web analytics
January 22, 2017 / 24 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Jeffrey Goldberg’

Monday Jeffrey Goldberg Walked Away from the Ha’aretz Cult

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016

American-Israeli journalist Jeffrey Goldberg (New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly) is probably the closest thing today to a traditional, secular Jewish American journalist, hated equally by the right and the left. His view of Israel is sober, and he often gets the Israeli mindset more accurately than most American fellow travelers. On Monday night, Goldberg lost it over a story in the English language Ha’aretz, which has been consistently further out there on leftwing planet than its Hebrew language sister.

“I think I’m getting ready to leave Ha’aretz behind, actually,” Goldberg tweeted, linking to a Sunday Ha’aretz story titled “We’re American Jewish Historians. This Is Why We’ve Left Zionism Behind.”

Written by Hasia Diner and Marjorie N. Feld, the article included blatantly hostile statements, reminiscent of drivel issued by Neturei Karta and any of the varieties of “American Rabbis for Peace” groups out there. Taking into account that Diner is a professor of American Jewish history at New York University, and Feld is professor of history at Babson College, we should probably sit shivah on our expectations of sane evaluations of Israeli history emanating from those two learned ladies.

“The death of vast numbers of Jewish communities as a result of Zionist activity has impoverished the Jewish people, robbing us of these many cultures that have fallen into the maw of Israeli homogenization,” was one of Hasia Diner’s paragraphs, fit for a KKK Wizard.

And, another from Diner: “I feel a sense of repulsion when I enter a synagogue in front of which the congregation has planted a sign reading, ‘We Stand With Israel.’ I just do not go, and avoid many Jewish settings where I know Israel will loom large as an icon of identity.”

Hasn’t she heard the adage, If you don’t have nice things to say, don’t say anything?

Marjorie Feld, who wrote that “in all facets of my very Jewish upbringing I was immersed in Holocaust education,” taught her readers that “the founding of Israel was the Nakba, the great catastrophe, for Palestinians, with ethnic cleansing, destruction, and no right of return.”

Goldberg’s distancing himself from the rabid Ha’aretz crowd (in English — the Hebrew version may be aggressive, but it’s still quality journalism, just remove the attitude and you can figure out what really happened — the way folks used to do with Pravda, or Yisrael Hayom) was met with nasty responses from the nuts community.

Peter Kofod tweeted that Goldberg was “Warmonger/former prison guard who lied to cover up, is also an idiot re anti-Semitism”

He provided a link to a website called S.H.A.M.E. Project, which drags out the cherry picked negative comments from its target’s body of work, sans context (because context requires deliberation and examination, comparison and evaluation, which, like, take time). If the reader is interested, the disgusting hatchet job is up there.

Goldberg tweeted back: “I like a lot of the people at Haaretz, and many of its positions, but the cartoonish anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism can be grating.”

Thereafter, Goldberg entered a string of alley fights with short knives:

Seth Frantzman (Jerusalem Post) rehashed an old grievance: “Jeffrey Goldberg has accused me of ‘enabling baseless hatred’ when I’ve done more than most to help victims and refugees.”

Goldberg: “It’s difficult to acknowledge that you enable sinat hinam. I understand.”

Lisa Goldman: “Are there any women participating in Jeffrey Goldberg’s rumble in the jungle over Haaretz’s allegedly Jew hating ways? Right. Thought not.” Ah, discrimination, because the two history hate mongers were gals, and Goldberg is part of the patriarchy. She also suggested: “Haaretz friends: Jeffrey Goldberg is not that important. Clearly anyone who tweets it’s an *anti-Semitic* paper is an anti-intellectual.”

He works for the Atlantic, lady. You work for 972 Mag, a website only a shaheed’s mother can love.

At some point, Goldberg became entangled in a one-on-one with Ha’aretz publisher Amos Schoken, and tweeted a message of peace: “There’s a lot of good journalism in Ha’aretz, however. Mixed in with the nutty stuff.”

Schocken tweeted: “I wouldn’t call it nutty. I don’t agree with it, I think they ignore history of the Jews,” adding, “But when Israel has such problem in American universities, how can one ignore it?”

To which Goldberg snapped back: “Amos, what you don’t understand is that the problems on campus are caused in part by crap like this.”

Schocken: “Maybe it adds but it is a position of two university teachers, it has to be argued with, not discarded.” Ha’aretz is probably the only newspaper with decent-distribution in Israel that devotes equal if not more coverage to the Nakba point of view, versus the normative Israeli narrative.

At which point Ami Kaufman, co-founder of 972 Mag, tweeted, “How ‘Trump-esque’ to call a legitimate position ‘crap’ and ‘nutty.'” Then: “Israeli policies cause ‘problems’ on campuses, not the opeds that critique them.” Spoken like a man who never faced crowd-wilding by SJP thugs on his way to the dorms.

Goldberg: “That is not an accurate statement. Visit campuses, talk to university presidents, and learn.”

Goldberg tweeted a response to Ha’aretz correspondent Anshel Pfeffer: “Look, when neo-Nazis are emailing me links to Ha’aretz op-eds declaring Israel to be evil, I’m going to take a break, sorry.” He included a link to a column by Gideon Levy titled, “Stop living in denial, Israel is an evil state.” Gideon Levy is that shaheed’s mother’s other favorite read.

Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) entered the fray, quite unexpectedly, praising Goldberg: “Wow. No words.” Truth be told, a tweet on the back from a Likud cabinet minister was probably the last thing Goldberg needed at that moment, and he scolded Erdan: “Thanks for the retweet, but I’d prefer it if you spent more time protecting democracy in Israel.”

Gilad Erdan is Minister of Public Security, so, yes, he is in a good position to mess up or protect democracy in Israel. But why S.H.A.M.E. a man for being nice to you?

Yes, you can get the boy out of the red diaper summer camp, but not vice versa .

JNi.Media

Ya’alon’s Assessment of Obama’s Middle East Policies: Not Good

Wednesday, March 16th, 2016

It seems a very long time ago that President Obama dismissed ISIS as a gaggle of “junior varsity” terrorists who couldn’t present a serious threat anywhere. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that the middle schooler at the table when the wars of the world are being fought is none other than President Obama himself. Obama’s lack of comprehension came in for some serious, if indirect, criticism earlier this week by Israel’s Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon.

Yaalon was speaking Monday afternoon at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. about the surprise announcement earlier that day by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia was withdrawing the bulk of its military commitment from Syria because it has now “largely” accomplished its objectives.

Putin was careful to say that Russia would not be leaving completely, but would leave a significant force behind. Presumably Putin has learned a lesson from the complete abandonment of Iraq by the U.S. That abandonment resulted in the loss of virtually everything the US gained by conquering that country under Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush.

Speaking as he was in the U.S. President’s back yard, Yaalon had little to say about the US abandonment of Iraq. But he had a lot to say about Syria – a country that borders Israel and with which Israel is still nominally at war. A Syria controlled by Islamists is a serious threat to the safety of the Jewish state. And he had some equally blunt warnings about Iran.

Vladimir Putin entered Syria with both feet back in September of 2015, over President Obama’s objection. No-one has been able to identify any negative consequences experienced by Russia, or its leader, from thus ignoring the red line painted in the sand by President Obama. Ditto for consequences to Syria’s Assad, who has been left completely unscathed even though he crossed another, very bold, red line drawn by President Obama.

Many will recall that, back in 2013, Obama explicitly and categorically demanded that Syria give up its chemical weapons or face the wrath of the U.S. Assad refused to comply. The silence from President Obama was deafening.

The Russians promised to take control over all chemical weapons. But Assad was accused of continuing to use such weapons only two days ago by the Syrian-American Medical Society, which recently issued a report on the subject, discussing the wide variety of chemical weapons and delivery systems used by Assad and by all of the numerous other, non-state fighters supporting and opposing him over the last five years.

As much as Israel might prefer stability in its neighbors, Yaalon said categorically that there would be no stability any time soon on the territory of what was, until 2011, the sovereign and undivided nation of Syria.

THERE IS NO WAY TO PUT HUMPTY-SYRIA TOGETHER AGAIN

Rather, as first reported yesterday by The Washington Times, Ya’alon opined that the nation of Syria no longer exists and won’t be coming back: “there is no way to unify Syria,” Yaalon explained. Putin claimed that Russia is leaving because his ally Bashar Assad again sits safely in power. But Ya’alon made clear that that was, at best, a fantasy. The country has been divided up into numerous enclaves each run by a different tribe, religion or warlord.

And at this point, after five years of intense, urban combat that has killed over a quarter of a million people and created many hundreds of thousands of refugees, “there is no way to unify” the country. The best that Assad and the Russians can hope for, Ya’alon explained, is an Alawistan, a Druzistan and other semi-autonomous areas that might, to a greater or lesser extent, leave each other alone.

Notwithstanding recent fitful efforts by Israel and Turkey to get along better, Ya’alon also predicted, or perhaps even called for, an autonomous region for Kurds — even though such a development would be anathema to the leaders of Turkey, who have fought the Kurds for decades to prevent them from attaining independence and escaping the Turkish boot.

IRAN AS A PRIMARY DESTABILIZING FORCE

Ya’alon also explained that the U.S.-driven Nuclear Iran deal has further destabilized the Middle East and created a threat not only to Israel but also to the Sunni-dominated countries in the region. Iran is over 80% Shia and has been run by Shia mullah-dictators since the Shah’s overthrow in 1979. Obama’s gift to the mullahs of $150 billion in cash is now being spent on terror, and ballistic missile construction and testing. No country in the Middle East except Iran and its proxy states can actually be happy about those developments.

Ya’alon explained that Iran and its clients are now “exploiting the [U.S. Iran] deal now to gain hegemony.” He continued: “for sure they are hegemonic in Tehran. In a way they are hegemonic in Baghdad through the Shiite government [there]. They are hegemonic in Beirut regarding Hezbollah, and now they are going to be hegemonic in Damascus.”

Ya’alon reminded his listeners that Iran has been supporting Houthi rebels in power in of Sa’ana, the capital of Yemen, and he explained the danger of Washington’s willingness to allow Iran to participate as an important negotiator in the talks over Syria.

“To leave us with an Iranian-dominated Syria — we can’t agree with it,” he said.

The hardheaded leaders of Israel and Russia, Ya’alon made clear, are facing the realities on the ground in light of the force structures, and tribal loyalties, that are actually motivating the actors there.

Ya’alon’s discussion of those realities was pessimistic. But it was based on facts and reflected the clear sight and deep knowledge of the neighborhood that Israel’s leaders absolutely must display. It was in stark contrast with President Obama’s opinions, ladled out to Jeffrey Goldberg and printed without much challenge in the Atlantic a few days before. There President Obama explained that his Middle East policies would work well “if only everyone could be like the Scandinavians.”

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Ex-Amb. Michael Oren Says Obama ‘Deliberately Abandoned Israel’

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and now a Knesset Member with the Kulanu party, wrote Tuesday that President Barack Obama “deliberately” abandoned a 40-year core policy regarding Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Oren stated that President Obama is a “friend” of Israel but nevertheless maintained that while anyone can make a mistake, President Obama did so on purpose.

In his words:

Only one leader made them deliberately. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran.

It took Oren six years to respond and correct part of President Obama’s “Reaching Out to Muslims” speech in Cairo, in which he said, “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.”

Oren, who still is a champion of the “peace process,” sounded like a Netanyahu sympathizer in part of his op-ed, writing that President Obama ignored Israel’s withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers and the expulsion of 9,000 Jews from Gaza in 2005. Obama also ignored several major concessions to the Palestinian Authority, including one that offered it almost all of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

President Obama said in his speech that Israel should freeze all building for Jews in “settlements,” to which Oren finally wrote in his article:

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

The Bush administration had committed itself to writing in a letter to then-Prime Ariel Sharon that large population centers, such as Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, would remain under Israeli sovereignty in a future Palestinian Authority state.

Obama abandoned that policy and insisted that the promise by Bush was an “unofficial” and non-binding letter. In Oren’s words:

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas —’not a single brick.’

It was clear from that time that the Obama was working behind the scenes, and sometimes up front, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and against Israel.

Oren came out of the closet in his op-ed today and charged that President Obama never asked for any concession from the Palestinian Authority despite the fact the Mahmoud Abbas “violated all of his commitments.”

The United States so far has publicly opposed a Palestinian Authority effort in the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel for a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and to vote the Palestinian Authority into the United Nations as a permanent member.

However, the Obama administration has made open statements that it does not know how much longer it wants to use its veto power in the Security Council on behalf of Israel.

President Obama abandoned a four-decade U.S. policy in May 2011 and stated that a future agreement with the Palestinian Authority should be based on the borders drawn under the 1949 Temporary Armistice Agreement, which lasted until the Six-Day War in 1967.

Oren wrote:

If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

He also wrote that the Obama administration “stunned” Israel by offering to support a Security Council investigation of settlements and by backing Turkish and Egyptian maneuvers to force Israel to come clean on its nuclear capability.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Obama’s Irrational Understanding of Anti-Semitism

Monday, May 25th, 2015

The President’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the The Atlantic makes for some incredulous reading.

There’s a lot to write about, but today, I want to pick at one specific point that not only surprised me, but clearly also surprised Jeffrey Goldberg.

I was disappointed that Goldberg, who could have actually asked a serious followup question, instead chose to give Obama a pass on such an important point, when he clearly knew Obama was wrong.

Goldberg questioned one of the many contradictions in the President’s worldview.

He pointed out Obama’s contradictory belief that while anti-Semitic regimes are not rational players, they will still respond rationally and practically to pressure and incentive.

(As an aside, whether Iran is simply driven by anti-Semitism or by a radical Islamic desire, in which anti-Semitism plays a central role, to bring about Armageddon is another important point to discuss, another time.)

When Goldberg pointed out that anti-Semitic European leaders made irrational decisions against their own survival, he was clearly thinking of Hitler as the prime example of that, as were all of us when we read Obama’s statement.

And Nazi Germany is far from the only example that contradicts Obama’s belief (just look how Hamas and the Palestinian Authority use their foreign aid money – building terror tunnels, buying weapons and paying terrorists instead of building hospitals and sewer systems).

Obama then claimed that since anti-Semitic regimes will care about their survival more than killing Jews, they will make rational decisions towards survival, despite their anti-Semitism.

More incredulously, Obama then claimed their anti-Semitism is limited to discrimination and as an organizing tool, “where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest.”

Nothing in the history, actions or decisions of Nazi Germany (and other anti-Semitic regimes) backs up that claim.

Throughout the war, Hitler diverted physical and manpower resources to killing Jews that could have been much better deployed fighting the allies.

And in particular, towards the end of the war, Hitler (and Eichmann, more specifically) chose to continue to transport Jews to the Death Camps, instead of deploying more resources to fighting the allies.

Those costs were not low, and they clearly opposed Nazi Germany’s self-interest — unless you understand that anti-Semites view killing Jews as being in their primary self-interest, even greater than their own or their regime’s survival.

I’m not expecting a rational and informed answer from the President.

But worse, it’s clear that Jeffrey Goldberg, who obviously had the same question, apparently wasn’t expecting a rational or informed answer either, and instead gave the President a pass.

Here’s that section of the interview:

Goldberg: Stay with Iran for one more moment. I just want you to help me square something. So you’ve argued, quite eloquently in fact, that the Iranian regime has at its highest levels been infected by a kind of anti-Semitic worldview. You talked about that with Tom [Friedman]. “Venomous anti-Semitism” I think is the term that you used. You have argued—not that it even needs arguing—but you’ve argued that people who subscribe to an anti-Semitic worldview, who explain the world through the prism of anti-Semitic ideology, are not rational, are not built for success, are not grounded in a reality that you and I might understand. And yet, you’ve also argued that the regime in Tehran—a regime you’ve described as anti-Semitic, among other problems that they have—is practical, and is responsive to incentive, and shows signs of rationality. So I don’t understand how these things fit together in your mind.

Obama: Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism, Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders—and there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country—

Goldberg: And they make irrational decisions—

Obama: They may make irrational decisions with respect to discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in, and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to strike an agreement on their nuclear program.

Someone please send the President a history book.

JoeSettler

US Rejects Netanyahu’s Demand that Iran Confirm Israel’s Right to Exist

Sunday, April 5th, 2015

The deal with Iran that was approved by President Barack Obama should not include a declaration that Tehran recognizes that Israel has a right to exist, according to the United States.

Two statements last week by Iranian and Israel leaders were arguably just as important if not more important than the framework for a deal that was affirmed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the other P5+1 nations and Iran.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Mohammad Reza Naqdi said that erasing Israel off the map is “‘non negotiable.”‘

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated, “The survival of Israel is non-negotiable,” and he challenged President Obama to include that statement in a deal with Iran.

State Dept. spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to bury the issue Friday night with the argument that Iran’s stated desire to wipe out Israel has nothing to do with the deal with that is designed supposedly to stop it from getting a bomb that would be aimed at Israel.

Harf stated:

This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue

On the other hand, President Obama stated after the deal was concluded:

I will be speaking with the Prime Minister today to make clear that there will be no daylight, there is no daylight, when it comes to our support for Israel’s security and our concerns about Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats toward Israel.

Obama openly admitted last week that he and Netanyahu have opposing positions on the deal with Iran. He stated, “It’s no secret that the Israeli Prime Minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.”

But if the president really wants anyone to believe he is committed to Israel’s security, it would be a logical conclusion that he would tell Iran that it really is not very convincing that it  does not want a bomb to destroy Israel when one of its top military commanders says there is nothing to be negotiated when it comes to destroying Israel.

If Iran really does not want to use its nuclear program to develop a bomb, what would be so difficult about telling Tehran to put everyone’s mind at rest and state that Israel has right to exist?

Harf’s answer that in effect said “don’t make things difficult for us” actually is the truth. Iran would never agree to putting in writing that Israel has a right to exist, but there is no need to worry if Iran reneges on the deal because Israel has Obama’s “support for Israel’s security and our concerns about Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats toward Israel.”

Iran’s one-track mind to destroy Israel was succinctly documented  by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic last month. Following are  several statements by Iran and Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy in Lebanon, the past 15 years. However, one must not be concerned by the threats against Israel  and the agreement not to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure because Israel has Obama’s “unshakeable support” even if he cannot state so in a deal with Iran.

Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: “If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime … if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.” (2000)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001)

 

Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (2002)

 

Nasrallah: “Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’” (2005)

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Jeffrey Goldberg’s Revelations and Concession Speech

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

Jeffrey Goldberg finds himself in an interesting position, on one hand he became known as one of the media mouthpieces for President Obama, on the other hand, he clearly finds himself in an uncomfortable position regarding Iran.

So in his latest article, Goldberg tries to explain away why he didn’t contradict his previously held positions in his last article.

As an aside, Goldberg doesn’t seem to particularly like Netanyahu. Whether it’s a personality issue or he doesn’t like how Netanyahu gets things done, it doesn’t really matter. It comes across.

But as the man who is known to have some insight (and inside info) into the President, Goldberg makes some important assertions in his latest piece that need to be heard.

The first important statement is a confirmation that at some point and in some way Obama shut down an Israeli preemptive attack against Iran’s nuclear program…

“Netanyahu, American officials believe, has come quite close [to bombing Iranian nuclear facilities], only to be shut down by Obama, and also by some of his own generals.”

So at least one rumor appears to be true.

At the same time, he is sure the Obama administration is close to signing a very bad deal…

“…I wish that the Iranian negotiators were actually negotiating on behalf of the U.S… I think the Iranians are doing an excellent job of playing a weak hand. It seems as if the American side wants this deal too much. It’s always a bad idea to walk into a car dealership and announce, “I’m going to buy this car no matter what.” I fear this is what Obama’s negotiators may have done.”

Goldberg chose to believe two impossible things before I had breakfast this morning.

The first is that he believes that Netanyahu could have lobbied Obama differently and more subtly, and not go to Congress, completely ignoring that Netanyahyu has repeatedly bent over backwards trying to appease Obama in many areas, only to be told to bend over again.

[Netanyahu should] Lobby hard for a stronger deal rather than lobby against any deal at all, and try to fix relations with the Obama administration, understanding that the loss of bipartisan support for Israel in the U.S. is a direct national-security threat to Israel.

The second impossible thing Goldberg wants to believe is that Obama would actually bomb Iran if he found out he was tricked by the Iranians (assuming of course it’s not too late)…

I still suspect, by the way, that there are two scenarios in which Obama himself might use force to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear finish line. (I might be the only person left who believes this, but I’m comfortable, for now, in my heresy.) The first is an overt move toward breakout by the Iranians. The second is the discovery of an attempt by Iran to “sneak-out” (to borrow Gary Samore’s phrase).

Because the President has an excellent track record in that area (not to mention, according to Goldberg, Obama prevented Israel from doing just that).

Yesterday, the IAEA, the UN organization sent to monitor and verify the Iranian’s nuclear development, said outright they have no clue as to what Iran is doing in two key areas (and those are just two of the unknowns they know about).

“…The agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran and therefore conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is for peaceful activities'”

Yet in a White House briefing yesterday, when asked to comment, Press Secretary John Earnest said,

“What I’m suggesting is the international community has verified that Iran lived up — the international community has verified that Iran has lived up to commitments that they have made in the context of the plan of action.”

JoeSettler

V’nahafoch Hu! Jeffrey Goldberg Reverses Himself on Bibi, Obama and the Iran Deal

Sunday, March 1st, 2015

Published at Jewish Business News

by Ilan Shavit

Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, who has spearheaded the White House’s campaign aimed at stopping Netanyahu’s speech before a joint session of Congress, has had a dramatic change of heart.

The left-leaning columnist, who chipped at the PM’s credibility in the recent past, most memorably with his quote from an anonymous White House official who told him: “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickens***,” on Sunday published a dramatically different account of how he sees the case against Iran.

While still criticizing Netanyahu for turning the Iran nuclear negotiations into “a stress test of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Goldberg adamantly supports the essence of the PM’s message and is much more critical of what is beginning to appear to be a weak U.S. deal with the Islamic Revolution.

“Netanyahu has a credible case to make,” Goldberg writes. “The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me—or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis—with confidence.”

Goldberg continues: “Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium (a ‘right’ that doesn’t actually exist in international law); it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear.”

That’s a reversal fitting of the Purim story.

Goldberg might as well have been quoting from Netanyahu’s talking points sheet.

He continues, again, sounding more like a Likud pamphlet than the good old, left-leaning Goldberg of only a few weeks ago:

“This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

And he concludes:

“Netanyahu obviously believes that Obama doesn’t have his, or Israel’s, back. There will be no convincing Netanyahu that Obama is anything but a dangerous adversary. But if a consensus forms in high-level Israeli security circles (where there is a minimum of Obama-related hysterics) that the president has agreed to a weak deal, one that provides a glide path for Iran toward the nuclear threshold, then we will be able to say, fairly, that Obama’s promises to Israel were not kept.”

JBN / Jewish Business News

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/vnahafoch-hu-jeffrey-goldberg-reverses-himself-on-bibi-obama-and-the-iran-deal/2015/03/01/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: