No Iran Agreement Likely Worse than a Bad Agreement

Tom Friedman's last op-ed, "Look Before Leaping," in the NYT laid out pros and cons of a nuclear agreement with Iran.  However, I don't think he sufficiently recognizes the downside of a possible war if we don't get an agreement.  John Bolton's recent op-ed in the NYT, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran," shows that there is sentiment for attacking Iran, in almost any case, deal or no deal, but the chances of a military attack on Iran certainly are higher if there is no agreement than if there is no agreement.  If there is no military attack, Iran's obligations under the standard Non-Proliferation Treaty agreements would allow it to develop its nuclear capability up to the last few steps required to build an atomic bomb.  In addition, the other parties to the negotiations -- Russia, China and the Europeans -- are unlikely to maintain sanctions if the deal fails, removing much of the pressure on Iran to bow to Western demands.

Friedman focuses mainly on whether an agreement is likely to bring Iran into the community of civilized nations and thus reduce its trouble-making in the Middle East.  He finds arguments on both sides, probably correctly.  But turning Iran into a responsible member of the international community is not the only issue.  There are also those atomic bombs to worry about.  Unfotunately, I think this makes Friedman's analysis faulty, and I worry that it is faulty for a reason.

Tom Friedman's analysis may be colored by the fact that he is Jewish.  It may simply be that he is under tremendous pressure from other Jews to support the Israeli line that any Iran deal is terrible and that the only solution to the Iranian nuclear problem is to bomb Iran.  I respect Friedman for his long reporting on the Middle East and his personal neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He did exemplary reporting from Lebanon and Israel for the New York Times.  That's why when I detect even a little pro-Israel bias in his column, I suspect that he is under tremendous pressure.  I don't worry about Friedman so much as a do about all the other reporters and policy makers in Washington who have less integrity than Friedman.

Attacks on Anti-Semitism, the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

I am very disappointed in David Brooks’ last column in the New York Times, “How to Fight Anti-Semitism.”  Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”  Similarly, screaming “anti-Semitism” is the last refuge of a racist Jew.  Jews are virulent racists who have created an apartheid state in Israel, but who then smear any critics with taunts of anti-Semitism.  Netanyahu won the Israeli election by race-baiting Israeli Arabs, and scaring racist Jews into believing that Arabs might actually have some power in Israel.  Israel declares itself a Jewish state, which by definition would have no Arabs.  Israel is for Jews only, and pretty much only for Ashkenazi Jews, who look down even on Sephardic Jews. 

As an Ashkenazi Jew, David Brooks is part of their propaganda machine, getting the talking points for his column on anti-Semitism from Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Dermer.  He is just spreading hatred.  Atlantic Magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg, also a Jew who served in the Israeli Defense Forces like David Brooks’ son, got the same message from the Jewish/Israeli hierarchy: smear non-Jews with the anti-Semitism epithet.   It’s all part of an orchestrated Jewish/Israeli campaign of race hatred. 

If Jews weren’t so racist, why would they be so easy to pick out by people who are terrible terrorists?  If Jews just lived as ordinary people, they would not be so easy to identify and attack.  They don’t want to be part of a society mainly consisting of people whom they consider inferior to them.  Their contempt for other races makes them easy targets.  By playing the anti-Semitism card, Brooks and Goldberg reveal themselves as racists.  Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Dermer have both figuratively spit in the face of the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  As an American I take offense at that.  

Netanyahu Encourages American Disloyalty

I am disappointed in Netanyahu’s election, and suspicious of how his statements were handled by American news media.  Just before his election, he said that he would not support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.  Then after he was elected, and his comments had produced a strong unfavorable reaction in the US, he told Andrea Mitchell that he could accept a two-state solution.  First, it seems suspicious that the gave this interview to Andrea Mitchell, a Jew, who at least in this interview revealed herself as a Jew first, a journalist second, and an American third.  Netanyahu clearly chose her as a friendly means for getting his new statement out to the public with minimal questioning by the interviewer about why he completely reversed himself overnight on an  issue that fundamentally affects Israel’s future existence.  Other Jewish journalists, including the NYT’s David Brooks, picked up and defended his new statement, I believe using talking points probably circulated by Israeli Ambassador Dermer.  They explained the Netanyahu statements as not being contradictory because before the election he was saying that a two-state solution was impossible “at this time,” and later that a two-state solution might be possible at some other time, although what time he was referring to in either case was not clear.

I don’t believe that Netanyahu would ever willingly accept a two-state solution at any time, but I also believe that at some point some Israeli leader may have no choice but to accept it.  But I don’t currently see when that would ever be.  At the moment I am more concerned that many American Jews in influential positions appear to be disloyal to the United States and more loyal to Israel.  I include in this group former American Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who is actually Australian, and no qualification to be American Ambassador to Israel, except that the moved here and headed up a bunch of Jewish interest groups.  He clearly is a Jew first, with little loyalty to either Australia or America.  And of course, the two most recent ambassadors from Israel to the US, were American citizens, born in the US, before they renounced their American citizenship to become Israeli Ambassadors.

Netanyahu and Greater Israel

I am terribly disappointed by the election in Israel.  With the victory of the right-wing, Netanyahu and Likud, Israel will become more obsessed with destroying its Muslim neighbors militarily, and it will become more of an apartheid nation as it increases discrimination against Arabs and other non-Jews in Israel.

I don’t understand the appeal of Israel for right-wing Republicans.  It may be the brotherhood of one right-wing party for another.  Republicans may hate Iranians because of the old 444-day hostage crisis, but do they also have a reason to hate Palestinians?  It may be the appeal of militarism; the Republicans want to fight somebody, and the Israelis can tell them somebody to fight.  However, these days Jews by and large don’t fight for America.  Even NYT columnist David Brooks’ son served in the Israeli military, not the American military.  So, the Republicans will be sending non-Jewish, mostly Christian, boys and girls to fight the Iranians for Israel, if it comes to that.  Of course they will say it’s for America, but right now and for years to come, Iran poses no significant military threat to the United States.  It does pose a serious threat to Israel, in part because of the millennia of racial and religious hatred between Persians and Jews.  The US is a relative late-comer to this culture of hatred.  In addition, there is the question of Jewish political contributions.  At least some of the Republicans are motivated by the desire for the huge political contributions that rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson can make, as illustrated by the pilgrimages that potential Republican presidential candidates make to kiss Adelson’s ring.  It is even more reprehensible if Republicans send Christian boys and girls to fight and die in combat in order for the candidates to rake in Jewish political contributions.  There is also the possibility of Republicans wanting Jewish votes, but it’s not a big population in comparison to the entire United States; however, Harry Truman recognized Israel so quickly over the objection of his Secretary of State because he wanted the Jewish vote, and it worked; he beat Dewey.  The main organization building the Republican-Jewish connection is AIPAC, which attracts leaders of Jewish community organizations, Christian evangelical leaders, and Republican politicians.  I don’t understand how it works, except for money.  AIPAC has tons of money, which it distributes to support right-wing Israel interests, and Republican politicians may be addicted to it.  But if they send Americans to fight and die for AIPAC money, it strikes me as bordering on treasonous.

On the other hand, there are the Jews who are Democrats.  It seems like the majority of Jewish politicians are liberal Democrats, with whom I probably agree more closely on policy issues than with my putative kinsmen, the white, Christian, Southern Republicans.  Furthermore, Israel appears (or appeared before last night) to be more evenly split between right-wing, apartheid zealots and easier-going moderates who might be open to peace with the Palestinians.  So, Jewish-American politicians and Israelis themselves tend toward being more moderate than the main Jewish political organization, AIPAC, and the main hawks in Congress, conservative Republicans.   I don’t know where Jews stand in their innermost thoughts.  Certainly the Holocaust cannot be ignored in their thinking, but if they really care about the Holocaust, how can they oppress the Palestinians the way that they do.  Gaza is not unlike the ghettos that Hitler forced the Jews into during World War II.

The Jews may not have a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem like Hitler had to the Jewish problem, but Netanyahu’s renunciation of the goal of a two-state solution is certainly worrying.  He has continued to build Jewish settlements on Arab land, and he has strongly encouraged European Jews to move to Israel.  This may indicate that Israel is still expanding; it has no intention of returning to the borders established by the UN after World War II.  Netanyahu’s goal is some kind of greater Israel.  (It sounds terrible, but does Israel desire “lebensraum” like Germany did before World War II?)  He appears to believe that Israel needs more land and more Jewish population to avoid being overwhelmed by the Jews in and around Israel.  Right now, Iran is the greatest threat to this “greater Israel” ambition.  Israel has to some extent co-opted the main Sunni states, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to support Israel.  So, the Shiite states present the greatest threat, and Iran is the leader of the Shiite states.  Netanyahu may not be so worried about Iran’s future nuclear capability as he is about taking Iran down a rung now, to limit its power in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, etc.  Screaming about the Iranian nuclear program is way to drum up support for an attack on Iran, or at least strong diplomatic pressure on it.  That serves Netanyahu’s goal of building a greater Israel by presenting Iran with an array of enemies in the West who believe they are trying to limit Iran’s nuclear program, when in fact they are mainly meant to limit Iran’s current strategic leverage on Israel.

If this is the case, Secretary of State Kerry may think he is engaged in the noble goal of trying to limit Iran’s nuclear program, but in fact he is an agent for Jewish efforts to limit Iran’s strategic power, with or without nuclear weapons.