Rosh Hashanah is next week. A time of reckoning for each of us. And for those in places of power that also means an accounting for personal actions that impact others on a grand scale. Yes, I am talking about Representative Jerrold Nadler.
The community’s disapproval of Nadler is understandably more intense than its disappointment in other New York City congressmen who have come out in favor of the Iran deal such as Hakeem Jeffries, Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks, and Nydia Velázquez. After all, we don’t expect from them the same level of visceral support for Israel that we do from a Crown Heights Yeshiva graduate.
Which is why Nadler’s perfidy is so hurtful, dangerous, and deserving of condemnation, the congressman’s thin skin notwithstanding. (Nadler’s kvetching about the criticism he’s received for his decision prompted the ADL to call for a rejection of “vicious ad hominem attacks” against Nadler and other congressmen who support the Iran deal.)
Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who was singled out for his strong criticism of Nadler, spoke with me about his frustration.
“I am a child of Holocaust survivors and have spent my entire life trying to understand what happened to our people,” he said. “My mother always used to say, ‘Where was America?’ Today we know that unfortunately no one was there for the Jews, not even the Jews.”
Hikind slams Nadler’s grumbling about the criticism being heaped on him.
“Here’s someone who took a position which upsets many of us and we’re not supposed to react to it? Who out there wants to reassure me that the Iranians don’t have the intention to do exactly what they advocate? This isn’t some minor thing. Are we supposed to say, ‘Oh, that’s your position? Fine. We respect you. Let’s go on.’ Well, I’m sorry. That’s not what it is.”
Hikind says he’s certain that had “George W. Bush presented the identical plan, every single Democrat would be rushing to condemn it.”
Hikind allowed that if Obama “were a strong president who kept his word in the past, then maybe people would feel better about this deal. But all his statements were hot air. You can’t accuse Obama of having a foreign policy that has worked anywhere in the world.”
Indeed, Nadler’s buying into Obama’s assurances on the Iran deal is particularly pathetic in the wake of the broken promises that litter this presidency. Indeed, Obama’s guarantee of snap-back sanctions against the Iranians in case of violations can be paraphrased as if you like your sanctions, you will be able to keep your sanctions.
After the lessons of 9/11 in America and the disasters of Oslo and the Gaza Disengagement in Israel, there can no longer be any excuse for wishful thinking when dealing with terrorists. Allowing a state sponsor of terrorism 24 days’ notice before inspecting nuclear sites or permitting Iranians to self-inspect their Parchin nuclear site is a form of naiveté that should be a criminal offense.
And awarding the Iranians $150 billion as a bonus prize to fund the terrorists of their choice should be an impeachable offense. Especially since that money is sure to find its way to funding the killing of Americans and American allies. With that in mind, every congressman prefacing his support for this deal with the disclaimer that “the deal is not perfect” should be castigated for signing onto a bad deal that endangers lives rather than insisting it go back to the negotiating table.
Voting yes on this deal doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Years of political maneuvering by Nadler and his liberal colleagues paved the way for this ultimate duplicity. Back in 2002, Jewish Press Senior Editor Jason Maoz chronicled a string of bills many Democrats had supported that chopped intelligence and military spending and that could have helped prevent 9/11. Chief among those Democrats was Jerrold Nadler.