Last night on PBS’s News Hour, in a report on Why the Iranian nuclear talks fell apart, host Gwen Ifill repeatedly raised issues about Netanyahu’s intervention in the American political process. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a mainstream journalist be so straightforward about the role of the Israel lobby in U.S. policy-making. Ifill expressed surprise at the number of politicians who were echoing Israel’s concerns, and suggested that Israel was interfering. Excerpt:
GWEN IFILL: Was the U.S. surprised that [the deal] felt apart?
MARGARET WARNER: Yes…. And the U.S. was — it’s no surprise that France has always been the most hawkish in their private discussions, based on their long history of negotiating with Iran. They become very close to Israel and so on. But to be publicly blindsided by Foreign Minister Fabius, that did come, I’m told, as a surprise. And now the administration has to figure out how to not let that happen again.
GWEN IFILL: Well, it’s clear that Israel was not — Netanyahu wasn’t ever going to be on board. How much of this was changed because of his insistence that this was a bad deal, not only to his allies who were there in Geneva, but also here in the U.S. dealing with our domestic concerns about Israel?
MARGARET WARNER: I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s objections and role cannot be overstated or underestimated, or shouldn’t be, here.
He’s had a drumbeat, as you said, of talking to people not only in the administration, but to people on the Hill. And he confirmed suspicions yesterday he called most of these European leaders. And he went from expressing — saying, well, don’t do a premature deal, which is one that would enable Iran to keep enriching, to yesterday saying he had been given the outlines of the deal by his American sources and that indeed was what the deal was going to do….
GWEN IFILL: I was interested to see U.S. senators coming out and saying and even governors coming out and saying this is a bad deal over the last two days, which suggested that someone was suggesting to them this was a bad deal who was not in the administration.
MARGARET WARNER: Yes.
GWEN IFILL: So when John Kerry gets back to the United States from this trip, what’s his first goal, to win them over?
MARGARET WARNER: He’s going — exactly. He’s going right to the Hill.
Contrast Ifill’s independence with David Gregory on Meet the Press Sunday, quizzing John Kerry about why the U.S. was considering such a deal with Iran. Gregory acted as a pipeline for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, five or six times citing Israeli concerns and describing Iran as double-dealers.
Here are excerpts of David Gregory’s questions, in which I highlight his Israel-centric thrust:
QUESTION: The reporting is that the French thought it wasn’t tough enough on the Iranians. And you know the history – as the Israeli Prime Minister called Rouhani as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That this is what they do. They double play; they play for time; while they keep producing, they try to win the confidence of the West, and they can play games….
QUESTION: Let me play you a comment that I think gets to the ultimate question of what does it mean to get it right. …The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been outspoken about this this week. He was on this program late last month and this is what he said about the prospect of a deal with Iran. I want you to listen and I’ll get your reaction on the other side.
PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the pressure has to be maintained on Iran, even increased on Iran, until it actually stops the nuclear program – that is, dismantles it. I think that any partial deal could end up in dissolving the sanctions. There are a lot of countries that are waiting for a signal – just waiting for a signal – to get rid of their sanctions regime.
QUESTION: So a couple of points there. You want them to stop their weapons program. Others, like the Israeli Prime Minister, are saying no, they’ve got to dismantle their infrastructure before they get the kind of economic relief that is part of this deal…
QUESTION: If the only reason they’re coming to the table now is because they feel the economic pain of sanctions– it’s not just the Israelis, it’s the Saudis, it’s Republicans in Congress who have said — if that’s the only reason they’re coming to the table, what’s the rush?…
QUESTION: There is a broader criticism that goes beyond this that no doubt you’ve confronted in your extensive travels throughout that region. And let me sum it up this way. It amounts to this criticism that the President appears reluctant to exercise power on the world stage. It’s not just Israel……
Update: USA Today is also reflecting Ifill’s concern. An editorial today.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate, where Netanyahu enjoys more influence than any foreign leader should, key senators were threatening to move ahead with legislation that would tighten sanctions, an in-your-face response that almost certainly would kill the Iranian attempt at outreach before it can be explored.
Thanks to Scott McConnell.
Warner and Ifill. I don’t know who they are, but they BOTH broke the rules of political correctness (AIPAC’s rules). Good to hear it. It could have been more pointed, perhaps, and perhaps it will be another time — if they both survive the fall out.
OK, Phil, so let’s say that there is no Netanyahu calling GOP members on the Hill. Do you think they endorse this plan to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium? Do you think Netanyahu is the only foreign leader who would use his connections on the Hill to act in the best interests of his country?
I too am critical of Netanyahu’s role in the American political process, which I think is amplified because he spent a lot of time here in the States and speaks good English. But I doubt he’s the only reason these guys are criticizing the deal. They don’t exactly have a pro-Obama track record.
There’s an interesting blog post on the Sinosphere section of the New York Times describing Israel’s push to get closer to China (and to a much lesser extent India).
Dore Gold, a neocon from America, is the lobbyist in China doing the heavy work. The interesting thing that the author notices is how badly stained Israel is these days and writes this as-a-matter-of-factly:
If you cross out the word ‘Israel’, you’d be forgiven for thinking that he’s talking about a gross human rights violater run by a semi-fascistic leadership.
As I read the comments of that piece, I’m reminded of your article. After all, why is Bibi so influential in the senate? Why is he constantly on Face the nation and similar programs? No other foreign PM is on the TV screen as often as he is.
And the answer is partly AIPAC but also deeply felt Zionist sympathies for many journalists and editors(like David Gregory or Bob Schieffer).
India and China do not have an AIPAC and I doubt they’d allow one, particularly China where party control is everything. So how will Israel compete? Remember that realists have been saying Israel is an albatross around America’s neck since 20 years ago. It’s doubtful that China will make any other rational analysis of a country that is deeply unliked for its Apartheid policies by the region’s oil-producing countries.
And as for high-tech or whatnot. Most Israel high tech is sold to America once/if it becomes successful. If that changes to China, will it make a big difference? As one commenter pointed out, Chinese tech is already on par with America’s. So what’s left for Israel? The leaders of renewable energy and efficiency are in Scandinavia. Agriculture is most advanced within in America and to a lesser extent countries like France that produces a lot of food for export.
Not to mention that Iran, the greatest enemy of Israel in the Middle East, is a very important supplier of oil to China and India.
I think Israel is going to get cut off faster from America than it anticipates. This blind-siding of Israel we saw last weekend is only the logical conclusion of a secular shift away from America’s perspective. No AIPAC in China and India means Israel will become much more downsized. They won’t support attacks on Iran, a very important oil source.
Is Netanyahu overplaying his hand again? On Face the Nation Sunday, where he made his case directly to the US public, Norah O’Donnell warily asked him a follow-up question: “are you lobbying against this deal?” Of course, to say the least, came the reply, or words to that effect. It was Anti-Semitic to notice it until it’s now too obvious to mention. I.e., don’t talk about it so much.
But it has become explicit, with Netanyahu embarrassing the entire P5+1 by derailing their deal at the last minute, and with him using his power openly, recklessly, and in service of a totally different reality.
In this environment, how is that the NewsHour and other outlets continue to give Sheldon Adelson a pass on recommending that the US “negotiate” by nuking the Iranian desert. Sheldon Adelson who funds think tanks, is a big donor to Netanyahu and owns the largest newspaper in Israel, which he gives away for free, and who sought to buy the election for Newt Gingrich and then Mitt Romney in 2012. I would have liked to have seen Norah O’Donnell quote Adelson to Netanyahu and ask him if he thinks Adelson’s is the better approach to Iran than the P5+1’s.
And how about that WINEP speaker last year complaining about how hard it’s turning out to be to start a US war with Iran? Remembering the Maine. Saying maybe one of their submarines goes down and doesn’t come up? Since the lobbying is now out in the open, how do journalists NOT shine their light on the whole war-mongering endeavor? Asking is the Likud government in Israel interested in peace? or in wars of aggression blamed on the victims as a basis to maintain power and expand settlements? Interviewing past heads of Mossad on their disagreements with Likud.
Luckily, it’s all collected for them in the pages of Mondoweiss. They just need to start doing their jobs.
Still not direct enough to suit me.
To end all this and flush it out of our government you have to talk about it as what it is—-> foreign subversion of US interest by a foreign country’s lobby and their bought politicians in the US.
Criticism of Israel in just ‘disagreements and interferences’ on this and that ‘assorted and seperate issues’ as they come up doesnt present the total package and extent of the Isr Lobby and other foreign lobbies problem in US.
The msm and press need to be more blunt and outraged about this.
The US public knows about how their welfare is affected by elite domestic special interest but I dont think the majority have any idea the foreign interest lobbying that affect war, peace, US policy and to who their overseas tax money goes to and why.
I doubt a round table discussion on this topic will ever appear on the msm any time soon. The media itself is too complict in this, they present foreign lobbist and special foreign interest mouthpieces as ‘legitimate’ spokespeople for US policy when they are anything but.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64941/john-newhouse/diplomacy-inc
Diplomacy, Inc. The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy