Today, we learned the real reason for Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to meet with House Republicans — advice on suppressing the vote of inconvenient minorities.
The New York Times reports today that Benjamin Netanyahu is alarmed about strong Arab voter turnout in today’s election:
Increasingly worried that he could lose Tuesday’s elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel lashed out at the country’s Arab voters, expressing alarm that a large turnout by them could determine the outcome. Opponents accused him of baldfaced racism.
Who better than House Republicans to provide expert assistance on using laws to prevent “voter fraud”, ways to rig electronic polling devices, and using party apparatus to manipulate local election boards (controlling things like voter lists)?
As much as I disagree with Netenyahu and the Republicans, your claim, if taken literally, that Netanyahu met with Republicans to learn how to suppress the vote is completely baseless, as the evidence is completely circumstantial.
You are being figurative correct?
My post is intended to be taken figuratively.
I think “facetious” is perhaps a better characterization of my intent.
Perhaps somewhere between “facetious” and “sarcastic.
That’s very hard to express in writing, as it depends alot on tone of voice, more so than even being figurative.
Because not only did Democrats meet with his opponent, they went to Israel to work on the campaign. But it might be true – it appears that Bibi has won reelection, and that would mirror the campaign skills of Democratic advisers in 2014…
I wondered all along – if Democrats here don’t want to be seen with Obama due to his toxic election effect, how does him shunning Netenyahu hurt him, exactly?
. . .to the official end of the “two-state solution”. It seems to be pretty universal in Congress that the members are/were dedicated to a two-state solution as their main goal for Israel/Palestine.
Will they support pressuring the new government into implementing such a solution? Or will they just take up a new catch phrase?
Well, from what we’ve seen so far, there’s a lot of “It was just said in the heat of the campaign; he doesn’t mean it” (e.g., Eliot Engel) or completely ignoring it and pretending the peace process isn’t long since dead (Pelosi).
n/m