Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, August 14, 2015

TGIF: The U.S.-Israel Conflict Is Finally Visible for All to See

Thanks to the Iran nuclear deal, something remarkable is happening in American politics: the irreconcilable conflict of interest between most Americans on one side and Israel and its American supporters on the other is on full display and impossible to ignore. In the past the conflict could be papered over with grand empty rhetoric about the two sides being in "lock-step" and the absence of "daylight" between them. But no more. The conflict is out in the open where everyone can see it. Iran should be thanked for this valuable service.

War with Iran would be a catastrophe not only for the Iranians, including thousands of Jewish Iranians who openly practice their religion in their ancient community, and other people in the Middle East; it would also be a catastrophe for Americans -- hence the conflict of interest between most Americans and the war party. Those, like Tom Cotton, Norman Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton, who think an attack on Iran would be a cakewalk, are either liars or fools. These are the same people, of course, who said the Iraq war would be easy and would usher in a new liberal Middle East. The result has been unspeakable sectarian violence throughout the region, culminating in the Islamic State and a reinvigorated al-Qaeda.

Despite the predictable catastrophe a war with Iran would bring, Israel and its staunchest, most prominent American supporters are conducting a well-financed campaign against the Iran nuclear deal that would surely lead to that war if a Republican wins the presidency next year. In fact, they want war because only war (followed by regime change) would give Israel and its American supporters what they want: unrivaled dominance in the Middle East, which among other things would relieve the pressure to make a just peace with the Palestinians at least by leaving the occupied territories.

Let's acknowledge that most Jewish Americans favor the nuclear deal and do not want war with Iran; in fact, many Jews feel little or no connection to Israel at all. But that must not obscure the fact that the Israeli government, which was recently returned to power by the Israeli people, and the richest, best-organized Jewish American groups -- AIPAC and the rest of the Israel/Jewish Lobby -- lead the opposition to the deal and the neoconservative coalition in favor of war. (This is not to overlook the prominent non-Jewish members of the coalition.) They feign offense at being called warmongers, but they know that the kind of deal they favor would require Iran to fully capitulate to the United States and Israel, demands which go beyond nuclear questions, and surrender its sovereignty. Such a deal could never be reached, and the war hawks know it. They ought to be honest enough to admit that war is what they want. (Some neoconservatives, Jews and non-Jews, are honest enough, including Bolton, Podhoretz, Cotton, Kristol and Joshua Muravchik.)

What's noteworthy is that both sides of the divide have taken the gloves off. We had Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom former Meet the Press host David Gregory once called "the leader of the Jewish people," invited to speak before Congress for the sole purpose of undercutting President Obama's efforts to engage in diplomacy with Iran. We had senators doing the bidding of Israel and the Lobby by writing to the leader of Iran to tell him no agreement would be long-lasting. And most recently we had Netanyahu, in an unprecedented display, openly urging Jewish Americans to oppose the deal with Iran: "The days when the Jewish people could not or would not speak up for themselves, those days are over,” he said in a webcast to 10,000 Jewish American activists arranged by the Jewish Federations throughout North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Are Jewish Americans supposed to see Netanyahu as their leader? (Not that I think they should see Obama as their leader.) Netanyahu apparently thinks so, and prominent Jewish Americans seem to agree. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is Jewish, has courageously condemned this "arrogant" pretense. (Recall that Netanyahu has told Western Jews that they are welcome to "return" to Israel -- even those who have never been there -- to escape the dangers in their countries. Thus he embraces the pernicious Zionist doctrine, shared by anti-Semites, that Jews ultimately are aliens everywhere except in Israel.)

Obama, on the other hand, has finally been willing to openly identify the source of hawkish anti-Iranian pressure: Israel and its American supporters, especially prominent and well-organized Jewish Americans and non-Jews who kowtow to win their political and financial support.

"Because this is such a strong deal," Obama said, "every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." He also said, "Between now and the congressional vote in September, you’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should -- for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."

Everyone knows, first, that the major push for the war against Iraq came from Israel and the Lobby, supported by the neocon devotees of Israel's agenda, and, second, that the multimillion-dollar ad campaign against the Iran deal is run by an AIPAC-related group, Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran, and United Against Nuclear Iran, led by former Sen. Joe Lieberman and financed by wealthy casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who makes no secret of his Israel-first sentiment.

But we shouldn't overstate Obama's willingness to identify the malign influence on American foreign policy that emanates from Israel, its Lobby, and the neocons in general. He also said:
When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice. And they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like Iran’s -- which includes leaders who have denied the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders, are pointed at Tel Aviv. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists that it cannot depend on any other country -- even its great friend the United States -- for its own security. So we have to take seriously concerns in Israel.
Note that he did not mention Israel's large, invulnerable nuclear arsenal. Israel is the nuclear monopolist in the Middle East and has been since the 1960s, thanks to the connivance of its American supporters inside and outside of government. In the context of Iran's potential for obtaining a nuclear weapon, wouldn't you think that fact is relevant? Why do establishment politicians and the mainstream news media hardly ever mention it? Moreover, the rockets that threaten Israelis come from people whom Zionist militias drove off their land in 1948 in a far-reaching ethnic-cleansing campaign and who are now routinely threatened and oppressed: the Palestinians in the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip, target of savage air wars and a years-long blockade, and the people of southern Lebanon, whom Israel has attacked repeatedly and occupied over the years.

Note also that Obama accepts the premise that Iran aspires to be a nuclear power, a proposition for which there is zero evidence and against which there is abundant evidence.

Nevertheless, to his credit, Obama did say,
As President of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.
It's not every day that an American president acknowledges that, whatever his job is, it is not to serve the interests of Israel's racist ruling elite and population. That is indeed good to hear, but it would be news to the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, among others. (But don't expect U.S. military aid to Israel to end or even diminish -- quite the contrary; it will increase.)

Israel's American partisans have predictably accused their opponents of anti-Semitism for focusing on Jewish attempts to kill the Iran agreement, hoping Americans will believe that criticism of Israel and the Lobby in itself constitutes bigotry, if not Nazi sympathies. (Mike Huckabee's claim that Obama is leading the Israelis to the ovens is only the most obnoxious example.) But taking offense at the focus on Jewish efforts is a cynical ploy void of legitimacy. Israel bills itself The Jewish State, representing Jewish interests worldwide. The Lobby embraces that designation. (Not all Jews regard Israel as The Jewish State, however. Jewish anti-Zionism, which dates back to before Theodor Herzl's time, thrives today.) AIPAC boasts of its political clout and its command of vast resources that can make or break political careers. An AIPAC official, asked if the Lobby had lost influence after a scandal, once famously boasted to a journalist over dinner, "You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

In light of all this, it's a little absurd to object to the identification of Israel with Jews or to rail against those who point out the obvious: that Israel and its Jewish American partisans have been at the forefront of the campaign for war against Muslim nations. As Chemi Shalev, writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, put it:
Netanyahu is allowed to address 10,000 American Jewish leaders and activists from Jerusalem, but mentioning their faith is forbidden; he is allowed to be the sole foreign leader to openly campaign against the deal, but singling him out is verboten; AIPAC can raise emergency funds, cancel all vacations and send its lobbyists to canvass on Capitol Hill, but say the words "lobby" or "money" and you are quickly branded a bigot; [Sen. Chuck] Schumer can famously boast that he sees himself as a Shomer [guardian of] Israel but you won’t dare say that when he seems to live up to his promise.
Moreover, how absurd is it for Israel's partisans to accuse critics of raising the dual-loyalty issue, which these days sounds rather antiquated? Did anti-Semites put Netanyahu up to his machinations? Did they sponsor the trip to Israel for over 50 members of Congress just as debate over the Iran deal was starting?

Do not misunderstand: Israelis and Israel's Jewish American partisans are not promoting war with Iran because they embrace Judaism, the Torah, and the Prophets. Many of Israel's Jewish American supporters are secular and even atheist, and many observant Jews oppose war with Iran, support the nuclear deal, and hate Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. What motivates many Israelis and Israel's Jewish American partisans has little if anything to do with Judaism. Rather, they are motivated by an essentially secular ideology and parochial identity politics -- Gilad Atzmon calls it "Jewishness" to distinguish it from Judaism -- that prioritizes the interests of the tribe. These Jews judge issues by the standard "Is it good for the Jews?" (as they see the good). This chosen-people framework is anti-liberal and anti-universal, featuring ubiquitous enemies and impending doom. One might think this attitude is understandable in light of the history of persecution of Jews, culminating in the Nazi Judeocide. But since this ideology fuels the persecution, oppression, and slaughter of innocent others, rather than extra sensitivity to injustice no matter who the victim, we cannot be so forgiving. Nothing in Jewish history can justify how self-identified Jews have treated the Palestinians, or American Jewish support for, or acquiescence in, that treatment. Israel faces no "existential threat" from Iran or anyone else. If that treatment is an application of Jewish values, then Americans should take note. If it is not, then in what sense is Israel The Jewish State?

Whether this ideology has roots in Judaic doctrine and tradition or whether it is a modern secular phenomenon is a complicated question. But people ought to see it for what it is -- before we are dragged into another catastrophic war.

Finally, Israel's Jewish American partisans warn that criticizing the campaign against the Iran deal risks reinforcing stereotypes and inflaming anti-Semitism (even if in itself it does not constitute anti-Semitism). Almost anything anyone says about anyone else could be exploited by bigots, so that is no reason to withhold valid criticism. But if Israel's partisans genuinely fear an anti-Semitic backlash -- which all decent people would condemn as bigoted collectivism -- perhaps they should reconsider their campaign to provoke an American/Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

Sheldon Richman keeps the blog "Free Association" and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!


Carroll said...

Mr. Richmond is undoubtedly correct in his assessment that Jewish radicals (neocons) in the US and Israel do not necessarily embrace Judaism. In fact most of them (probably a vast majority) are secular Jews or out-right atheist. As were practically all of the Jewish intellectuals who financed and led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which consisted of about 80% Jews.

Anonymous said...

(Not all Jews regard Israel as The Jewish State, however. Jewish anti-Zionism, which dates back to before Theodor Herzl's time, thrives today.)

That's nonsense AIPAC poll shows overwhelming Jewish support (90%) for the war on Gaza and it's destruction.

Anonymous said...

Is Holocaust denial to become a war-or-peace issue? Let us hope not. The views of the Iranian governing class on the believability of the details of the Holocaust narrative have nothing to do with the deal as a safeguard.

Sheldon Richman said...

Who else besides Ahmadinejad denied the Judeocide?

Marcy Fleming said...

Many of us, including secular Jews like myself, have very strong doubts about the so-called 'holocaust' which means a great conflagration, which is not how European Jews died in WW2. The great majority did from typhus and other diseases in the last year of the war. Not 'gas chambers' or mythical 'gas ovens' which were actually legitimate crematoriums since it was impossible to bury hundreds of thousands of the dead individually. The 6 million figure is pure conjecture. Why don't we hear of the 200 million victims of Communism, half under Mao alone ? 60 million under the Soviets.
5 million under North Korea, 3 million under Cambodian Reds, 1-2 million under Ho, 2-3 million Sudenten Germans after the war under Red regimes and the list goes on.
See Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton.
We need to deal with issue head on as it is the main prop of Israel.

Unknown said...

As an American I can safely say that I feel most Americans ( the enlightened ones) are sick of isra-hell being on our pay roll and controlling our country.It is no wonder that the world hates jews,always have and always will.

Sheldon Richman said...

Disliking every member of a religious, ethnic, national, or racial group is the height of irrationality, not to mention in conflict with sound libertarian premises.

John said...

You wrote: "Nothing in *Jewish history* can justify how self-identified Jews have treated the Palestinians...", which is incorrect.

The Talmud has been the basis of religious authority in Judaism for many centuries, and provides the religious justification for "driving out" the "strangers" from the land of "Eretz Yisrael". It also establishes a separate legal standard for Jews, which literally allows them to get away with murder.

These concepts are taught in all the yeshivas of Israel, including the flagship Mercaz HaRav founded by rabbi Avraham Kook, "the great soul of religious Zionism". Kook's son, Yehuda Kook, was the founder of the Gush Emunim settler movement.


Sheldon Richman said...

John, I am speaking of justification in the morally objective sense -- legitimate justification. In that sense the Talmud is an excuse or rationalization, not a justification.

John said...

Sheldon: There is really no such thing as "objective morality" in this context. The Talmud provides the basis for *Jewish* morality, debated and refined over the centuries by the most respected Jewish rabbis. According to Webster, to "justify" is: "to prove or show to be just; to vindicate; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty". It is the Talmud which "justifies" the Jewish actions in Palestine, including their total disregard for the opinion of "strangers".

One may not accept this justification as "legitimate", but that is a subjective opinion. The "strangers" need to wake up and realize that the Jews play the game with a different rulebook, according to their own morality, for their own advantage.

Sheldon Richman said...

I disagree that the Talmud, or any book dealing with morality, is immune to objective moral judgment.