The sad part is that most of his article is very reasonable critique of the Iran situation, and he has a pretty reasonable case about why negotiations are preferable to violence. But because this is the Huffington Post, he can't stop himself from giving his readership exactly what they are hoping for: Namely inferences that AIPAC rules the country and that pro-Israel American Jews are traitors. If you don't believe me, let's take a look. We get both at once in an early sentence:
"If the Lieberman resolution becomes an ask for AIPAC lobbyists at the March AIPAC policy conference, then the world will know: AIPAC is lobbying Congress for war with Iran."The "Lieberman resolution?" What is that supposed to mean? I don't know but maybe he is referring to Senate Resolution 380, which is sponsored by more than thirty senators. But of course, because everyone knows that Joe Lieberman is a treasonous Jew, including commentators on this article in particular, it becomes the "Lieberman resolution." If you don't think that's why, ask Mr. Naiman for yourself and inquire why he characterized Resolution 380 in that way.
And of course, that's just the first few words. Notice how Mr. Naiman takes on the classic Palsbarist attitude of trying to speak for "the world," as if the world weren't capable of speaking for itself and needs him to do it for them. But his conclusion is a little strange. Why would it be a shock that AIPAC is lobbying Congress to bomb Iran? According to the Huffington Posters, they've been doing that for years. Did Naiman mean, "then the world will know: Congress will go to war with Iran because of AIPAC?" I mean, I like to think that if he had meant it he would have said that, but what he wrote there doesn't look that shocking. Of course, AIPAC itself says doesn't say that they want war, but I'm sure Mr. Naiman wouldn't lie to us, right? Sure.
Naiman spends most of the rest of the article going over the resolution more closely, seeking to find what exact point Iran would have to reach before the terms of the letter would call for war. This actually hurts his argument slightly because it shows that the letter is not "go to war right now," the way he made it sound above. He makes sure to keep using the term "Lieberman bill" all the way through, though, just to make sure that his readership knows exactly who to blame for everything. Here's his conclusion:
"Anyone who supports the Lieberman bill is declaring themselves for war. If AIPAC makes the Lieberman bill an ask for its March policy conference, then at least we'll be done with the pretense that AIPAC is doing anything besides trying to get the U.S. into another Middle East war."Really? Because it sounds like you just went through an entire article explaining what has to happen in order for the bill to kick in and lead to war, and it wasn't easy. But this is an exact same repeat of what he said above: So what if AIPAC is in favor of military force against Iran? Half of America agrees with them! Unless you believe that AIPAC has power beyond expressing themselves, that's hardly an earth shattering realization. Mr. Naiman comes pretty close to saying that AIPAC is behind everything, controlling the actions of the senators and the American government for their own nefarious ends, without coming right out and saying it. Fortunately, he has his readers to do that for him:
Be sure to note the threatening language in that second one.
I'm sure Mr. Naiman will come into the thread at any point now to correct his readers for their misunderstanding of his words.