Benjamin Netanyahu’s fourth Congress speech: A 28-year US-Israel relations perspective - analysis

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his first speech to a joint session of Congress in May 1996, Al Gore was the US vice president, current Vice President Kamala Harris was working as a prosecutor in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance was 11 years old.

While much has changed in the lives and fortunes of Gore, Harris, and Vance, Netanyahu still remains Israel’s prime minister.

When the Sergeant of Arms will announce in the House Chamber of the US Capitol on Wednesday, “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel,” it will mark the fourth time Netanyahu will walk down the aisle to the speaker’s podium, undoubtedly to a raucous ovation.

But, reflective of how things have changed over the last 28 years, the officials greeting Netanyahu on the dias will differ from the traditional protocol of his first address. Unlike then, when the vice president and Speaker of the House were present, the current arrangement will deviate from this custom.

The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, will be there to greet Netanyahu and sit behind him as he speaks – after all, it was Johnson who first extended this invitation to Netanyahu. But Harris, currently running for president, will not be there, rather at a campaign rally in the Midwest.

Generally, her place would be taken by the president pro tempore of the Senate, as was the case when Netanyahu addressed the body in 2015 and then-vice president Joe Biden absented himself from Netanyahu’s controversial speech that the White House neither wanted nor sanctioned. But the Democratic senator who fills this role today, Washington’s Patty Murray, said she won’t be attending Netanyahu’s speech.

Navigating a divided US and ongoing Middle East conflict

The next most likely candidate would have been Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, but this would look odd since Schumer, in an unprecedented speech to Congress in March, called Netanyahu an obstacle to peace and urged new elections in Israel to replace him. Obviously, he is not the best candidate to preside over a session feting Netanyahu.

So up on the dais, sitting next to Johnson, will be Ben Cardin, the retiring Democratic senator from Maryland and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a staunch supporter of Israel. That little game of musical presiding chairs just demonstrates the fraught nature of the scene Netanyahu is walking into.

The first time Netanyahu addressed Congress in 1996, he had only weeks earlier defeated Shimon Peres to become Israel’s youngest prime minister. He addressed the body again in May 2011 when he and then-president Barack Obama were butting heads over settlements and the diplomatic process with the Palestinians. And he did so yet again in 2015, when Netanyahu infuriated the White House by accepting an invitation to address Congress which he used as an opportunity to blast the president’s Iranian nuclear deal.This time is unique for a number of reasons.

First, because Netanyahu is speaking at a time when Israel is at war. Second, he is speaking at a time when the US is in political chaos. And third, he is speaking at a time when America’s focus – despite the war in Gaza – is elsewhere. While Netanyahu’s previous speeches were major news events, his speech on Wednesday – unless he announces an agreement to a deal that will bring about the release of the hostages and a ceasefire in Gaza – will be overshadowed by American domestic news.

Which might not be a bad thing. For if the mainstream American media were to focus heavily on Netanyahu’s speech, it is likely that they would underscore the lawmakers who are boycotting the address, as well as the protests surrounding the visit.

Before leaving for the US on Monday, Netanyahu said that he hopes with his visit and speech to “anchor the bipartisan support that is so important for Israel.” That will likely be a focus of his address, as it was in the previous three speeches he gave to Congress, but will be a difficult feat to accomplish given that dozens of Democratic lawmakers are expected to demonstratively not show up.

But Netanyahu has been there before. At the start of his 2015 speech, even more contentious than the present one, he said, “I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel. The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.”Expect a similar sentiment to be expressed on Wednesday, even though the reality in the chamber – empty seats – may project a different vibe.

A look back at the other three Netanyahu speeches gives a good indication of where he will go with this one as well – even though this time the war in Gaza will dominate. Even though his previous addresses were always accompanied by different news events in the headlines, there are a few common denominators that have run through each of his speeches and which will likely be present Wednesday as well.

The first is to express deep gratitude and appreciation for the support of the American people and the president. Even his most controversial speech – the one in 2015 where he slammed Obama’s nuclear deal and made the case against it – he began by praising the president for support for Israel, both the widely known support, as well as acts of support that are “less well known.”

Second, he will stress the common values between the countries. And third, he will warn about Iran.

“[The Middle East is] being radicalized and terrorized by a number of unreconstructed dictatorships whose governmental creed is based on tyranny and intimidation,” he said in 1996. “The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime …were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.”

He said back then, 28 years ago, that the international community “must reinvigorate” its efforts to isolate Iran and prevent it from acquiring atomic power. “The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close,” he asserted.For 28 years, Netanyahu has been warning that the deadline on Iran is “extremely close.” He is likely to repeat that on Wednesday as well.

“Deterrence by itself may not be sufficient. Deterrence must now be reinforced with prevention – immediate and effective prevention. Time is running out,” he stressed.. “We have to act responsibly, in a united front, internationally. This is not a slogan. This is not over-dramatization. This is the life of our children and our grandchildren.”

That was in 1996. In 2011, he also dedicated a good part of his speech to Iran. This time, however, the thrust was not only on its nuclear threat but also on its terrorist proxies: “Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons. Militant Islam threatens the world.”

The apex came four years later when Iran was not one part of his speech, but its overriding subject.

“America’s founding document promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad,” he said. “And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to fill the gap with its radical ideology. Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror,” he said, adding that if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

 “So at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”

Since the international community did not “stand together” to confront Iran back then, Netanyahu’s speech on Wednesday is sure to discuss the painful ramifications of that inactivity today.

While Netanyahu’s 2015 speech dealt almost exclusively with the threat of Iran and arguing against the Iranian nuclear deal, the other two speeches discussed at length the diplomatic process at the time. It’s interesting hearing some of those words in light of today’s current reality.

“We are ready to engage Syria and Lebanon in meaningful negotiations. We seek to broaden the circle of peace to the whole Arab world and the rest of the countries of the Middle East,” he said in 1996. An echo of this – widening the Abraham Accords to bring in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries – is likely to come up in his speech on Wednesday, though engaging in meaningful negotiations with Syria and Lebanon is now a relic of the distant past.In his 2011 address, during which Netanyahu spent a great deal of time on his vision of a peace agreement with the Palestinians, he stressed that peace can only be anchored in security and that it can only be achieved around the negotiation table – two things he is likely to reiterate this time as well.

There is one element that he discussed in 2011 that he surely will not return to on Wednesday – support for a Palestinian state.

“Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples – a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state,” he said at the time. “I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace. Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.”

Netanyahu said Israel seeks a peace whereby the Palestinians will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. “They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable, and independent people living in their own state,” he said.

Then he added: “If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli prime ministers since the signing of the Oslo Accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state, myself included; so why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

"You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.”

Expect to hear a variation on that theme on Wednesday as well.

In fact, much of what he is expected to say on Wednesday, he has said in previous speeches to Congress. Netanyahu will undoubtedly defend Israel’s actions in Gaza to the US lawmakers. In doing so, he could just lift this paragraph from the speech he delivered nine years ago. It is as relevant today–even, perhaps more so, than it was then: “I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves.

We’ve restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why, as Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”