The invitation of "Israeli" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address the US Congress has stirred significant controversy. High-profile "Israeli" figures, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and ex-Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, have penned a powerful opinion piece in The New York Times, urging American lawmakers to cancel the speech.

They emphasize that Netanyahu’s actions and policies do not represent the broader "Israeli" populace. Here’s an in-depth look at why these leaders are so opposed to Netanyahu’s congressional appearance and what this signifies for U.S.-"Israel" relations.

The uproar stems from a recent invitation extended by the US Congress to Netanyahu, asking him to speak at a joint session next month. This gesture, typically reserved for significant allies and global leaders, has been criticized by many within the Israeli Occupation. Prominent "Israelis" argue that Netanyahu will use this platform to bolster his shaky grip on power back home, exploiting it to claim unwarranted US support for his controversial policies.

The opinion piece, signed by a diverse group of "Israeli" luminaries including scientists, former security officials, legal experts, and cultural figures, paints a grim picture of Netanyahu’s leadership.

These signatories include David Har’el, a renowned scientist; Talia Sasson, a legal expert and head of the New "Israel" Fund; and David Grossman, a celebrated author and bereaved father. They collectively argue that allowing Netanyahu to speak would essentially reward his "outrageous and destructive behavior."

Netanyahu’s Leadership Under Fire

Critics argue that Netanyahu's leadership has been marked by actions that undermine "Israeli" democracy and damage its international standing. The signatories highlight several key points of contention:

1. Handling of the Gaza war: Netanyahu’s failure to develop a coherent strategy to end the ongoing war on Gaza and secure the release of captives held by Hamas.

2. Judicial Overhaul and Police Brutality: His controversial judicial reforms and the aggressive stance of "Israeli" police against protesters and Palestinian citizens, led by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

3. Economic and Security Burden: The significant financial and security burdens borne disproportionately by the non-Haredi population, as funds are redirected to ultra-Orthodox communities that do not share the same obligations.

The call to cancel Netanyahu’s speech shows a deeper political and social rifts within the Israeli Occupation. It reflects a growing unease about Netanyahu’s influence and the direction in which he is steering the country. The authors argue that Netanyahu’s actions are accelerating "Israel's" decline, potentially leading to the loss of the state cherished by many "Israelis."

The US Dimension

The opinion piece also addresses recent tensions between Netanyahu and the Biden administration. It criticizes the congressional invitation as a reward for Netanyahu’s disregard for American peace efforts, especially those aimed at alleviating the plight of Gaza’s population and seeking a broader regional peace.

In the Words of the Critics

The authors did not hold back in their condemnation:

• "Netanyahu will not represent the State of Israel and its citizens," they wrote, "His appearance will be a reward for his outrageous and destructive behavior towards our country."
  
  
• They accused Netanyahu of deliberately sabotaging potential deals with Hamas to prolong the war and avoid political accountability.
  
  
• Highlighting the influence of far-right coalition partners like Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, they warned of their extreme positions, which include opposing any ceasefire and advocating for the occupation of Gaza.
  
  

The plea to American lawmakers is clear and urgent: Do not provide Netanyahu with a platform that could validate his contentious policies, and by denying Netanyahu the opportunity to speak, the signatories hope to send a strong message about the need for genuine leadership that aligns with democratic values and the broader interests of all "Israelis".