Like many of you, Israel is on my mind. The big issue is the pending deal with Iran, but that is not the only troubling reality to confront these days. Just last week, an unhinged ultra-Orthodox man stabbed six people at the annual Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem, and the next day in an unrelated incident, a Palestinian toddler died in a fire lit by a radicalized group of Israeli settlers. The one thread that runs through these events is a violent strain of religious zealotry which seems more and more the reality of life in the Middle East.
A number of folks in the congregation have asked for my opinion on the Iran deal. To my knowledge there is not a section in the Talmud on nuclear proliferation, and this was certainly not a subject we explored in Rabbinical School! When I was studying at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, we occasionally received high- level security briefings – Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and others met with us – but these days, my sources of information are the same as yours. In other words, I am not more qualified than any of you to comment on “the deal”. Nevertheless, here’s my “two cents” for what it is worth, which I hope will be an opening for all those interested to join the conversation.
It’s a bad deal. I wanted to like it. I wanted to be able to support our president and embrace what I hoped would be the best way forward. I wanted to feel reassured that the U.S really had Israel’s back. That’s what I wanted but that is not what happened. It’s a bad deal and this is why:
• At best, it only delays Iran’s production of a nuclear weapon
• It does nothing to deter Iran from acquiring or building a missile -delivery system for a nuclear weapon
• Once sanctions are lifted, Iran will have billions of dollars to pour into the many radical Islamic groups its supports, all intent on destroying Israel, like Hezbollah and Hamas.
One compelling argument for the deal is that, as bad as it is, it’s better than the alternative: war. If war was the only alternative, I might agree (though history has not been kind to those who appease instead of fight when the “red line” is crossed). But there is another alternative: continue the sanctions. If Iran is hard to contain now, when it is isolated and economically crippled, imagine the challenges we will face with an Iran flush with oil revenues, internally somnolent, its middle class back on its feet, and re-armed with the latest Russian and French weaponry. Not a pretty picture.
Of course, the U.S is not the only party to the agreement and one wonders where the other nations stand. My guess is that we only have access to the tip of the iceberg of information that informed Secretary Kerry and President Obama’s decision to take “the deal”. Nevertheless, “the deal” as far as I can discern, is a bad one that I hope Congress rejects.
We have allies now. They are intent on lifting sanctions.
The way I se it the Iran deal buys us some tim. I can’t see that there is an alternative.
If we under cut the diplomatic work that has been done we are going to WAR.
I don’t have any inside knowledge but I think that if the deal goes through Israel and its enemies may face the reality of concession.
Let’s get those settlers out of the West Bank. There are many groups working to bring children of both nations together. Let’s give this deal a chance and keep talking. Even Reuvin Rivlen who serves as president believes there is a chance for good behavior.
Hardliners like Netanyahu are stubborn and arrogant. We have hawks here too. Its a world problem. In every group there are good and bad. It’s in all of us so let’s light a candle and do our best to achieve rapprochement.
I basically agree with the previous comments by Mickey Schacht. If our allies do not continue sanctions ,and there is every indication that they won’t ,then the U.S. will be unable to use sanctions to improve the situation.
Furthermore, I am struck by those who oppose the deal. They are primarily right wing Republicans who always see war as the answer. I think we need to give peace a chance. The deal gives us 10-15 years to work on effective changes. Also Israel needs to stop adding settlements which only serves to aggravate the current situation. The same people who oppose this deal are those who pushed for the Iraq War and look how that turned out. There are many prominent Jews like Barbara Boxer who are inn favor of this deal.
We read Rabbi George’s blog with great interest, but I disagree with its conclusions about the Iranian Nuclear Deal (“the Deal”).
We believe that the agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear capacity is a sound move that merits the support of the Jewish community. While it is true that the agreement does not correct all of Iran’s bad behavior, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of the multinational sanctions covered by the Deal.
The most stringent components of the sanctions regime were imposed when Iran’s previous President, Ahmadinejad, put their nuclear program into high gear. Presidents Bush and Obama, working with the UN Security Council (i.e., the EU, plus Russia and China…no small feat), increased the severity of sanctions with the objective of “inducing Iran to engage in discussions to fulfill its nonproliferation obligations.” (cf. U.S. Department of State website) The proposed Deal fulfills that objective, through a negotiation leading to the imposition of limits on Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon for at least 15 years. Furthermore, as the sanctions regime has already frayed, it would be extremely difficult to maintain pressure on a unilateral basis.
Echoing a call to arms eerily similar to 2003, voices from the right in the U.S. and Israel have urged the U.S. to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities now, before it’s too late. While maintaining that military action is an option, Obama has urged the importance of giving diplomacy a chance. The Deal is a diplomatic next step which, if it is effective, will limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And, if it is not effective-and Iran cheats, despite intensive monitoring by experts in the field, sanctions will “snap back.” As Obama and Kerry have repeated, the Deal is based on verification, not on trust. Under the Deal, vital information will be obtained about compliance (or lack thereof), so the US and its allies can accurately evaluate Iran’s behavior and assess its intentions.
Some who criticize the Deal speak of alternatives, but offer none except possible military action. Many US and Israeli military and security experts have voiced support for the Deal because it avoids military action and buys time. Time in international affairs is a valuable commodity, especially if it leads to strengthening the parties’ stake in developing international economic and social relations.
Some complain that the agreement does not include restrictions on Iran’s ability to use the impounded billions of dollars to support terrorist organizations. However desirable this goal is, it was never one of the stated objectives of the nuclear-focused sanctions. This Deal opens opportunities to reach additional international agreements with Iran, with the objective of reducing its bellicosity. It certainly provides fodder for the forces within Iran who emphasize domestic policies to improve economic and social conditions on the home front and develop a more tolerant political system.
I’d like to encourage those who are interested in reading some very thoughtful and though-provoking articles, including the full text of the Iran Deal, to go to the Jewish Community Relations Council blog, (jcrc.org/news-events/blog/whats-the-deal-with-the-iran-deal).
For a simple and sober reflection of the Israeli perspective, please see today’s column by Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. The link is below (requires cut-&-paste to view or go directly to http://www.NYTIMES.COM).
“If I Were an Israeli Looking at the Iran Deal”
My thinking as an Israeli grocer would be different from as an Israeli general, and that would be still different from as the prime minister.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/opinion/thomas-friedman-if-i-were-an-israeli-looking-at-the-iran-dealhtml.html?mwrsm=Email
i participated in a phone call through the Jewish Community Relations Council re the Deal that convinced me that even though the Deal is bad - actually worse then I describe above - at this point, there are no better options and we should all get behind it. Why my change of heart? At this point, Sanctions are no longer a viable option (the other partners to the agreement, especially China and Russia but also the Europeans are chomping at the bit to do business with Iran), and the one thing the Deal can accomplish is a delay in Iran’s acquisition of Nuclear weapons, which is less likely to happen without the deal. The other issue of great concern is US-Israel relations which are at an unprecedented low. We need each other and we need to act in ways that strengthen our ties not destroy them!
I would also recommend reading the Thomas Friedman column in the PD. I agree with Rabbi George that the the deal is the best and really only option available to us besides going to war. Without the deal Iran will start developing its nuclear program without any inspections at all.
Thanks, Rabbi George, for opening the conversation, for the thoughtful comments of others, and Rabbi’s course correction, which pleases me.
I’m reminded of a joke many have heard. Asked to arbitrate a dispute the rabbi listens to one side and says, “He’s right.” Then, he hears the other side. “He’s right,” says the rabbi. Dumbfounded the disputants say together, “Rabbi, how could that be?” After some reflection, the rabbi’s measured reply comes, “You’re right again.”
Therefore, I won’t equivocate.
All too aware of my limitations in evaluating the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), I’ve struggled to reach this non-equivocal conclusion: The Deal is a necessary step for regional and global security. It should get political support from all who want to see a step away from the instability of confrontations between nuclear-armed nations, especially those in a “tough neighborhood,” the Middle East.
Although I can’t see into the future better than anyone else, I am confident that the technical side of the Iran deal is excellent; cheating in a way that would allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons without foreknowledge isn’t an issue. The political maneuvering to get Iran to agree has been remarkably successful and powerful interventions are possible if Iran chooses to violate the multi-national agreement, or worse still, international will falters.
The matters that trouble me and many others are extra-nuclear and not part of the deal. Iran has not surrendered its hegemonic goals, is not in retreat from sponsorship of terrorism and certainly not retreating from support of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and antisemitic rhetoric and actions, and will have greater economic strength. If the deal eventually brings a bright light into this dark recess, perhaps the very recent statement by German Chancellor Merkel will prove its first flicker. Much as she said, if Iran is to have a place among the nations in commercial and academic exchange, it must stop its unacceptable language of vitriolic hatred. In time, more substantive change may come. Assuming the endorsement I expect by the US government (i.e., sustaining the president’s inevitable veto), I will be more at ease to wait for a better history to evolve knowing Iran’s nuclear program is inactive and its infrastructure largely decommissioned.