Posted on 08/03/2015 2:21:49 AM PDT by markomalley
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now at his best. He thrives when he runs political campaigns; he is the master of using scare tactics to elicit public support. His current campaign is geared toward members of the US Congress and Israeli public opinion. He is determined to fight US President Barack Obama on his own political turf, siding with the Republicans, and to be perceived in Israel as the ultimate “defender of the Jewish people.” To him, this is about history, or rather about history books.
Netanyahu has engaged the most effective lobby in Congress — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — to pressure all members of Congress, especially the 13 Democratic senators needed to override the eventual veto that Obama will use on a negative congressional vote.
The focus in the “nay” camp is on the struggle, not its consequences. Given that Obama has placed his credibility and legacy on the line, with the support of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Republican-Netanyahu-AIPAC battle is virtually a hopeless cause.
A senior member of AIPAC’s political leadership told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “We have decided to go all out on the issue, despite this being a partisan cause. We cannot stand by when the prime minister of Israel makes defeating the Iran deal his cause celebre. This is the first time in AIPAC’s history that the lobby challenges a US president on such an issue; an issue where the president's political credibility is on the line. Secretly, some of us pray not to succeed in this battle.”
Indeed, AIPAC has galvanized all its troops, urgently calling its constituents to appeal to their respective congressmen, demanding them to oppose the Iran deal. For this purpose, AIPAC followers were offered long and argumentative fact sheets on the alleged flaws of the agreement. These sheets look very much like the talking points of the Republicans in Congress. Tens of millions of dollars have been allocated, and many of the influential AIPAC funders have been called to convince key senators.
It seems that all sides are focused on a fierce political battle. At the same time, apparently not many of those who oppose the agreement for legitimate or political reasons are actually considering the consequences of a Republican-Netanyahu-AIPAC win.
If the deal is defeated, the agreement will still stand with regard to the European, Russian and Chinese decision to gradually remove the sanctions. Their business representatives are already exploring possible deals with Tehran. In the eyes of the world, Iran will be depicted as the more moderate party, while Israel will be perceived as an obstacle to global peace. At the same time, the Iranians might feel less compelled to stick to their side of the bargain (considering that the Europeans seem to be easier to fool). Thus, they might continue secretly to develop nuclear weapons. If this happens, the United States would lose its leading position in the world for a long time to come.
As aforementioned, this Israeli move initiated by Netanyahu and spearheaded by Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, is conducted in full coordination with AIPAC and the heads of the Republican Party in Congress. But within it lie many dangers both to Israel and to the American Jewish community.
Even before the congressional debate got started, Netanyahu's campaign has already provoked unprecedented and, for the foreseeable future, irreversible damage to US-Israel relations. It has seriously harmed Israel's influence mostly within the Democratic Party and its voters.
On the international level, as Netanyahu continues his campaign, Israel’s power of deterrence will increasingly suffer. The image of its alliance with the Unites States will erode in the eyes of the Arab world and others. This move also hastens Israel's isolation. US Secretary of State John Kerry already warned July 24 on NBC that, should the agreement be rejected, Israel would be blamed. This is tantamount to accusing Israeli policies of potentially endangering world peace. A field day for the Iranians.
As for the American Jewish community, Netanyahu’s call to arms, with AIPAC marching to his beat, places American Jews in direct confrontation with their president. AIPAC’s right-wing position on Iran contradicts the majority opinion of American Jews. According to a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Jewish Journal on July 22, 49% of American Jews support the deal, while only 31% oppose it. Yet, AIPAC’s high-profile anti-Iran deal campaign, coupled with aggressive activities of some other Jewish organizations, depicts the entire American Jewish community as “objectionist.”
By turning the Iran issue into a political battle against Obama, Netanyahu has pushed American Jewry into a corner: They must allegedly choose between an allegiance to their president and loyalty to the Israeli prime minister. The sensitive question of dual loyalty by American Jews may surface again, to the detriment of the community. This is not only Netanyahu’s fault, but also the making of American Jewish community leaders, such as the AIPAC chief and leaders of the US Jewry umbrella body — the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The executive vice chairman of the latter, Malcolm Hoenlein, bitterly criticized Obama's policies and the Iran agreement in a radio interview on July 19. These leaders seem to align their concerns with those of the Israeli government before addressing the concerns of their Jewish constituency. Together with Netanyahu, they place Israel and America Jewry on a collision course with Israel's No. 1 ally.
I don't ever recall having to pledge allegiance to a president (much less a pretender).
Do American Jews have a different pledge of allegiance? Does that pledge only happen when a Dhimmicrat is in office?
Was this written by a full blown anti-Semite, or a self-hater?
Bibi cares about Israel. Obama does not.
Period.
Full stop.
End of story.
This is one hand-wringing bed-wetter. What a putz.
I commend you for being able to read this stuff. I couldn’t get past the first paragraph.
Here's the nub of the problem from the writers point of view. The scales may be dropping from the eyes of US jews about their monolithic support of the Democrat party.
This idiot seems to have forgotten that Obama ordered the cut-off of arms re-supply to Israel during the Gaza conflict. Obama threatened to abandon the US support of Israel at the U.N. Obama was the one who wouldn't have dinner with Bibi because he had a "prior engagement with his family" and who ordered that Bibi exit thru the back door of the White House.
If any one is responsible for poisoning US Israeli relations its the present incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It doesn’t matter if the argument empowers Netanyahu, or Obama, or gives the democrats or republican in the USA something to fight about—in other words, who cares about the politics and partisan fighting about it?
The only question should be, does it empower Iran to make nuclear weapons?
If so, it MUST be opposed by any Jew who loves Israel or the Israeli people, because the Iranians will use it on them.
The same for Americans. Iranians do not chant Death to America for no other reason than they hate us, and the only reason we are safe is, up to now, they couldn’t do anything about it.
It’s folly to play politics with it, as YOU are, Mr. Savir!
“We cannot stand by when the prime minister of Israel makes defeating the Iran deal his cause celebre. This is the first time in AIPAC’s history that the lobby challenges a US president on such an issue; an issue where the president’s political credibility is on the line. Secretly, some of us pray not to succeed in this battle.””
Unlike standing by Obama who wants to make defeating Israel his cause celebre.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Funny, if a Jew or Jewish organization is being written about, the idea that one might oppose the Iran "deal" because it's bad for America never enters the discussion. In this case, URI even leaves the security of Israel or the US out of it, it's just Bibi vs Obama. Who apparently equates with US Jews. AIPAC, of course, suddenly becomes an organization for US Jews, not one for Americans that support Israel. I understand the tactic, persuading Americans to support the deal because it enhances the security of the US in the long term is a tough sell.
The site has media partnerships with major news organizations from countries in the Middle East. Among its media partners are El Khabar, Al-Masry Al-Youm, Azzaman, Calcalist, Yedioth Ahronoth, Al-Qabas, An-Nahar, As-Safir, Al-Hayat, Al-Iktissad Wal-Aamal, Habertürk, Milliyet, Radikal, Sabah, Taraf, Al Khaleej, and Al-Tagheer. from wikipedia
Iranian American Forum, 24 June 2013
http://iraniansforum.com/index.php/washington-insight/550-al-monitor-a-pro-tehran-website-in-washington.html
Since its launch in 2012, Al-Monitor has turned into a PR website for the Iranian regime. Majority of its Iranian columnists are regime's pundits, former officials, oil consultants and lobbyists
Al-Monitor is a Washington-based website launched in January 2012 that calls itself “the pulse of the Middle East.” The main site, which is in English, is divided by region, or “pulses”—like “Iran Pulse,” “Turkey Pulse,” etc.
The Washington Post called Al-Monitor “an invaluable Web-only publication following the Middle East,” and The Huffington Post said that Al-Monitor is “increasingly a daily must-read for insightful commentary on the Middle East.”
The investigative journalist Lee Smith has written a detailed story about Al-Monitor and explains how the website's articles and reports are in large majority in favor of the Syrian regime and its terrorist ally Hezbollah. He writes:
"Observers assert that the arguments and positions of the Assad government receive heavy coverage in the site’s ‘Lebanon Pulse’ section, with an emphasis on translated material from pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad media outlets as well as original content produced for Al-Monitor by writers who also work for pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad media.
Until Al-Monitor was founded, pro-Hezbollah journalists could only publish in resistance media outlets. In Al-Monitor, by contrast, their work is printed alongside reporting and analysis that falls within the mainstream of public policy discourse. Several of Al-Monitor’s critics point specifically to August 2011, when Al-Monitor’s founder and owner, a Syrian-born businessman named Jamal Daniel, bought a large share of As-Safir—a Beirut daily newspaper that the New York Times has variously described as a ‘pro-Assad Lebanese newspaper,’ and ‘a left-leaning publication that often supports the pro-Assad Lebanese group Hezbollah.’
Smith details how Al-Monitor mirrors and legitimizes the pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah positions. Al-Monitor's owner is the Syrian Born Jamal Daniel, president and chairman of Crest Investment Company in Texas, mostly involved in the energy sector. Numerous press articles detail Daniel’s biography and his ties to the Syrian regime. For example, you can read reports by Marc Tracy and Lee Smith.
Regarding the website's "Turkey Pulse", one does not have to be an expert to understand that the majority of reports and articles criticize Turkey's policy of supporting the Syrian opposition. A recent article titled, "Most Turks Do Not Support Erdogan's Syria Policy," could be described as Al-Monitor's position.
Al-Monitor's advocacy on behalf of the Syrian regime and Hezbollah is accompanied by a clear and unequivocal bias in favor of the Iranian regime. The absolute majority of Iranian analysts who write for Al-Monitor's "Iran Pulse" are pundits associated with the Iranian regime. Here are some examples:
Seyed Hossein Mousavian writes regularly in Al-Monitor. He is the former Iranian ambassador to Germany in the 1990s when the embassy was the operating center for the regime's terrorism abroad. The infamous Mykonos killing of Kurdish leaders in Berlin was one of them. (See the video documentary)
Mousavian, who is currently a fellow at Princeton University, dedicates his time and energy to defending the Iranian regime and its nuclear policy. His articles in Al-Monitor are part of his pro-Tehran campaign.
Bijan Khajehpour is also a regular writer at Al-Monitor. Khajehpour is the founder and chairman of the Atieh Group in Tehran. Atieh is a business conglomerate with diverse activities that help foreign companies do business in Iran. It acts as an intermediary between the company and the government, maintaining close ties with the regime and entering multiple joint ventures with the government. Atieh is part of the inner circle of the Iranian regime's economic mafia. Some of Atieh's website screen shots are compiled here and show close ties between this company and the Iranian regime.
Mohammad Ali Shabani is another regular contributor at Al-Monitor. He is a PhD student in London who officially works for the Center for Strategic Research (CSR) in Tehran, which is part of the Iranian regime's Expediency Council. Shabani's boss until the June 2013 Iranian presidential elections was Hassan Rouhani, the new Iranian president.
Kayhan Barzegar and Hossein Hafezian are two of the other Al-Monitor analysts. They are respectively director and senior fellow at the Tehran-based "Institute for Middle East Strategic Studies," which is a semi-governmental institute affiliated with the Expediency Council.
Banafsheh Keynoush, who writes in Al-Monitor, is the former interpreter for three Iranian presidents, including Ahmadinejad.
These analysts and writers have turned Al-Monitor into a PR website for the Iranian regime. Their reports are at best similar to what is published in a governmental website in Tehran, affiliated with a less brutal faction of the regime.
Typical self-hating Jew would be my guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.