To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
Members of Congress should boycott Netanyahu’s address, and the public should join the protests being organized during his visit.
On Wednesday, July 24, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to deliver his record-setting fourth address to a Joint Session of Congress. Here are 10 compelling reasons why he should not have been invited and why members of Congress should boycott his visit:
For these reasons, members of Congress should boycott Netanyahu’s address and the public should join the protests being organized during his visit.
The invitation has outraged many Israelis—majorities of whom despise Netanyahu, who is under indictment by Israeli prosecutors for corruption.
Unless the GOP in Congress has a last-minute rethinking, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel will enjoy his record-setting fourth address to a Joint Session of Congress on July 24, 2024. Scores of Democrats are boycotting the event. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Netanyahu is committing mass murders and war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, most of them children and women, blowing up their crucial life-saving facilities, and wounding the survivors rendered homeless and defenseless against Biden-provided deadly weapons.
Netanyahu’s first address to Congress was on July 10, 1996, when a younger Netanyahu promised to end U.S. aid to a prosperous Israel and received a standing ovation. He obviously has broken this promise, as his U.S. lobbies have demanded tens of billions of more U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Netanyahu’s third address to Congress on March 3, 2015 bypassed then-President Barack Obama in an arrogant breach of protocol. The supine Congress gave him many standing ovations.
The push for Netanyahu’s forthcoming address was spearheaded by the fanatic GOP House Speaker Michael Johnson (R-La.) who easily politically intimidated House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) into going along.
Johnson’s invitation has outraged many Israelis—majorities of whom despise Netanyahu, who is under indictment by Israeli prosecutors for corruption and because of his attacks on the judiciary and destruction of their protest rights.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNN regarding the invitation to Netanyahu, “I think this is wrong.” Hundreds of House and Senate staffers are signing petitions urging Democratic lawmakers to protest or boycott it. The staffers pointed to “bombings of schools, hospitals, and mosques” and a “campaign of mass starvation against Palestinian children” in addition to censoring media coverage of the devastation.
Noting that world opinion is overwhelmingly against Netanyahu’s genocidal war on Gaza, the staffers’ letter emphasized that “Israelis have been protesting in the streets for months, decrying his failure to negotiate a cease-fire and release of hostages.”
An outstanding affirmation of these sentiments by congressional staff came on June 26, 2024 in an op-ed in The New York Times by six very prominent Israelis, including a former prime minister, titled “We Are Israelis Calling on Congress to Disinvite Netanyahu.” It is pertinent to present an excerpt from this urgent dispatch, as follows:
WE ARE ISRAELIS CALLING ON CONGRESS TO DISINVITE NETANYAHU
By David Harel, Tamir Pardo, Talia Sasson, Ehud Barak, Aaron Ciechanover, and David Grossman
The leaders of the U.S. Congress have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives on July 24. Normally, we Israelis would consider the invitation recognition of our two nations’ shared values and a welcome gesture from our closest friend and ally, to whom we are deeply and morally indebted.
But Congress has made a terrible mistake. Mr. Netanyahu’s appearance in Washington will not represent the State of Israel and its citizens, and it will reward his scandalous and destructive conduct toward our country.
We come from a variety of areas of Israeli society: science, technology, politics, defense, law, and culture. We are thus in a good position to assess the overall effect of Mr. Netanyahu’s government, and like many, we believe that he is driving Israel downhill at an alarming speed, to the extent that we may eventually lose the country we love.
To date, Mr. Netanyahu has failed to come up with a plan to end the war in Gaza and has been unable to gain the freedom of scores of hostages. At the very least, an invitation to address Congress should have been contingent upon resolving these two issues and, in addition, calling for new elections in Israel.
Inviting Mr. Netanyahu will reward his contempt for U.S. efforts to establish a peace plan, allow more aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza, and do a better job of sparing civilians. Time and again, he has rejected President Joe Biden’s plan to remove Hamas from power in Gaza through the establishment of a peacekeeping force. Such a move would very likely bring in its wake a far broader regional alliance, including a vision to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is not only in Israel’s interest but also in the interest of both political parties in the United States. Mr. Netanyahu constitutes the main obstacle to these outcomes.
The man who will address Congress next month has failed to assume responsibility for the blunders that allowed the Hamas assault, initially blaming security chiefs (then quickly backtracking), and has yet to announce the establishment of a direly needed state commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge to look into the fiasco.
…..
Above all, many Israelis are convinced that Mr. Netanyahu has obstructed proposed deals with Hamas that would have led to the release of the hostages in order to keep the war going and thus avoid the inevitable political reckoning he will face when it ends.
…..
For months now, many of us have participated in nationwide demonstrations demanding an immediate release of the hostages, an end to the war, and immediate elections. Polls of Israelis show that a majority want immediate elections, or elections right at the end of the war.
A large portion of Israelis have lost faith in Mr. Netanyahu’s government.
…..
That’s where Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress fits in with his political needs. No doubt it will be carefully stage-managed to prop up his shaky hold on power and allow him to boast to his constituents about America’s so-called support for his failed policies.
His supporters in Israel will be emboldened by his appearance in Congress to insist that the war continue, which will further distance any deal to secure the release of the hostages, including several U.S. citizens.
Giving Mr. Netanyahu the stage in Washington will all but dismiss the rage and pain of his people, as expressed in the demonstrations throughout the country. American lawmakers should not let that happen. They should ask Mr. Netanyahu to stay home.
This full communication to the American people can be seen either in The New York Times or the Congressional Record of July 11, 2024.
There will be mass protests outside Congress on July 24 by Jewish Voice for Peace, CodePink, Veterans for Peace, and other civic groups. But there would be a great benefit for boycotters like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Progressive House Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) to secure a House Committee Room and invite, via Zoom, these six leading Israelis to testify before the media on the same day. These messages could reach the grisly, complicit architects of this disgraceful defamation of the Peoples’ Legislature more than the bullhorns of the upstanding peaceful protesters kept far away by the security police.
While Israelis, including those in the media class, ponder if their country is run by inept and corrupt leadership, much of the U.S. media skip all this and insinuate that now is no longer the time for debate.
As the world watches the ongoing horror in southern Israel and in the Gaza Strip, media grapple not only with the immediate violence, but to understand why this happened and how it can stop. This is truly no other Middle East skirmish anymore. Likely the deadliest offensive against Israel on its soil, and perhaps the most audacious operation by Palestinian militants, it’s been compared both to 9/11 and to the bloody 1973 war between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations.
How could Israel—so famous for its military might and advanced intelligence capabilities—have missed the warnings of such an attack? The coordinated nature of the rocket attacks and assaults on nearby towns make clear that this was a huge operation that took time and planning; paragliding attacks require practice runs that are not easy to hide (L’Orient Today, 10/9/23), for instance. Already, Israeli media have begun looking closely at the Israeli government’s actions to understand how and why this happened—in sharp contrast to U.S. broadsheet opinion, which has largely rallied unquestioningly behind Israeli “national unity.”
The Times of Israel (10/8/23) noted that Netanyahu was quoted telling Likud Party members in 2018 about his stance on Gaza, summarizing his quote saying “those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza”—meaning to Gaza’s Hamas-led government—as doing so maintains the “separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza,” thus dividing and conquering the Palestinians once and for all.
Gaza is sealed off, contained, and highly surveilled (Middle East Institute, 4/27/22); it’s hard to believe no one in the Israeli government didn’t know something was being planned. The above ToI report quoted Assaf Pozilov, a reporter for the Israeli public broadcasting outlet Kan, saying before the attack, “The Islamic Jihad organization has started a noisy exercise very close to the border, in which they practiced launching missiles, breaking into Israel, and kidnapping soldiers.”
An Israeli military veteran in the New York Post (10/9/23), hardly considered a pro-Palestine publication, blamed Israel for ignoring warnings from Egyptian intelligence about “something big.”
“Netanyahu should be removed as prime minister immediately—not ‘after the war,’ not after a plea bargain in his corruption trial, not after an election. Now.”
An editorial at Ha’aretz (10/8/23) put the blame squarely on Netanyahu, saying “he is the ultimate arbiter of Israeli foreign and security affairs.” It also pointed the finger at his right-wing policies on settlement expansion and allies with far-right extremist parties. “As expected, signs of an outbreak of hostilities began in the West Bank, where Palestinians started feeling the heavier hand of the Israeli occupier,” the editorial said, noting that “Hamas exploited the opportunity in order to launch its surprise attack.”
At the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (10/7/23), David Halperin, chief executive officer of the Israel Policy Forum, wrote that for the last year, “my colleagues and I… have joined with others in expressing concern about the nature of Israel’s far-right government.” The article—which questioned why Netanyahu’s government, famously hard-nosed on security, failed to protect the people—was reprinted in The Jerusalem Post (10/7/23).
Alon Pinkas (Ha’aretz, 10/9/23) wrote more directly: “Netanyahu should be removed as prime minister immediately—not ‘after the war,’ not after a plea bargain in his corruption trial, not after an election. Now.”
But top U.S. editorial boards are elsewhere, failing to ask questions about intelligence failures and Netanyahu’s hand on the wheel. Instead, they urged Israelis to put aside the concerns they’ve had about democracy, which brought throngs of liberal and left-wing Israelis into the streets to denounce the Netanyahu government’s neutering of an independent judiciary—a decision that has been likened to the “sham democracy” of Hungary (Foreign Policy, 8/3/23). This summer, military reservists joined the protests, causing alarm about the country’s military readiness (AP, 7/19/23).
A Wall Street Journal editorial (10/7/23) used the Hamas offensive to downplay Netanyahu’s judicial power grab, saying, “The internal Israeli debates over its Supreme Court look trivial next to the threat to Israel’s existence.”
The Journal also discounted any criticism of the ongoing Israeli blockade of Gaza, saying, “Israel has been allowing 17,000 Gazans to work in Israel each day and would like to allow more.” The editorial said “the assault also underscores the continuing malevolence of Iran,” because its government “cheered on the attacks,” “provided the rockets and weapons for Hamas,” and “may have encouraged the timing as well.”
Not only is Knesset opposition to Netanyahu’s internal policies now viewed as some kind of softness on the Hamas attack, but it was the nerve of the people to organize to protect their institutions that opened up the nation to the latest offensive.
A Washington Post editorial (10/7/23) did blame the right-wing government for initiating the internal political crisis, but hoped that the political factions would soon come together. “Early signs are that Israel’s leading politicians are putting aside their differences with Mr. Netanyahu to meet the emergency,” it said. Another Post editorial (10/9/23) suggested that the U.S. could take a lesson from Israel on the “risks of disunity,” criticizing Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul for setting off a “distracting backlash.”
An editorial at Bloomberg (10/8/23) admitted that Netanyahu’s judicial reform efforts “have needlessly riven Israeli society” and that his aggressive military policies in the Occupied Territories worsened things for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Yet the news service waved that all away, saying, “But all that’s for another time.” It also said the “assault deserves only one response from the world: outrage, and unwavering support for Israel’s right to defend itself.”
The New York Times editorial board (10/9/23) said that though Israelis were right to march against Netanyahu’s judicial restrictions, the Hamas attack changed the terrain, because “Israel’s military strength depends on its national unity, and Israelis have now come together to defend themselves.”
Of course, Israel, while mobilizing for war, has moved toward forming a unity government (Reuters, 10/10/23).
Worse, the Times gave column space (10/8/23) to Shimrit Meir, a former advisor to far-right Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, to cite Israel’s political division as military weakness, urging the country to close ranks.
Israel was vulnerable to an attack because years of dissolving Knessets and new elections left the country divided, Meir said, adding that Israel had “forgotten its second role in the world, as a place that embodies the idea of Jewish solidarity,” and that the people “instead found themselves engaged in an all-out war—not against terrorists but against themselves.”
The idea that the Israeli populace–which has long included right-wing militarists, religious fanatics of various Jewish sects, left-wing anti-occupation activists, and techy neoliberals—has always been one big family in political consensus without fierce debate is laughable. But for Meir, the dissension in recent years is a dangerous aberration:
As a nation, Israelis acted as if we could afford the luxury of a vicious internal fight, the kind in which your political rival becomes your enemy. We let animosity, demagogy, and the poisonous discourse of social media take over our society, rip apart the only Jewish army in the world. This is our tragedy. And it carries a lesson for other polarized democracies: There is someone out there waiting to gain from your self-made weakness. This someone is your enemy.
She said she hoped that Israel returned “to its senses, ending the political crisis and forming a unity government.”
In other words, not only is Knesset opposition to Netanyahu’s internal policies now viewed as some kind of softness on the Hamas attack, but it was the nerve of the people to organize to protect their institutions that opened up the nation to the latest offensive.
The Washington Post, to its credit, ran an op-ed (10/9/23) from a Palestinian journalist that didn’t necessarily put the blame squarely on Netanyahu, but called on the U.S. to support Palestinian statehood. But Post columnist David Ignatius (10/8/23) jumped in on the idea that the quarrel over the Supreme Court contributed to Hamas’ offensive. “Did that political chaos contribute to the Gaza attacks? I don’t know,” he said, adding that the “domestic feuds of the past few months might have led Hamas and its backers in Tehran to believe that Israel was internally weak and, perhaps, vulnerable.”
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal ran fiercely jingoistic pieces from well-known American neoconservatives like Douglas Feith (10/9/23) and Daniel Pipes (10/8/23), while Mitch McConnell (10/9/23), the Republican Senate minority leader, called for more U.S. support for Israel’s war effort. And far from questioning the Israeli government’s preparedness, law professor Eugene Kontorovich (10/8/23) said the U.S. and others “must not only refrain from limiting Israel’s operation in Gaza but resolve to oust the genocidal regime in Tehran.”
While Israelis, including those in the media class, ponder if their country is run by inept and corrupt leadership, much of the U.S. media skip all this and insinuate that now is no longer the time for debate, but a time to brush aside uncomfortable conversations in the face of war.