Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ and Chris Matthews are frank about Jewish role in Iran Deal debate

US Politics
on 50 Comments

This is excellent news. Both Chris Matthews and the New York Times are being explicit about the role of Israel as a political/emotional question for Democratic politicians struggling on the Iran Deal. Both news sources are addressing the Israel lobby as a force. Matthews even said that Chuck Schumer opposed the deal because he’s “going to defend the interests of Israel.”

First, here’s a story in The New York Times, “Wild Cards Remain as Democrats Add Supporters on Iran Deal.” Reporter Jonathan Weisman talks about the Dems who are agonizing without making a decision on the deal. The story goes right into the Who’s Jewish question:

Senator Gary Peters, a Michigan freshman, remains mum, even after Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the longest-serving Jewish House member, endorsed it, as did his respected brother, the recently retired chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin. Democrats are concerned that Mr. Peters’s chief of staff, Eric Feldman, who many Democrats said strongly supports the Israeli government, may be nudging him toward opposition.

Senator Ron Wyden, a mercurial member on many issues, is being buffeted between his Jewish roots and urban Oregon’s liberal voters already angry about his instrumental role in passing free trade legislation. His parents fled Nazi Germany.

Among the undecided senators, Democrats are closely watching for a signal from Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin said. Mr. Coons said he has spoken with Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and is pressing for assurances that the administration will bolster military efforts in the Middle East to defend Israel and counter Iran’s non-nuclear aggression.

This is excellent reporting and is honest about the centrality of Jewishness/Israel to the discussion. It explains why President Obama sent a long letter to Rep. Jerrold Nadler last week that was all about what Obama was doing for Israel to balance out the deal in the eyes of Israel-supporters and why Obama is speaking to the Jewish Federations’ audience on Friday.

The Times is saying that the Israel lobby is extremely powerful inside the Democratic Party in part because of the presence of influential Jews who are concerned about the Holocaust.

So we’re free to talk about the Holocaust and its shadow over American Jews. How large should the Jewish genocide be in our political conversation today? Are Jews persecuted in the west today? Are we likely to be? How did this history foster Zionism and blind us to the persecution of Palestinians? All these questions will come out soon, I promise you.

How fair is it that Wyden’s parents fleeing Nazi Germany has anything to do with our Middle East policy? The Holocaust was in Europe. Palestinians weren’t responsible. Imagine the Times saying Rep. McGuire’s ancestors fled the Potato Famine, and that’s sure to affect his decision on the trade agreement. You’d laugh. You don’t laugh here because– it’s a real factor in our politics, for a number of reasons, including historical memory and political fundraising.

Now here’s Chris Matthews. Last night he had a lively conversation about the Iran Deal politics with Republican strategist John Feehery and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart. Matthews taunted Feehery that he ought to turn foreign policy over to the Israeli Knesset, since Israel is the only issue for Republicans; and when Capehart tried to rationalize Chuck Schumer’s opposition to the deal as the product of close study, Matthews got impatient with him too.

“You’re underestimating the intelligence of our viewers,” he said. We all know why Schumer opposes the deal, he said, devotion to Israel.

Here’s some of the back and forth:

Matthews (to Feehery): What’s your problem with [the deal]?

Feehery: It alienates… it puts in danger our biggest ally in the region, which is Israel… I’d like a deal that Israel could sign off on.

Matthews: What deal would Netanyahu sign with Iran? Is it conceivable?

[Feehery then cites Democrat Chuck Schumer’s opposition.]

Matthews: He’s concerned about Israel. We know that.

Feehery: Israel thinks it’s a really bad deal.

Matthews: So why not turn it over to the Knesset then? Why even have a foreign policy in this country? Your argument is so single-minded. One issue. Of course that country is against it. And by the way in Israel there’s a mixture of opinion…. If [Schumer had] gone the other way, that would have been news.

Capehart: At least Senator Schumer waited for the deal to come out, sat in his Barcalounger in Brooklyn and read through the deal, had his concerns, and came out against it.

Matthews: I have no problem with Chuck Schumer, he made a decision… I understand.

Feehery: How can you say Chuck Schumer made the right decision and the Republicans made the wrong decision when they came to the same conclusion?

Capehart: The Republicans kneejerked their way into rejecting it.

Matthews: You’re underestimating the intelligence of our viewers…. Chuck Schumer’s going to defend the interests of Israel and it’s legitimate he do so. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Feehery: Why can’t our president do the same thing?

Matthews: He has other concerns.

A lot to unpack there, but Chris Matthews is saying a Jewish NY senator is allowed to be for Israel as his overruling concern; and maybe too that Schumer needs to raise money for his run to replace Harry Reid as Democratic leader. Matthews is impatient with Capehart’s mystification about the lobby. “You’re underestimating the intelligence of our viewers.” We all know the story. The media are way behind.

Now back to that Times report, whose second paragraph describes “a freshman senator from Michigan whose closest aide has a pro-Israeli government bent.” The chief of staff to Michigan Senator Gary Peters is Eric Feldman. He’s been at Senator Peters’s side for a long time, and is surely Jewish. From a Michigan Gannett paper:

Feldman has been Peters’ Chief of Staff during his three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives beginning in 2009. Prior to working for Peters, Feldman served as Policy Director for then-House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel.

“I am fortunate to have an experienced Michigan native like Eric Feldman as my Chief of Staff in Washington,” Peters said. “Eric cares deeply about Michigan and its residents, and over the last six years, he has proven that he can help me get things done for Michiganders and our middle class families.”

Rahm Emanuel was seen as an essential companion for Barack Obama; he was his Good Housekeeping Seal on the Israel question, because Emanuel was devoted to Israel. Now Emanuel’s protege shows up at the side of another ambitious non-Jewish midwestern politician. What is the power of the Israel lobby inside blue states? That is what’s going on here; and it’s going to be argued in next year’s primaries. Thanks to the growing candor of Chris Matthews and the New York Times, we’re going to talk about the Jewish generational attachment to Israel (Bernie Sanders) and whether that’s appropriate, realistic, moral.

By the way, the companion refrain to these reports about the lobby’s role is the effort to get everyone to stop talking about Israel and the Iran Deal. Write Charles Bronfman, Susie Gelman and Peter Joseph in Haaretz: “Ugly Summer for U.S. Jews as Iran Debate Morphs Into War.” They are upset that the media are discussing the lobby so openly.

What should be a legitimate heated debate over policy has become a fight over who is welcome under the American Jewish tent, and not only is it destroying the American Jewish community from the inside, it is playing into the hands of those who doubt Jewish motives and loyalty and whose anti-Semitism is apparent.

The problem with that argument is that when the Israel lobby groups “take orders from Netanyahu,” in the words of a leading Israeli journalist, or when a leading Jewish organization calls on Jews to heed Israel’s fears about the deal even if they are for it, the issue of whose interest you’re supporting is absolutely relevant. Even Chris Matthews is asking about outsourcing our foreign policy to the Knesset.

Bronfman, Gelman and Joseph continue:

the vicious internecine warfare and the focus on Jewish views and votes is creating the perception that the Iran issue revolves primarily around Israel, obscuring the fundamental fact that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present a global problem and not a parochial one.

But even the Times and President Obama are addressing Jews as super-voters on this question. This is at the end:

When the Iran deal debate has concluded, American Jews must be able to unite again in support of common positions, including ensuring Israel’s ironclad safety in a post-deal world, securing its future as a Jewish democracy, and maintaining a rock solid U.S.-Israel alliance.

So that’s what it’s about. Sticking together to support Israel. When many Americans want a different foreign policy. Including many Jews.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    August 25, 2015, 1:47 pm

    Today it was unaddressed, but I wonder when the fairy tale of Israel being the US’ biggest ally in the Middle East is starting to crack.

    Feehery: It alienates… it puts in danger our biggest ally in the region, which is Israel

    Today it would have been likely too much, but I see the day coming, when a “Feehery” gets a reply from a mainstream journalist like: “How can you say Israel is our biggest ally in the region. The relationship is totally one sided: Israel takes from the US, but doesn’t give much to the US. Isreal should be better described as our biggest burden in the region.”

    By the way, has anyone noticed this? Bloomberg:

    Obama Says He’s Ready to Take On ‘Crazies’ as Iran Vote Looms

    … “We were doing a little reminiscing and then figuring out how we’re going to deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems,” Obama said at a fundraiser for the Nevada State Democratic Party. … So who are “the crazies?” Obama didn’t say, specifically. A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry. … One guy who’s pretty sure he’s a crazy: Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, a conservative political magazine. “We ‘crazies’ wear his scorn as a badge of honor,’” Kristol tweeted on Tuesday. Kristol opposes the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-25/obama-says-he-s-ready-to-take-on-crazies-as-iran-vote-looms

    So, though Bloomberg is not that explicit on this, now “the Crazies” is a Presidential term. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people who understand who is referenced by this term. How many people don’t know this?

    “The Crazies Are Back”: Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Discusses How Wolfowitz & Allies Falsely Led the U.S. To War

    http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/17/the_crazies_are_back_bush_sr

    • lysias
      lysias
      August 25, 2015, 2:23 pm

      it puts in danger our biggest ally in the region, which is Israel

      Israel’s population is 8 million. Saudi Arabia’s is 29 million. Turkey’s is 78 million. Egypt’s is 89 million. Pakistan’s is 192 million.

      • eljay
        eljay
        August 25, 2015, 2:25 pm

        || lysias:

        it puts in danger our biggest ally in the region, which is Israel

        Israel’s population is 8 million. Saudi Arabia’s is 29 million. Turkey’s is 78 million. Pakistan’s is 192 million. ||

        “Biggest” as in “most fellate-able”.

      • Brewer
        Brewer
        August 25, 2015, 11:05 pm

        I was always under the impression “allies” were those who stand shoulder to shoulder in conflict. Now I’m not sure I can recall a conflict in which the IDF and U.S. armed forces did this.
        We (NZ) did – WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam (to my shame) then we got booted out of ANZUS for banning nuclear armed ships from our harbours:
        http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/32716-atl_0.jpg
        Strange old World.

      • jimby
        jimby
        August 26, 2015, 4:41 pm

        @ Brewer.. Didn’t the Israelis stand shoulder to shoulder with us at Abu Graib?

    • annie
      annie
      August 25, 2015, 4:04 pm

      thanks for your “crazies” reference and link bandolero.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        August 25, 2015, 6:14 pm

        Annie

        This seems to become a big story. Looking in Google News and Twitter there seem to be a lot of attention to Obama’s use of the term “The crazies”

        https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=The+Crazies

        https://twitter.com/search?q=The%20Crazies

        However, the crazies and their media seem trying to spin that Obama meant by the term “the crazies” all the opponents of the Iran deal. While I’m quite sure that the US intel community understands very well that the crazies is a reference to the crazy neocons and Likudniks I wonder whether the general US public understands that. It will be interesting to see whether Obama defends and explains his remarks about the crazies.

    • Dan Crowther
      Dan Crowther
      August 25, 2015, 5:04 pm

      Israel and the United states have no treaty between them they aren’t allies as such. Good to remember.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        August 25, 2015, 6:29 pm

        Yes the relationship is more of a parasite (them) on a weak host (us).

  2. ckg
    ckg
    August 25, 2015, 2:12 pm

    Senator Gary Peters, a Michigan freshman, remains mum, even after Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the longest-serving Jewish House member, endorsed it

    Last fall, two campaign workers knocked on my front door and asked me to support Peters and Levin. I explained that I intended to vote for Levin but was hesitant about Peters. I told them that his web site’s Israel section looked like it was written by AIPAC.

    • lysias
      lysias
      August 25, 2015, 3:29 pm

      At least some of the prostitutes were listed as living in the Dominican Republic.

      The Dominican Republic is notorious for having underage prostitutes.

      What better way to blackmail a politician?

    • annie
      annie
      August 25, 2015, 3:29 pm

      exciting!

    • lysias
      lysias
      August 25, 2015, 4:15 pm

      Be it noted that Menendez has the best legal defense Adelson’s money can buy: Menendez legal defense fund takes in $1.6M with Adelson’s help.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      August 25, 2015, 4:19 pm

      I have a strong feeling that the zionists in Israel have played a big role in hushing up this entire scandal before Menendez was elected, and may still be protecting him and supporting him, financially to get out of this mess. That is why he has, from the beginning of his term in office, been shamelessly and openly defying the President, and kissing up to Israel.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        August 25, 2015, 7:02 pm

        There is specific testimony from Kay Griggs, ex-wife of a U.S. Army director of assassination training, that the Israelis have been involved in systematic blackmailing of Congressmen using prostitutes. More details are in a comment here –
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/semitic-israel-lobby/comment-page-1#comment-788665

        (You may need to do a page search on “Griggs” if you don’t land on the right comment.)

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        August 25, 2015, 7:10 pm

        It is highly possible. Those junket trips for instance, is an ideal opportunity for that to happen.
        If this was true, I wish some brave blackmailed official would speak out and shame the devil.

        I wonder why a (most probably drunk) congressperson was caught swimming in the nude in the Dead sea, and why it seems to be hushed up so quickly. If it happened in any other nation, the media would have been having a field day discussing it, and we would have heard it in the late night comedy shows.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        August 25, 2015, 7:32 pm

        why a (most probably drunk) congressperson was caught swimming in the nude in the Dead sea, and why it seems to be hushed up so quickly. If it happened in any other nation, the media would have been having a field day discussing it

        The only nation where swimming unclothed or swimming drunk is newsworthy is the US. Perhaps Saudi, too?

    • ckg
      ckg
      August 25, 2015, 5:11 pm

      And if underage prostitutes are involved, Menendez can probably get Dershowitz to defend him pro bono.

      • lysias
        lysias
        August 25, 2015, 5:13 pm

        Especially if there’s a connection with Epstein (who lives in Palm Beach along with Menendez’s buddy the eye doctor).

      • ckg
        ckg
        August 25, 2015, 7:43 pm

        Palm Beach sure must be a fun town, lysias. Playboy Magazine ranks Miami among the top five ‘Sexiest Cities’ in the U.S. (Detroit ranks dead last because of weather and crime. But Playboy’s hometown of Chicago also ranks in the top five. Go figure.)

    • lysias
      lysias
      August 25, 2015, 5:16 pm
    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      August 25, 2015, 10:43 pm

      ruh roh

  3. Kris
    Kris
    August 25, 2015, 4:22 pm

    Israel is our frenemy, not our “ally.”

  4. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    August 25, 2015, 5:12 pm

    Glad you picked up on that Matthews, Feehery, Ball did not say much, Capehart exchange. I think Matthews covered his ass later after early in the exchange saying Schumer “He’s concerned about Israel. We know that” Later Matthews says that concern about Israel turned into a no vote for the Iran deal isl “legitimate.”

    We all know that vote is not “legitimate” at all. What other Rep could vote for what they believe is another countries national security sacrificing the national security of the U.S. and get away with it? What other country could this exclusive protection that Senator Schumer is elevating above U.S. National Security be applied to and get away with it? All of the Republicans and Dems voting against this deal should be called out on the carpet for this vote against the deal. The deal that most intelligence, foreign policy, security experts support.

    I keep bugging Matthews about having some real experts on his program to discuss Iran. Like the Leverett’s instead he sticks with MSNBC pundits. Safe. Just like Matthews covering his ass after that first statement about Schumer voting for concerns about Israel.

    When will someone call Schumer out for his lying statements on Up with Kornacki’s program where he said “he would vote for what is best for the U.S.” He lied.

    • JWalters
      JWalters
      August 25, 2015, 6:57 pm

      Keep bugging!

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        August 25, 2015, 10:51 pm

        Going on 14 years been bugging him and other talking heads. Challenged Matthews both times I talked with him in person. I can be polite. Once at the LIbby trial and once at the Dem convention in Denver. Both times talked with him for quite some time.

  5. Kay24
    Kay24
    August 25, 2015, 6:31 pm

    Looks like Prez Obama is getting a huge thumbs up:

    “WASHINGTON — Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced her support for the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, becoming the final member of the Senate’s main Democratic leadership team to weigh in on the agreement.

    The endorsement of Murray, the secretary of the Senate Democratic conference, brings the final tally to three party leaders in favor of the Iran deal and one against. Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) have stated their support, while Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y), the conference’s vice chair and policy committee chair, is opposed. And the news is another indication that the nuclear accord will survive in the Senate. The deal faces a critical vote in both houses of Congress when lawmakers return from recess in September.

    “After working my way through the details and the alternatives, losing a lot of sleep, and having a lot of good conversations with so many people — I am convinced that moving forward with this deal is the best chance we have at a strong diplomatic solution, it puts us in a stronger position no matter what Iran chooses to do, and it keeps all of our options on the table if Iran doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain,” Murray wrote in a statement.

    Among the holdouts in the Senate, Murray was one of the most critical of the deal, due to her leadership position and to the possibility that she will challenge Durbin for his position in the next Congress. She was considered a genuinely undecided vote within the White House and among fellow Senate Democrats” Huff post.

    Breaking away from the shackles of AIPAC.

  6. JWalters
    JWalters
    August 25, 2015, 6:55 pm

    I saw Matthews’ exchange and was very impressed. He’s becoming a real profile in courage, even though he’s only opening the door on the topic at this point. Hopefully he will embolden others in the mainstream media to speak up about what so many know so well, but are obviously being INTIMIDATED from speaking about. It’s obvious they are being intimidated because professional reporters and analysts could not possibly be as uninformed and shallow as they pretend to be. The unraveling of the coverup is now spreading from the internet to the mainstream, as has happened before. So we’ll be seeing more desperate measures from the criminals.

    • ckg
      ckg
      August 25, 2015, 7:26 pm

      He’s becoming a real profile in courage

      Perhaps Matthews has access to prescient weather forecasters when the other pundits are just trying to see which way the wind blows.

      • JWalters
        JWalters
        August 25, 2015, 7:48 pm

        Interesting possibility.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        August 25, 2015, 10:49 pm

        If Chris Matthews had any real balls he would be having experts on about the P5+1 deal. Instead of doing the run around with ass kissers like Feehery repeating “Israel does not like the deal” Real f—ing substantive.

        Is that all Feehery has. Absolutely pathetic.

        Matthews loves to repeat “oh I was always against the invasion of Iraq.” I watched him every night for the year previous to the invasion. Yeah he would challenge Frum, Kristol and Gaffney a bit on their false pre war intelligence. He would even poke them a bit by calling them the “best and the brightest” with a smirk on his face. However he never had the El Baradei’s, the Scott Ritters, the Ray McGoverns, Dr. Brzezinski’s on before the invasion. Those who were really questioning the validity of the so called intelligence.

        You think by now he would have grown some and be having experts on about the Iran deal. Not half baked pundits like Feehery repeating “Israel does not like the deal.” Shameful and so weak

      • ckg
        ckg
        August 26, 2015, 6:02 am

        Kathleen, if Matthews was indeed opposed to the Iraq war I certainly couldn’t tell the day after the Mission Accomplished speech when he and guest Ann Coulter were ready to put Bush on Mt Rushmore.

  7. italian ex-pat
    italian ex-pat
    August 25, 2015, 8:48 pm

    This may be slightly OT, but I just have to say it. As a non-Jew and non-American citizen, I am stunned by the apparent preponderance of Jewish politicians in the US government, which I was never fully aware of, until recently. Am I mistaken? I mean, I’m told that Jewish people comprise only about 2% of the total US population, yet judging by the number of Senators and Representatives being mentioned in regards to the Iran deal, it seems to me that a disproportionate number are Jewish, certainly more than 2% of the total political body. This, in and of itself, wouldn’t be worthy of notice, except it seems to be an accepted fact that any politician of Jewish ancestry is automatically expected to be a supporter of Israel, no ifs or buts. Would someone of a different ancestry be viewed in the same way? For instance, would it be acceptable for any politician of Arab descent to not only be pro-Palestinian, but, as an American citizen, be entitled to promote support for the country of his ancestors?
    I realize I’m raising the issue of dual loyalty, a taboo subject.

    • annie
      annie
      August 25, 2015, 10:09 pm

      any politician of Jewish ancestry is automatically expected to be a supporter of Israel,

      any US politician is automatically expected to be a supporter of Israel, otherwise it would be very difficult to be elected. not because all americans support israel but because it cost lots of money to run for office and for politicians who don’t support israel it’s very hard to climb the ladder and compete with politicians backed by rich lobbies.

      Would someone of a different ancestry be viewed in the same way? For instance, would it be acceptable for any politician of Arab descent to not only be pro-Palestinian, but, as an American citizen, be entitled to promote support for the country of his ancestors?

      no, the only other country (besides the US) someone running for office overtly supports is israel. it doesn’t matter where their ancestors come from.

      I am stunned by the apparent preponderance of Jewish politicians in the US government, which I was never fully aware of, until recently. Am I mistaken? I mean, I’m told that Jewish people comprise only about 2%

      it’s normal here. american jews, tho only 2% (which frankly i find doubtful) of the population are very well represented in the upper echelons of american society. it’s not just politicians. it’s a lot of professions.

    • Bornajoo
      Bornajoo
      August 26, 2015, 5:24 pm

      I believe just under 6% of Congress is Jewish but only 2% of the population is Jewish.

      • bryan
        bryan
        August 27, 2015, 7:43 am

        You are probably technically correct (22 out of 435 Representatives and 11 out of 100 Senators). Surely the disproportionate representation in the Senate is significant though. This is the senior chamber, with sole power to approve foreign treaties and confirm cabinet and judicial nominations, and investigate impeachment. The six year term of senators gives long-term influence, and surely a much higher profile than is afforded to Representatives. Apparently 18 Presidents have previously served as Representatives against 16 who served in the Senate, but recent history favours the influence of the Senate, in the cases of Obama, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and not the House, in the cases of Ford and before that James Garfield. (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II gained profile as State Governors). Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all advanced from Representatives to Senators before coming President. So we could say Jews are more than 5 times over-represented in the senior house – not of course that anyone is counting (except http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewcong113.html)

  8. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    August 25, 2015, 11:35 pm

    Just listened to that segment with Chris Matthews, Capehart, Feehery and Ball. Feehery actually nailed Matthews for covering up Schumer’s vote to undermine the deal. Feehery “how can you say that Schumer made the right decision and the Republicans made the wrong decision. When they came to the same conclusion.” Feehery caught Matthews there. Matthews covering for Schumer’s vote to take the deal down because of what Israel wants. So why is it ok for Schumer to vote that way and not the Republicans who are voting against.

  9. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    August 25, 2015, 11:35 pm

    Just listened to that segment with Chris Matthews, Capehart, Feehery and Ball again. Feehery actually nailed Matthews for covering up Schumer’s vote to undermine the deal. Feehery “how can you say that Schumer made the right decision and the Republicans made the wrong decision. When they came to the same conclusion.” Feehery caught Matthews there. Matthews covering for Schumer’s vote to take the deal down because of what Israel wants. So why is it ok for Schumer to vote that way and not the Republicans who are voting against.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      August 25, 2015, 11:50 pm

      Kathleen: …Feehery caught Matthews there. Matthews covering for Schumer’s vote to take the deal down because of what Israel wants. So why is it ok for Schumer to vote that way and not the Republicans who are voting against.
      —————————

      Excellent point.

      Matthews: […] Chuck Schumer’s going to defend the interests of Israel and it’s legitimate he do so.

      How is that legitimate?

  10. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    August 26, 2015, 12:09 am

    No matter their religion, color, ethnicity or sexual orientation, our elected representatives in Congress must concern themselves with the merit of this nuclear agreement vis-a-vis its importance to the U.S. of A.. Those whose primary concern is heeding Prime Minister Netanyhahu’s call for the accord to be rejected are Israel-firsters. As such they should be impeached by their fellow congresspersons/senators &/or primaried out of office, whichever comes first.

  11. SonofDaffyDuck
    SonofDaffyDuck
    August 26, 2015, 9:57 am

    A little good news if it is appropriate to post it here..

    AIPAC-Joe Donnelly has come out for the deal..one of Bibi’s most reliable puppets in the Senate and commuter between Washington and Jeruslam. $71, 000 from the lobby last year according tources.

    Does anyone have an idea why he betrayed Bibi and voted for American Interests?

  12. sawah
    sawah
    August 26, 2015, 11:12 am

    How much freedom do talk show hosts (including news shows) have in what they say? I wonder how careful Chris Matthews has to be in pushing the envelope with his bosses. I am sure he is put on notice at each turn…unless some of the gatekeepers are having second thoughts about their role in promoting this foreign entity over their own county….

    • Bandolero
      Bandolero
      August 26, 2015, 12:19 pm

      Sawah

      How much freedom do talk show hosts (including news shows) have in what they say?

      Internal freedom of speech in US media is close to zero. One tweet your boss doesn’t like and you’re out. For example, CNN fired Senior Editor of Mideast affairs Octavia Nasr over one single tweet of compassion that read:

      Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.

      Source:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavia_Nasr#Fadlallah_comments_and_CNN_dismissal

      After being 20 years with CNN that was enough for Octavia Nasr being fired immediately.

      So, when Chris Matthews takes on Israel and the lobby and the next day he’s still not fired you can be sure that he has to have the permission of his bosses to do that. And it’s not too hard to guess why. From the Wikipedia article on Comcast, the company owning MSNBC, which employs Chris Matthew:

      Comcast was among the top backers of Barack Obama’s presidential runs, with Comcast vice president David Cohen raising over $2.2 million from 2007 to 2012.

      Source:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Lobbying_and_electoral_fundraising

      I hope this info helps a bit to understand the story a bit better.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      August 26, 2015, 6:19 pm

      Melissa Harris Perry has pushed the envelope on the Iran deal and the U.S. relationship with Iran more than any other host. She has had Hillary Mann Leverett on at least five times. She actually tries to inform the public with fact based information about the history, the NPT etc. She is not like Matthews were she has approved MSNBC pundits like Feehery on who clearly know little to nothing about the actual deal. Who spew out superficial and dangerous comments like the U.S. should reject the deal because “Israel does not like it” Completely lame.

      Chris Hayes had several panels some years back when he was host of UP that had a solid and educated base of understanding about the Israel Palestine conflict.

      Ed has had Colonel Wilkerson on quite a bit.

      Chris Matthews has been dipping his toes in but definitely protects his back $$$$ all of the time. He gave Schumer all of the room he needs to makes excuses for his vote to undermine the Iran deal with a no vote.

      Feehery caught him by asking why it was “legitimate” for Schumer to vote no on the deal but not the Republicans?

  13. pgtl10
    pgtl10
    August 26, 2015, 11:33 am

    including ensuring Israel’s ironclad safety in a post-deal world, securing its future as a Jewish democracy
    ______________

    In other words, forget about equal rights for non-Jews.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    August 27, 2015, 6:56 pm

    I think Chuck Shumer is happy to do what he can to facilitate Israel’s expansion of its illegal settlements in the West Bank. Scaremongering re: Iran is part of this programme.

  15. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    August 27, 2015, 9:50 pm

    Hey James nice to see you over here. Schumer really needs to be pressed hard on his vote against the deal. Especially since he came right out on Kornacki’s MSNBC Up program and said “he would do what is best for the U.S.” A total lie

    Leverett’s have not put one up in awhile. I have often wondered if they were consulted during the negotiations? I so depend on their scholarly takes on the Iran issue and of course on all issues having to do with middle east.

    Think about how five or more years ago they were both saying that Obama etc should take the power sharing deal that Assad was offering at that point. Thousands would be alive and doubt if there would be over a million Syrian refugees that the U.S. media barely reports about.

Leave a Reply