Apart from these (including Gush Shalom), nothing except thunderous applause for Netanyahu or the dreadful silence of the graveyard.
The treaty is "bad." Not just bad, but "catastrophic." Not just catastrophic, but "one of the most terrible disasters in the entire history of the Jewish people." Something close to a "second Holocaust." (I am not making this up.)
Netanyahu's shallow arguments are accepted as sacred truths, like the utterances of the other great Jewish prophets. Nobody bothers to ask the relevant question: Why?
The sun rises in the morning. The rivers flow into the sea. Iran will build an atomic bomb and drop it on us, even though it will thereby bring upon itself a historic disaster. The mullahs are Nazis. The treaty is another Munich agreement. Obama is the new Neville Chamberlain, only black.
Nobody takes the trouble to argue for these assertions. Things are self-evident. Day is day and night is night.
I HAVE seen many situations of a near unanimous public opinion in my life, especially in times of war. But in all of my life I have never experienced such a situation of total unanimity, of total absence of doubting and questioning, as now.
This situation is not without its absurdities. For example: the Iranian Supreme Leader is obviously faced with his own extremists, who accuse him of selling out to the American Satan. To appease them, he has to claim that the treaty is a tremendous victory for the Islamic Republic, that he has brought the US (and Israel) to their knees. The huge Netanyahu propaganda machine is taking up these quotes and selling them as gospel truths. Everyone knows that Iranians always lie, but this time they tell it as it is.
Yair Lapid, the leader of a shrunken "centrist" party now in opposition (the Orthodox did not allow Netanyahu to bring him into the government) denounces the treaty as an historic disaster for the Jewish people. This being so, he asks loudly, why is Netanyahu not compelled to resign after his failure to prevent it? The more so since there is a much more able leader ready to take his place and lead the fight, a man named Lapid.
There is indeed something of a paradox in Netanyahu's situation: if the treaty is such an historic disaster, "one of the worst in Jewish history," why is Netanyahu continuing in his job?
TO THROW out a prime minister, a country needs an opposition to take his place. Actually, that is the main job of the opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition (an official title in Israel) condemns the treaty in as strong terms as Netanyahu himself. He has volunteered to go to the USA to help the fight against it. His competitor, Yair Lapid, the son of a far-out nationalist, is even more extreme than him. The leader of the third opposition party is Avigdor Lieberman, compared to whom Netanyahu is a leftist softy. There is, of course, a fourth opposition party -- the joint Arab one -- but who listens to them?
One would suppose that, faced with such a historic disaster, Israel would be alive with debates about the treaty. But how can one have a debate, if everybody agrees? I have heard not a single real discussion on TV, nor read one in the printed papers, nor on the internet. Here and there a small whisper of doubt, but a debate? Nowhere!
Indeed, one can live happily in Israel for days and hear no mention of this historic disaster at all. The price of cottage cheese evokes more emotion.
So we are happily moving towards disaster -- unless one of Sheldon's stooges, with the help of Bibi, enters the White House.