According to the latest passive/aggressive tome by Washington Post Columnist Eugene Robinson entitled “Netanyahu goes beyond bluster on Iran,” Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech wasn’t as bad as he thought it would be.

He examined some of the Israeli Premier’s prose
from the standpoint of the progressive advocate he is, while ignoring
the most important part of Netanyahu’s argument: based on the deal being
negotiated, millions of people will be placed in mortal danger.

Robinson starts his piece by insulting Elie Wiesel, describing him as a pawn who was taken advantage of by the evil Netanyahu:

worst moment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to
Congress, at least for me, came when he used Elie Wiesel, a great moral
hero, as a Hollywood-style prop.

giving State of the Union addresses have the right to tug at our
heartstrings by saluting honored guests in the gallery. Foreign leaders
taking advantage of partisan invitations do not.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses? (1)

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Hollywood-style prop? 

guess it was fine when President Obama handed out lab coats to the
people in attendance when he was selling Obamacare. Or the other
countless times dear leader has shamelessly used people as props.

Except this time it wasn’t a prop.

Elie Wiesel is a moral hero because he was able to explain to the world the horrors of the Holocaust and why mankind should never allow anything like that to happen again. And Wiesel attended Netanyahu’s speech for the same reason.

Wiesel supported Bibi’s speech because like the Prime Minister, he is a Jew who knows Iran is trying to embark on a new genocide of the Jewish people: first the ones in Israel, then all the citizens of the United States—the Great Satan, including its Jews.

As a true progressive believer Robinson refuses to understand why a great moral hero like Elie Wiesel could ever disagree with President Obama.

As a non-Jew, Robinson could never understand two thousand years of the Jewish experience, which taught us we could never totally rely on others for our protection. Because everywhere we’ve gone, even where we’ve lived for hundreds of years, the Jews become expendable.

Wiesel wasn’t a there as prop he was there to support Bibi’s cause.

As to the charge of “partisanship,” if the columnist was ever able to pry his head out of the Obama Administration talking points, he would have realized that the Prime Minister’s speech wasn’t partisan until the Obama administration, fearful of a dissenting opinion, made it partisan. Perhaps Eugene should read one of the many reports since Tuesday?

For example, this one by Michael Barone 

indicated that most members of Congress from both parties
agreed with Netanyahu.

Truth be told, the partisanship was originated and directed by the Obama Administration to divert attention away from the Prime Minister’s words.

Robinson summarized his theme in this concluding paragraph:

Netanyahu was full of bluster — perhaps mostly for the voters back home, who go to the polls later this month — but there were nuggets of realism. I hope Congress actually listened.

Putting aside the columnist’s use of the Administration-created slander (that the visit to congress was only made because of the upcoming Israeli election), what Robinson called bluster was the sense of urgency of a leader whose nation was in danger. And perhaps the urgency was sprinkled with a sense of desperation because his nation was being treated like pre-WWII Czechoslovakia being sold out for a President’s legacy

While picking on what he believed was bluster, interspersed with his party’s talking points, Eugene Robinson missed the most important part of Netanyahu’s speech and the real reason the Israeli Prime Minister was in Washington.

My friends, I’ve come here today because,
as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to
you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country
and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our
nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the
Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll
read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named
Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago.
But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave
for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face
another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest
hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that
Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t
exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be

For those who believe that Iran
threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan
Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He
said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of
chasing them down around the world. 

Germany, indeed through two thousand years of blood libels, crusades, inquisitions, etc., no one rose to speak out. Even FDR and Churchill refused to allow Jews sanctuary from the Nazis.

That history fueled Netanyahu’s speech. That history was his message to congress.

Will the United States allow Iran to get nuclear weapons today, or in ten years when the built-in expiration date of an agreement allows them to build a weapon, causing millions of first Jews then Americans to be murdered? Will America allow a presidential desire for a political legacy to overshadow a looming danger? An ominous danger repeated through 2,000 years of history?

Eugene Robinson made his choice. He ignored Netanyahu’s genuine concern, choosing to label it bluster.

Robinson knowingly sided with a plan which doesn’t prevent genocide, but merely stalls it for a decade. And Eugene Robinson’s support does not spring from the efficacy of the proposed deal, but because, as a loyal progressive support for Obama takes priority over lives.

And in the end does it really matter? It’s only a few million dead Jews.