Over-Heated Campaign against Iran Agreement
Shows How Unrepresentative Jewish Groups Are of
Those in Whose Name They Speak
Allan C. Brownfeld
Issues
Fall 2015
In recent months, we have witnessed an overheated campaign by organizations
which claim to speak in the name of the American Jewish community against
the nuclear agreement with Iran.
These American groups appear to have received their marching orders in a 20-
minute webcast organized by the Jewish Federation of North America in which
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called upon American Jews to do
everything in their power to defeat the agreement. The live telecast on Aug.
4 reached some 10,000 people. This, together with his attack on the
agreement in his speech before a joint session of Congress, is considered by
many to be an unprecedented interference in American domestic politics by
the leader of a foreign country. At the same time, AIPAC pledged more than
$30 million to fight the agreement and in August took all but three freshmen
members of Congress to Israel on an expense-paid trip to meet with
Netanyahu. There were two separate trips, one for Democrats, one for
Republicans, led by party leaders Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. Kevin
McCarthy (R-CA).
The American Jewish establishment quickly fell in line. The Iran agreement
was vocally opposed by, among others, the Anti-Defamation League, the
American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations, Orthodox rabbinical groups and Jewish Federations.
Even charitable organizations entered the fray, with the Boston Combined
Jewish Philanthropies exhorting its contributors to “reach out to their
elected representatives … to express their deep concern, and to urge them to
vote against the deal.” Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who once
said that he regretted having served in the U.S. Army rather than the
Israeli Army, through the World Values Network, which he finances, placed a
series of ads attempting to persuade legislators, such as Sen. Cory Booker
(D-NJ), into opposing the agreement. This effort failed.
Extreme Rhetoric against Supporters of Agreement
Opponents of the agreement unleashed the harshest possible rhetoric against
those who expressed their support. On July 22, President Obama appeared on
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The president said that if people favoring
the deal contacted their representatives, they would be heard. He noted
that, “The same is true on every single issue. If people are engaged,
eventually the political system responds. Despite the money, despite the
lobbyists. It still responds.” Lee Smith, a columnist for the on-line Jewish
magazine Tablet called the president’s statement a “dog whistle.” He accused
Obama of “hinting broadly at anti-Semitic conceits — like dual loyalties,
moneyed interests. Jewish lobbies — to scare off Democrats tempted to vote
against the deal.” He predicted that if any Democrats did oppose it, Obama
was “going to tar and feather them as dual loyalists who are willing to send
Americans out to make war on behalf of Jewish causes.”
Jonathan Tobin, online editor of Commentary, called the Daily Show comment a
“smear.” “When the president predicts that war will result from the deal’s
defeat,” Tobin wrote, “he’s labeling opponents ‘warmongers.’ And since
‘money and lobbyists’ is obviously code for ‘Jews,’ Obama is calling Jews
warmongers, ready to send other people’s sons to die.”
Two days after the Daily Show, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the
Council on Foreign Relations on July 24. He said that if the Israeli-led
opposition campaign successfully defeated the agreement, the resulting
regional chaos might leave Israel more “isolated” than ever. This was
interpreted as a threat. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Rafael Medoff, who
has written extensively about the Holocaust, combined Kerry’s “threat” with
Obama’s “money and lobbyists” to charge that Kerry was threatening American
Jews. Then, when the president spoke on Aug. 5 at American University and
reasserted America’s commitment to Israel’s security while noting “temporary
friction with a dear friend and ally,” Tablet magazine editorially declared
that it “can’t stomach” Obama’s “use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and
retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice,” which it called “a
sickening new development in American political discourse … It’s the kind of
dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from
the President of the United States.”
Jewish Supporters of Agreement Compared to Nazis
When Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who is Jewish, announced his support for
the nuclear accord with Iran, he was the victim of vicious attacks. The New
York Times (Aug. 29, 2015) reported: “The animus is hard to miss. On his
Facebook page, Mr. Nadler has been called a kapo: a Jew who collaborated
with Nazis in the World War II death camps. One writer said he had ‘blood on
his hands.’ Another said he had ‘facilitated Obama’s holocaust.’ Dov Hikind,
a New York State assemblyman, rented a double-decker bus … plastered the
smiling face of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini on it and
parked it in front of Mr. Nadler’s office … .He took six Auschwitz survivors
to the office to condemn Mr. Nadler.”
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who announced his support for the agreement in
August, described weathering a barrage of attacks on social media which
questioned his religion and his intelligence and called him a “kapo,” a term
referring to Jews in concentration camps enlisted by the Nazis to supervise
forced labor. In Cohen’s view, “The tenor was set when Netanyahu came to
speak to Congress without the president’s knowledge and/or approval. Having
him come and try to influence members of the Congress against what the
president was working on set the tenor. Netanyahu should not get himself
involved in American politics in the future and AIPAC played a stronger hand
than they should have.”
The pressure on Jewish members of Congress to oppose the agreement has been
intense, although largely unsuccessful. One instance where such pressure
seems to have succeeded is that of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), the
ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He announced his
opposition after the deal’s survival was already guaranteed. According to
The Washington Post (Sept. 5, 2015), “In making the decision, Cardin
struggled with immense and personal pressure. His own rabbi repeatedly
called Cardin — and his wife — to advocate against the agreement. The
American Israel Public Affairs Committee held a rally at his synagogue.
Supporters and opponents of the deal spent heavily on television ads in
Baltimore and lobbied the senator’s staff.” When Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-FL), the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee,
announced her support for the agreement, The New York Times reported that,
“A protestor outside her office … screamed that, ‘Wasserman Schultz should
go to the ovens.’”
Washington Post columnist Colbert King, who is black, did a column about
Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) and his
criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for inserting himself into a
domestic American political debate and showing disrespect for our elected
president. The response he received was swift. He cites one e-mail he
received from a reader using the pseudonym “visitingthisplace.” It declared:
“Black-Jewish relations have always been a two-way street. The Jews gave
money to black causes, marched and died for civil rights, and in return the
black (sic) looted and burned the Jewish businesses to the ground … In spite
of your education and your opportunities, you are still just another anti-
Semitic street nigger.”
Who Speaks for American Jews?
There is an implication that AIPAC and other groups engaged in fierce
opposition to the agreement with Iran speak for American Jews, an idea they
do their best to cultivate and promote. In reality, this claim has no basis
in truth. Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan points out that,
“Most polls show that Jewish Americans are the most enthusiastic about the
diplomatic deal reached at Vienna between Iran and the U.N. Security Council
… .so the umbrella group of lobbyists supposedly dedicated to representing
Jewish Americans. AIPAC, is lobbying for the deal, right? Wrong. It is not
only sending lobbyists to the offices of all U.S. congressional
representatives and putting them under heavy pressure to reject the Vienna
accord, but it or its subsidiaries are flooding the airwaves with vicious
disinformation in an attempt to confuse the American public, so my question
is, in whose behalf is AIPAC intervening in American domestic politics?
AIPAC is acting on behalf of the Likud government of Israel.”
Whatever one thinks of the Iran agreement, and its critics have a number of
legitimate concerns, the fact that a foreign government has been directly
intervening in our domestic politics should be disturbing to all Americans,
as should the role being played by AIPAC which, critics argue, gives every
appearance of being an agent of that government. Philip Giraldi, a former
CIA official and contributor to The American Conservative, writes that,
“AIPAC is an IRS 501(c)4 lobbying organization and is able to keep its donor
list secret. AIPAC operative Steve Rosen once boasted that he could have the
signatures of 70 senators on a napkin in 24 hours. AIPAC has an annual
budget of $70 million and 200 full-time employees. There should be demands
that it and similar Israel advocacy groups register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938. This would require them to have full transparency
in terms of their funding and it would also tell the American people that
the organizations themselves are not necessarily benign and acting on behalf
of U.S. interests, which is the subterfuge that they currently engage in.”
Calls for AIPAC to register as the agent of a foreign government are not
new, reports Giraldi. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy believed that AIPAC
should register, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), who served as
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1985, Undersecretary
of State George W. Ball declared: “On Middle East policy, Congress behaves
like a bunch of trained poodles, jumping through the hoop held by the
Israeli lobby.”
Not Representing Jewish Opinion, but Defying It
Those groups which pretend to speak in the name of American Jews do not
represent American Jewish opinion at all. Instead, quite the opposite has
been shown to be the case. In an article in The Washington Post (Aug. 16,
2015) titled “The Jewish Leaders Who Don’t Speak For American Jews,” Todd
Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, and
Steven Cohen, professor at Hebrew Union College, declare that the Jewish
groups opposing the Iran agreement “are not, in fact, leading American
Jewish opinion. They are defying it. They doubtless represent the views of
their board members, but those views are at odds with the majority of rank-
and-file American Jews, who, in fact, support the deal more than Americans
generally.”
A poll conducted by Cohen for The Jewish Journal found that 63 percent of
Jewish Americans who said they knew enough to offer an opinion about the
agreement with Iran supported it. Why, Cohen and Gitlin ask, is the so-
called “Jewish leadership” so unrepresentative of the population it claims
to represent? Their response: “The dominant leadership is somewhat older and
more conservative than Jews as a whole … It disproportionately represents
wealthy Jews … Those who pay pipers call tunes … The idea that American Jews
speak as a monolithic bloc needs very early retirement. So does the canard
that their commitment to Israel or the views of its prime minister
overwhelms their support for Obama and the Iran deal. So does the idea that
… Netanyahu leads or represents the world’s Jews. So does the notion that
unrepresentative ‘leaders’ speak for American Jews generally.”
In the case of Israel itself, those in the intelligence and military
communities seem to sharply disagree with the opposition to the Iran
agreement expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and those who follow his
lead in the U.S. Admiral (Ret.) Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet, the
Israeli internal security service, and former chief of the Israeli Navy,
declared: “When it comes to Iran’s nuclear capability this (deal) is the
best option.” Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Shlomo Bron, former director of the IDF
Strategic Planning Division, said: “The agreement is good for Israel and its
national security. It blocks Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon for a
longer period of time than any other available option and commits Iran to
permanently renouncing nuclear weapons under IAEA inspections.” Among the
many other Israeli military and intelligence specialists supporting the
agreement are Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Amos Yadlin, who now heads Israel’s main
defense think tank and was formerly chief of Defense Intelligence; Yitzhak
Ben-Yisrael, who now chairs both the Israel Space Agency and the Science
Ministry’s research and development council; Israel Zvi, a former chief of
military operations; Dov Tamari, the near legendary architect of Israeli
military intelligence; and Efraim Halevy, a former director of the Mossad
intelligence agency.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the Iran agreement, it seems, does
not represent the views of Israel’s military experts. Columnist J.J.
Goldberg, writing in The Forward (Sept. 4, 2015) points out that the
divisions between Netanyahu and the military-defense establishment “has been
growing … His combination of rigid ideology and fear-based policy … has led
him to abandon the confident pragmatism that governed Israeli security
doctrine for decades. Hence those ‘eruptions of dissent.’ Something that was
almost unimaginable during Israel’s first 60 years has become a regular and
growing phenomenon under Netanyahu … Israel’s military has a long history of
approaching big issues pragmatically, avoiding ideology and big theories …
.This has caused steadily mounting tension between the security services and
Netanyahu, who is as ideological a prime minister as Israel has ever had.”
Not in Our Name
Just as AIPAC does not represent American Jewish opinion, so Prime Minister
Netanyahu does not seem to represent the informed views of Israel’s
military-intelligence establishment. Those American Jews who did not wish to
be misrepresented joined together to respond to the militant campaign
launched against the Iran agreement in their name. A group of prominent
Jewish leaders signed a full page ad in The New York Times (Aug. 20, 2015)
declaring, “Each of us has devoted decades to building and enhancing
Israel’s security and strengthening the U.S.-Israel alliance … While not
perfect, this deal is the best available option to halt Iran’s nuclear
weapons program. We strongly urge Congress to support the Iran agreement.”
Among those signing this statement were Seymour D. Reich, chair, Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (1989-90); Rabbi Erick
H. Yoffie, president, Union for Reform Judaism (1996-2012); Marvin Lender,
chair, United Jewish Appeal (1990-92); and Jacqueline K. Levine, chair,
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (1983-1986). A number
of Jewish former members of Congress also signed the statement: Democratic
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan (1979-2015), Rep. Mel Levine of California
(1983-1993), and Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida (1997-2010).
Another full page ad appeared in The New York Times (Aug. 27, 2015) from
Jewish former members of Congress supporting the agreement with Iran. It
declared: “During our many collective years in Congress, we unwaveringly
supported Israel … We all strongly support the agreement because it will
enhance the security of the U.S., the State of Israel and the entire world.”
Among those signing the statement were former Democratic Reps. Anthony
Beilenson of California, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Elizabeth Holtzman
of New York and Abner Mikva of Illinois.
Dismay over Israeli Interference
More and more expressions of dismay have been heard about Israel’s
interference in domestic American politics and in the internal affairs of
the American Jewish community. Prof. Paul Sham, executive director of the
Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies at the University of Maryland, wrote
in Washington Jewish Week (Aug. 6, 2015): “On an issue of this importance,
the willingness of Jewish community leaders to kowtow to official Israeli
policy against the wishes of those who they claim as their constituents is
outrageous.”
Three dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals released an open letter on
Aug. 11 supporting the Iran agreement. One of these was retired Navy Rear
Admiral Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the
National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces. He told The Washington
Post: “As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a Rabbi for over 40
years … I have a unique perspective. Those of us who love Israel in the U.S.
are not of one mind and one voice on this matter. I thought it was important
to represent some of the diversity within the Jewish community.”
The Union for Reform Judaism, which represents the largest number of
American Jews who are members of synagogues, decided to remain neutral with
regard to the Iran agreement, resisting pressure from AIPAC, the government
of Israel and others to join in opposing congressional approval. Rabbi Rick
Jacobs, who heads the group, said: “There was a lot of pressure on all
sides, and not just from the highest echelons of the Israeli political
leadership … We felt even more pressure from our own conscience to do the
analysis and discernment in a very thoughtful way.” Lamenting what he called
“scorched earth lobbying,” he noted that, “If you oppose the deal you’re not
a warmonger and if you support the deal you’re not automatically sending
your family to the doorstep of Auschwitz. Those are demonizing and debate-
ending types of statements.”
Unintended Consequences
Israeli peace activist and former member of the Knesset Uri Avnery discussed
the unintended consequences of Israel’s campaign against the agreement with
Iran: “Actually, the play is over. An agreement signed by the entire world
cannot be made to disappear with a puff from Bibi … The bomb that isn’t has
already caused immense damage to Israel … All Israelis agree that one
supreme asset Israel has is its special relationship with the U.S … All this
is put in question. Another hidden crack is the rift between Israel and a
large part of the Jews around the world. Especially in the U.S.”
Israel claims to be “the nation-state of the Jewish people,” Avnery noted,
and “that all Jews around the world owe it unquestioning allegiance. A
mighty apparatus of ‘Jewish organizations’ is policing the vassals. Woe to
the Jew who dares to object. Not anymore. A rift has opened within world
Jewry, that probably cannot be repaired. Commanded to choose between their
president and Israel, many American Jews prefer their president, or just opt
out. Who is the anti-Semite who has managed to bring all this evil about? No
other than the prime minister of Israel himself.”
Writing in YNET (Aug. 34, 2015), Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea reported
that some members of the Israel lobby in the U.S. take their “orders” from
Netanyahu. He writes: “President Obama is phoning Democratic members of
Congress about the Iran deal. Netanyahu is calling. Israeli ambassador Ron
Dermer is calling. No American president gets this kind of competition over
the attention of his party’s elected representatives. The leaders of the
Jewish community in the U.S. are stuck in the middle. The word ‘community’
is misleading. There is no community. The word ‘leaders’ is also misleading.
There are no leaders. There are lobbying groups that take orders from the
Israeli prime minister, there are a few wheeler-dealers close to the top,
and there are Republican billionaires whose ego has become as inflated as
their bank accounts. They have contempt for Obama for all the wrong reasons,
including his skin color.”
American Jewish Opinion Is Independent of Advocacy Groups
Opponents of the Iran agreement have been financed by a small group of
wealthy supporters of Israel’s right-wing. Such individuals as Sheldon
Adelson, Paul Singer and Haim Saban have given more than $13 million in this
effort. J Street, the liberal advocacy group, raised more than $5 million
since the agreement was announced and was active in its support. But
opponents of the agreement seem not to have anticipated the vocal opposition
of the majority of American Jews to their efforts. No longer can anyone say,
with any degree of credibility, that AIPAC and its allies speak in behalf of
American Jews. No longer can anyone say that Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks
for Jews outside of Israel. Nor can anyone say that Israel, the major
recipient of U.S. aid, does not interfere in our domestic political affairs.
Beyond all of this, Judaism’s moral integrity is being eroded as rabbinical
groups, charitable federations, and organizations established to pursue a
variety of worthy goals become politicized and insert themselves in a debate
over an international agreement with regard to which they have no mandate to
speak. For American Jews who believe that Judaism is a religion of universal
values, mandating moral and ethical standards for men and women of every
race and nation, the campaign against the Iran agreement represents a
further corruption of American Jewish life.
Now, it is abundantly clear that those who have embarked upon this campaign
do not represent those in whose name they claim to speak. And while Israel
proclaims itself the “nation-state” of all Jews, this claim is less than
persuasive. The nation-state of American Jews is the United States. By
inserting itself into American Jewish life and into domestic American
politics, Israel’s current government has been moving away from reality, as
well as its own long-term best interests. Those American Jews who follow its
lead, a rapidly diminishing number, have been shown to be a vocal and often
intemperate minority, one which seems increasingly distant from Judaism’s
moral and ethical traditions. They do not aspire to be a “light unto the
nations,” and in their narrow nationalism, they certainly are not. For some,
Israel has replaced God as the object of worship, a form of idolatry which
we have seen before in Jewish history. Hopefully, we are now in the process
of moving beyond such a profanation of the genuine Jewish religious
tradition.
|