UPDATE: Brad Dayspring, from Rep. Cantor’s office says my conclusion here:
"I can’t remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president."
is unjustified by this paragraph from the statement:
Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington. He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.
Writes Dayspring: "The claim you make below simply isn’t in there."
I think it is (or I wouldn’t have written it), but in fairness, I should note Cantor’s office’s objection. The statement outlines a discussion between Cantor and Netanyahu that covered policy differences between the GOP and the White House over Iran and the Palestinians. The GOP positions happen to coincide with Netanyahu’s in both areas, although — it is true — Cantor’s office’s statement does not make this explicit.
Then in a summary paragraph, the statement says the House GOP will "serve as a check on the administration" and "understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States."
Maybe (as opposed to how I began this post, below) I am parsing — but not by much, I don’t think. But I’ll leave that up to readers, noting Cantor’s office’s objections — and of course the fact that they are objecting suggests that perhaps they conveyed the wrong impression (or that I drew the wrong conclusion.)
Old post begins here:
Sometimes, in this biz, you have to parse.
Other times you don’t.
I slightly parsed, or analyzed, or read tea leaves, earlier this week when I reported that Bibi and the GOP were on the same political page.
No need for subtlety anymore.
I just briefed the meeting last night between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the likely GOP majority leader. (Laura Rozen at Politico had this first.)
Cantor tells Bibi outright: Gotcher back against Obama.
I’ve got the whole statement from Cantor’s office below the jump — Cantor attacks Obama as fuzzy-wuzzy on Iran and on the Palestinians — but the eyebrow raiser is in the final paragraph:
Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington. He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.
I can’t remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another — building in Jerusalem, or somesuch — lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House — that sounds to me extraordinary.
The meeting itself was unusual. For sure, Israeli (and other) leaders meet with the congressional leadership, whichever party is running Congress. But they do so jointly — ie, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Howard Berman and Ilean Ros-Lehtinen all in the same room.
Ok, Congress is not in session, and Bibi met separately with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). But there’s no explicitly political statement coming out of Schumer’s office — and Schumer’s not Harry Reid (or Nancy Pelosi.) And I have it on good authority that as late as last week, Bibi’s people were at pains to deny that such a meeting would take place.
Speaking of Cantor’s demands that Obama implement the full range of sanctions, and the dangers of "one party rule": Cantor was deputy whip from 2003-2007, when the GOP controlled both Houses and the White House. Ros-Lehtinen tried hard to push through a sanctions bill that bites. She was stymied — not by Democrats, but by the Bush White House. Where was the GOP House leadership then?
[[READMORE]]
Here’s the statement from Cantor’s office:
Eric has a long standing friendship with Prime Minister Netanyahu and appreciated the opportunity to catch up last evening. The discussion lasted over an hour and covered a range of topics that included Iran, the United Nations, and the recent U.S. election which saw the Republicans win the majority in the House.
On Iran:
Eric made clear that he believes that it is time for the administration to fully and aggressively implement the Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress earlier this year. Further delay is not an option, and unless the Administration continues to ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime, the progress made by the sanctions already implemented will unravel. Now is not the time to ease off the pressure.On the UN:
Eric reiterated his belief that compromise between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. A unilaterally declared Palestinian state will only create more distrust between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and move the process further away from peace. He believes that unilateral action by the Palestinians at the United Nations is a diversion and should be considered a nonstarter by all serious parties. The Administration should make it absolutely clear that the U.S. will veto any effort by the Palestinians to act in such a manner. If the Palestinians truly want to achieve a peace agreement they must return to the negotiating table and deal directly with Israel.
On the U.S. Election:
Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington. He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.
