I am not a Middle East expert and I have no position on the proposed treaty with Iran.
Is there a Jewish lobby? It seems to me obvious that just as there is a black lobby, a business lobby, a Silicon Valley lobby, and a Christian lobby, there’s also a Jewish lobby and it is probably the most powerful lobby of all because Jews contribute about three-quarters of the money to the Democrats and about a quarter of the money to the Republicans.
Jews also exercise an influence in the media that is disproportionate to their numbers, an influence that some Jews such as Joel Stein have argued amounts to “Jewish control.”
So it seems to me that President Obama is rational to be concerned about the Jewish lobby. If Jews turn overwhelmingly against the treaty, it will make life difficult for the president.
Lee Smith writes:
Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech the next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was responsible for taking America to war in Iraq. But Obama is not an anti-Semite and it seems he doesn’t even really want to use anti-Jewish dog whistles, like he did last month on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But the JCPOA is the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy and he’s determined to win. AIPAC is leading the countercharge with a multi-million dollar campaign managed by a group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran. According to The Washington Post, “The president suggested to AIPAC that ‘if you guys would back down, I would back down from some of the things I’m doing.’’’
Or, as one of the participants told me Obama said, “If you don’t like the claims that are being made, don’t run the advertisements.” In other words, lay off criticizing the Iran deal and I’ll lay off the Jew-baiting.
“Fifty-two years ago,” said Obama, “President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace.” Obama’s political tactics however point not to Kennedy’s Cold War but Nixon’s Southern strategy, which played on the racist fears of white southerners. If the purpose of the Obama Administration’s Jew-baiting is to silence potential critics of the JCPOA, it may also stoke a deeply ugly hatred that is no less dangerous to American society than racism.
Even if the JCPOA turns out to be worse than its critics charge—a deeply flawed inspection and verification regime, billions of immediate sanctions relief that could fuel Iran’s imperial terror throughout the Middle East, etc.—America will survive it, as will Israel. America’s center of gravity is not its position in the Persian Gulf. Rather, it’s our social cohesion. For all of our many flaws, our petty hatreds, our violence against one another: America works because of the fundamental trust Americans have in their neighbors—black and white and brown and yellow, Christian, Jewish and Muslim—throughout the fifty states. Why is the president putting that at risk? For the sake of comity with an anti-American, anti-Semitic obscurantist regime.
I have some thoughts on this article, starting with this quote:
The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Jews were the least favorable of any ethnic or religious group towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and yet Jewish neo-conservatives pushed for the invasion. This tiny number of intellectual Jews wield disproportionate influence in the media and in shaping public opinion. And they were really really wrong about invading Iraq. And now these same Jewish neo-cons are opposing the deal with Iran.
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”
The background to this discussion is that the United States is far more involved in the Middle East than its national interests dictate. On a rational basis, the United States has little if any national security interest in supporting Israel. So why does the United States support Israel so much? Whatever the reasons, it’s crazy.
I support Israel because I am a Jew and I have a strong interest in the Jewish state. I am also a citizen of the United States of America and I want America to make its foreign policy decisions solely on its national interests. I doubt America would have been attacked on 9/11 if not for its support of Israel.
As for this: “… if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.”
When people sell things, including international agreements, they tend to use stark language.
It’s not at all clear that most American Jews oppose this proposed agreement with Iran, though the most involved Jews in Jewish life do seem to be against it.
From Breitbart:
POLL: PLURALITY OF AMERICAN JEWS SUPPORT IRAN DEAL, 49%-31%
The results among American Jews contrast with polls among Israeli Jews, who are strongly against the Iran deal. A recent poll of Israeli Jews indicated that 78% believe the Iran deal endangers the country. A strong plurality of Israeli Jews favored a military strike against Iran, 47% to 35%. The rift, says Jewish Journal columnist Shmuel Rosner, is the “first damaging impact of a troubling agreement with Iran.”
Perhaps American Jews and Israeli Jews have somewhat different interests?
“The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
Jews exercise disproportionate influence in America because Ashkenazi Jews average IQs are around 115, because Jews work hard, and network effectively. Therefore, when formidable Jews are against what you’re doing, you’re in for a difficult fight. President Obama finds himself in a tough place and he’s trying to make his case the best he can. If you look at the world from the perspective of what is good for the Jews, the way Obama is fighting his fight is not good for the Jews.
Jews have formidable resources but so does the President of the United States. It is typical of American presidents to make the case for treaties with unpalatable enemies that such deals will reduce the risk of war and that those who disagree with the treaty are increasing the risks of war. That’s not a sinister argument. That’s a normal argument.
Even if the JCPOA turns out to be worse than its critics charge—a deeply flawed inspection and verification regime, billions of immediate sanctions relief that could fuel Iran’s imperial terror throughout the Middle East, etc.—America will survive it, as will Israel. America’s center of gravity is not its position in the Persian Gulf. Rather, it’s our social cohesion. For all of our many flaws, our petty hatreds, our violence against one another: America works because of the fundamental trust Americans have in their neighbors—black and white and brown and yellow, Christian, Jewish and Muslim—throughout the fifty states. Why is the president putting that at risk? For the sake of comity with an anti-American, anti-Semitic obscurantist regime.
It’s not at all clear that Israel will survive.
America’s center of gravity is not its social cohesion — it’s the hard working whites who built and continue this country. Diversity is a curse to America just as it is to every country that suffers from it. There’s no evidence that Americans have much trust in their fellow citizens of different race. Non-blacks tend to hate blacks, blacks tend to dislike non-blacks, Mexicans dislike gringos, and so forth.
I think all groups, including Jews, are improved by accurate criticism and shaming. No people, including Jews, have only wonderful qualities, and sometimes you learn more about who you are by listening to your critics than by listening to your friends.
I agree with the response Tabletmag posted by Todd Gitlin and Matthew Duss:
The fact of the matter is that money, lobbying, and donor pressure all play a huge part in American politics. When the issue is the Gun Lobby, the Pharmaceutical Lobby, or the Defense Industry Lobby, such observations are unremarkable. Yet when the issue is Israel, the banal observation that wealthy lobbies have influence is somehow transformed into evidence of prejudice. Opponents of the Iran deal have boasted about the amount of money they would spend to defeat it. It’s absurd to suggest that noting this fact, as the president has done, should be off-limits, a form of “Jew-baiting.”
It’s also a fact that many of those criticizing the deal, though not all, were outspoken advocates of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Many have also advocated military action against Iran. Opponents of the deal may consider it inconvenient to be reminded of this, but hiding behind reckless, unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Semitism is both cowardly and insulting to the real victims of actual the anti-Semitism, that is, as both of us have repeatedly written, horribly alive in the world.
Discussions of money and its influence on politics, particularly with regard to issues of war and peace, are freighted with disturbing historical resonances. But to point out the influence of wealthy Jewish organizations and individuals is not to impute disloyalty. To ignore it, in fact, would be absurd. A policy debate over an issue as significant as that between the U.S., its P5+1 partners, and Iran is bound to get intense—and tense—and Tablet’s editorial did nothing to advance the discussion on the merits of the proposed nuclear deal.
Former American intelligence officers tend to loathe Israel because they saw on the job the Jewish state hijacking American interests.
Ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi never seems to have a good word to say about American support for Israel and his latest column is no exception:
Make no mistake, the U.S. media and inside the beltway punditry boast about their professionalism and integrity but it all goes out the window when Israel is the topic. Many of those involved are themselves Jewish and identify as “strong Israel supporters” and for those who are not of the Tribe the understanding that criticism of Israel is a quick ticket out of town frequently prevails.
This twisting oneself into knots to deny what is clearly visible has been never as evident as during the past two weeks with the launch of the hate Iran agenda to derail President Barack Obama’s negotiated agreement relating to that country’s nuclear program. The public has been fed a steady diet of alarmist nonsense cranked out by journalists like Jennifer Rubin and Charles Krauthammer, depicting the Iranians as suicidal religious fanatics, liars and thieves, terrorists and, of course, Jew haters who also run around chanting “Death to America.” That the Obama agreement would take away from those Persian miscreants the ability to actually create a nuclear weapon has somehow been lost in the shuffle because if Israel and its domestic lobby want something then the path of least resistance is to go along with their demands.
The Republicans will block vote on the Iran deal to spite Obama but the process being engaged in by the Democrats who are sitting on the fence is far more excruciating to watch. They are being lobbied hard, sometimes directly by and even in Israel: “Some members of Congress are going on trips to Israel, with some arranged by the American Israel Education Foundation, a charitable organization affiliated with AIPAC, a deal foe.”
Most of the Congressmen being quoted in the media are Jewish and are openly stating their concern for Israel while the media is uncritically accepting that as a reasonable position. Rarely does the issue of any actual American interest come up. Nor is there much discussion of the reality in the Middle East, which is that a U.S. armed and funded Israel is the regional superpower, not Iran, and that if there is a nuclear threat locally it comes from Tel Aviv.
The Congressmen who are hesitating should remember who has elected them and who pays them. If they are squeamish about defending American interests they should resign and go home. The reality is that we owe the Israelis nothing and the constant process of bribing them and deferring to their alleged interests so they will behave is demeaning to us as a country and also self-defeating as they couldn’t give a tinker’s damn for the American people except insofar as it is possible to take our money and otherwise exploit us.
To be sure, Israel benefits enormously from its powerful fifth column inside the United States and there is already far too much deference by the federal government to what are manifestly Jewish issues. Though only 2% of the population, American Jews nevertheless wield enormous economic and political power which understandably translates into media access and influence over policies. That would be a given for how representational politics actually work under capitalism but there is something disturbing about how this plays out in practice. The Obama Administration has an Associate Director for Jewish Outreach in the White House Office of Public Engagement named Matt Nosanchuk but there is no designated outreach director to the nation’s 77 million Catholics. President Obama meets repeatedly with Jewish leaders, many of whom are hostile to his policies, but I have yet to read about him meeting with groups of Catholics or mainline Protestants. Many of them might well be supportive of what Obama is doing but there is no “outreach” office for them and no attempt to obtain their adherence to proposed programs.
The federal bureaucracy has for many years included numerous American Jews in the upper level positions relating to national security, Middle East policy and counter-terrorism. Most are responsible individuals who are serious about their commitment to impartial government service. But some are not so scrupulous. Dennis Ross, former Middle East negotiator, is not called “Israel’s lawyer” as a compliment. And there were also Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, all of whom were actively engaged in bringing about the disastrous invasion of Iraq, intended in part to benefit Israel.
And then there are the neoconservatives to include the State Department’s Victoria Nuland who somewhat inexplicably are advanced in their careers by Democrats as well as Republicans while having strong ties to Israel and its leaders. Does their religion or perceived ethnicity matter? It certainly does for those of them who, like the Jewish Congressmen unable to decide how to vote, cannot compartmentalize their own personal baggage when participating in the crafting of U.S. foreign policy.
Washington inexplicably gives a wealthy and militarily powerful Israel $3 billion annually for defense spending, a sum that it now wants to raise to nearly $5 billion as a bribe for good behavior, which will not in any event be forthcoming. Meanwhile, within the federal government there exist special bureaucracies and benefits that are little known to the public, created in response to narrowly construed Jewish interests. Apparently successful efforts made by Congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fund special health care benefits for Holocaust survivors constitute little more than a bid to create a two tiered system that provides extra financial support for a favored group. As near as I could determine, any European Jew who was not killed during the Second World War is considered a “Holocaust survivor.” Every American who has diligently paid into the Medicare trust fund should find the proposal for special benefits based on religion offensive in the extreme…
Washington’s Holocaust Museum, undeniably a political statement vis-à-vis Israel, was built using private contributions but the taxpayer covers its operating costs, $52 million in 2014, making it the most expensive museum in Washington. The State Department has a Special Adviser to the Secretary on Holocaust Issues as well as a Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues. The two offices are headed respectively by Stuart Eizenstat and Nicholas Dean. There is also a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a position held by Ira Forman, a former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Political Director.
All three are senior Foreign Service Ambassador level positions with full staffs, first class travel expenses and additional funding. Foreign Service Executive Schedules top out at $203,700 plus benefits which is presumably what the trio are being paid…
Ironically, most American Jews support a deal with Iran, even if the self-described leaders of their community nearly unanimously do not. If I were a Jewish American listening to all the chatter I would find it highly offensive to be pandered to and treated as if I need to be constantly cajoled or even bribed to behave. There should be no “Jewish” policy towards Israel any more than I as an Italian American or my wife who is British born should favor special policies regarding Italy or the United Kingdom. Washington’s foreign policy ought to be bereft of “passionate attachment” to any other nation, intended instead to benefit the citizens of the United States. There is no question but that a negotiated agreement with Iran is good for Americans as it will both avoid another war and remove a proliferation threat. Contrary to the incoherent noises coming out of Benjamin Netanyahu’s office a deal would also be good for Israelis.
I read Philip Giraldi regularly. I appreciate his even-handed comment about Jewish bureaucrats: “Most are responsible individuals who are serious about their commitment to impartial government service.”
