American and Iranian Jews

Roger Cohen, a columnist for the New York Times, spoke with two political activists from the American Jewish community to gather their views on Iran following a recent speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The author recalls that in his latest speech regarding the nuclear agreement between major powers and Iran, Netanyahu stated: "This agreement allows Iran to build hundreds of bombs in the future and will turn Iranian-supported terrorist groups into superpower terrorists, will initiate an arms race in the Middle East, will provide billions of dollars to Iran, and will pave the way for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons." In another part of the speech, which was broadcast online to American Jewish community activists, Netanyahu attacked President Obama's defense of the agreement. Obama had stated that opponents of the agreement favor war, but Netanyahu countered, saying, "This accusation is not only unfair but completely illogical." Netanyahu also claimed, contrary to all evidence and arguments from his critics, that his opposition to the agreement is because "he wants to prevent war." Donald Moskowitz and Sandra Lipi are among the Jewish political activists who heard Netanyahu's speech. Sandra Lipi was not particularly impressed by Netanyahu's speech and believes that his repeated warnings about a grim future awaiting Israel and the region have become stale. Netanyahu's goal with this speech was to mobilize American Jews to pressure their congressional representatives to oppose the agreement. However, Lipi stated she would not do so. She said, "This is not a great agreement, but it is sufficient to delay Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and may give us enough time to resolve this issue. As a result, this agreement will severely limit Iran's nuclear activities, and in the coming years, we can discuss other issues such as Iran's positions on the Holocaust, the existence of Israel, and human rights. Therefore, I support this agreement." The New York Times columnist supports Lipi's views, noting that one valuable aspect of the agreement is that it forces the U.S. and Iran to engage with each other. These relations may continue to be hostile today but may help resolve some disputes and even initiate some level of cooperation between the two sides over the next 15 years. The majority of Iran's younger generation does not believe in slogans like 'Death to America' or the appearance of the Mahdi. However, Donald Moskowitz, unlike Sandra Lipi, feels concerned after hearing Netanyahu's speech. He believes this agreement does not provide sufficient guarantees but does not think the U.S. government should abandon negotiations. Interestingly, Moskowitz's wife supports the agreement. She is a member of J Street, the largest organization of American Jews that defends Obama's policy toward Iran. Such differences of opinion, even among family members, are not surprising. Discussions about U.S. policy toward Iran have always been a hot topic in all circles, organizations, and associations of American Jews. The New York Times columnist then recalls several points. Netanyahu's recent speech was, as usual, a blatant interference in U.S. politics. He has always had this interventionist approach, as he openly showed support for Obama's rival, Mitt Romney, in the previous presidential election. Netanyahu's relationship with Barack Obama is poor. He has ignored or circumvented the U.S. President to advance his policies, further straining the relationship between the two leaders. To better understand the inappropriateness of this behavior by the Israeli Prime Minister, imagine Obama intervening in discussions regarding a sensitive decision in the Israeli parliament. One important organization of American Jews, called the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, supported Netanyahu's speech. This entity is somewhat opposed to the diversity of views in the American Jewish community, as it does not accept groups that support Obama's policies as members. Several large and longstanding organizations in the American Jewish community, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Jewish Committee, oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran. This opposition is not surprising since all these entities strive to align themselves with the official policies of the Israeli government. However, this positioning is concerning and surprising because it cannot be definitively said that these organizations truly reflect the diversity of views within the American Jewish community. Roger Cohen continues, stating that some recent polls show that a majority of American Jews support the agreement with Iran. There is no doubt that American Jews have differing opinions on this matter. The lack of reflection of diverse opinions and disagreements in major Jewish organizations and the support of most of them for Netanyahu, instead of supporting the U.S. President, is neither beneficial for Jews nor for Israel and peace in the Middle East. He adds that, as the U.S. President has stated, the alternative to this agreement is war. Because Russia and China, when they see that the U.S. is not serious about negotiating and diplomacy to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, will gradually lift international sanctions against Iran. As a result, contrary to the achievements of this agreement, which has extended the time needed for Iran to move toward producing a nuclear bomb by reducing its enrichment capacity, Iran will employ more centrifuges and increase its stock of enriched uranium. Once again, the drums of war will be beaten, and hostility and folly will increase. Mr. Cohen writes that American Jews should listen to the words of Sander M. Levin, the longest-serving Jewish member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who supports this agreement because, according to him, it is "the best way" to prevent Iran from advancing toward producing nuclear weapons and to increase security in the Middle East. The American Jewish community should also note that five Jewish senators have supported this agreement. He concludes by reminding that in reality, for the U.S. and its ally, which it will never abandon, namely Israel, this is the best possible agreement.