Yesterday, Jennifer Rubin asked:
Where is the outrage in the U.S. — especially among the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama? Where are the major Jewish institutions that in the past offered rhetorical and political support for a vibrant pro-Israel policy?
In answering the question, she, of course, credits Martin Peretz for speaking out against President Obama’s anti-Israel policies. But, I’ve wondered, where’s Alan Dershowitz been? Why doesn’t he speak out. Well now he has, and I wish that he’d remained silent. He answers “Has Obama turned on Israel?” with an emphatic “no.”
First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a “natural growth” exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. “Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally,” he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build “up” rather than “out.” This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one — results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.
I have no idea the source of his assertion that a majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel do not favor settlement expansion. But to write off Prime Minister Netanyahu is disingenuous. Given the spectrum of his coalition, Netanyahu represents a vast majority of Israelis. President Obama isn’t just opposing one man, he is opposing the national consensus of Israel. (Even Jackson Diehl acknowledges this.)
Furthermore, by pressuring Israel on settlements and not pressuring the Arab world for any substantive reciprocal action he is eroding Israel’s diplomatic position and, yes, that does pose a security risk for Israel.
It’s nice of Dershowitz to object to linkage.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran — which would endanger the entire world — should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
But the Obama administration has made it clear that it could live with a nuclear Iran. So Dershowitz’s next paragraph isn’t exactly comforting.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration’s point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
All I’ll say is that John Bolton disagrees.
And this brings us to Dershowitz’s less than compelling conclusion:
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration’s policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran’s burgeoning nuclear threat, it’s important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel’s security — and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel’s security.
Of course even if “getting tough on settlement expansion” doesn’t hurt Israeli security, doesn’t it strike Dershowitz as odd that this is the one foreign policy issue he sees fit to confront? President Obama has been looking for dialogue with Iran’s leaders and friendlier terms with Syria. But when it comes to Israel he seeks to put Israel on the defensive diplomatically. Maybe he hasn’t done anything yet to hurt Israel’s security, but if his choice of battles is any indication, it shows that he has no real concern for Israel.
In short, Deshowitz’s argument for President Obama is that settlements are not a significant issue so those who are pro-Israel shouldn’t be bothered by his words and actions, but on the significant issue of a nuclear Iran, he hopes that Obama will do the right thing for Israel (and the world.) Seems that his defense of Obama comes down to lots of hope, given that the substance of the President’s actions point in the other direction.
Perhaps Dershowitz really needs to convince himself that President Obama is pro-Israel after his endorsement last year. But the qualifications in his op-ed are such that I find it hard to believe that he really believes his own arguments. Clearly he is capable of better, else he wouldn’t be a world famous law professor. I have a hard time believe that this apologia would convince anyone of the Obama administration’s positive feelings towards Israel. I really wonder if he convinced himself.
UPDATE: The current version of this post differs slightly from the original version. I have edited for clarity (hopefully).
UPDATE II: Several more have weighed on the Dershowitz op-ed. Jonathan Tobin, after crediting Dershowitz for defending Israel in fora not usually sympathetic to Israel, then criticizes Dershowitz for some of the particulars of his op-ed.
Dershowitz is also wrong about the settlements spat, not only because it is significant that this administration made it their top foreign-policy priority early on but also because they have sought to escalate the dispute rather than resolve it. The calls by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an absolute freeze on any settlement building, including those the Bush administration conceded would stay with Israel in any peace settlement, was a blow to the alliance between the two countries. While Dershowitz is right that most American Jews are not fans of the settlements, the State Department’s statement that such a freeze applies even to the city of Jerusalem is something that only left-wing extremists within the Jewish community would countenance.
Melanie Phillips has an extended critique of Dershowitz and hits him for some omissions. (h/t OyVay Blog)
Obama drew a vile – and telling – equivalence between the Nazi extermination camps and the Palestinian ‘refugee’ camps. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama’s statement that the Palestinians ‘have suffered in pursuit of a homeland’ was grossly and historically untrue, and again denied Arab aggression. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Equally vilely, Obama equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the resistance against apartheid in South Africa. On all of this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.
(I should point out that despite the President’s juxtaposition of the Holocaust with the Palestinians in his Cairo speech, in a follow up interview he emphatically denied any equivalence. However, I guess that the majority of his audience in the Arab/Muslim world heard the two events equated and felt a measure of vindication. The President may not have meant it, but you can be sure that his audience understood it.)
Omri also gives a detailed rebuttal and notes:
So having pretended that Obama’s policy is what Alan Dershowitz would like Obama’s policy to be, he now asserts that Jewish voters have no reason to worry. That seems almost intellectually dishonest. It’s also empirically dicey because there’s little to no Israeli support for a freeze in East Jerusalem or in the settlement blocs, which is what Obama is calling for. But it’s the argumentative sleight-of-hand that really rankles.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
