First the caveats: I love B’nai B’rith International, have done so since it helped out in the 1985 Mexico quake, it does fab work with the elderly, is an important voice at the U.N., etc. etc.
But it’s latest release is a hoot, and the most exquisite example I’ve seen in a while (ok, two weeks) of not saying something while saying it.
Some background: The Obama administration, as I’ve noted here, is furious with Republicans for blocking the Senate ratification of the START arms reduction treaty. One of its gambits is to get pro-Israel groups to point out that Russian cooperation is necessary to confront Iran.
Three groups have come out and said so: One is partisan (The National Jewish Democratic Council), one is Jack Rosen (The American Council on World Jewry) and one is the ADL.
There’s an elephant not in this room, naturally, and it rhymes with AIPAC. I’ve asked why the superlobby doesn’t weigh in one way or another, and have not received an answer.
If I were to speculate (and here I go), I would say it’s because non-partisan groups don’t like taking sides in intensely partisan debates, even when one political party’s posture lines up exactly with their own.
Back to BBI, which trends hawkish on foreign policy issues. Here’s its release on the matter, just out:
B’nai B’rith International hopes that U.S. Senate ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) Treaty will ensure Russian cooperation in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
B’nai B’rith International President Dennis W. Glick called Iran, “the most dangerous threat to stability in the Middle East. To enable the global leader in state-sponsored terrorism, a nation bent on destruction of the one true democracy in the region, to possess nuclear weapons is an eventuality that cannot be tolerated.” Glick noted, “Were Iran to possess nuclear weapons, it would be a virtual certainty that they would share them with terrorist groups and other rogue nations and trigger an international arms race. This threat to international stability cannot be overstated.”
If ratified, the treaty, according to the administration, would isolate nations such as Iran and North Korea that refuse to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and deny them the opportunities that international recognition bring.
It is imperative that the United States take all possible steps to ensure that Iran does not continue its march toward developing nuclear weapons.
Folks, help me make sense of this: BBI "hopes" the treaty’s ratification will isolate Iran, because, "according to the administration" it might isolate Iran?
Does BBI want ratification or not? Is ratification one of the "all possible steps" it is "imperative" the United States takes?
As my 11th grade history teacher, Mme. Oliwa, would say when we didn’t know what we were talking about: Aieeeeeee!
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
