Trending Topics:

Pelosi says Iran deal has the votes, and Podhoretz urges Israel to attack Iran

US Politics
on 57 Comments

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is “confident” that the House would be able to uphold the president’s veto of a potential Republican-backed bill to kill the deal.

“More and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, referring to members of the Democratic caucus. “They’ve done this not blindly but thoroughly,” as they examined the agreement over recent weeks.

Writes a friend:

Expect kabuki.

House votes as it feels.

Senate beats up on Obama.

House sustains veto. It’s over.

Israelis are waking up to their abandonment by the majority of US Jewry. Sort of the anti-67 War. Haaretz says the lobby is in crisis. Boldface mine:

Israel’s consul general in Philadelphia, Yaron Sideman, warned Jerusalem this week that the American Jewish community is divided over the nuclear agreement with Iran, and does not stand united behind Israel in the controversy.

The problem is that Israel has burned up its influence over the White House, and US Jews don’t want to be exposed as Israel supporters:

a CEO of one of the Jewish federations in the Philadelphia region told [Sideman] that in his view, Israel’s status vis-à-vis the Obama administration is at a low point, which could adversely affect the Jewish community.

He cited the Jewish leader telling him, “In the next year and a half (until the end of President Barack Obama’s term) Israel’s and the Jewish communities’ maneuvering space regarding advancing Israel’s interests is extremely limited to non existent.”

Even those who oppose the deal are reluctant to come forward because they will be seen to be advancing Israel’s interest over the U.S. interest. Nice play, Netanyahu.

The fear among major Jewish organizations that they will be drawn into the domestic U.S. political fray over the nuclear deal is prominent in statements released by both the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Both organizations have refrained from strongly attacking the nuclear agreement and defining it as a disaster, instead leading the public to believe that they instead have misgivings over large parts of the agreement, and that they hope that Congress will review it in depth. The U.S. Reform movement, too, issued a convoluted statement that fell short of taking a decisive stance on the agreement.

Norman Podhoretz has never had this problem. He became a neoconservative because he wanted a big U.S. military budget to support Israel. Now he sees the writing on the wall and calls for an Israeli attack on Iran, in Wall Street Journal:

I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.

Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb. And when it does, the Israelis will be forced to decide whether to wait for a nuclear attack and then to retaliate out of the rubble, or to pre-empt with a nuclear strike of their own. But the Iranians will be faced with the same dilemma. Under these unprecedentedly hair-trigger circumstances, it will take no time before one of them tries to beat the other to the punch.

And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb

Oh and here is the ultimate chutzpah, right up there with killing your parents and asking for a light sentence because you’re an orphan. In a call to Israel supporters, Bret Stephens says that lawmakers should kill the Iran deal because if they support it, it will haunt them the same way voting for the Iraq war has haunted them. Stephens pushed that disastrous war. Oh and Stephens threatens their financial contributions, too. Glenn Greenwald has the clip:

Someone should say, “this is going to be like your vote for the Iraq War. This is going to come back to haunt you. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt you. Because as Iran cheats, as Iran becomes more powerful, and Iran will be both of those things, you will be held to account. This vote will be a stain. You will have to walk away from it at some point or another. You will have to explain it. And some of you may in fact lose your seats because of your vote for this deal. You’ll certainly lose a lot of financial support from some of your previous supporters.”

Another update. Grace Meng, Congresswoman representing Queens, has come out against the deal as “dangerous for the American people.” AIPAC links her announcement:

I believe the inspections procedures set forth are flawed – leading nuclear experts assert that… Finally, the immediate sanctions relief provided Iran in the deal would incentivize the funding of terrorism and lessen Iran’s interest in restraining its nuclear ambitions over the long term.

I commend President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but the deal before us now is simply too dangerous for the American people. I have every confidence a better deal can be realized.

Peter Feld writes.

During 2012 election @RepGraceMeng attacked @POTUS: “could have been—and still can be—a greater friend to Israel.”

Scott Roth writes:

I’ll bet fifty bucks that @RepGraceMeng gets her marching orders from @RepSteveIsrael.

Here Meng is at a Stand By Israel rally during the Gaza war last summer talking about the “harrowing times” Israel is living through, and her visit to Sderot under rocket fire from Gaza. Not a word about Palestinian human rights. But she is very concerned about anti-Semitism globally.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. just
    just
    July 30, 2015, 1:05 pm

    “Podhoretz urges Israel to attack Iran”

    Go ahead. Then massive sanctions and lasting international condemnation will follow. Israel will be the pariah that I already believe it is. Scores of dead innocent Iranians will be sacrificed for Israel’s unfounded paranoia. The reaction from Iran will not be measured, and rightly so. The reaction from the ME and others will not be measured either. All intelligence agencies,etc. have verified Iran’s status and capabilities, so Israel will be isolated and alone in any “attack”. It will be an illegal attack, since Iran has done nothing to Israel.

    Lastly, Israel has nukes. Iran does not and will not. Norman Podhoretz is still a madman.

    Wow~ updates. Meng is a mystery to me. Perhaps she got her Zionist bona fides at Yeshiva U.

    • just
      just
      July 30, 2015, 2:17 pm

      Greenwald’s linked piece is great~ thanks Phil.

      I really appreciated this from it:

      “The answer to that question illustrates why the surface “debate” over the Iran deal is so illusory and pointless: As usual with neocons, they are being deceitful about their actual intent. They don’t want a “better deal”: at least not one that’s plausible. They want to keep Iran isolated and demonized and ultimately to depose its leadership through war or other means of aggression. They hate the Iran deal precisely because it’s likely to avert that aggression and normalize the world’s relations with that country, making the war they’ve long craved much less likely.”

      PS~ Bret Stephens is The Thing of nightmares. Why do all the folks who brought and sold Iraq still hold sway???

    • ckg
      ckg
      July 30, 2015, 3:10 pm

      Completely lacking in self awareness, Grace Meng once explained to Washington Jewish Weekly why she has worked to strongly oppose BDS: “I think that it’s important that we do whatever we can to stand against demonstrations of hate and ignorance and to me that’s what it is.”

    • Chu
      Chu
      July 30, 2015, 4:51 pm

      They could never use nukes. It would be over for them and would completely
      dismantle the apartheid state of Israel.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 30, 2015, 7:43 pm

        “They could never use nukes. “

        Israel has an illegal, uncontrolled nuclear arsenal. It is in their own interest to hide bits of it here and there, even “lose” some of the weapons. It is in their interest to not have the weapons under fail-safe control of the GOI.
        It won’t be the GOI which chucks a tactical nuclear weapon at somebody. No, the GOI will be apologizing for the “crazed officer” (who, surprise, surprise turns out to be a right-wing religious-settler) before the nuke even hits the target. They will assure us he’ll be arrested.

      • Kris
        Kris
        July 30, 2015, 9:15 pm

        @Mooser: “It won’t be the GOI which chucks a tactical nuclear weapon at somebody. No, the GOI will be apologizing for the “crazed officer” (who, surprise, surprise turns out to be a right-wing religious-settler) before the nuke even hits the target. They will assure us he’ll be arrested.”

        Exactly right. It has worked for them before–the GOI felt just awful about their murderous attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.

      • Chu
        Chu
        July 31, 2015, 11:33 am

        It’s scary to think about it. – I could see some gov’t nut
        falling on the sword to eliminate more enemies of Israel.

        and since their nuke program is classified, we don’t even know what
        the protocols are for launching one. I assume a host of clearances
        are req’d, but who knows in crazy town.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 31, 2015, 12:21 pm

        “and since their nuke program is classified, we don’t even know what
        the protocols are for launching one.”

        Protocols? All they need is a sign from God!

  2. eljay
    eljay
    July 30, 2015, 1:24 pm

    Norman Podhoretz: … I remain convinced that … the two choices before us are … a conventional war now or a nuclear war later. …

    1. Norm, what is it with you Zio-supremacists that you can’t refrain from routinely making existential threats against Iran?

    2. Given that you are openly calling for war against Iran, you agree that Iran has every right…
    – to develop nuclear weapons for defensive purposes; and
    – to launch pre-emptive self-defence attacks,
    …right? If not, why not, Norm? You’re not some sort of Zio-supremacist hypocrite, are you, Norm?

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      July 30, 2015, 5:27 pm

      I actually agree 100% with Podhoretz when he writes:

      Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb.

      If Israel doesn’t attack, nobody will. And Iran will certainly get the bomb under the agreement, together with 100 billion dollars in unlocked money + higher growth in the next ten years. That will allow them to shrink their military distance to Israel drastically, something Podhoretz and the neocons fear.

      Where he goes off the rails is his “conventional war now vs nuclear war later” BS.
      It’s hard to say if he says that for effect or if he believes his own BS. Don’t underestimate the ability of liars of ending up beliving their own lies, though.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        July 30, 2015, 11:06 pm

        I think he assumes if Israel attacks Iran the US Congress will immediately resolve authority for USA to join Israel’s battle in every way.

      • Frankie P
        Frankie P
        July 31, 2015, 12:57 am

        So Krauss, you agree with part of the Pud’s statement, but you don’t say if Iran getting the bomb is such a catastrophe. Is it? I don’t think so. Iran would NEVER use a nuclear weapon against Israel. Let’s be honest. Israel (and the Pud) wants to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear deterrence. Israel (and the Pud) also wants to prevent Iran from getting its unlocked money and higher growth in the next ten years. Israel (and the Pud) also wants to prevent Iran from shrinking its military distance to Israel. You mention these issues, but do you also want to prevent these things? I am curious. Do you too feel that those “crazy mullahs” can’t be trusted? I feel that a strong Iran will be a good in the world.
        Frankie P

    • biggerjake
      biggerjake
      July 31, 2015, 6:23 pm

      Dear Norman,

      I remain convinced that this constant war mongering by the neo-cons like you is actually hate speech. It is an attempt to incite violence. According to the Supreme Court that type of speech is not protected by the first amendment and is a crime.

      I remain convinced that containment of you neo-cons is impossible, from which it follows that the choices before us are not to arrest these neo-con speech makers or to “neutralize” them but rather how we should “neutralize” them.

      And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond if these violence inciting neo-cons are allowed to continue urging Israel to attack Iran. There is only one solution to this problem…

  3. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    July 30, 2015, 1:28 pm

    That Neocons have since the 90s and before have steadfastly craved war with Iran, Iraq, Syria is indisputable. Why they haven’t been held accountable as irresponsible war mongers is hard to accept. Maybe there need to be crowds of wounded veterans picketing their offices, demanding accountability for Neocon lies.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 30, 2015, 4:02 pm

      The wounded vets are too ignorant to grasp what you say; always a problem with cannon fodder.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      Atlantaiconoclast
      July 31, 2015, 12:43 am

      Partly because too many progressives and NPR media types are constantly framing conflict in the ME with a neo con or neo liberal frame. How Iran gets blamed for Syria is a major example. Even blaming Assad is a stretch. If the US or Israel were in a civil war with any group, much less non moderate Islamic “rebels,” they would make Assad look like Mr Rodgers. Abe Lincoln was quite merciless in attacking the South, yet is a civic god and neocon hero today.

      • annie
        annie
        July 31, 2015, 1:36 am

        too many progressives and NPR media types are constantly framing conflict in the ME with a neo con or neo liberal frame.

        really? do tell.

      • dmm
        dmm
        July 31, 2015, 2:21 am

        Yes, that’s right, Atlanta, modern American actions are *just like* Sherman’s burning of the South or Assad’s gas attacks. In Bosnia, and Libya, and Iraq, we were such monsters, unleashing weapons of mass destruction and burning villages to the ground. Oooooo, those nasty Americans! :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        Atlantaiconoclast
        July 31, 2015, 10:49 am

        Assad’s gas attacks? The evidence shows that the rebels did that.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        Atlantaiconoclast
        July 31, 2015, 10:54 am

        Annie, I didn’t mean to imply that most progressives are using neocon frames, but too many do, especially journalists/commentators at msnbc and npr. Every time I hear Syria discussed there, the focus is on Iran and the Assad regime, and never on Al nusra or the fact that the Syrian regime is a secular force fighting for it’s life against Islamists.

      • annie
        annie
        July 31, 2015, 11:11 am

        i think perhaps i misunderstood your meaning atlanta because i don’t regard almost any msm as “progressive”. i would agree most all msm starts from a premise of a neocon or neoliberal viewpoint (including npr of course which i, personally, don’t consider progressive) and occasionally a pundit or host may interject non neocon/neoliberal framing. but that’s not usually the case.

    • dmm
      dmm
      July 31, 2015, 2:27 am

      “Why they haven’t been held accountable….”

      Oh! YOU’RE THE ONE! *You’re* the guy who didn’t hear how Hillary and most other Dems (29 – 21) voted for the Iraq war because our intelligence said the Iraqis had WMDs…

  4. amigo
    amigo
    July 30, 2015, 1:45 pm

    “And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb -” Podhoretz.

    The deal on the table ensures a temporary halt without any one dying but war mongers like Podhoretz can,t live with that.They want blood–Iranian blood to preserve Israeli hegemony in the region he claims to be so concerned about.Most experts state that if Iran is attacked by Israel then Iran “Will” develope the bomb and will have every right to do so.

    Will someone save us from slime like Podhoretz.How many of his grandchildren will be donning uniforms to go and defend Israel.

  5. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    July 30, 2015, 2:45 pm

    What Podhoretz is constantly urging is little different than what earned Julius Streicher the death penalty at Nuremberg:

    “Julius Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust, or the invasion of other nations. Yet his pivotal role in inciting the extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors’ judgment, to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal – which sat in Nuremberg, where Streicher had once been an unchallenged authority. Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years. In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher’s articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst Kaltenbrunner). They further argued that he kept them up when he was well aware Jews were being slaughtered. He was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946.”

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher#Trial_and_execution

  6. michelle
    michelle
    July 30, 2015, 2:52 pm

    .
    it seems like there might be a need for an adjustment made to the I-deal
    in the event that Iran is attacked the P5+1 will defend Iran with all means
    available
    .
    P5+1 must defend Iran or allow Iran the right to arm and defend itself as it sees fit
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

  7. hophmi
    hophmi
    July 30, 2015, 4:07 pm

    Because the end all and be all of supporting Israel is opposing the Iran deal. So to make his argument, Phil will find common cause with hard right-wingers, whom he detests. So Phil must believe that Iran aims to destroy Israel as they do.

    • just
      just
      July 30, 2015, 4:50 pm

      What might you be babbling about? You’re making no sense.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 30, 2015, 7:48 pm

        “Phil will find common cause with hard right-wingers, whom he detests”

        Phil finds common cause with Norman Podhertz? That’s not what I got out of the article, but your copy might be different.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 30, 2015, 7:59 pm

      “So Phil must believe that Iran aims to destroy Israel as they do.”

      Hophmi, just between you-‘n-me, you talk about Phil like, well, like you’ve been, ah, spurned, if you get my drift. Like you are about ready to hit him with a breach-of-promise suit. I can’t say you appear to your best advantage when you do that, you know?

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      July 31, 2015, 10:49 am

      Is it possible for you to focus on the subject and respond to the article, instead of always mentioning the writer? This fascination you have for Phil is getting lame.

      • just
        just
        July 31, 2015, 10:53 am

        Lame and borderline pathological, imho.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 2, 2015, 11:49 am

        “Lame and borderline pathological, imho.”

        “just”, you know how it is. There’s always some guy in this comment section who thinks he’s Witty.

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 3:53 pm

        Good one, Mooser!

  8. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    July 30, 2015, 8:00 pm

    RE: “Norman Podhoretz has never had this problem. He became a neoconservative because he wanted a big U.S. military budget to support Israel. Now he sees the writing on the wall and calls for an Israeli attack on Iran . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: I guess Norman “Poddy” Podhoretz has given up on prayer! ! ! *

    * GARY LEUPP: “. . . The neocons have been incessantly demanding a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities for years, particularly since their heyday during the George W. Bush years when neocon icon Norman Podhoretz publically prayed to Bush to bomb Iran. . . ”
    SOURCE – http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/29/the-neocons-won/

    P.S. Back in 2007 when there was a big push to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” (Norman Podhoretz was just a prayin’, and a prayin’, and a prayin’ that Bush would bomb Iran), our genius of a president (who saw his job as being responsible for “catapulting the propaganda”) repeatedly said one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Namely, that “you have to take a man at his word”. The “man” at that time being the all-purpose boogeyman Ahmadinejad, and “the word” being that “Israel should be wiped off the map”. Consequently, taking “the man” at “his [mistranslated] word” meant that Iran was an “existential threat” to Israel that needed to be eliminated.

    • dmm
      dmm
      July 31, 2015, 1:58 am

      More left-wing drivel about “mistranslation”. There was no mistranslation except in the fevered and feeble minds of liberals, who apparently are too illiterate to have heard or read of the many, many promises since that time from the mullahs themselves to destroy Israel. Apparently the age-old concept of destroying one’s enemy (which has fallen into disfavor only within relatively modern times) is too foreign for the left to regard as even possible. The notion that the *only thing* the mullahs are dreaming about is how Iran/Persia would be the Lion of the Middle East for the next thousand years if they defeated or destroyed Israel, is just too barbaric for these Miracle-Gro green-lawn Wonder Bread liberal suburbanites to fathom. It’s like listening to a bunch of children playing doctor, really. Not particularly bright children either, unfortunately.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        July 31, 2015, 7:13 am

        Lol, you excel in right wing drivel. Many many promises by the mullahs eh? Just quote us a few then. Ooh, you are just pining for that ‘right’ to destroy an enemy, any enemy will do, even a manufactured one. Who’s playing here, and who is not very bright?

      • talknic
        talknic
        July 31, 2015, 12:55 pm

        @ dmm

        ” too illiterate to have heard or read of the many, many promises since that time from the mullahs themselves to destroy Israel”

        Only an idiot thinks the repetition of a threat in the press is yet another threat.

        BTW the UNSC agrees with Iran on the illegal regime in Jerusalem. Is there any difference in the essence of the following two statements?

        1) “Israel must end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”

        2) “The occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of time”

        “Apparently the age-old concept of destroying one’s enemy (which has fallen into disfavor only within relatively modern times) is too foreign for the left to regard as even “

        No pal, we see it every time non-Jewish women and children are have nowhere to flee Israel’s US sponsored hi-tech human slaughtering equipment.

        ” … the mullahs are dreaming about is how Iran/Persia would be the Lion of the Middle East for the next thousand years if they defeated or destroyed Israel”

        Care to quote them … thx

  9. Qualtrough
    Qualtrough
    July 30, 2015, 11:07 pm

    I am glad to see that I am not the only one mystified by Hopfmi’s response here, nor the only one to think that he has some kind of personal fixation with Phil. The latter has been more pronounced as of late. Might be time for him to take a break and let the other hasbara regulars do some of the heavy lifting for a while?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 31, 2015, 11:14 am

      “Qualtrough”, go to Hophmi’s comment archive and word-search “Phil” or “Annie”.

      Hophmi is very jealous. Of Annie.

  10. Citizen
    Citizen
    July 30, 2015, 11:39 pm

    Podhoretz says Israel should bomb Iran, in the WSJ yet. And here, we have hophmi’s comment about Phil. Jeez.

  11. Atlantaiconoclast
    Atlantaiconoclast
    July 31, 2015, 12:36 am

    Aside from funding Hezbollah (which I consider a resistance, not a terrorism organization), what terrorism are people talking about when they repeatedly say that Iran is the chief world exporter of terror? How does Saudi Arabia miss out on that label? Even Israel supports an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Al Nusra. Iran and Hezbollah and the secular Syrian regime, not Israel, are fighting ISIS and Al Nusra.

  12. CigarGod
    CigarGod
    July 31, 2015, 9:55 am

    So, what kind of bomb is this guy talking about?
    Certainly not a conventional h-bomb…that would drop fallout across iran, afghanistan, pakistan and india…causing hundreds of thousands deaths.
    He must mean those little battle field nukes.
    I expect we”ll be hearing about little surgical nuke strikes with acceptable levels of collateral damage.
    He seems to think israel has a selection to choose from.

  13. RobertHenryEller
    RobertHenryEller
    July 31, 2015, 9:58 am

    Podheretz advocates Israel commit suicide. Even if Israel completely destroys Iran, and remains “viable,” Israel will be shunned by the community of nations. And even the United States would have to abandon Israel to itself.

    Podheretz is a crazy, obsessed, stupid and ignorant person. If influential people are actually taking Podheretz seriously, Podheretz is also dangerous.

    I’d go so far as to assert that Podheretz and his ilk are “existentially dangerous” to Israel, and probably to Jews and Judaism everywhere.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 31, 2015, 11:16 am

      “I’d go so far as to assert that Podheretz and his ilk are “existentially dangerous” to Israel, and probably to Jews and Judaism everywhere.”

      Yes, I can’t help noticing Israel has serious dual-loyalty problems.

  14. RobertHenryEller
    RobertHenryEller
    July 31, 2015, 10:06 am

    What Jewish Americans need to do is to, FINALLY, stand up for Judaism, even if that means speaking out against Zionism.

    Judaism and Zionism are not now, and never have been, the same thing.

    Real Jews must speak out for obeying ALL of the Ten Commandments, including those against lying, against stealing, against murder.

    Real Jews must speak out for practicing the teachings of Rabbi Hillel: The Golden Rule.

    Most Jewish Americans are actually MORE, not LESS, Jewish than most Israelis. Most Israelis are Zionists, and most do not actually believe or follow the Ten Commandments, let alone the teachings of Rabbi Hillel.

    If real Judaism has to survive without Israel, then so be it. Jewish Americans need to stand up first for Judaism, and second (if at all) for Zionism.

    Jewish Americans must also stand up for America – the country that actually allows Jews to be real Jews – which apparently Israel does not do.

    • CigarGod
      CigarGod
      July 31, 2015, 10:16 am

      Excellent. Spreading this post.

    • just
      just
      July 31, 2015, 10:26 am

      +10, RHE! Thank you.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      July 31, 2015, 10:53 am

      It is time to separate the zionists from those who are the true Jews. Just like the world separated the Nazis from the Germans and stopped the evil.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 31, 2015, 11:20 am

      “Real Jews must speak out for obeying ALL of the Ten Commandments, including those against lying, against stealing, against murder.”

      Hey, take it easy! What about us Reform Jews? You can’t expect the same things out of us you get from the Orthodox!

      Hows about this: Orthodox Jews, 10-out-of-ten, no excuses!
      Conservative, 8 is good enough, and I see no reason why we Reform should go above 50%, 5-out-of-ten, and we get to choose which ones.

      • RobertHenryEller
        RobertHenryEller
        July 31, 2015, 6:14 pm

        Mooser: I thought all Jews, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, all (supposedly) ascribe to all of the Ten Commandments, and all (supposedly) advocate the practice of Rabbi Hillel’s teachings.

        Am I wrong about this? Thanks.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 31, 2015, 7:17 pm

        “Am I wrong about this? Thanks.”

        So if I can’t live up to the Ten Commandments and Rabbi Hillel’s teachings, I might as well be a Zionist?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 2, 2015, 11:55 am

        Sometimes there isn’t a reply button for miles around, sometimes they are all over the place! Like the robins say about the tree in my yard: “This is bad nesting”

      • just
        just
        August 2, 2015, 3:51 pm

        lol, Mooser!

  15. RobertHenryEller
    RobertHenryEller
    July 31, 2015, 10:20 am

    He cited the Jewish leader telling him, “In the next year and a half (until the end of President Barack Obama’s term) Israel’s and the Jewish communities’ maneuvering space regarding advancing Israel’s interests is extremely limited to non existent.”

    False. Jewish Americans can always advance Israel’s REAL interests. What Jewish Americans can no longer do (And the way I read the sentiment of ALL Americans, including Jewish Americans), even after President Obama leaves office, is to advance the agenda of Zombie Zionist psychotic Likudnik-and-further-right Fascist racist maximalists.

    Why? Let’s be honest about Israel’s true agenda. Israel wants a single state, with as few Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims as possible. Israel may hope it can expel non-Jews from “Greater” Israel, but ultimately, Israelis don’t really care how they accomplish this. Whatever they can get away with works for them.

    Further, Israel’s vision of the only non-Israeli Middle East it can “live” with is a Middle East of militarily and economically neutered Arab/Muslim lands and peoples. Israel wants an entire Middle East region devoid of any military, economic, or diplomatic competition. Israelis for the most part to not regard Arabs/Muslims as human beings (Certainly true of Netanyahu, every Israeli to the right of Netanyahu, and a good number of Israelis to the “left” of Netanyahu.). Israelis will only feel “secure” when the rest of the Middle East is effectively a wasteland. Israel will feel secure as long as they remain the sole nuclear power, the vastly superior conventional military power, the dominant economic power.

    That is Israel’s true vision of a “peaceful” and “acceptable” Middle East.

  16. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    July 31, 2015, 12:33 pm

    Podhoretz is dangerous. There is a Strangelovian logic to what he is saying. Looking at the middle east as at a chess board has its virtues, but Podhoretz reveals the limitations. It is not a chess board and fighting wars, such as an attack on Iran that Podhoretz espouses what ever its possible logic, should give pause and Podhoretz takes no pause.

  17. just
    just
    July 31, 2015, 6:52 pm

    “Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal – now it’s Israel’s turn

    Javad Zarif

    If the Vienna deal is to mean anything, the whole of the Middle East must rid itself of weapons of mass destruction

    We – Iran and its interlocutors in the group of nations known as the P5+1 – have finally achieved the shared objective of turning the Iranian nuclear programme from an unnecessary crisis into a platform for cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and beyond. The nuclear deal reached in Vienna this month is not a ceiling but a solid foundation on which we must build. The joint comprehensive plan of action, as the accord is officially known, cements Iran’s status as a zone free of nuclear weapons. Now it is high time that we expand that zone to encompass the entire Middle East.

    Iran’s push for a ban on weapons of mass destruction in its regional neighbourhood has been consistent. The fact that it precedes Saddam Hussein’s systematic use of WMDs against Iran (never reciprocated in kind) is evidence of the depth of my country’s commitment to this noble cause. And while Iran has received the support of some of its Arab friends in this endeavour, Israel – home to the Middle East’s only nuclear weapons programme – has been the holdout. In the light of the historic nuclear deal, we must address this challenge head on.

    One of the many ironies of history is that non-nuclear-weapon states, like Iran, have actually done far more for the cause of non-proliferation in practice than nuclear-weapon states have done on paper. Iran and other nuclear have-nots have genuinely “walked the walk” in seeking to consolidate the non-proliferation regime. Meanwhile, states actually possessing these destructive weapons have hardly even “talked the talk”, while completely brushing off their disarmament obligations under the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    That is to say nothing of countries outside the NPT, or Israel, with an undeclared nuclear arsenal and a declared disdain towards non-proliferation, notwithstanding its absurd and alarmist campaign against the Iranian nuclear deal.

    Today, in light of the Vienna deal, it is high time that the nuclear “haves” remedied the gap by adopting serious disarmament measures and reinforcing the non-proliferation regime.

    It is time for the “haves” to finally come to terms with a crucial reality; we live in a globalised security environment. The cold war era asymmetry between states that possess nuclear weapons and those that don’t is no longer remotely tolerable.

    For too long, it has been assumed that the insane concept of mutually assured destruction would sustain stability and non-proliferation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prevalence of this deterrence doctrine in international relations has been the primary driving force behind the temptation by some countries to acquire nuclear weapons, and by others to engage in expanding and beefing up the strength of their nuclear arsenals. All this in blatant violation of the disarmament objectives set by the international community. …”

    more @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/31/iran-nuclear-deal-israel-vienna-treaty-middle-east-wmd

Leave a Reply