McCain's play for pro-Israel voters

Iran isn't planning to attack Israel, but that isn't stopping John McCain from tapping into fears of a second Holocaust.

I swear that Howard Kohr, the executive director of Aipac, must have been briefing John McCain for the presidential debate against Barack Obama last week. The pro-Israel lobbying group has been shreying for years about the "existential threat" posed to Israel by Iran. And so McCain seemed to be reading from the Aipac script when he warned:

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the state of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel [a] compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Now we cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. Let's just make that very clear.

"Existential threat to the state of Israel"? Check. "Second Holocaust"? Double check. He's following those talking points right down the line. Good boy, John. They'll be some cheques in the mail come Monday.

The only problem with this little nugget of wisdom is that one Middle East state already has nuclear weapons. Israel's nuclear weapons cache has motivated other nations in the region like Iraq under Saddam, Iran and perhaps even Syria to feel the compulsion to have them. So if Iran acquired such weapons it wouldn't be as if it were the first state to have them. But for some strange reason neocons like McCain view Israel's nuclear weapons as benign, while an Arab nuclear weapon would be a threat.

Here's another talking point covered:

Senator Obama ... said ... he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the state of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimise and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena.

"Wiping Israel off the face of the map"? Triple check.

Problem is, Ahmadinejad didn't talk about exterminating Israel in New York or anywhere else. Does the Iranian president hate Israel? No doubt. Is the feeling mutual among Israeli leaders? You bet. In an astonishing interview published Monday, Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, had this to say about Israel's failed policy toward that country: "Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran."

Has Ahmadinejad ever said Iran would attack Israel? No. Can we say the same about Israel? No.

In fact, the Guardian's Jonathan Steele published an exclusive story last week revealing that Olmert asked George Bush last May, during Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations, for approval to bomb Iran. Bush demurred. But had he not, Israel might already have attacked Iran. So the idea that Iran is a mortal threat to Israel, while the latter is an innocent lamb doesn't stand the test of reasonableness.

Steele's story makes the presidential choice even starker for those Americans who do not wish to see a military attack against Iran by either the US or Israel. It would appear from McCain's rhetoric that he would approve such an attack were he to become president. As if we needed any more reasons to vote the other way.

Another ironic element to all this is that no less a Republican eminence gris than Henry Kissinger has advocated unconditional talks with Iran "at the highest level". Isn't it amazing to have Kissinger and Obama agreeing on something?

McCain of course tried to claim that because he'd known Kissinger for 35 years, the old man could have said no such thing. But that's precisely what the former secretary of state did say only last week. Even odder was Kissinger's statement following the debate that said McCain had it right. It's as if these two old geezers can't remember what they said just yesterday.

I think it's a shame that McCain is clearly campaigning for the votes of elderly Florida Jews through pandering to their worst fears about an impending Holocaust. He knows Jews of a certain age will respond like Pavlov's dog if they hear such language used in a context that invokes questions of Jewish survival. I don't blame Jews for having this reaction. A people who has suffered the traumas that ours has is bound to have similar reactions.

But I do blame otherwise intelligent politicians who deliberately stoke the fears of such people in pandering for votes in the provinces. Provoking fears of Israel's destruction should have no place in US politics. We need to hold out hope for a brighter future for ourselves and for the state of Israel - a future of negotiation, peace and security.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/sep/30/john.mccain.debate.iran