Opinion Editorials, August 2015

Share this article with your facebook friends

49% of American Jews support the US-Iran agreement, 31% oppose it.

The Iran agreement and Israel’s claim to speak for the Jews  

By Lawrence Davidson

American Jewish opposition to the Iran agreement

On 13 August 2015 the New York Times (NYT) carried a front page article entitled “Donors descend on Schumer and others in debate on Iran”. The article opened a window on the activities of big money donors in the Congress of the United States.

Take for instance the case of Senator Charles Schumer, the senior senator from New York. According to the NYT story, Schumer had been consulting with John Shapiro, a wealthy financier and “longtime benefactor” of the senator and other Democratic politicians. Shapiro is also the head of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), an organisation that claims 100,000 members and that, since 2009, has described itself as “a centre for Jewish and Israel global advocacy”, thereby misleadingly tying these two interests – Jewish advocacy and Israeli advocacy – together. Shapiro’s position in the AJC also means that, when it comes to Middle East foreign policy, there is no real difference between his position and that of the Israeli government. This identification is reflected in the AJC’s “unity pledge” concerning the Zionist state.

Thus, it comes as no surprise that Shapiro told Schumer what Israeli-inspired analyses to read before he made his decision on the nuclear deal. According to the NYT, Shapiro also informed the senator that the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, felt sure that the deal would “increase regional terrorism”. It can be assumed that Shapiro failed to mention that this was an opinion that differed from the public position taken by the Egyptian foreign minister.

Soon thereafter Schumer announced that he would oppose President Obama’s negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran. One can find multiple critiques on the web of Schumer’s reasons for taking this position, so we won’t go into it here. For our purpose the important point is that Shapiro wasn’t the only Jewish donor trying to put pressure on legislators and, in fact, many were urging not rejection but acceptance of the Iran deal.

American Jewish support for the Iran agreement

The NYT article identifies several wealthy Jewish donors who were lobbying in support of the Iran agreement but doesn’t tell us if they have been as successful as Shapiro. These include the billionaire entrepreneur S. Daniel Abraham, TV producer Norman Lear (founder of People for the American Way) and the famous George Soros.

There are several additional points that can be added to this aspect of the NYT story:

There are a good number of Israeli intelligence professionals (to say nothing of their American counterparts) who “have very positive views of the nuclear agreement”. Despite efforts by the Netanyahu government to silence them, their positions are now coming out in the media.

Hundreds of prominent American Jews have publicly supported the agreement in a NYT advertisement and open letter to Congress.

Recent polls show that most American Jews support the deal with Iran. According to a poll conducted by the LA Jewish Journal survey, “by a wide margin, American Jews support the recently concluded agreement with Iran”. Indeed, according to this poll, even a majority (51 per cent) of those who described themselves as “very attached emotionally to Israel want Congress to approve the deal”.

The myth of a united Jewry

All this information undermines the myth that Israel (or worse yet, Binyamin Netanyahu) speaks for the Jews. This has always been untrue, yet Israel’s persistent insistence that it is true constitutes a typical “big lie” which, repeated over and over again, takes hold in the popular mind and comes to appear as a reflection of reality.

It is the resulting pseudo-truth that helps men like John Shapiro be so persuasive. Along with all the money he can bring to the table, he can claim that he speaks simultaneously for Israel and American Jewry. His political benefactors will believe this because it is consistent with an established myth.

That is why it is important to point out, at every opportunity, instances that undermine the myth. The case of the Iran nuclear agreement is just such an instance.

The importance of an organisational approach

There is one other lesson to be learned from the NYT story. Lobbyists like Shapiro have an advantage because unlike most of the Jewish donors who support the nuclear agreement, they can approach Congress as the leaders of focused organisations that have a relatively large membership with deep pockets.

The Jewish donors out there who may want to defy Israel and its claim to speak for the Jews must also approach the US government in a focused organisational fashion if they are to compete with Shapiro and other groups such as AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs committee]. There are, of course, smaller Jewish groups that are defiant of Israel and its practices, groups such as Jewish Voices for Peace. But such organisations, while giving the lie to the Israeli claim to represent all Jews, haven’t the numbers or the money to successfully compete for influence in Congress. One might also mention JStreet, which really doesn’t qualify here, because nine times out of ten it offers a resolutely Zionist analysis.

When all is said and done, the opposition forces in Congress probably will be unable to destroy the nuclear agreement with Iran. Will this achievement encourage the Jewish donors who favoured the deal to come together and form a single Jewish organisation outspokenly independent of Israel and its camp followers in the US? One would hope so, because this is really what is needed if we are to liberate the US Congress and political parties from the myth of a unified Jewry in support of Israel.

Conclusion

In the meantime there is an even bigger job to make the same case to rest of the world. Be it in Europe or the Arab world, the myth is growing and shaping people’s thinking. As a consequence, to the extent that a person is hostile to Israel’s policies and practices they run the risk of becoming hostile to “Jews”, which opens the way to stark anti-Semitism. This process can only aid and abet the ambitions of the Zionists. So let us strive for clear thinking on this matter and popularise the fact that Jews are quite diverse in their views and a growing number of them are not supporters of Israel or its practices. In this way we can undercut the myth that falsely connects them to Israel.

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info & editor@ccun.org