Focus on Jewish Democrats as key to Iran deal raises ‘loyalty’ issue

An important aspect of the Iran Deal is the way that it is highlighting the issue of foreign influence, and dual loyalty– the confusion among American Jews about who they should be supporting, the United States or Israel.

Senator Chuck Schumer himself addressed this issue a month back. Yes, he always says that his name means he’s the guardian of Israel — “Shomer” in Hebrew — but he warned orthodox Jewish supporters that if the deal came down to a question of what was good for America and not good for Israel, he would have to vote for the U.S. because he represents all the people.

Three days ago, demonstrators at the rally to kill the deal in New York’s Times Square taunted Schumer, holding up signs saying “Schumer– You Are No Shomer.”

“He should be the guardian of the Jewish people,” the guy in the photo above told me.

“But he’s a U.S. senator, is that a problem?” I asked.

“It’s not a problem. He has to use his position to help the Jewish state.”

Later the man said that stopping the deal was also in the American interest. (Our conversation is 1:25 into the video below)


The issue of Jewish loyalty to Israel was also explicit in the Washington Post today. Natan Sharansky of Israel writes that American Jews defied Nixon during the detente era:

Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran…

A critical question is, who, if anyone, will have the vision and courage to be the next Sens. [Henry] Jackson and [Jacob] Javits.

It has generally been verboten to say there’s a conflict between loyalties. Gore Vidal caused a giant scandal at the Nation 30 years ago when he called out Norman Podhoretz– “your country… is Israel”; and conservative Russell Kirk caused a similar scandal in Washington when he said that “some eminent neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States – a position they will have difficulty in maintaining as matters drift in the Levant.”

After those scandals, the mainstream held that the assertion was anti-Semitic. Jews had a perfect right to support Israel.

Still the issue percolated. Like it or not we live in a nationalist era, and Zionism creates a competing nationalism to an American one. MJ Rosenberg kept writing about “Israel firsters,” the Netanyahu government brought up the question of American Jewish loyalty to Israel explicitly in a poll it withdrew; and Eric Alterman of the Nation bragged on his dual loyalty– “there’s going to be some cases where when Israel and the United States conflict I’m going to support what’s best for Israel rather than what I think is best for the United States.” And by the way, one reason I started this website was that my own brother told me his Jewish newspaper was supporting the Iraq war because it could be good for Israel. I wanted to expose those attitudes.

The Iran deal is causing further pinching. Last year liberal Zionist Rabbi Melissa Weintraub said the Iran deal was “the ultimate dual loyalty test;” and even The New York Times has addressed the issue a couple of times. When Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress in March in an effort to kill the deal, the Times said that many Democrats “will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”

Earlier this week, the Times described an “extraordinary showdown” between Israel and the U.S. government on Capitol Hill. President Obama’s chief rival on the Hill is Netanyahu, and his ambassador, Ron Dermer; and Jonathan Weisman’s report put the spotlight on Jewish Democrats.

“[Obama] truly believes this is a good deal, and I accept that,” said Representative Alan Lowenthal, a Jewish Democrat of California who is undecided. “Now, I have to get there.”

And Ben Cardin of Maryland is also a big Jewish supporter of Israel:

Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he had spoken at length with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel just before the Iran deal was announced. But the ambassadors of the Western powers that signed on to the deal met with the committee’s leaders on Tuesday.

The rightwing Israeli publication Arutz Sheva piece was even more explicit: “Jewish Democrats Must Choose Obama or Israel”. Its analysis also mentioned Jewish “loyalty to Israel.”

There are 18 Jewish legislators acting on behalf of the Democratic Party in the US Congress, and they are perhaps the key to victory on both sides – for both opponents of the agreement with Iran and its supporters.

“Everyone is looking for us,” Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D – California), who is Jewish, told Arutz Sheva.  “Last week I met with a J Street lobby that tried to explain how good the agreement is at this point in time, and next week AIPAC officials will be here – I guess to push exactly the opposite position.”

Lowenthal faces a difficult dilemma.

“You have to make a decision regarding the transaction, and the situation is very tense. On the one hand Israel says the deal is not good, on the other hand the president says so.”

Alan Lowenthal and another 17 like him will be forced to make the painful decision between loyalty to Israel and loyalty to US President Barack Obama’s Democratic party.

On one side is loyalty to Israel, which has rallied repeatedly against the agreement saying that it would jeopardize its security. On the other hand they are members of the party of the American president, who was an initiator of the deal with the government in Tehran and its enthusiastic supporter.

Meanwhile, various lobbying groups are actively pursuing Jewish legislators, particularly groups aiming to rally opposition to the agreement.

Lara Friedman of Peace Now, which has been lobbying in favor of the deal, was appalled by the piece:

If this was in a non-Jewish publication, the explicit appeal to dual loyalties would be condemned as anti-Semitic.

While MJ Rosenberg wrote that the lobby group leading the assault on the Iran deal is a foreign agent.

I worked at AIPAC from 73-75 and 82-86. All the marching orders come from the Israeli government.

AIPAC lives in terror of being seen as an agent of a foreign govt which it is. Its billionaires don’t call the shots: the PM of Israel does.

Rosenberg has always said that if a choice is framed in that manner — loyalty to Israel or loyalty to the U.S. — American Jews will support the U.S. That idea is certainly borne out by the Jewish Journal polling showing that American Jews are overwhelmingly for the deal, even though many see it as harming Israel.

President Obama himself issued a dog whistle on the dual loyalty issue in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars a week ago, boosting the deal.

In the debate over this deal, we’re hearing the echoes of some of the same policies and mindset that failed us in the past.  Some of the same politicians and pundits that are so quick to reject the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program are the same folks who were so quick to go to war in Iraq, and said it would take a few months.  And we know the consequences of that choice and what it cost us in blood and treasure.

He’s talking about many Israel supporters. As Sec’y of State John Kerry said in rebuking Netanyahu last spring, Netanyahu pushed the Iraq war, and it was a disaster for the U.S.

I think this discussion is necessary. If the Iraq war had been described in the mainstream as a war that served Israel’s interests but could only hurt the American people, Chuck Schumer probably would have voted against it. But it was never framed in that manner.

Now the Iran deal is getting that treatment: it is being described as something that’s good for Israel not the U.S. So Schumer will end up supporting it.

And when the deal succeeds, the Israel lobby will be reconstituted. AIPAC will be left with the Republicans; and J Street, a Zionist organization that has worked hard for the deal, will become the voice for Israel inside the Democratic Party.

When that happens, the liberal Zionists will lose their neoconservative sparring partners inside the Democratic Party; and that party will become the staging ground for a battle between Zionists and anti-Zionists in American life. I can’t wait. I bought my ticket a long time ago.

Thanks to Peter Voskamp.

65 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yes, yes and yes. Great sweeping review. Jewish sociology matters, like it or not.

I also think this reverberates beyond foreign policy. Think of how deeply interconnected major Jewish orgs are in things like police violence(receiving police officers from America to train in Tel Aviv) or surveillance on muslims. Something the ADL, the AJC and the conference of presidents have all staunchly supported.

And now notice the upsurge against these old orgs from younger, more idealistic groups. Zionism is part of this story, but it is only a part.

I read a very touching profile of the Rosenwald schools, a single Jewish self-made man built over 5000 schools for black children in the Jim Crow south. That is the kind of community that once existed and there is a feeling it is now lost, replaced by bigots like Abe Foxman.

People are fighting to bring back true social justice values. Not just abroad, but at home, too.

RE: Three days ago, demonstrators at the rally to kill the deal in New York’s Times Square taunted Schumer, holding up signs saying “Schumer is no Shomer.”
“He should be the guardian of the Jewish people,” the guy in the photo above told me.
“But he’s a U.S. senator, is that a problem?” I asked.
“It’s not a problem. He has to use his position to help the Jewish state.”

PUT ANOTHER WAY: Schumer, being a Jew, must use his position to “take part in [Israel’s] war[s]”* ! ! !

* SEE: ‘For the first time in history, Jews can take part in war from home’ | By Noam Sheizaf | +972 Magazine | July 21, 2015
Avi Benayahu, who served as IDF Spokesperson during both Operation Cast Lead and the Mavi Marmara incident, explains his worldview and tactics in a lecture obtained by +972 Magazine, including how he sent army officers pretending to be civilians onto foreign television news.

Until Brigadier-General (ret.) Avi Benayahu was appointed to be the IDF Spokesperson in 2007, the unit did little more than send Israeli newspapers photos of soldiers celebrating Passover. But between 2007 and 2011, Benayahu — then-Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s right-hand — revolutionized the antiquated unit, transforming it into one of Israel’s leading “hasbara” (propaganda, or “public diplomacy”) outfits. The unit’s methods and aims still rely heavily on his work. . .

. . . The IDF Spokesperson’s central role, Benayahu told the students, is to preserve both local and international legitimacy for the IDF’s actions. The challenge is that the world expects the IDF to operate according to its own ethical code. The IDF, however, has long since changed its policy: now it prefers to kill uninvolved Palestinian civilians rather than put its own troops in harm’s way.

When it comes to hasbara you need to align your expectations with that of the public. […] the world says to us:

’The Bible is your book, the Jewish people’s morals are yours, the Declaration of Independence is yours, the IDF’s Code of Ethics, which you wrote. Everything you hang on the walls (The Declaration of Independence and the IDF’s Code of Ethics are displayed in every army classroom – N.S.) — we won’t tolerate a gap between what you wrote and what is happening on the ground. Therefore, we need to change what’s on the wall. . .

. . . Benayahu explained how in order to increase the effectiveness of his messaging he would place military officers posing as civilian commentators for foreign media consumption, without ever letting the television networks know. A foreign audience, he said will receive messages by eloquent civilians far better than those delivered by a field officer with broken English:

A 58-year-old American man who comes home from work in Albuquerque or St. Louis, relaxes with a Budweiser and turns on the TV and sees that three kids were killed in the West Bank, and some colonel is trying to explain in basic English — that’s no good. Often times, that is what we had As the IDF Spokesperson, I came with a lot more knowledge, experience and authority, because of my previous roles. I wasn’t afraid to make difficult, unpopular decisions. For example, I took former Ambassador Zalman Shoval, a who was a reserve officer in the First Lebanon War, a lieutenant-colonel in hasbara. I took his uniform from him, a field uniform, and I told him ‘put this in the back of your car.’ I told him you’re going to do your reserve service in the Spokesperson’s Unit, but in civilian clothes on foreign television stations… Some of the lesser-known IDF Spokesperson reservists appeared on American and European [television networks] without uniform. Without ranks of colonel or general — it’s not okay, it’s a little fraudulent because it is a general or a colonel — but in war one can do such things.

Another important initiative Benayahu implemented was using Israeli religious envoys to Chabad and Jewish community centers abroad to push the army’s talking points. This strategy is in line with the new approach in Israel, which views the diaspora and all of its institutions as a vehicle for promoting and lobbying for Israeli policies. Benayahu explicitly refers to organizations such as Hillel as agents of the army’s PR machine. In effect, diaspora Jews are asked to “participate in the war effort from home.” He even oversaw the development of software designed to make that more efficient. . .

ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://972mag.com/for-the-first-time-in-history-jews-can-take-part-in-war-from-home/109087/

RE: “Natan Sharansky of Israel writes that American Jews defied Nixon during the detente era: ‘Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran… A critical question is, who, if anyone, will have the vision and courage to be the next Sens. [Henry] Jackson and [Jacob] Javits’.” ~ Weiss

SEE: “Nixon and the Jews. Again.” ~ By David Greenberg, Slate.com, 3/02/02

[EXCERPT] As in the past, the recent reports of Nixon’s Jew-bashing were followed by professions of shock. (The Anti-Defamation League’s press release is here.) Such shows of indignation are probably on balance a good thing, reaffirming as they do that the president shouldn’t be seeking revenge against a particular ethnic group. Yet they also betray either an incredibly short memory or a measure of disingenuousness. Have journalists forgotten the identical slurs heard on earlier tapes? Or the stories in 1994 reporting that, according to Haldeman’s then-just-published diaries, Graham spoke to Nixon of “Satanic” Jews? Nixon’s loyalists are no less opportunistic. For them the periodic disclosures serve as occasions to pen op-eds explaining why their benefactor, despite the slurs, really wasn’t a Jew-hater. (The late Herb Stein, Nixon’s [Jewish] chief economist, wrote one of these apologias in Slate.)

Defending Nixon from charges of anti-Semitism has occupied his supporters for a half-century. The accusations date to the postwar years, when the American right remained closely tied to the unvarnished anti-Semites of the ’30s who railed against the “Jew Deal.” Although Nixon never publicly voiced any of this old-fashioned bigotry, some of his political kinsmen did, and his strident anti-communism played with the Jew-hating fringe. (Extreme anti-communism always contained an anti-Semitic component: Radical, alien Jews, in their demonology, orchestrated the Communist conspiracy.) In Nixon’s early campaigns, anti-Semitism was a latent theme.

When the Republicans nominated Nixon as their vice-presidential candidate in 1952, some opponents accused him of anti-Semitism. Nixon had Murray Chotiner, his (Jewish) campaign manager, secure the ADL’s stamp of approval.* Still, into the summer voters inundated campaign headquarters with letters asking about Nixon’s feelings toward Jews. . .

ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/03/nixon_and_the_jews_again.html

* P.S. ■ ADL’s Foxman: Nixon Was Anti-Semitic Despite Support of Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekEkXDs6Ks
P.S. THANKS NEWSMAX! ! !

RE: “As Sec’y of State John Kerry said in rebuking Netanyahu last spring, Netanyahu pushed the Iraq war, and it was a disaster for the U.S.”

■ Netanyahu: If you take out Saddam, I GUARANTEE you will see enormous positive reverberations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM

I have a stupid question. MJ Rosenberg worked with AIPAC for many years. Did he ever TRULY reveal the inner workings of AIPAC or provide some really worthwhile documents a la Snowden?

I’d like a pointer to such documents if he did.

I’d like to know why if he did not.