Netanyahu vs. Obama

Sometimes Obama is too much — even for stalwart Obama supporters.

One of these supporters, Alan Dershowitz, at least has the willingness to say so openly.

Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel’s Just War Against Hamas” recently wrote the following in The Wall Street Journal [2-23-15]:

As a liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for President Barack Obama , I am appalled that some Democratic members of Congress are planning to boycott the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3 to a joint session of Congress. At bottom, this controversy is not mainly about protocol and politics—it is about the constitutional system of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

Under the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches share responsibility for making and implementing important foreign-policy decisions. Congress has a critical role to play in scrutinizing the decisions of the president when these decisions involve national security, relationships with allies and the threat of nuclear proliferation.

…One should walk out on tyrants, bigots and radical extremists, as the United States did when Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and called for Israel’s destruction at the United Nations. To use such an extreme tactic against our closest ally, and the Middle East’s only vibrant democracy, is not only to insult Israel’s prime minister but to put Israel in a category in which it does not belong.

Eloquently put.

But why is Dershowitz surprised? As he writes in the very same article,

Recall that President Obama sent British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby Congress with phone calls last month against conditionally imposing new sanctions on Iran if the deal were to fail. What the president objects to is not that Mr. Netanyahu will speak to Congress, but the content of what he intends to say. This constitutes a direct intrusion on the power of Congress and on the constitutional separation of powers.

The very fact that Obama seeks to negotiate peacefully with a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran, whose stated policy is to wipe Israel off the map, and which openly applauds the killing of Americans, should disqualify him from the realm of benefit of the doubt right there.

Dershowitz writes as if he’s appealing to Obama’s “better” or more reasonable side. But what reason is there to think that such a side exists? The very fact that Obama has allied himself against Israel, and in favor of Iran, tells you something right there about whose side he is really on.

Arguments about “not taking sides” do not work here. You cannot negotiate with governments or entities who don’t recognize reason, individual rights, or even the basic sovereignty of other nations. The open stance of Iran is, “We are good and right; Israel is bad and wrong; Israel, as soon as we have the weapons, will die. The same goes for the USA.” How do you negotiate with people like this? Why would you want to do so? Something other than lack of intelligence would have to explain it.

Israel and the United States have absolutely nothing to gain by negotiating with Iran. Iran has everything to gain. Deals (never to be honored by Iran), negotiations, delays and excuses buy Iran time, so that they can acquire nuclear weapons and either (a) use them, or (b) utilize them for blackmail.

Israel’s value does not reside in the fact that it’s the Middle East’s only “vibrant democracy.” This is a fact, but any nation can be a democracy. A nation filled with militant Muslims will democratically elect a theocratic dictator hellbent on destroying infidels. A majority can vote for a Hitler, because the majority is not always right and a majority of people — in any given time or location — do not always value freedom or respect for the equal individual rights of all. Democracies do not secure rights; Constitutions in support of individual rights (when upheld) do.

The main value of Israel is that it’s a largely secularized state, with a basis for commerce, property rights and economic growth, particularly for that part of the world. Israel is not a totally free country. But it’s downright Jeffersonian in its respect for individual rights when compared with any other nation in that part of the world, most particularly totalitarian Iran.

Dershowitz is considered a brilliant man, and his resume and experience may be impressive. But brilliant people miss the forest for the trees all the time. They evade, they deny, and in their intelligence they sometimes miss or rationalize away the obvious. Let’s face it: Obama is not one of the good guys, especially from the point-of-view of America’s and Israel’s survival. It’s time for them to face this fact, own up to it, and move on.

“Protocol and politics” is merely an excuse not to support Netanyahu, who is a stronger and more principled supporter of freedom — and opponent of Islamic totalitarianism — than anyone else in the Middle East (or the world) today. This, I maintain, is what Obama cannot stand.

Obama’s claimed outrage over “protocol” seems immature and childish if you take him at his word, as Dershowitz does. But if you consider the fact that Obama attempts to make peace with a regime dedicated to Israel’s destruction (not to mention America’s), then Obama’s boycott of Netanyahu makes a lot more sense. It also reveals where much of the Democratic Party stands, given the ability of its members to walk out on Netanyahu’s speech.

Perhaps Dershowitz cannot bring himself to face the stunning and perfectly awful truth: That Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is more on the side of the United States than the American President himself.

The most laughable and absurd line of Dershowitz’s article was this one:

Not only should all members of Congress attend Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, but President Obama—as a constitutional scholar—should urge members of Congress to do their constitutional duty of listening to opposing views in order to check and balance the policies of the administration.

Where has he been? Obama sees no Constitutional duty other than to exercise his will. Immigration law imposed by executive order? Obamacare suspended and reinstated, and exemptions granted, via executive order? Executive orders to implement gun control and environmentalist legislation that cannot pass Congress? Ramming through “Net Neutrality” via the FCC, in order to take over the technical nature of the Internet? None of these are the actions of a President who gives a damn about “constitutional duty.” Obama is in the process of instituting a soft dictatorship, with nary a whimper from most of the population nor the pathetic and self-effacing Republican leadership in Congress.

When will Obama supporters like Dershowitz start to recognize that the President they support is not on the side of Israel, and not even on the side of freedom?