The Netanyahu Nexus

Full Text of Netanyahu's Speech to AIPAC, March 2012

Last night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to attendees of the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Policy conference in Washington, DC. As expected, all of his speech was on the topic of Iran. However, Netanyahu makes it clear from the beginning that he will not talk about what Israel he will do, he will instead focus on "why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons".

He goes on at lengths about what has happened in the past when countries haven't intervened in international atrocities (citing the Holocaust) and how unstable the region will become if Iran has a nuclear arsenal.

When noting the argument that attacking Iran to halt their program would be more dangerous than diplomatic methods, Netanyahu also dodges this by using his typical rhetorical devices and standard sound bites. He never addresses the concern that almost all experts have that there is an extremely slim chance that a military strike on nuclear targets in Iran would do anything more than set back the program a few years, or that a strike would serve to inflame the region just as much as a nuclear armed Iran would, or that the continuous threats emanating from Israel and the US about probable military action against Iran are giving the Khameini regime more fodder for developing their arsenal. Netanyahu would have done well for himself if he could offer  rebuttals to these arguments, which are just a few of the rational ones being offered up by everyone from military leaders in the US to political commentators.

But he wouldn't say all these things, because he's talking to AIPAC.

It's the First Amendment, stupid.

Throughout 2011, the political debate in this country centered around the economy. Whether it was job creation, the deficit, or the Eurozone crisis, the sheer amount of time and attention given to (discussion of) solving these economic woes led to the generally held opinion that the most common issue of the 2012 Presidential Election (and exasperatingly drawn out GOP primary process). This could also be seen through the countless national polls that showed 'the economy', 'unemployment rate', and 'jobs' invariably as the most important issue for voters.

In the past few weeks, however, social issues have emerged as debate item of choice for both political candidates and the media. The key impetus for this trend was the controversy over a new rule in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that would require the insurance policies of religious-affiliated organizations, including universities and hospitals, to cover reproductive health and contraception. The source of the opposition to this provision was, expectedly, the religious right. They claimed that forcing an organization to provide coverage for something they morally object to is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and even led conservative writer L. Brent Bozell to call it "perhaps the greatest intrusion on individual freedom and religious liberty in our nation's history."Here was Obama, attempting to assert even more control over our personal lives, just another battle in his war against Christianity.

The provision was changed so that the coverage in question (reproductive health and contraception) only required coverage on the part of the insurance company. This didn't appease everyone, though, and the Congressional Oversight Committee instead decided to hold a hearing asking the question "...Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"
The fact that a) no one invited to the hearing was supportive of the provision b), essentially resulting in the panel asking a rhetorical question, and c) the panel was overwhelmingly made up of religious leaders d) of which not a single one was a woman, all resulted in the hearing being a textbook definition of farce. Women present were deemed "not qualified" to testify on the topic.

The right is fighting a losing battle, and here's why.

Facts on the Ground


The notion that employees of religious organizations are being forced to subscribe to something they morally object to is a fantastical idea that the opposition to this bill is somehow touting. Although the 8 male priests, rabbis, and religious leaders would like to think that everyone in their congregations , a NYT poll shows that 98% of sexually active Catholic women aged 15-44 have used some form of contraception. Women who need or want contraception will use it, regardless of their religious affiliation.  This also raises the point that not all employees or students of a Catholic-affiliated organization are even necessarily Catholic. 4 out of 5 students at the University of Notre Dame do not self-identify as Catholic, and the number who are regular church-goers and actively practice their faith is likely much lower than that. Denying contraception coverage to all women in these institutions is not only dangerous, it's also unfair. This provision actually does the opposite of what it's opponents are claiming; it provides religious liberties for individuals that they would not otherwise have.

Citing the First


Contending that this is a violation of the First Amendment is as valid as arguing that gay marriage is...in that it isn't. The same people who tout the importance of personal liberty and personal choice are trying to deny those very things to an entire population of people in this country. The government shouldn't have a say in whether an employer provides health insurance, but it should have a say in defining what marriage is. And only on the issues that conservative Christians in this country can take a practical stance. The Catholic church forbids a divorcee remarrying, but you'd be hard pressed to find a politician in favor of a provision that does not allow divorced woman to marry another man, because that man would then be "committing adultery".
With the Republican party edging further and further to the right, the words "religious freedom" have come to mean the freedom to impose your religious views on the entire population, regardless of whether someone else prescribes to them or not.
If two gay men marry each other, it might be considered offensive, sinful or "destructive" (in Kirk Cameron's recent words) to someone who doesn't agree with it, and that person has the right to feel that way. They can right about it and condemn it in any way they choose. But denying it on legal grounds because of moral or religious convictions is what's really destructive. Most people would agree that Kim Kardashian's 4-hour wedding to some guy is more morally destructive than gay marriage being legalized, but how could we create a law prohibiting that? Maybe something that outlaws marriages that have reality shows based on them, and where the ring costs >$2 MM.

If you don't like contraception, then don't use it. Don't provide it. But purposefully making it difficult for others to access the healthcare options they want or need is infringing on the very freedoms you boast of protecting.