Cutting-edge neocon group runs scare ad “It’s Time to Act” in presidential election campaign.
It doesn’t get any more blatant than this: The Emergency Committee for Israel, founded by the aristocrats of the ”Commentary crowd,” the original Republican Likudniks, is now screaming for Obama to attack Iran. ECI put out a press release yesterday announcing that “in light of yet another failed round of nuclear talks with Iran this week,” its 30-second, scare-the-shit-out-of-’em ad, “It’s Time to Act,” which began airing last week in New York and Washington, is debuting this weekend in the November election’s battleground states. It’s running ”on broadcast and cable in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with dozens of spots featured in major markets during Sunday shows, Major League Baseball games, and cable news.” These guys are not poor.
Visually, the ad is basic black lit up with missile fire and bomb explosions; aurally, it’s got the announcer’s grave voice against the beating of drums. The co-stars are Obama, looking gentle, and Ahmadinejad, looking sinister. The punch line:
Obama is still talking – and Iran has enough fuel for five nuclear bombs. Talking isn’t working. It’s time to act. Before it’s too late. (Bomb explodes, drum roll, out.)
ECI’s board is made up of the supremely smug neocon arbiter William Kristol, Christian Right pill Gary Bauer, and frothing-at-the-mouth genocide freak Rachel Abrams. Its executive director is hit man Noah Pollak. This is not a marginal right-wing group. It represents the cutting edge of GOP Middle East policy, and its guiding principle is maximum war against maximum Muslims.
Until now, Republican Likudniks have stopped short of calling for an immediate U.S. war with Iran. But the failure of the nuclear talks in Moscow last week gave them just the right opportunity to finally let it all hang out. I don’t know if other Republican (along with many Democratic) Likudniks are going to follow suit, or if instead the idea is to let ECI spell out what Mitt Romney and the others imply. Either way, the “drift to war” in America has just picked up speed and direction.
If it were only that this is what the great majority of Israelis at every level have always wanted – for America’s far superior military to “do the work” for them – then Israel’s hand in pushing the U.S. to war would be a matter of circumstantial evidence only. But when the Emergency Committee for Israel tells tens of millions of American TV viewers that ”it’s time to act – before it’s too late,” then there’s nothing more to discuss.
One thing, at least, I’m happy about: Nobody can claim this is a “Jewish conspiracy.” While the people behind the campaign are predominantly, though not exclusively, Jewish, there ain’t nothing conspiratorial about it. This is as in-your-face as it gets.
And why not? There’s nothing “un-American” about what they’re doing; it’s not that these U.S. citizens’ first loyalty is to Israel. Rather, it’s that since 9/11, American nationalism has hooked up with Israeli nationalism – America’s new nemesis is Israel’s old one, the Arabs, the Muslims. There’s nothing more American now than being gung-ho for Israel.
The problem with ECI, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby is not, as the anti-Semites say, that they’re disloyal to America. They’re not disloyal to anyone. They are, however, a menace - to America, Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish people by being pro-war, anti-Muslim, and very, very powerful.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
caden
Larry, get a grip, I’m more likely to have a “menage a trois” with Lisa and Mya, then Obama is to bomb Iran. Not his style, the US military is overstreched has it is, not going to happen. Maybe it should, but it won’t.
aristeides
The problem isn’t that they’re saying this. Free speech allows any fool to say just about anything. The problem is that no one is standing up to oppose them.
.
And THAT is the real work of the Lobby. Not just whipping up war for Israel, but the campaign of fear and intimidation that quashes potential dissent.
.
The real work of the Lobby is making the interest of Israel idenitical with the interest of the US, so that it’s treason to oppose them, instead of treason to propose the destructive path of action that they advocate.
Jim Bishop
I’m with JOHNWV. The whole ‘Western World’ has it bassackwards. The Israelis are the aggressors, and we are enablers. The game is up, has been for generations, and it’s time for sensible people to get out of Israel. We can probably get all of the sensible ones on one 747.
Jack
There is virtually no support for this aggressive warmongering they propose.
aristeides
If there is no support, there is also no open opposition.
Adam
@Aristeides: The opposition is the Democratic party; Barak Obama and his supporters oppose a military action against Iran. The other night I saw James Baker, the former Secretary of State, and Hillary Clinton on the Charlie Rose show. Baker was very much for a military strike against Iran if other measures don’t deter them from developing nuclear weapons; Clinton rejected the option of a military strike.
The ultimate opposition will come in the voting booth. After years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of Americans are not going to vote for candidates who are clamoring for a war against Iran. Of the states Larry mentioned where this ad is being run– all battleground states, of course– the only state where Jewish votes are consequential is Florida. The ad is most likely to appeal to conservative Christians, who are not voting for Obama anyway.
Jack
Aristeides,
You are unfortunately correct. While there is a great opposition and knowledge (like on the internet) about the dirty tricks in the background, the world indeed needs a public opposition that get airtime in the mainstream media.
-
-
-
Adam,
I think you are totally wrong. There is a bipartisan support for war. Only think that could stop it is the people in charge that begin to think rational about it. Behind all the warmongering from Obama, Clinton, deep down I think they arent ready or really want to go to war but to get to this revelation will be a long and hard path.
aristeides
Adam – no. Unfortunately, there are way too many Israel-firsters in the Democratic Party. If faced with a choice between their president and AIPAC, they’d throw Obama under the bus. Which Obama knows perfectly well. Look at his choice of Wasserman-Schultz as chair of the party.
.
The US public is being led down the road to war without the opportunity to have an honest debate on the prospect, or to hear the other side.
Richard SM
JACK WROTE: “There is virtually no support for this aggressive warmongering they propose.”
Not right now. But, isn’t the idea to shift public opinion?
Richard SM
The greatest threat to the Eretz Israel plan is a 2nd term US president armed with a peace plan. This ECI/AIPAC campaign (I’m sure there’s more to come over the coming weeks) can’t fail to achieve something in US politics:
.
First, it will push the Iran issue up to the top in the national discourse and throughout the US presidential election campaign. No matter how much Obama wants to talk about other policies in his campaign, every media interview will kick-off with questions about Iran and nuclear programs.
.
Second, it will also affect the elections for the Senate, so even if it doesn’t undermine Obama’s own re-election, it will ensure he comes back weaker.
.
And third, this push for war in Iran might just work. That will certainly scupper any chances for a Middle East Peace deal during Obama’s second-term, since the consequences of any US military action would be far reaching: Hezbollah retaliations, full-scale occupation of Iran, regime collapse in Tehran – and that’s not even bringing Syria into the equation. It could tie-up any incoming US administration and dominate their agenda for years.
.
Adam
@aristeides: “Unfortunately, there are way too many Israel-firsters in the Democratic Party. If faced with a choice between their president and AIPAC, they’d throw Obama under the bus. Which Obama knows perfectly well. Look at his choice of Wasserman-Schultz as chair of the party.”
I think you’re a little too obsessed with Jewish politicians, which is impairing your logic. You say that there are too many “Israel-firsters” in the democratic party, and that they are more loyal to AIPAC than to Obama. If Obama knows this, as you claim above, then why would he appoint one of them to chair the party?
Wagdy Ghoneim
Larry, thanks for pointing this out.You are doing a very valuable service
aristeides
Adam – I’m not obsessed with Jewish politicians, I’m obsessed with Israel-firsters, which include a lot of non-Jewish politicians, including my own representatives, arch-Israel-firsters all.
.
And the reason Obama appoints these people is his weakness. He fears to be seen in opposition to them, while they have no fear at all to oppose him on issues where Israel is concerned.
Adam
ARISTEIDES– Obama appointed Wasserman-Schultz as party chair because she’s a powerful voice for progressive causes; in terms of political calculation, she helps Obama with the woman vote and with a critical swing state. However, you overlook the obvious and put forth an anti-Semitic scenario of a powerless president cowering before AIPAC.
Robert
Sadly, if you want to shape U.S. public opinion on this issue ask the “Commentary” crowd this simple question- what do they think the American public backlash against Israel will be when the public learns that only 3 out of every thousand members of the U.S. military is Jewish?
chsangfeng
The military is an executive organisation, whereby their orders comes from legislative powers. The proportions on the latter is quite different don’t you think so?
chsangfeng
@ROBERT The military is an executive organisation, whereby their orders comes from legislative powers. The proportions on the latter is quite different don’t you think so?
aristeides
Adam – W-S is those things, but you choose to ignore the fact that she is also, and first, an Israel-firster who has demonstrated abject cowardice in standing up for any progressive cause related to Arabs or Palestinians. There is no doubt that, while she will support Obama on SOME progessive and feminist causes, he can not count on her for anything but opposition in any attempt at Mideast peace.
.
But you, with your facile and worn-out excuse, choose to ignore this fact and cling to the ridiculous claim that the Democratic party, full of W-S’s, is somehow the AIPAC opposition. When it comes to a choice between its own president and the agent of a foreign nation, AIPAC will win every time among at least half the party’s members. W-S is only one, highly egregious example.
Kmansfield
That’s quite an underhanded definition you have for anti-semites.
George Washington warned against the dangers of passionate attachments and foreign entanglements.
This wasn’t a new idea with when Israel came on to the scene. Washington was talking about attachments to Norway, England, Wales, France etc,..the orignal countries that people Immigrated from:
”Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
So I guess that’s were we are now. Being called dirty names for wanting our defense to be used for our own national security.
If Jewish Americans identify more strongly with their Tribe and the Israeli Nation they ought to go live there instead of working to harness the resources and foreign policy to protect their country of tribal identity. Israel isn’t our 51st state, and to paraphrase what Sharon said: Why would he want that? They would only have 2 senators.
This doesn’t make us anti-semites. If we switch the favored people and were doing the same thing for Palestine we would get called antisemites too. That’s what makes it vapid and manipulative.
None the less, I appreciate that you are trying to stop a provoked attack.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2006/3/2/81336/Beware-Of-Foreign-Entanglements.aspx
Larry Derfner
I disagree – it’s only natural for “hyphenated” Americans to have passionate attachments to other countries, and to want U.S. foreign policy to advance what they see as those countries’ interests. Jews, Palestinians, Iranians, Mexicans, Cubans, blacks who have a passionate attachment to Africa as a whole – it’s the most natural, inevitable thing in the world, and these people genuinely believe, even if they’re not exactly objective about it, that when America advances what they think of as Israel’s/Palestine’s/Mexico’s/Cuba’s/whatever’s interest, America advances its own. Washington could say what he said back then because the idea of the hyphenated American hadn’t emerged – but times have changed.
JohnWV
However did we get it all so backwards? As a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to develop and implement nuclear technology. Israel rejected the NPT and has no such right. Yet, the Jewish state has ICBM nukes and openly threatens Iran; actually campaigns for war against Iran. Israel, not Iran, should be sanctioned and forced to reveal its nuclear machinations to IAEA inspection. However did we get it all so backwards?
Aaron Brett
Military hostilities with Iran should start on September the 19th