The New York Times has forever ended the debate over whether it’s fair or right to count Jews in positions of power. A story in yesterday’s Times examined the Jewishness of the politicians opposing the Iran Deal, and the Jewishness of their constituencies. “Jewish?” the graphic asks– a verbal tic usually reserved for private conversation.
The Times later altered the graphic because of criticism, but the criticism is hypocritical, because so many people openly count Jews on this vote. Dylan Williams of J Street counts Jews, Ron Kampeas of the JTA counts Jews, I count Jews, so does Laura Rozen of Al Monitor. We do so because Jews have more power on this issue than other groups. Partly because they care more: “as a Jew, I feel a deep bond to Israel,” Senator Al Franken said yesterday, in supporting the Deal today, and then said that he has worked as a senator to “strengthen” U.S. support for Israel.
The Iran Deal has altered forever the view that Israel and the U.S. are joined at the hip, but that assumption is the core principle of the Israel lobby, and politicians such as Franken are the heart and soul of the lobby: empowered (often otherwise progressive) Jews who care about a religious state halfway round the world. Because of that special bond, the Iran Deal has often seemed like an intra-Jewish discussion. Obama did a webcast for Jewish Americans; he put his visit to Israel’s Holocaust memorial at the top of his “Foreign Policy” page, and he sent Wendy Sherman and Adam Szubin to the Hill to defend the Deal, two Jews.
Democratic chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz choked up on CNN when announcing her support for the deal, saying that as a Jewish mother she has an obligation to make sure that Israel is there forever. Senator Chuck Schumer told a Jewish audience that Jews have a different view of the Iran Deal than non-Jewish Americans.
“If you are president of the United States, president of one of the European countries, or an American, an average American, you say that’s pretty good to me…
“But because a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, if you’re prime minister of Israel or an Israeli citizen or for that matter an American Jew or at least some American Jews, many, you say I can’t live with a 5 percent chance that Israel will be annihilated…. So there is a basic difference in viewpoint.”
Schumer then justified the special Jewish attachment because American Jews have to look out for other Jews, as they had failed to do during the Holocaust.
The Times was merely being honest about something everyone is talking about. As Joshua Keating of Slate wrote, “it seems willfully obtuse to pretend that the position of the Israeli government and the views of at least a prominent faction of the American Jewish community aren’t a factor in this debate.”
The Jewishness of journalists also comes into the discussion. Times deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weisman, in defending the article, stated that he is Jewish:
As I said, I take responsibility for graphic & don’t apologize. We kept data, just put it into intro. I’m Jewish
And even though the deal took a big step forward yesterday– the Senate fell short of the 60 votes it needed to pass disapproval of the Iran Deal; Democrats have enough votes to block an end to a filibuster, so the resolution won’t go to the president’s desk– the Israel lobby isn’t about to melt away. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Democrats are about to begin a never-ending campaign to “bash Iran”, trying to make up with rhetoric for having approved the Iran Deal.
Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton reached out to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in the last two days. President Obama kissed up to Israel, in his annual High Holidays call to rabbis. Haaretz has the story:
President Barack Obama told rabbis in a pre-Rosh Hashanah phone call that security talks with Israel had resumed and he hoped to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by early next month.
“Our consultations have already begun with Israeli military and intelligence officials,” Obama said.
“My hope is to have a long discussion with Mr. Netanyahu about these issues when he comes to the United Nations during the General Assembly of the United Nations, or immediately after that,” he said.
Hillary Clinton also promised to see Netanyahu, in her hawkish foreign policy speech:
Clinton vowed to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge and suggested renewing its current security package (currently $3 billion a year in U.S. aid) this year rather than waiting until it expires in 2017 — both non-controversial policies that would have the backing of any American president. But she add that she’d invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit the White House within her first month in office, noting that “tough love” for the country is counterproductive because it invites other countries to delegitimize Israel.
Yep, Obama hastens to soothe and placate the feelings of a defeated Bibi. What more will he offer Israel as a means of buttering them up? What will those greedy spongers ask for this time?
Dig deep into your pockets, America. It’s all for a bad cause.
Singling out politicians just for being Jewish is anti-Semitic.
Funny, you support this but if they singled out Muslims you’d be angry and call it Islamophobic
Little Chucky Schumer
Fights for Israel
Plus the Wall Street Bankers
All the Rest can Go to Hell
Mediaite’s Alex Griswold is covering the backlash to the NYT article from the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center and the NYT response. http://www.mediaite.com/online/jewish-groups-criticize-new-york-times-for-congressional-jew-tracker/
Joshua Keating also wrote:
When Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls Israel – not America – her “homeland”, what is that about? When she blocked a DNC resolution on the Iran deal, what was that about?
Keating goes out of his way to pacify critics but he reaches too far. Many people are also under financial pressure from Jewish donors. which plays a part in their opposition.
If Schumer wants to become Senate majority leader, he needs to raise cash from rich Jews for other democrats. If these Jewish donors have burned him, why would other democratic Senators support him for leader?
But even beyond financial pressure, is Keating seriously suggesting that someone like Nita Lowey or Steve Israel are 100% thinking about America when they opposed that deal? These are stalwarts of the Israel lobby, a foreign lobby which is oriented to advance the objectives of a foreign nation on American soil.
This strikes me as something he probably doesn’t believe himself but says anyway to cover his bases. Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe he really does believe it in which he might simply be naïve.