MJ Rosenberg

President Obama’s decision to provide military aid to the Syrian opposition is incredible. The United States is barely out of Iraq. It’s still bogged down in Afghanistan. Obama insists on keeping the Iran war option “on the table.” Yet suddenly we are taking sides in a civil war in Syria. How many Middle Eastern wars can one superpower handle?

The most amazing thing is that the president has the audacity to even propose involvement in Syria to the American people. (Not that he is asking, just telling).

Since 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson came up with a phony pretext to gain passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the Vietnam war, it has been one presidentially-initiated intervention after another: Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq , Libya. (This list does not even include the delivery of arms to the mujahideenin Afghanistan which brought us the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 and the endless War on Terrorism).

I won’t argue that all the results of those interventions and wars were bad, although most of them were. I will however elaborate on just one, because it seems most comparable. It is in the immediate neighborhood of Obama’s current initiative and involves many of the same players: Lebanon in 1983.

In June 1982, the Israeli government invaded Lebanon to drive the Palestine Liberation Organization and its fighters out of the country it had been using as a base for operations against Israel. (This was 11 years before the Oslo agreement in which the PLO recognized Israel).

The invasion led to a series of humanitarian disasters, most notably the slaughter by Christian forces allied with Israel of 800 civilians (almost all women, children and the elderly) in the Palestinian refugee camps called Sabra and Shatila.  When the Israelis insisted that they would not stop the war until the Palestinians left the country, President Ronald Reagan dispatched 1800 Marines  to serve as peacekeepers, along with French and Italian forces, until the Palestinians were forced to board ships (to Tunisia!) and the Lebanese government reestablished some semblance of control over the country.

Reagan’s stated intentions were good. He said that the Marines were going in solely as peacekeepers, not fighters, and that they would stay for a maximum of 30 days.  He said that his goal was freeing Lebanon from domination by Palestinians and Syrians and enabling Israel to get out. (Not surprisingly, he described Israel as more the victim of the Lebanon war than as its instigator).

Of course, it didn’t turn out as Reagan hoped. In the words of Lawrence Korb, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense at the time, the peacekeeper force soon became “entangled in Lebanon’s sectarian conflict.” Its presence resulted “only in exacerbating the problems it was supposed to resolve.”  Other than achieving Israel’s goal of expelling the PLO, the U.S. intervention succeeded only in infuriating all sides while accomplishing nothing.

And then, on October 23, 1983, 14 months after Reagan pledged that the Marines would stay only one, 241 Marines were blown up while asleep in their barracks at the Beirut airport by Hizbullah terrorists. It was the worst Marine loss of life since Iwo Jima. Five months later President Reagan pulled all U.S. forces out: Lebanon was no better off than before. It’s not necessary to elaborate on the families of the 241 lost Marines.

There is no need to expend many words on the most destructive of U.S. interventions in the Middle East, the Iraq war, because it is so recent.

It was built on lies told by a president, his advisers and a claque of neoconservatives who are always eager to get America to fight Arabs or Muslims whenever and wherever they can. Right now, their primary goal is to ensure that the Obama administration does not relax its hostility toward Iran despite the election of a moderate new president. But that won’t stop them from cheerleading for U.S. action in Syria which they have been clamoring for since the Syrian civil war began.  And then, of course there are Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham who think Obama’s moves in Syria are not nearly warlike enough.

Obama’s proposal to take sides in the Syrian war is wrong. It is arrogant. It ignores our destructive history in the Middle East and the perception by all parties in the region that everything we do there is motivated by our blatant bias toward Israel. And it opens up the now unforeseen possibility of an expanded war, perhaps even with John McCain’s favorite solution: “boots on the ground.” After all, Reagan never intended Marines to even fight in Lebanon, let alone be killed in their beds.

The role of the United States should be to support unconditional negotiations involving all sides with no stated goal other than to end the killing. (Expecting the Assad regime to negotiate when we say the goal of negotiations is its removal is absurd).

Helping to end the slaughter of innocents (by both sides) through diplomacy is the only appropriate role for this country. It is also an essential role. Dictating solutions to any other country’s civil war is nothing but 19^th century imperialism, no different than President McKinley’s war to “liberate Cuba.”

What is Obama thinking?

The month of March 2002 was a terrible time in both Israel and the West Bank.  Some 100 Israelis were killed  by Palestinian suicide bombers.  Prime Minister Ariel Sharon launched a military operation in the West Bank killing some 500 Palestinians.  Children made up a significant number of the victims on both sides. The prospects for an end to violence, let alone peace, appeared lower than at any time previously.

It was against that background that Harvard professor, Samantha Power, now President Obama’s nominee to serve as U.N. ambassador, spoke of the need for U.S. intervention.

She told an interviewer that she did not believe that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon or Palestinian President Yasir Arafat would ever stop the killing on their own and that “external intervention is required.”  She specifically called on the United States to “put something on the line,” by which she meant  the “imposition of  a solution on unwilling parties.”  Admitting that the idea of imposing a settlement was “fundamentally undemocratic,” she said it was preferable to “deference” to leaders who seem “politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people.”

This was not surprising coming from Power. She is the leading advocate of what is known as “liberal interventionism.”  She has said that as a child she was shaken by the world’s indifference to the Holocaust. Her feelings were deepened by her experiences as a journalist in Bosnia. Ever since, most notably in the case of Libya, Power has recommended “going in” to stop the killing of innocents.  Right or wrong, it’s who she is.

Unfortunately for Power, the reality of U.S. politics dictates that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be exempted from rules or theories one applies elsewhere. That is why some of the most aggressively anti-war, pro-human rights progressives in Congress, the media and the blogosphere simply go silent, at best, on the subject of the Israeli occupation or, at worst, openly support military actions like Israel’s wars in Gaza.  They know that the Israel lobby will make life very difficult for those who insist on applying the same moral yardstick to Israel as to other nations.

Power alluded to that fact of life in the same interview in which she called for intervention.  Right after calling on the United States to impose  a peace settlement,  she added that “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.”

It did. Six years later when Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama listed Power as one of his foreign policy advisors, members of the lobby crowd went ballistic. The Zionist Organization of America, Commentary, and a host of right-wing Israel advocates said that Power was an enemy of Israel and even possibly an anti-Semite.  It was made clear to Obama that nominating her to a major foreign policy position would ignite a firestorm.  Obama responded by placing her in a White House job that did not require Senate confirmation.

Power wanted more in an Obama second term and that required inoculating herself against charges that were made against her in 2008. And so she made the rounds  — visiting neocons, Jewish organizations, and Israeli officials – and assuring potential adversaries that she was sorry.

Here is the best description of Power’s apology tour. It comes from Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach (a GOP candidate for Congress in the 2012 election).  Writing in Huffington Post, Boteach reveals  that in 2011 Power approached him to say she wanted “to go on the record about her comments on Israel and how they had been misunderstood.” He then convened a “closed-door meeting of about 40 American Jewish leaders who represented a wide spectrum of our communities most important organizations.”

And, according to Boteach, Power was contrite. She denied “animus toward Israel.”

And in the presence of the leaders of our community, she suddenly became deeply emotional and struggled to complete her presentation as she expressed how deeply such accusations had affected her. Tears streamed down her cheeks and I think it fair to say that there was no one in the room who wasn’t deeply moved by this incredible display of pain and emotion.

That “incredible display” did the trick.

More than a few of the leaders in the room came over to me afterward and said that, based on her comments and her unabashed display of emotional attachment to the security of the Jewish people … they would never again question her commitment to Israel’s security.

Mission accomplished.

Boteach now  says that he “take[s] my yarmulke off “ to salute President Obama’s  nomination of Power. He isn’t alone. This time the neocons are lining up to support her. Even the Israeli government has jumped on the Power bandwagon, with its ambassador to the United States  endorsing her  appointment.

And that almost surely means that Power will achieve the United Nations job. All she had to do was recant views that the lobby found offensive. Rest assured, she will not criticize Israeli actions again.

But don’t be quick to condemn her. If the lobby opposed her she could not get the U.N. post or any job requiring Senate confirmation. That is the political reality in 2013. The Constitutional “advise and consent” function is now exercised by the lobby (see Hagel, Chuck). What is a talented and ambitious public servant supposed to do?

But imagine if a nominee for a high U.S. foreign policy post had shed tears to demonstrate devotion to any foreign country other than Israel.  No, don’t.  It would never happen.

This sums up the political use of anti-Semitism.

The new State Department Envoy on anti-Semitism is former AIPAC lobbyist Ira Forman, a guy whose entire career has been dedicated to advancing the policies of the Israeli government. At AIPAC, and then as head of the National Jewish Democratic Council, where he worked to ensure that Democrats were more hawkish on Israel than Republicans.

I would not have expected to be so pleased by Professor Stephen Hawking’s decision to boycott a major conference in Jerusalem in solidarity with the Palestinians. But I was.

I say that because I do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Or to be precise I do not support it as applied to Israel itself in contrast to the occupation.  I have strongly backed the efforts (most notably by church groups and specifically by the Presbyterians) to divest from corporations that sell Israel the equipment needed to maintain the occupation.  I also support the multidenominational  effort to link U.S. aid to Israel to its ending the occupation.

But I personally have drawn the line on boycotting Israel itself. Since I support the existence and security of Israel within the 1967 lines, I am not comfortable with actions that punish the Israeli people at large. I don’t think Israel is South Africa. Like President Jimmy Carter, I limit my use of the label “apartheid” to the occupied areas. I do not view Israel as an “apartheid state.”

Nor am I comfortable with punishing entire populations for the actions of their government. I think the international sanctions against Iraq and now Iran accomplished (and, in the case of Iran, accomplish) absolutely nothing except to punish ordinary people.

Moreover, as an American, I oppose punishing populations at large for the crimes of their government. Using that yardstick, we, ourselves, have more than earned boycotting, divestment and sanctions. Yet  I don’t recall any such action against us over Iraq or Vietnam or any of our other foreign incursions or manipulations (like overthrowing governments we don’t like, as in Chile or supporting genocidal juntas as in Guatemala).  I might feel differently if I was Norwegian or Canadian. But I’m an American which necessitates (or should necessitate) some humility.

And yet I cheered Stephen Hawking’s action. In no way did it punish the Israeli people. No ordinary Israeli will suffer as a result of his action. The only Israelis who are being hurt by it are the elites who are attending the conference, along with similar influentials from abroad. And even they won’t be hurt; the conference will go on. Hawking simply offered a powerful reminder that Israel is a country that has been running a brutal occupation for 45 years. He merely rained on one of  Israel’s self-congratulatory  parades, although both the Israeli government and its supporters abroad reacted as if Hawking had become a suicide bomber.

In fact, the very hysteria of the reaction to Hawking’s decision demonstrates that it was right and offers a model for other celebrities. He inflicted pain on powerful Israelis (and their supporters abroad) who support the occupation while energizing those brave and often lonely Israelis who oppose it. Good for him and good for those who follow in his footsteps.

I understand that my position as stated here is rife with contradiction. I oppose BDS but I endorse Hawking’s support for it.

But here’s the thing. I would not support Hawking’s protest if my own government was taking action against the occupation. If the Obama administration was using its leverage to get Israel out of the occupied territories or, at least, to stop the illegal settlement enterprise, there might be no need for any kind of boycott. After all, given our massive aid to Israel, our consistent support for Israel at the United Nations and our adopting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies on Iran, we have powerful leverage.

But President Barack Obama seems never have to considered using any of it. I have been following U.S. policy toward Israel since the late 1960’s and I can say without hesitation that there has never been an administration as slavish in its support of Israel’s policies as this one – not even Ronald Reagan’s or George W. Bush’s.

The policy of this administration toward Israel is best summed up by Vice President Joe Biden who has said that there must be “no daylight, no daylight” (yes, he said it twice) between U.S. and Israeli policies. This is not, of course, what Biden believes (I have spoken to him about his views on a half dozen occasions) but, no matter, it is wealthy donors who determine this administration’s policies on Israel not Biden’s personal beliefs – or, for that matter, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s, Secretary of State John Kerry’s – or President Barack Obama’s.

And that will not change. On Israeli-Palestinian peace, this administration is the killer of hope.

That is why I support Hawking and will support other similar efforts. Simply put, thanks to the Obama administration, there is no alternative.

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