I had a sad and distressing conversation over the weekend with a dear friend, whom I've written about before. An intelligent, compassionate, thoughtful, decent, accomplished, all-around wonderful woman, a lifelong through-and-through liberal, who nonetheless buys completely into every far-right-wing talking point there is when it comes to Israel, President Obama's relationship with and feelings about it and the Jews generally, and of course the Iran nuclear accord.
I don't want to get into the whole conversation; suffice it to say that her knowledge and understanding of the accord, the precise terms of it, the conditions that led to it, the negotiations that produced it, the structure and mechanics of it, &c., is limited to the most simplistic and inflammatory talking points propounded by the deal's opponents on the far right of American and Israeli politics. She has not, as best I can discern, even attempted to look beyond any of that. Everything I brought up -- such as the debunking of the "24 days' notice" and "Iran gets to inspect itself" talking points -- was news to her, which of course she did not believe anyway.
A few things, however, stood out.
For starters, she absolutely, thoroughly, utterly despises President Obama and has for some time because, of course, she believes everything the far-far-right says about him vis-à-vis Israel and the Jews, all of which has now been confirmed (again) for her by the Iran accord (i.e., by what the far-far-right in the U.S. and Israel is saying about it). And, per usual, her definition of "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Israel" is essentially, "not having one's lips and tongue planted firmly, lovingly and immovably against Benjamin Netanyahu's backside" (or, in the alternative, "believing that it is possible that the modern state of Israel or its government has ever done or could ever do anything that might possibly be worthy of criticism"). She's considering voting Republican next year for the first time in her life because, in her words, "The Democrats don't support Israel the way the Republicans do." [Which is literally true, but not in the sense she means.]
She dismissed any and all support of the deal as entirely unprincipled; anyone who supports it is corrupt. She kept saying vaguely that "Obama's crew" "went in there" and "made deals" with Democrats and whomever else to secure their support. I pressed her for specifics; who, exactly, is "Obama's crew"? What does "went in there" mean? What "deals"? Who, exactly, bribed the deal's supporters to support it? In exchange for what? And to what end? It was nothing but vague platitudes, over and over again, about "Obama's crew" going "in there" and "making deals" with no specifics whatsoever, and when I kept pressing her for specifics she got very upset. She did, at least, acknowledge that if the support is unprincipled, then the opposition may be unprincipled as well.
I kept reminding her that the world's best and brightest diplomats, nuclear scientists, military and foreign policy experts, &c., from the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the E.U. -- not President Obama himself, personally, and alone -- had negotiated and been involved with structuring and putting together the accord. What do you, I asked, the GOP and Likud think you know that they don't? She basically dismissed this every time I brought it up, usually by just saying that the negotiators were all corrupt and/or Jew-haters, but with regard to the Europeans (Britain, France, Germany) in particular, her response was chilling: "These are the same people who let Hitler get in." Think about that for a second. She actually used those words: "...the same people who let Hitler get in." Forget about Godwin's Law, although this was about the quickest invocation of Hitler I've ever encountered in a conversation like this. When I suggested to her that "the same people" who "let Hitler get in" have been dead for several decades, she waved that off as well; "The mentality is the same."
Her only point, ultimately, was that Iranians Are Bad People Who Cannot Be Trusted. Whenever this came up I said Well, then Israel had better nuke Iran ASAP. She deflected this by saying that Netanyahu had wanted to nuke Iran but Bush stopped him. I don't know if that's true or not. But if Iran is such a grave threat to Israel and this accord will only exacerbate that threat, and if Iran is so fundamentally evil and so fundamentally untrustworthy that no amount of diplomacy and no kind of international inspections regime or other non-military effort could possibly ameliorate that threat, then Israel must nuke Iran the moment this agreement takes effect. Bibi should start programming in the launch codes tonight. He won't, of course, and we all know why he won't. Just don't try to get opponents of the accord to acknowledge any of this; they can't. My friend couldn't, and didn't.
My friend is, of course, thoroughly and intractably convinced that every horrible thing the far-far-right of American and Israeli politics says is absolutely certain to happen as a result of this accord, is absolutely certain to happen as a result of this accord. I told her No, it is not; Iran will comply because it's in their interests to comply, and they will suffer the consequences if they don't. The men and women who negotiated this deal and put it together did so knowing everything that you (and the American and Israeli far-far-right) know (or think you know), including the "fact" that Iranians Are Bad People Who Cannot Be Trusted. They deserve far more credit than you (and the American and Israeli far-far-right) are giving them. This will not result in the end of the world, or of Israel. To my dear friend's credit, she said, "I hope you're right."
I love this person dearly; she is family. And I think it's because of that that these conversations pain me so much. When a person's three immutable base premises are that (1) Obama Hates The Jews, (2) Iran Is Pure Evil, and (3) Both Want Israel Destroyed, one cannot reason with that person. No amount of empirical evidence will convince that person that (1), (2) or (3) is wrong, or that anything inconsistent with (1), (2) or (3) could possibly be true. It requires significantly more effort to debunk and refute these prejudices, fictions, fantasies -- and hatreds -- that I am willing or able to expend.