousands of centrifuges Iran planned on obtaining could be swiftly turned to weapons-grade production, although they could also be useful for peaceful nuclear power.

    Obama’s response to this was that the negotiations are a work in progress, and let’s see if we can’t eliminate the objections.

    Of course, the agreement at this stage is close to its final form.

    Netanyahou, claiming that the Iranians cannot be trusted at all, wants all nuclear development to be stopped. Obama claims that an agreement will only be made if the oversight is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of covert weapons development. And that brings us back to the oversight and enforcement mechanisms that Obama claims will be insufficient without an agreement. Rather circular logic, if I see it correctly. So, if the sanctions are insufficient to persuade the Iranians without the agreement, why would the Iranians make an airtight agreement due to the sanctions?

    Looked at another way, what would Iran lose by giving up its nuclear power altogether? It would lose the ability to generate power without the use of petroleum: but Iran is one of the foremost petroleum producers in the world. Iran would have enough resources if sanctions were lifted, to pay for any nuclear needs, medical or industrial, a hundred times over.

    In other words, there is no economic need for Iran to undertake an expensive, redundant nuclear development program. So, one cannot escape the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear development has the objective of eventually obtaining nuclear weapons and engaging in religious-based aggression. This makes the desire to completely eliminate Iran’s nuclear technology very rational.

    What benefit is there to the West to allow Iran to play the nuclear shell game, and to bank our security on the assumption we will always be able to pick up the shell and find any illicit nuclear development? Once Iran actually has nuclear weapons, it will be pretty much invulnerable to preemptive strikes. So, it’s a one-way gate.

    Just as an added incentive, keep in mind that the US is totally, like 100%, unprotected from EMT (electromagnetic transmissions). So, a small nuclear bomb detonated 50 miles above the atmosphere, would completely fry the economy: it would wipe out cell phones, tablets, computers, automobiles, power stations, everything with a transistor inside. Try getting along without your phone, tablet, computer, car, and reliable electrical power.

  7. “… she fumed in a statement afterward, adding that she didn’t appreciate “the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

    This is so typically lefty, one couldn’t come up with a clearer example to illustrate this evil. They say one thing and do the opposite. Commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation while literally giving the bomb to Iran, how stupid must one be to swallow that hook, line and sinker? Netanjahu certainly isn’t.

  8. I have concluded that Nancy Pelosi is so stupid and ideologically-driven that she actually believes what she says. Previously I thought she was just corrupt.

    Obama issued a blatant lie about Netanyahu’s speech–that it contained no alternative plan other than war–and many people who did not hear the speech (NBC, CBS, ABC refused to carry the whole speech) will simply believe him.

    I never thought I would see the country come to this pass.

    • Pelosi was born and raised in an Italian Democratic family in Baltimore, Maryland. In her first political acts, she distributed flyers around the neighborhood for her father, who was running for Mayor of Baltimore (I don’t remember whether he won or not, and I’m too lazy to look it up ATM).

      I first heard of her in 1984, when she coordinated the festivities at the Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco. She truly does *believe* the things she says, from everything I can ascertain. She persuaded a ton of people to participate in the back-stage running of the 1984 convention–positions that didn’t involve headlines or publicity–so she must have personal charisma or similar.

      Do not make the mistake of thinking she is stupid, however. Her maneuvers in Congress, even as Minority Leader, are those of a crafty, even strategically aware, individual.

      Corrupt? Perhaps (I have no specific information).

      Ideologically driven? Most definitely, 100%. And, yes, she *does* believe what she says.

      • Cynthia, in times past we actually vetted who our candidates were based on their background. That no longer applies, especially if one is running for el presidente, but would Pelosi have passed such a vetting procedure? Personally, I doubt it.

      • To criticize Netanyahu for being “condescending” while supporting the more condescending (and lecturing President) is not a mark of great intellect.

        And regarding her corruption of this big labor union Democrat



        • Thank you for the links. I’ve read both of them, and in my own follow-up Google search found this story from the January 1, 2007 San Francisco “Chronicle”: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Pelosi-s-husband-prefers-a-low-profile-2660253.php (sorry, not sure how to embed the link on this website).

          According to the 2007 story, the Pelosis are minority partners in Auberge du Soleil and, additionally, under California law, an owner–whether majority, minority, or sole–of a property is *not* permitted to discuss with his/her employees whether or not they should unionize. *After* a union vote has been taken, the owner deals with the union representative(s) or not.

          If I remember correctly what I’ve read on the subject, the grapes boycott way back when was a result of owners not permitting workers to vote and, sometimes, of not being willing to speak with union reps once unionization had been voted on. ( think (?) that there were also instances where UFW reps weren’t permitted into the fields to conduct a vote.

          So I’m not sure if a minority interest in Auberge du Soleil and the vineyard compels her to “suggest” unionization. I’m also not sure how she could do it legally in California. From the story:

          “…[T]he crews that harvest the Pelosis’ 7-acre vineyard haven’t made any move to seek union representation,” said Marc Grossman, spokesman for the farmworkers union. “Under California labor law, it would be illegal for her or her family to talk with the union about a contract until the workers had voted to organize.”

          However, her support for illegals certainly *does* raise one’s eyebrows, doesn’t it? And treating last year’s floods of “children,” most of whom were teenagers, as if they were United States citizens entitled to free legal representation, shelter, free public education, etc., like to drove me nuts.

          If private citizens, of their own free will and conscience, want to donate clothing, food, etc. to these persons, that’s fine. But to *require* it of the government–which is paid for by OUR taxes–seemed then and still seems now way out of line.

          I know that many of these teens weren’t from Mexico directly, but Mexico was happy to send them on to El Norte. It would have been better IMHO to return them to Mexico for administration and return to their home countries: Spanish-language assistance would have been guaranteed, for one thing.

          But there are more non-border states (46) than there are border states (4), and the then-Majority Leader pressed forward with her agenda… Does anyone know where these 50,000+ teens are today?

          • Whether or not she is “compelled” to suggest unionization may not be the point. You would think that such a compassionate person and strong supporter of the poor the and unions would do everything possible (according to her views) to assure the welfare of those poor people working to help fill her coffers.

            As for these teenagers (many of whom had gang tatoos I’ve heard) who crossed the border, isn’t it remarkable that the MSM does not seem to care where they went and what happened to them?

            And is it just a coincidence that coinciding with the dispersal of the illegal “children” to various locations around the U.S., we suddenly had outbreaks of a “mystery virus” among children (which killed at least one and maybe more) and outbreaks of measles? All this was blamed on those who didn’t have their children vaccinated. But I heard that some children who caught measles did have vacinations–does anyone know?

  9. What the Democrats like Obama and Pelosi are is safe, they do not fear for their safety or political life. They don’t care about anyone else. All Pelosi needs is support in her district, which she has, and until someone else comes along that can promise them more, we are stuck with her too. Obama will retire a wealthy man, and if history is any guide, like other Democrats before him we’ll have to continually put up with his opinion, and who knows, possibly his wife.

  10. Isn’t a ten year limit to a treaty a Muslim law? I dimly recall some early Muslim treaty that was ignored after ten years, and this set the pattern. That the proposed deal has a ten year sunset provision is a bit disconcerting.

    Also there were reports that Obama was in the situation room in discussion with foreign representatives during Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech. This would bring up images of Hitler in his bunker, except that Obama, though also insanely dangerous, is of a different caliber entirely.

  11. notice that Obama said: “the bond between the united states and America is unbreakable”. instead of “the bond between the united states and israel is unbreakable”. ha.
    I really don’t believe that was just some mistake…
    it was to painful for him to say the words. so he “accidently” said some nonsense.

  12. You can tell the size of a woman by the size of things that make her mad !

Comments are closed.