February 5, 2015 --

I. The President can enlist a foreign head of government (British Prime Minister David Cameron) to lobby Congress to support the president's Iran policy

II. The Speaker of the House is politicizing foreign affairs if he invites Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress without the president's permission.

III. It is no breach of protocol for Jeremy Bird, the National Field Director of the 2012 Obama re-election campaign. to advise Israelis working against Netanyahu's re-election.

House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to address Congress in March is seen by some observers as setting off a "crisis" in U.S.-Israel relations. This, however, is nothing new.

Just last October, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an article for Atlantic called: " The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here." Goldberg led this article by quoting the crude term used by a "senior Obama administration official" to describe the Israeli prime minister. LPR is not aware that diplomatic observers chided the administration for a breach in protocol in using as vulgarism to describe the Israeli prime minister. The invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress, however, is regarded not only as breach of diplomatic protocol, but an intrusion of partisan politics in U.S. relations with Israel.

It is, LPR offers, a historical truth that from the very beginning, there was a crisis in U.S. relations with the Jewish state. Indeed, this type of crisis predated the establishment of Israel.

The State Department opposed U.S. support for a Jewish state and then opposed recognition of that state once it was established. It should be noted that President Truman, granting Israel de facto recognition, May 14, 1948, also accepted the arms embargo against Israel demanded by the State Department -- an arms embargo that "evenhandedly" also applied to the Arab states that invaded Israel May 15, 1948, for purpose of its liquidation. (The Arabs could get their arms from Britain in 1948.)

The New York Times, January 30, reported that Netanyahu's appearance before Congress has been "generally condemned" by Democrats. For LPR, this indicates that it is Democrats who are making this event a partisan issue. Why should a Netanyahu appearance before Congress trouble congressional Democrats who, historically, have not been reluctant to oppose the White House on foreign affairs: Nicaragua and Vietnam come immediately to mind. If anything, what is at stake seems to LPR to be an institutional, not partisan, matter. Does the President have authority under the Constitution to prevent Congress from inviting a foreign leader to appearing on Capitol Hill?

How far will Democrats go, preferring to turn the Netanyahu visit into a partisan matter? If he does speak to Congress, will they stay away? If Netanyahu is re-elected, would they support the president if he turns against Israel in the United Nations; if he supports sanctions against the Jewish State; if he orders an arms embargo -- citing, in support of such action, the original embargo accepted by President Truman?

Just about a year ago two approaches toward Israel were indicated. One, from Canadian Prime Minister Harper, wished that peace should come to Israel. The other approach, from Secretary of State Kerry, warned of international pressure on Israel. LPR senses that the heart of President Obama is ever-hardening towards Israel. What will the president do, next: threaten a government shutdown if Congress opposes his policy of appeasement vis-a-vis Iran and issue vetoes on any pro-Israel legislation from this Republican Congress? LPR has an idea that this matter of a Netanyahu appearance before Congress, next month, will signal whether the Republicans have any backbone left to honor the results of the 2014 elections which gave them, not the Democrats, control of Congress.