MJ Rosenberg

There is one change that the United States could make in response to the terrorism threat that is never discussed. That is to consider the part U.S. policies have played in creating and sustaining it.

I understand that we are not supposed to say this, as if discussing why we are hated justifies the unjustifiable: the targeting of innocent Americans because of the perceived sins of their government.

But nothing justifies terrorism. Period. That does not mean that nothing causes it.

Acts of terror do not come at us out of the blue. Nor are they directed at us, as President George W. Bush famously said, because the terrorists “hate our freedom.” If that was the case, terrorists would be equally or more inclined to hit countries at least as free as the United States, those in northern Europe, for instance.

No, terrorists (in this case Muslim terrorists) target the United States because they perceive us as their enemy.

And with good reason.

We have been at war with the people of various Muslim countries for decades, since perhaps as early as 1953 when we engineered Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s overthrow in Iran after he nationalized the oil industry.

Since then the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, on a pretext that was shown to be phony, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. That war came after over a decade of U.S.-sponsored sanctions that resulted in the deaths of over a million Iraqis, including more than a half million children due to malnutrition and diseases caused by the lack of clean water and medicine .

Then there are the current sanctions against Iran, ostensibly to deter its government from developing nuclear weapons but, in practice, punishing the Iranian people by degrading their quality of life as well as their health. (Just one example: the Iranian civilian airline has experienced a major spike in air crash deaths since sanctions have prevented it frompurchasing parts needed to replace worn and outmoded machinery).

Then there are the drone attacks. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,said in February that, as of then, U.S. drone attacks had killed 4700 men, women and children (including, he notes, “innocent people”) in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan.

And, of course, our Israel policy is based on the premise, so often stated by Vice President Joe Biden, that there must be “no daylight, no daylight” between Israeli policies and our own. That statement has proven true on matters large and small – from Congressional promises to join Israel if it decides to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear reactor, to supporting Israel’s policies on the West Bank and Gaza, to opposing any form of Palestinian representation at the United Nations. Muslims do not imagine that we view the Middle East almost entirely through Israeli eyes. We do.

In short, the aphorism often used to describe the effect of drone attacks can be applied to U.S. policy in the Muslim world in general: for every enemy we kill, we create dozens or hundreds more. And some of those enemies turn up here as terrorists.

So my question is this: why can’t the likelihood of blow-back be part of the calculation when policymakers decide to take a particular action or make a particular statement relating to the Middle East or the Muslim world in general?

Obviously the United States is not going to consider this factor as it decides on policies unambiguously affecting the fundamental security of the American people. No one would argue that we should not take out a terrorist cell poised to attack American targets out of fear of inflaming its members’ friends or sympathizers.

But few of the actions that so enrage (and radicalize) people in the Middle East are directly connected to the security of Americans at all: not the excessive number of drone attacks or Iran sanctions or our backing of the post-1967 Israeli occupation. Looking back at the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it is difficult to argue that they did more to enhance the security of Americans than they did to damage it.

This is not to say that the United States should not have responded with force to the heinous 9/11 attacks. The successful effort to degrade the capabilities of Al Qaeda has, no doubt, made us safer.

And some of our enemies hate us not because of anything we do but because they are driven by religious or political zealotry. Some are just monsters. But not all, and not most.

But not every threat is Al Qaeda. In fact, not every group we deem as terrorist is an enemy of the United States at all. Some are engaged in local wars or insurgencies that have nothing to do with us, at least not before we jump in to assume the role 1960′s folk singer Phil Ochs referred to as “cops of the world.”

Because if this is what we are going to be, we are going to feel it here, not only in the form of terrorism but in the form of the loss of our own freedoms. At the rate we are going, the restrictions we have become accustomed to when trying to board an airplane will become a metaphor for the loss of the freedom we once thought of as encapsulating the American way of life.

The next threat to that freedom looms as the Obama administration considers whether it will permit (or even back) an Israeli attack on Iran. During his trip to Israel this week, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told the Israelis that the United States believes that “in dealing with Iran, every option must be on the table.” That “every option” formulation, of course, refers to the possibility of war.

Can anyone doubt that an Israeli attack on Iran backed by the United States would have terrible repercussions here at home and that they would continue for a long, long time? Is that what we want? Is that something we can even tolerate?

With the Boston Marathon horror still fresh in our memory, I think it is safe to say that we cannot. Nor should we. But it’s our decision. Pursuing policies that enrage much of the world endangers Americans here. In Boston, New York, Washington and, ultimately, elsewhere as well.

Is it too much to ask that policy makers keep that in mind when making their calculations about where next to show the flag? Their primary responsibility is to protect Americans. It is time for them to stop endangering them.

MJ Rosenberg is Special Correspondent for Washington Spectator where this originally appeared. 

It is customary for Congress to pass resolutions commending Israel on the anniversary of its founding in 1948. Once these resolutions were innocuous with references to “making the desert bloom” and “ingathering” Jewish refugees. Standard “pro-Israel” boilerplate. No more.

In recent years Congress, with the Israel lobby’s eager assistance, has coupled salutations and congratulations with increasingly strident language about terrorism, Palestinians, and now, Iran. (For an excellent analysis on how the concept of being “pro-Israel” has degenerated in recent years, see this smart piece by Michael Koplow, program director of the Israel Institute at Georgetown University.)

One such anniversary resolution now being considered in the Senate and, with 79 cosponsors, certain to pass is Senate Resolution 65, introduced by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two lobby stalwarts. It cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.

The resolution begins with five clauses of standard rhetoric, noting that “since its establishment nearly 65 years ago, the modern State of Israel has… forged a new and dynamic democratic society including “freedom of speech, association, and religion; a vigorously free press; free, fair, and open elections; the rule of law; a fully independent judiciary; and other democratic principles and practices….” The usual fare.

Then, with no transition, it segues into 14 clauses condemning Iran with citations of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ugly language about Israel, his repeated Holocaust denials, the Islamic Republic’s human rights violations and then the threat ostensibly posed by its nuclear program.

That is followed by 13 clauses citing President Obama’s repeated promises not to permit Iran to attain a nuclear weapon, along with Congress’ own, which are even more aggressive.

These 32 clauses are just the windup for the pitch which says that if Israel goes to war with Iran, the United States should join the fight. The resolution states:

that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound that terrible. After all, it specifically limits our commitment to a situation in which “Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense….”

But the “self-defense” limitation is no limitation at all. The United States has deemed all major Israeli military actions as “self-defense” (most recently two Gaza wars) with the oft-repeated statement that the United States is “fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.” Couple that with President Obama’s language ruling out containment of a nuclear Iran and it’s pretty clear that any attack by Israel on Iran will be deemed self-defense by the United States.

In short, the Graham-Menendez resolution is telling Israel that if it goes to war, we will have their back.

The problem here is not that Congress is saying that the United States would support Israel if there was any chance that it might be defeated in a war with Iran or anyone else. That is obvious and has been since 1973 when the United States military was placed on its highest alert following the joint Egyptian-Syrian  attack on Israel.

No, the point of this resolution is to tell Israel that it can go to war with Iran, with the assurance that if it gets into trouble, the United States will step in and finish the job. Israeli hawks need that assurance because it is generally understood that Israel cannot take out Iran’s nuclear facilities alone. It can only try if it knows that the United States is right there just in case.

The intent of this resolution is to eliminate any Israeli hesitancy about getting into a war it cannot win. Israelis won’t do that. Menendez, Graham and company are telling them not to worry. Just do it, and we are in too.

Here is AIPAC press release patting itself on the back:

SENATE COMMITTEE ADOPTS STRONG, BI-PARTISAN RESOLUTION STANDING WITH ISRAEL AGAINST IRANIAN NUCLEAR THREAT

WASHINGTON — AIPAC praises the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for adopting today Senate Resolution 65 –  a strong bi-partisan statement that the United States will stand by Israel if our ally feels compelled to take military action in its own legitimate defense against the threat from Iran.  The resolution specifies that the United States should provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to Israel “in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.”

The resolution also reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be  necessary to implement this policy.  The resolution urges the President to strengthen enforcement of sanctions on Tehran.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sponsored the resolution.  Now ready for floor action, Graham-Menendez , has garnered broad bi-partisan support in the Senate with 79 co-sponsors.  The Committee action comes at a critical moment when Iran has repeatedly rebuffed diplomatic efforts and has continued its march to attain nuclear weapons capability.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat – which endangers  American, Israeli, and international security.   AIPAC urges the full Senate to act expeditiously to adopt the resolution.

Consistently ranked as the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, AIPAC is a bipartisan American membership organization that seeks to strengthen the relationship between the United States and Israel. For more than 50 years, AIPAC has been working with Congress to build a strong, vibrant relationship between the U.S. and Israel. With more than 100,000 members across the United States, AIPAC works throughout the country to improve and strengthen that relationship by supporting U.S.-Israel military, economic, scientific and cultural cooperation.

In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker had basically had it up to here with the Israeli government. The (George H.W.) Bush administration had been trying to entice Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into negotiations with the Palestinians but he kept adding new conditions to get the United States off his back.

To be acceptable to Shamir, any Palestinian interlocutors had to have no connections with the PLO, none with any associates of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and could not be from Jerusalem. Beyond that, the Israelis would decide which Palestinians were acceptable as negotiating partners based on their idea of merit (only pro-Israel Palestinians would do, apparently).

Baker was fuming but held his tongue until he went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss Middle East prospects. But then something happened and, for perhaps the last time ever, a top U.S. government official told the Israelis what he really thought.

First Baker said that he had intended to say that he was ready for a new start with the just re-elected Shamir government but he changed his mind on the way to the hearing. ”I have to tell you, that before I came to this hearing this morning, I was given a copy of some wire reports, one of which quotes one of the ministers in the newly formed government,” he said.

Those “wire reports” cited top Israeli officials announcing new conditions for negotiations. According to then-New York Times correspondent (now columnist Thomas Friedman):

Earlier today, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir added an additional condition: that Palestinian negotiators must formally embrace Israel’s idea that negotiations would be about autonomy for the occupied territories and nothing more, before talks could begin. The American position is that the talks should open with a discussion about autonomy, but then eventually move on to issues of final status.

In other words, negotiations would begin and end with discussions about “autonomy.” “Autonomy” would have meant that Israel could keep all the land but Palestinians would have the responsibility for municipal services like schools, sanitation and health. It was the perfect solution… for Israel.

Baker blew up. He told the committee (again from the Times):

If that is going to be the Israeli approach, said Mr. Baker, ”there won’t be any dialogue and there won’t be any peace, and the United States of America can’t make it happen.” He said: ”You can’t. I can’t. The President can’t….

He then said that until the Israelis changed their attitude, the Bush administration was going to disengage from the Israeli-Palestinian issue (a not happy prospect for Israel given that it was then embroiled in trying to suppress the first intifada.)

He concluded by telling the Israelis “when you’re serious about peace, call us.” To emphasize his point, he said that “the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414.”

And that was that. The Bush administration never reconciled with Shamir. Although Baker handed out Bush’s phone number, it was Shamir’s number that America now had. The administration then worked around him until it could help engineer his downfall at the hands of Yitzhak Rabin, who Bush and Baker very much wanted to see as prime minister. (Bush himself lost his bid for re-election due to the languishing economy, leaving Bill Clinton to work with Rabin on Middle East issues).

Shamir later admitted that he had no intention of ever accommodating the Palestinians in any way. In an interview after leaving office, he said:

I would have carried out autonomy talks for 10 years, and meanwhile we would have reached half a million people in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank].

Baker’s approach was totally vindicated.

And yesterday Shamir’s long-time protégé, Binyamin Netanyahu openly adopted the Shamir strategy. No one needs to wait until his retirement to understand that, like Shamir’s, it is designed to prevent negotiations not advance them.

Ha’aretz reported that the Netanyahu government has informed Secretary of State John Kerry that Israel is not interested in discussing land and borders right now.

A senior Israeli official, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject, expressed considerable skepticism regarding Kerry’s steps, and made cynical, slightly scornful comments regarding his attitude. “Kerry believes that he can bring about the solution, the treaty and the salvation,” he said. “He thinks that the conflict is primarily over territory…and that is wrong.”

Wrong? No, that is what the conflict has been about since the occupation began in 1967 and certainly since Israel and the PLO agreed that both sides have the right to peace and security.

So we are back to Shamir and the bad old days before Rabin.

The good news is that Netanyahu has made everything so clear. He has no interest in peace, negotiations, any kind of territorial withdrawal or even freezing settlements. Like Shamir, he just wants to buy time until it will be absolutely impossible to create a Palestinian state, if it isn’t already. As for the United States, Netanyahu is not interested in what it wants.

The only question left is what the Obama administration will do in response. It could follow Baker’s example and take a walk. Even better, it could tell Netanyahu that future aid from the U.S. will be linked to its occasional compliance with U.S. wishes regarding the occupation. Or it could say, it won’t keep following Israel’s dictates on sanctions or Palestine’s right to recognition by the United Nations. Or it could, as Bush and Baker did, squeeze the Israeli prime minister until the Israeli public dumps him.

It could do any of those.

Will it? I’m taking bets.

But here is a sure one. There is no possibility of serious negotiation so long as Binyamin Netanyahu is prime minister of Israel.

None.

Maybe I’m old school. But I was brought up to be grateful to the United States for being the best and safest home Jews have ever had.

My grandparents were immigrants who knew how lucky they were that they escaped Europe back at the beginning of the 20^th century especially after their siblings, and their siblings’ families who stayed behind, died in the Nazi death camps (one survived and made it to Israel after the war).

My parents were typical Americans of the World War II era. They loved this country, they loved Roosevelt and although Israel played a big part in their lives, this was their country just like English was their language and Judaism was their faith.

How patriotic were they? My dad taught me the presidents in order when I was 9. I did the same with my kids and now with my grandkids.

In fact, during the 2012 election, my then four year old grandson asked what we would do if Mitt Romney won “because we aren’t for him.” I told him that he’d be our president just like President Obama.” He was reassured. He wants to like the president.

In our family, we respect the institutions of our country, including the presidency, even if we didn’t vote forthe particular holder of the office. My wife’s family was even more patriotic. Her parents survived the Holocaust and she was born in a Jewish refugee camp in Germany. Criticize America and my father-in-law would say, “go to Stalin then.” No matter Stalin was long dead!

In other words, we are nothing like Alan Dershowitz.

I just read that the Harvard law professor is having an hysterical fit because Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law school is presenting an award to former president, Jimmy Carter. Yeshiva is a Jewish university, as is Brandeis, about which Dershowitz also wept and gnashed molars when it invited Carter to speak.

Dershowitz told Ha’aretz why the former president should not speak at Jewish schools:

He cited a long list of Carter’s offenses, saying that the former U.S. President “stood idly by” during the Pol Pot massacre in Cambodia, “never met a terrorist he didn’t like”, was beholden to Saudi Arabia and bore “partial responsibility” for the carnage of the second intifada because he “encouraged” Yasser Arafat at Camp David not to reach a peace deal.

And then, in the egomaniacal style that has made him the The Donald of lawyers, he demanded that “someone like myself” speak along side the former president. He said that Carter “should be made to regret that he ever agreed to accept the award.”

Forget the part about Pol Pot. Dershowitz, as everyone knows, is only concerned about Carter’s criticism of Israel and, in particular, about Carter’s accurate description of conditions on the West Bank (not in Israel itself) as like “apartheid.” Criticizing Israel is verboten in Dersh’s world. And that is why he hates Carter. Israel is Dershowitz’s City On The Hill, shining perfection.

That is why Dershowitz supports all prime ministers of Israel. He may like some more than others but he believes that Israel and its leaders, unlike the United States and its leaders, must be respected. You know, he feels about Israel the way we feel about the United States. (Imagine. This guy teaches about the United States Constitution at Harvard whose students apparently are more tolerant of bigoted fools than they were in the 1960′s).

The president of Yeshiva University, a guy named Richard Joel, is almost as bad. He defends the invitation to Carter but then falls all over himself apologizing.

At the core of Yeshiva University¹s expressed mission and sacred mandate stands an unwavering and unapologetic commitment to the legitimacy, safety, and security of the State of Israel,” Joel wrote. “President Carter’s presence at Cardozo in no way represents a university position on his views, nor does it indicate the slightest change in our steadfastly pro-Israel stance.

Joel is not appreciative that a former president is honoring Yeshiva with his presence because the primary mission of his university is “unapologetic commitment” to Israel. Really. I’m sure the students who attend Yeshiva to become respected doctors, lawyers, teachers and rabbis in America might not see it that way. But Joel is a Jewish organizational professional not any kind of educator; defending Israeli policies is his mission along with raising big bucks from lobby-affiliateddonors.

The good news is that Dershowitz and Joel represent a tiny fraction of Jewish Americans. To say that Jews are loyal Americans is almost embarrassing. Of course, we are. But we are also a tiny minority and, historically, a vulnerable one. Dershowitz and Joel increase our vulnerability by sending out the message that we aren’t Americans at all, that our loyalty is not to this country but to Israel. That may be true about them, just not the rest of us. (Note: Dershowitz hates me for calling people like him and Joel Israel Firsters. Uh, ok.)

It is also worth noting that no president has done as much for Israel as Carter who saved countless Israeli lives by personally negotiating the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. How many Israeli parents have their son, how many kids their fathers, how many wives their husbands thanks to Carter?

After all, just five years before Carter produced Israeli-Egyptian peace, 2800 Israeli boys were killed in the Yom Kippur War. But, thanks to Carter, not a single Israeli has died fighting Egypt since.

Is that what really offends Dershowitz? Could it be that the great professor wants to see Israel embattled forever? Is that why he hates Carter? Does he prefer his Israelis as martyrs, to be used as fodder in his never ending war against Muslims and Arabs.

Alan Dershowitz is appalling.

NOTE TO THE SECRET SERVICE: Some alumni of Yeshiva University have issued physical threats against the former President.

Enraged alumni have threatened to physically block Jimmy Carter from entering Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, where he is due to receive a peace award on April 10.

Daniel Rubin, 62, said about a dozen former alumni are planning an act of civil disobedience to prevent Carter, a harsh critic of Israeli policies on the occupied West Bank, from picking up the International Advocate for Peace Award, given annually by Cardozo’s Journal of Conflict Resolution.

Rubin said former alumni would use their knowledge of the building layout to outmaneuver any attempts to stop them.

“Mr. Carter ain’t going to get anywhere,” Rubin said.

Catching up on some of the news stories I missed about President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel and Ramallah, it struck me how offensive his words and gestures must have been to Palestinians.

At every stop, he made clear that the United States is 100% on Israel’s side. Almost in so many words, he said that the United States and Israel are one.

Just read what Obama said upon his arrival in Israel last Wednesday. This is no mere statement of U.S. policy; it is America’s embrace of the Zionist narrative, right down to the references to the Biblical Abraham and his Israeli progeny (via his wife Sara), without reference to the Arabs who the same Bible tells us descended from Abraham (via his other wife, Hagar).

More than 3,000 years ago, the Jewish people lived here, tended the land here, prayed to God here.  And after centuries of exile and persecution, unparalleled in the history of man, the founding of the Jewish State of Israel was a rebirth, a redemption unlike any in history.

Today, the sons of Abraham and the daughters of Sarah are fulfilling the dream of the ages — to be “masters of their own fate” in “their own sovereign state.”  And just as we have for these past 65 years, the United States is proud to stand with you as your strongest ally and your greatest friend….

This except was no more effusively pro-Israel than any other Obama remark or gesture doing the trip, whether at Herzl’s tomb, or Yad Vashem, at the dinner hosted by President Shimon Peres or anywhere else he spoke. Yes, as I noted in an earlier piece about the trip, there were also strong references to the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state and even to the legitimacy of non-violent protest against  the occupation, but, looking back, it is clear that these were drowned out by the overall tone of the trip.

In essence it was an unprecedented embrace of Israel by a United States president almost as if he was apologizing for not being pro-Israel enough in his first term, a myth propagated by the right.  (Israel has received more aid under Obama than under any of his predecessors). In fact, it was almost one of those mythical Obama “apology tours” Republicans like to yell about although they were, of course, silent about this one.

Particularly striking was Obama’s obsequiousness toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who worked so hard to elect former Governor Romney in 2012. Just read the transcript of the Obama-Netanyahu press conference and note the 10 times the President specifically invoked “Bibi,” as if the two were not leaders of their respective countries but buddies since childhood. (Imagine if Obama stood on a platform here with Speaker John Boehner or Majority Leader Eric Cantor and, to show bygones were bygones, smothered them with that kind of feigned affection). It was embarrassing.

But more than that it did significant damage to America’s ability to play the role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians if negotiations ever begin. Obama made clear which side he is on, going so far as to embrace the whole Biblical Jewish claim to Eretz Yisrael. How could Palestinians ever trust him?  The umpire is not supposed to wear the uniform of either team.

Obama must know all this but he obviously thinks that Palestinians have no choice but to go along with anything he proposes. After all, they have nothing. He seems not to understand that because of that fact, they have, as the song goes, nothing left to lose. A Third Intifada or massive non-violent resistance could turn Israel upside down and Palestinians know it. Obama apparently doesn’t; he thinks, as Netanyahu clearly does, that the hungry are always grateful for crumbs.

MJ Rosenberg is Special Correspondent for The Washington Spectator where this originally appeared.

The second day of President Barack Obama’s visit to the Middle East is shaping up as very different from the first.

Yesterday was a love-fest with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During their joint press conference, each of the two leaders tried to outdo the other with jokes and witticisms demonstrating that they like each other and that Obama loves everything about Israel. Obama even spoke in Hebrew at several points. In short, yesterday was a party and Obama seemed to be having the time of his life.

The party ended in Ramallah. Maybe it was his view of the separation wall from his helicopter or maybe the fact that he was away from the Israelis but the face he presented at President Mahmoud Abbas’ welcoming ceremony was utterly different. He looked miserable. Was it because he just didn’t want to be there or because he is ashamed that his administration has decided to parrot the Israeli line on pretty much everything? No matter the reason, he seemed sad and his words were halting.

He didn’t offer the Palestinians much of anything though, other than the stricken look on his face. Yet, there were signs that the times are changing. He repeatedly referred to a Palestinian state, using the strongest formulation for that concept, “State of Palestine.” (Of course, he knows that his administration stood with Israel against any UN recognition of such an entity last year.) Nonetheless, his references to Palestinian statehood were utterly unambiguous and clear.

And, in words that must have shook Netanyahu, Obama referred to “the moral force of nonviolence” to resist the occupation. Coming out of left field, this was probably an indication that Obama read The New York Times magazine cover story on non-violent resistance in the West Bank by Ben Ehrenreich. Obama compared the Palestinian struggle to the civil rights movement in America, invoking his own daughters as beneficiaries of that struggle. This presidential encouragement of the one form of protest that Israeli officials fear most as threatening their hold on the West Bank was significant. It is easy to imagine Palestinian protesters now marching against the settlements, waving photos of Obama along with his words endorsing non-violent resistance’s “moral force.”

On specifics, though, it was all boilerplate. Asked at his press conference about settlement expansion, Obama made clear that he opposed it but also that he did not accept the Palestinian view that it should halt during the course of negotiations. Obama, like Netanyahu, demands unconditional negotiations which, in reality, means that Palestinians be willing to negotiate while Israel gobbles up more of the land. Abbas made clear in response that he wasn’t having it.

Upon returning to Jerusalem, Obama delivered his speech to Israeli students at the Jerusalem Convention Center. It was mostly standard stuff (lots of praise for Israel,Zionism, empathy over Jewish suffering, etc.) but also included repeated and emphatic calls for peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The most significant part came when Obama referred to the Palestinians’ right to justice, specifically referencing settler violence that goes unpunished.

But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and justice must also be recognized. Put yourself in their shoes- look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.

I don’t think any president previously has used the language of justice in discussing Palestinian rights, which is, of course, how Palestinians rightly see it.

It is telling that this part of the speech was met with prolonged applause. In fact, every reference to Palestinian statehood was received with the kind of ovation both AIPAC and the United States Congress reserve for bashing Palestinians, not for discussing their rights. Although many will dismiss the Jerusalem speech as milquetoast, no one would say that if Obama had delivered it in Washington, where only pro-Likud pieties are permitted. That might be considered ironic if we weren’t all accustomed to it by now.

The lobby does not control the discourse in Israel. It does here. But that is no reason to downplay the significance of Obama’s unequivocal endorsement of a “State of Palestine” and justice for the Palestinian people as prerequisites for security for Israel.

Obama accomplished what he had to. He reached over Netanyahu’s head and spoke directly to the Israeli people, explaining why peace is in their own best interest and why justice for the Palestinians cannot be denied. And he was cheered. Loudly.

When negotiations begin, and I am optimistic that they will, the capital he earned today will be viewed as a smart investment indeed.

This is crossposted with The Washington Spectator where it originally appeared. I am its Special Correspondent On The Middle East

On Tuesday, March 19, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) released the text of a letter which AIPAC drafted and which he circulated to his colleagues telling Pres. Obama not to deviate from the lobby’s line during his upcoming trip to Israel.

The letter’s main point is to again warn the Palestinians not to dare taking their grievances to the United Nations which, in true AIPAC-speak, the senators deem a unilateral move.

Palestinian efforts to bypass direct negotiations with Israel by taking unilateral steps for international recognition are, in our view, unacceptable.  When you meet with Palestinian leaders, you should make clear that the pathway for peace is through unconditional direct negotiations between both the Israelis and Palestinians and that the United States vigorously opposes any Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations.

The senators also urge the President to identify and promote policy solutions (sic) , such as Iron Dome, that address the urgent and important security challenges facing both Israel and the United States. “We also hope that you will reiterate the United States’ support for Israel, her right to defend herself, and the Iron Dome project.  In such a tumultuous region of the world, and during such challenging times, a strong relationship between our two countries has never been more important.”

Here is a list of the Democrats who joined Cardin in again selling their souls to AIPAC   in signing the letter : Senators Menendez, Boxer,  Casey,  Shaheen,  Coons, Murphy, Schumer,  Stabenow, Mikulski,  Klobuchar,  Whitehouse,  Mark Udall,  Hagan,  Landrieu, Bennet, Gillibrand, Manchin, Wyden, Blumenthal,  Tester, Heinrich, Schatz,  Hirono, Franken, Baucus, McCaskill, Merkley,  Begich, Donnelly,  Pryor, Tim Johnson, Lautenberg, Sherrod Brown, King, Warner, Hoeven,  Reed (R.I.)

It is worth noting that Carl Levin (D-MI) did not sign it while Rand Paul (R-KY), like most Republicans, did.

Below is the full text of the letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We applaud your decision to travel to Israel so early in your second term as president.  Your upcoming trip will offer you the opportunity to meet with the leaders of Israel’s new government and to reaffirm the unshakeable bond between our two nations. In your meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah later this month, we hope that you will reaffirm your commitment to working closely with the new government of Israel.

As you may know, in May 2011, the Senate passed S.Res.185: a resolution reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The bipartisan resolution was cosponsored by 90 Senators.  Palestinian efforts to bypass direct negotiations with Israel by taking unilateral steps for international recognition are, in our view, unacceptable. When you meet with Palestinian leaders, you should make clear that the pathway for peace is through unconditional direct negotiations between both the Israelis and Palestinians and that the United States vigorously opposes any Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations.

It is important to re-emphasize that the United States will not tolerate efforts to isolate or delegitimize Israel. During your first term, you and your administration actively stood by Israel at the UN and other agencies to try to block such efforts.  It is critical that you now make clear that our relationship with Palestinians will be jeopardized by seeking action against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

We encourage you to also stress the importance of the Palestinian Authority’s close security cooperation with Israel.  If peace is to be possible, the Palestinian Authority also needs to confront the recent surge in violence on the West Bank, cease all anti-Israel incitement and renounce Hamas until it unequivocally meets the three Quartet requirements.

We believe that by espousing these principles during your historic trip, you will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to enhancing Israeli security, improving the prospect for peace with the Palestinians and furthering our own interests in this troubled region of the world.

We are strongly committed to the restart of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. However, we also recognize that the violence and chaos that have sprung up in Syria, North Africa, Egypt, including insecurity along the Sinai Peninsula, and Yemen are not related to the peace process.

As you pursue peace in the Middle East in the long-run, we hope that your agenda will identify policy solutions to address the urgent and important threats facing Israel and the United States today.  We also hope that you will reiterate the United States’ support for Israel, her right to defend herself, and the Iron Dome project.  In such a tumultuous region of the world, and during such challenging times, a strong relationship between our two countries has never been more important. Israel has challenging times ahead. Israel needs our unwavering commitment now more than ever.

###

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an extraordinary magazine piece (it was the cover story) on West Bank Palestinians who are resisting the Israeli occupation through non-violence. For those who follow the issue closely, the extraordinary aspect of the piece was not so much anything author Ben Ehreneich revealed as it was that the article appeared in the New York Times at all.

You just don’t expect to find this type of reporting on Israel in the Times which, ever conscious that it is the New York Times, is always cautious about its reportage on Israel. Most of its coverage is either extremely balanced (“the Palestinians say this, the Israeli government says that”) or slavishly supportive of the Israeli line. (Columnists Tom Friedman and Nick Kristof both consistently deviate from the line, but they are columnists, influential columnists to be sure, but opinion columnists nonetheless).

Ehrenreich’s piece neither adhered to the Israeli line nor was it balanced. It had a clear point of view: the occupation is a terrible thing that should not continue.

Does that make it biased? It would, if there was another side to the argument. But in the case of the occupation there isn’t. Imagine Ehrenreich’s counterpart on the right explaining that the 45-year occupation is a good thing which should continue forever.

Other than West Bank settlers and their supporters on the far right of the Israeli and American political spectrum, no one makes that case. The United States government is committed to the “two-state solution.”  Prime Minister Netanyahu has also endorsed it as has every Israeli prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo agreement with Yasir Arafat.  As for the lobby here in the United States, it too supports the two-state solution.

It hardly needs to be said that endorsing the “two state solution,” by definition, means opposing the occupation. After all, there is no place where a Palestinian state could be created other than the West Bank (including east Jerusalem) and Gaza. That is if you favor two states. The “one state solution” would include the land that is now Israel in a single state for all the people who live there.  But that, obviously, is something different than the “two state” framework.

Of course, neither the Netanyahu government nor the lobby here really want the occupation to end. If they did, they would not, in the case of the Israeli government, keep expanding settlements or, in the case of pro-Israel organizations here, support Israel’s right to do so. Nor would they use their influence to prevent any pressure from the United States on Israel to end the occupation. In short, both Israel and its lobby here nominally oppose the occupation while actually supporting it.

The reason they can’t say they support occupation is the same reason that the New York Times will never run a major piece that takes the opposite point of view from Ehrenreich’s. That is because in the year 2013, it is no longer possible to defend occupation and the denial of rights to the native people that goes along with it. Like defending colonialism or segregation, defending occupation is beyond the pale of civilized discourse.

And that is why hardly anyone defends it. It survives because those who favor it, do not engage on that issue directly, saying “of course, I oppose the occupation but….”

And it is the arguments that follows the “but” that allow an institution universally believed to be wrong to continue.

The words that invariably follow the “but” rarely, if ever, defend the occupation itself. Instead they attack the people whose land is being occupied, the Palestinians in particular and sometimes Muslims in general.

The arguments are (1) that the Palestinians do not accept Israel’s right to live in peace and security (they have since 1993), (2) that they are terrorists (the Palestinian Authority which governs the West Bank not only opposes terrorism, it works with the Israeli authorities to thwart it, (3) that Palestinian schools teach their children to hate Jews (which has been proven false), (4) that Israel has no Palestinian partner with whom to negotiate (Mahmoud Abbas is so friendly to Israel that many Palestinians consider him an Israeli puppet) and (5) that the Palestinians have rejected Israeli offers of to remove the settlements and exchange the occupied territories (it has, in fact, never been offered).

In other words, supporters of the status quo, knowing that the occupation is indefensible, simply change the subject to one that they would rather discuss. And that is the nature (as they see it) of the Palestinians (and, in the case of the Pam Geller’s of the world, the nature of all Muslims).  In short, knowing they cannot win the argument by discussing the issue that prevents peace (the occupation), the Israeli government and its lobby here chooses instead to attack the Arabs. And it works. Forty-five years after it began, the occupation not only survives, it has become more impregnable as settlements expand, the number of settlers increase and Israel’s system of roads, walls, and law defends the settlers at the expense of the local population.

[It should be noted that in the first years of the occupation, it was defended as strategically necessary to defend Israel itself. But that was disproven in 1973 when Israel, holding all the territories it does now plus the Sinai Peninsula, was attacked by the combined forces of Egypt and Syria and only prevailed after three weeks of fighting and the loss of 2,688 soldiers in contrast to the 776 it lost in the 1967 war, when it held none of the occupied territories and defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in six days.]

The best news about the Ehrenreich piece is that he simply describes the occupation in all its ugliness, forcing the reader to forget for a time all the propaganda about Palestinians and instead focus on the conditions Palestinians are subjected to simply because the settlers (and the Israeli government that supports them) wants their land. And, beyond that, he defends non-violent resistance to the occupation as the one means that can end it. (He quotes one Israeli army official saying that he prefers dealing with resisters who shoot, “you have the enemy, he shoots at you, you have to kill him.” But he is confounded by non-violent resistance. Another is quoted as saying, “We don’t do Gandhi very well.” In short, Ehrenreich eviscerates the occupation and describes how it can be ended.

No, that is the second best news about the piece. The best news is that it appeared in the New York Times. Most definitely, the Times, they are a changing.