Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress in the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 3

DEARBORN— With the exception of Rep. John Conyers (D- Detroit), all of Michigan’s representatives in Congress attended the controversial speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Capitol Hill. 

The decision by local lawmakers to attend the speech angered Arab American activists and sparked a discussion about the community’s minimal influence over the politicians who are supposed to represent them.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D- Dearborn) criticized the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) invited Netanyahu to speak without consulting President Obama. Dingell, who represents all of Dearborn, attended the speech anyway.

“I said the way the invitation was delivered was inappropriate and a breach of diplomatic protocol,” Dingell said in a statement on March 3, hours before the address. “I will attend the address because one has a responsibility to listen to world leaders and hear what they have to say.”

In the speech, Netanyahu raised concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, in a move that was seen as criticism of the president’s attempts to reach a comprehensive agreement with the Iranians about the issue.

Community failure

Ali Hammoud, the president of the Arab American Political Action Committee (AAPAC), said he feels disappointed and insulted by the decision of Michigan’s senators and representatives to attend the speech.

“We do not accept the explanation posted by Congresswoman Dingell’s office,” he said. “Members of Congress have a responsibility to their constituents and their country before any obligation to world leaders. Their attendance calls into question their sincerity to this community and commitment to Arab American causes.”

Hammoud said Arab Americans need to be aware and involved in the issues facing the country in order for their demands to be heard. He also said people in the Arab American community are always reactive but seldom active.

“We need to call our congress members and voice our concerns,” he said.

Hammoud also said Netanyahu’s speech delivered nothing new and attempted to strike fear in the American people and undermine the ongoing negotiations with Iran.

“The speech was a direct insult to the Oval Office, the American people, and the intelligence community,” he said. “Mr. Netanyahu does not agree with the president and wants to set U.S. policy on Iran, himself. He did not provide any alternative other than war.”

Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the Arab and Muslim communities’ shortcomings in lobbying local representatives to boycott Netanyahu’s address should be studied carefully. 

“Politicians are not moved without political consequences,” Walid said. “They don’t make decisions purely on ethical considerations. They are trying to stay in office. If we, as people in the community, don’t raise our voices and concerns, we shouldn’t expect a different result.”

He cited Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York), who had decided not to attend the speech, then backtracked, as an example of the political pressure put on lawmakers.

“I’m fairly sure that the amount of calls Rangel received from the pro-Netanyahu campaign outnumbered the calls from Arabs and Muslims by a thousand to one,” he said. 

Amer Zahr, a Palestinian American comedian and an adjunct professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, criticized the Arab American organizations for not lobbying local lawmakers to snub the address. 

“It is shocking that when the moment was ripe for our elected representatives to boycott the speech and stand with the president, which happened to be in the interest of Arab Americans, the local Arab American leadership failed to prevent [lawmakers] from going,” he said.

Zahr added that he did not know of any lobbying efforts against the speech by community organizations. 

He said Arab Americans’ failure to convince at least Dingell not to attend the speech demonstrates that the community has not matured enough politically.

“Dingell is a Democrat,” Zahr said. “We paraded her around this community as someone who serves our interests. Attending the speech was a slap in the face by her, regardless of her reasons. We should let her know that we are displeased and make sure that she knows our feelings on this.”

“A call for war”

Zahr said Netanyahu is only interested in war and instability in the Middle East because both benefit Israel.

“To watch American leaders bow to him is a scary testament on our system and how much power one lobby has,” Zahr added. “It is weird to see a foreign leader come here, at the invitation of Congress, to bash the policy of an American president. He could not do that in any other country. This shows that special interests are running the show in Washington.”

However, Zahr said the absence of 59 Democrats from the address is one reason for optimism. 

“Twenty years ago, you might not have found a single empty seat during the speech,” he said. “The shift is coming from the American public. Americans are becoming more educated and less blindly devoted to the argument of Israel. Real debate is starting and Palestinians benefit from honest debate because we are on the side of truth and justice.”

However, Dr. Nabeel Abraham, the retired president of the Honors Program at Henry Ford Community College (now Henry Ford College), said while Israel is losing popularity among certain segments of the Democratic Party, the declining support is not translating into support for the Palestinian people because of the general feeling toward Arabs and Muslims.

“Netanyahu’s speech is going to backfire and open Israel to more criticism by liberal Democrats who view Obama as a hero,” Abraham said. “He (Netanyahu) has alienated Black Democrats, liberal Jewish Democrats and people who are already willing to be critical of Israel.”

Abraham added that Netanyahu’s attempt to establish that Iran is not trustworthy was an indirect way of calling Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry “stupid.”

“Netanyahu was suggesting Obama and Kerry are falling for the trick,” he said. “It takes a lot of guts to come to the center of the empire that’s been feeding and defending you and try to derail negotiations by the commander of chief of the empire.”

He described heightening fear of the Iranian nuclear program as a big fraud in the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

“It should be noted that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear bomb,” Abraham said. “Iranians have said they are not interested in building a bomb and the international agencies have not found any evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon.”

He also slammed Netanyahu for not mentioning Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. 

“Israel has 800 nuclear weapons, never signed any non-proliferation agreement and has the capabilities to deliver nuclear bombs long distance,” Abraham said. 

Toward the end of his speech, Netanyahu said the Jewish people can defend themselves for the first time in 100 generations.

“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” the Israeli prime minister told Congress.

Abraham said Netanyahu threatened war and got a big applause from American lawmakers because they are warmongers.

“He wants to kill the negotiations,” Abraham said of Netanyahu’s aim. “He wants the sanctions to persist to keep Iran completely weakened. The only threat Israel faces is that Iran is the counterweight to Israel in the region and Israel wants monopoly over military power.”

“Realistic threat”

Ryan Fishman, a Birmingham-based Jewish American attorney who ran for the state House of Representative as a Democrat, said there are many perspectives in the Jewish community on the speech, but they all come together to a common point— that the threat of a nuclear Iran is realistic and dangerous to both U.S. and Israeli security.

“The preference is always for diplomacy and a good deal,” he said. “But we prefer no deal to a bad deal.”

He added that there were legitimate concerns about how the speech came about. 

“But I give the prime minister credit for trying to smooth things over between himself and the president.”

Walid, who is an African American Muslim activist, said there is a general sense in the Black community around the country that Obama was being disrespected not only because of the weight of the Israeli lobby but also because he is Black.

“The implicit racism is what gave cover to many Black congressman to boycott the speech,” he added. 

Fishman criticized Conyers for not attending the speech but said the bond between African Americans and Jews is unbreakable.

“John Conyers has never had a good relationship with the Jewish people and never had a good relationship with Israel,” he said. “We’re never going to win over Conyers.”

Fishman noted that the newly elected African American Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Southfield) attended the speech.

He pointed to civil rights struggles and exile from the homeland as factors that tie Jews and African Americans together.

When asked about Israel’s own nuclear arsenal, Fishman said it is defensive.

“What’s interesting is that despite Israel’s nuclear weapons, you don’t see Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia clamoring for a nuclear weapon,” he said. “The fear is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, all of a sudden everybody would want one.”

Fishman said the animosity between Arabs and Jews is not inherent and he believes both peoples can coexist peacefully like they do in Southeast Michigan. 

“I believe a two-state solution is an absolutely necessary result,” he said.