President Obama is still out front of his supporters on message. Three days ago he called his opponents on the Iran Deal “the crazies.” Will someone please give the president some support on this idea? No; political insiders are all afraid of the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby. So Obama is spending all his own political capital in what time he has left.
Though Chris Matthews also went after the crazies last night without calling them that. I’ve never seen him so emphatic in support of the Iran Deal. He pronounced Netanyahu like an epithet.
Let me finish with something really important, this agreement with Iran.
Some are asking now for President Obama to commit the United States to bombing Iran if it appears to be headed toward weaponizing 15 years from now. They want him to also give Israel a 30,000 pound bomb able to destroy even the most deeply buried Iranian nuclear facility.
What is the purpose of these demands? Is it to ensure that the agreement is carried out in good faith? Is it to further the possibility of a better relationship with Iran down the road? Really? Would committing ourselves to an attack at this point, in effect putting a gun to Iran’s head, achieve such a goal? Would giving Israel our giant penetrating bomb and giving Prime Minister Netanyahu the discretion on if and when to use it?
Notice that Matthews admits the possibility that Iran and the U.S. can become friends! This is the great unspoken benefit of the agreement, which its supporters are not allowed to express, again because of the presence of the Israel lobby in our politics. Even as British legislators champion this aspect of the agreement, a new chapter between the west and the ancient civilization of Persia, U.S. deal supporters are trapped in the rhetoric that Iran is irredeemably evil and can’t be trusted and the best way to contain that evil is through the mechanism of this deal. Matthews breaks out of that frame.
The folks who want Iran to get that huge bomb are Dennis Ross, Israel’s lawyer in the United States, and David Petraeus.
No one but Obama is calling opponents of the deal crazies because the opponents are generally Israel-supporters, and they have purchase inside the Establishment. Israel’s interest continues to dominate the American discussion of the issue.
Washington Senator Patty Murray’s statement in support of the Iran deal mentions Israel more often than it does the United States: Israel or Israeli, 11 times. United States or U.S., 9 times. She is a liberal Democrat. And there’s no glimmer of hope that Iran can change in the statement. No, Iran is evil forever.
My support for this deal isn’t based on the hope that it will cause Iran to become more moderate, more trustworthy, or friendlier toward the United States and Israel.
Murray praises Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer for lobbying her on the question, and speaks repeatedly of working with Israel “hand-in-hand”:
Fourth, our support for Israel should continue and be strengthened to make it crystal clear to all in the region that we will stand with our ally to enforce this deal and make sure Iran doesn’t hurt our shared interests in any other way.
“As a strong supporter of Israel, I know full well the risks Israelis face every single day as the only democracy in a region where their some of their closest neighbors are also their fiercest enemies. I deeply value my friends in Washington state who have worked with me for decades to help me understand the region, its people, and its needs. I have traveled with them to Israel and I have seen the emotional, personal, and economic ties between our two countries. I have been a strong supporter of sanctions on Iran, military and economic support for Israel, and standing with our ally hand-in-hand toward our shared goals of peace, security, and prosperity in the region. There are strong supporters of Israel on both sides of this issue, and I deeply value the thoughts and guidance I received from those who share my view that the United States has a strong interest in protecting Israel and making sure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon. And I am looking forward to working with supporters of Israel to make sure that this deal is implemented and enforced in a way that works for our strong friend and ally.
The brave NY Congressman Jerrold Nadler continues to get slammed for his support for the deal. “I never expected the vicious nature of the opposition,” Nadler told Jewish Week. Nadler has more Jews in his district than any other congressperson, and the religious ones in Brooklyn are up in arms, and threatening to primary him next year. This rightwing Jewish site says, “Traitor Congressman commits treason again.” Nadler has called the rhetoric poisonous:
Responding to the critics and accusations, Nadler told JP [Jewish Political updates] on Friday that the comments made against him “poisonous” and “absurd.”
“Saying that someone who supports the deal is an enemy of Israel is absurd; saying that anyone – Senator Schumer or someone else – who opposes the deal is guilty of dual loyalty or treason is absurd,” Nadler told JP. “That kind of rhetoric poisons a rational debate and poisons politics. It is just wrong and has to be discouraged. You know, it’s ‘sinas chinam’ (gratuitous hatred) – we’ve had that before – it’s just sinas chinam… The kind of rhetoric that talks about motives is poisonous.”
Here is a J Street petition to support Nadler in his hour of need. Notice that it mentions Israel but not the United States!
Thanks for speaking out in support of the international agreement with Iran.
As a supporter of Israel, I know that this deal is the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
This is a tough fight, but your constituents have your back. We’re glad you’re standing up for diplomacy.
J Street must know its constituency: liberal Jews who still love Israel. Writes one: “Memo to US Jews: Listen to Isr security officials & SUPPORT #IranDeal.” To be clear, Zionism is still the predominant strain inside American Jewish life. Anti-Zionist Jews are still outliers in that community. We’re catching on among the young, but the young don’t give tens of thousands to political campaigns. And Jews who don’t care about Israel may well be a majority in Jewish life (as Jon Basil Utley says), but the lobby is the active voice.
The National Jewish Democratic Council is backing Nadler. Brooklyn power rabbi Andy Bachman is doing so. NY City Council Member Brad Lander is too. And three other Jewish NY congresspeople have come out against the attacks on Nadler. “No matter where you stand on the Iran deal, comparisons to the Holocaust, the darkest chapter in human history, questioning the credentials of long-standing advocates for Israel, and accusations of dual loyalty are inappropriate.” Chuck Schumer “issued a statement calling Nadler ‘one of the most steadfast supporters of Israel’s security.'”
Obama lost another NY congressperson, Carolyn Maloney, but picked up a California rep. J Street’s spokesperson:
Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Alan Lowenthal [Democrat from Long Beach, CA] announces support for the
#IranDeal. Pro-deal Jewish lawmakers outnumber those opposed 12 to 7
I am often attacked for counting Jews in powerful positions. Let’s be clear that Israel supporters are also counting Jews. They do so for the same reason I do, because Jews have disproportionate power in this discussion. Keep in mind that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly have supported the Iran Deal without Nadler’s repercussions. “Expected legions” did not materialize at town halls. So the Christian Zionists don’t really care that much about this, while the ardent Jewish ones do.
I have not read this MW article yet, but already agree with it’s banner. Just want to get this out there: A Palestinian Novel Par Excellence: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/26/a-palestinian-novel-par-excellence/
Nice to know What’s good for Israel is the chief concern of in-fighting; who cares about US best interests, or the World’s? Nobody with influence. As a non-Jewish American, I am very depressed & frustrated about this. You’d think by how this is playing out that Jews comprised 98% of USA, not 2%. Campaign finance system needs a revolution.
Philip
As I commented here before I do strongly think that saying Obama called his opponents of the Iran deal “the crazies” is a mischaracterisation of what he actually said.
Bush Sr.’s CIA Briefer Ray McGovern was very clear that the term the crazies is widely known inside US power structures as a reference to the neocons trying to lead the US in endless international confrontations and serial wars of aggression.
In April 2015 Ray McGovern used the term “the crazies” again over there at Consoritum News:
As a BBC journalist claimed in 2004 Colin Powell is also said to have referred to the neocons as the crazies. And Bill Kristol, editor of the neocon flagship The Weekly Standard, immediately after Obama’s comment confirmed he felt he was among the people meant with the term the crazies. So, to me it’s quite clear that the crazies is a term refering to the adherents of the neocon ideology. I think the term “the extremists” would fit better, because the main problem with the neocons is their Likudist extremism, but the term to use to make many people understand that the neocons are meant is “the crazies.”
And then look what Obama really said:
He said he and Harry Reid are going to deal with the crazies, ie the neocons, in terms of managing some problems. Some problems is not only a single problem, but a plural. So, what’ Obama really said, was he’s going to take on the Neocons on a whole series of issues, and Harry Reid helps him doing that.
And, of course, it’s not that hard to figure put, what these international problems are, where Obama is at loggerheads with the neocons. At the forefront of these problems are: Peace in Palestine, the relationship with Iran, and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Yemen.
And herein lies what’s really behind the Iran deal. It’s a mischaracterization to say that it is in the cards that Iran and the U.S. can become friends. It’s not, both Obama and Khemenei have been clear on that. However, what is in the cards is a working relationship with Iran based on mutual interests. And here Iran is almost everywhere on Obama’s side, ie in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, while the neocons are on the opposite side. So, what is in the cards is that Obama and his huys in the US will work together on all the wars in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, working to get an outcome liked by Obama and Iran, and disliked by the neocons. That is a huge, very huge perspective.
And there is even more US-Iranian collaboration based on mutual interests in the cards, for example bringing down the world heroin production and stamping out the ideological roots of global Wahhabi terrorism, so there is ample space for further US-Iranian cooperation based on mutual interests. And, of course, at the center of all this US-Iranian cooperation may well be the shared interest to put the neocon extremism back in the box, what is precisely why Netanyahu goes all out against the effort by Obama to bring back in Iran.
I want to ask a question here: does anyone here, after watching the “Iran debate” and “The Lobby’s” antics ever question the shibboleth that all of European “antisemitism” was irrational and based solely on a racist hatred? Cuz you can read a million and one French, German, English, Spanish, Russian (and others) writers describing THE EXACT SAME shit happening in their countries at different times and obviously in different places.
Its a question Phil should answer. We’re watching a worldwide conspiracy and shakedown right before our eyes, and no one here denies it. I’m wondering if people think this is the ONLY time the stereotype or the accusation is true.
The people who are against “counting Jews” are in effect saying let’s not talk about Jewish power.
Like Rothkopf, who is rushing to declare the lobby dead at first moment he can.
Or the liberal Zionists in Haaretz, including Bronfman, who keep urging unity and to suppress open debate.
I don’t see many people batting an eyelash when white men and Asien men are counted in silicon valley tech CEO positions. You have to do it, in order to point to cultural power in a sector.
The same is true when it comes to U.S. policy towards the Middle East.
The people who want to forbid that in effect want to protect the status quo.