Warren Hershkovitz
(Via E-Mail)
Tone Of The Iran Debate
Like many, I am firmly opposed to the multilateral agreement with Iran, but I have also been very troubled by the tone of much of the debate.
I have yet to hear any opponent of the agreement allow that while it may be bad for Israel, it might actually be good (or at least not bad) for the United States. Those opposed to the treaty, including those on the Jewish right, have argued that the treaty is a disaster for the U.S. as well. (They do acknowledge that Israel, being both much closer to Iran and much smaller, is in more immediate danger.)
Now consider those who back the agreement. One could start with Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who has borne much of the brunt of the counterattack since he announced his support. One can – as I do – disagree with the congressman’s analysis. But I’d be hard pressed to claim that I, or the typical rabbi attacking him, knows anywhere near as much as he does about foreign policy. So what can my brief against him be?
(A) He’s stupid. Wait, when he agreed with my positions he was a genius but now he’s stupid? Sorry, I don’t buy that.
(B) He’s anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel. You mean he’s been faking it all these years and only now his “true colors” appear? Hard to believe.
(C) He’s been bought by the president. That charge can be made against any elected official; it’s what politics is all about. Indeed, the same charge can be made against those who oppose the deal – they’ve been bought out by lobbyists on the other side, including AIPAC.
Even if the congressman were anti-Israel, the right wing consensus, remember, is that the deal is bad for America. So one would need to argue that Nadler, and every other politician supportive of this deal, is not only stupid and anti-Israel but also anti-American. I think one would have a hard time arguing that every Democrat in favor of the deal is guilty of treason.
General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, came out in support of the agreement. Do opponents of the deal consider him an American traitor as well? Or do they just consider him uneducated in foreign policy?
Several individuals on the right have compared this deal to the one Neville Chamberlain made with the Nazis. They may be correct. As I indicated, I also feel the deal is a bad one. But historians have not, as far as I know, claimed Chamberlain was stupid (naïve, maybe) and certainly not that he knowingly sold out England or was a Nazi sympathizer.
My point is simple. Let’s argue the facts. Let’s argue the ramifications. But let’s not reduce ourselves to name-calling. It does nothing to help the discussion and ultimately makes it more difficult to move ahead, especially as opponents of the agreement appear to have lost this round of the fight.
Harold Marks
(Via E-Mail)