It's time to pushback on the lies of the Netanyahu speech boycott movement

Some Democrats are planning to boycott the speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver to Congress in March on the basis of false charges.  A phony narrative has been ginned up, alleging that “protocol” was breached in the invitation, and that the White House is justified in shunning the PM of our closest ally, the only Middle East democracy.

Ed Lasky was among the very first to point out that the White House was indeed notified of the planned invitation before it was issued, trashing the narrative that protocol was violated and the president cruelly blindsided.

Now, writing in Israel Hayom, the largest circulation newspaper in Israel, Richard Baehr points out the falsity of the second part of the agitprop narrative:

The second myth was that the president's problem in meeting with Netanyahu had to do with the short time frame between the date for the speech to Congress and the upcoming Israeli elections. The initial invitation date was February 11, five weeks before the Knesset elections (subsequently moved back to March 3 to coordinate with Netanyahu's AIPAC visit). Former President Bill Clinton met with then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1996, even closer to the date of the upcoming Israeli elections. At that time the Israeli prime minister was directly elected, as opposed to the system in place today, where the elected prime minister represents the party that wins a large number of seats and can put together a 61-seat majority in the Knesset. Peres' visit with Clinton was probably worth more, given how well-liked Clinton was in Israel. (emphasis added)

Despite the utterly bogus nature of the critiques of the Netanyahu visit, the agitprop has taken hold, and even outlets like Fox News causally accept it. The opportunity for pushback comes with those Democrats in Congress who pan to boycott the address. Constituents should confront them, and their reasons for boycotting refuted.  Josh Earnest should be pressed on whether the Obama administration condemns President Clinton for meeting with an Israeli Prime Minister closer to an election that Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in March.

Some Democrats are planning to boycott the speech Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver to Congress in March on the basis of false charges.  A phony narrative has been ginned up, alleging that “protocol” was breached in the invitation, and that the White House is justified in shunning the PM of our closest ally, the only Middle East democracy.

Ed Lasky was among the very first to point out that the White House was indeed notified of the planned invitation before it was issued, trashing the narrative that protocol was violated and the president cruelly blindsided.

Now, writing in Israel Hayom, the largest circulation newspaper in Israel, Richard Baehr points out the falsity of the second part of the agitprop narrative:

The second myth was that the president's problem in meeting with Netanyahu had to do with the short time frame between the date for the speech to Congress and the upcoming Israeli elections. The initial invitation date was February 11, five weeks before the Knesset elections (subsequently moved back to March 3 to coordinate with Netanyahu's AIPAC visit). Former President Bill Clinton met with then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres in 1996, even closer to the date of the upcoming Israeli elections. At that time the Israeli prime minister was directly elected, as opposed to the system in place today, where the elected prime minister represents the party that wins a large number of seats and can put together a 61-seat majority in the Knesset. Peres' visit with Clinton was probably worth more, given how well-liked Clinton was in Israel. (emphasis added)

Despite the utterly bogus nature of the critiques of the Netanyahu visit, the agitprop has taken hold, and even outlets like Fox News causally accept it. The opportunity for pushback comes with those Democrats in Congress who pan to boycott the address. Constituents should confront them, and their reasons for boycotting refuted.  Josh Earnest should be pressed on whether the Obama administration condemns President Clinton for meeting with an Israeli Prime Minister closer to an election that Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in March.