Over-Heated Campaign against Iran Agreement Shows How Unrepresentative Jewish Groups Are of Those in Whose Name They Speak

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.