The April 3 letter which 100 leading American Jews sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is distressing.

There’s nothing wrong with the letter’s specified intention to ask Netanyahu to cooperate with President Barack Obama and to facilitate confidence-building measures to try to buy a Palestinian Authority willingness to negotiate, as long as those measures are reciprocated by the other side.

The problem is that the language used parallels the misrepresentation of Israel’s situation and positions: by the way it is written, this letter seems to be not about influencing Netanyahu or Israelis but about enhancing the social and political credentials of those involved — Israel’s security and interests be damned.

In addition, the letter accepts the concept that the Palestinian Authority must be paid benefits to be willing to talk so that it can receive bigger benefits; that it must be begged via “painful” and potentially dangerous Israeli concessions to accept a Palestinian state. Since the Palestinians are doing Israel such a big favor by making peace, this concept goes, Israel should make concessions first, and hope for some compromise from the other side later.

I support a two-state solution based roughly on the pre-1967 borders with relatively minor modifications, which is supposedly the same thing the signers want. But — and here’s where the letter misses the point — only based on a real deal which must be based on mutual compromises, an eagerness by both sides to make a lasting peace, and a structure that seems likely to make the peace lasting.

In fact, a deal is impossible because the PA doesn’t really want one, which is why they need to be begged with treats to talk — and why even if there are a few talks, they won’t succeed. Also, at a time of growing radicalization in the region, a theoretical deal based on “painful” concessions would endanger Israel’s strategic situation.

The implication of the letter, in contrast, is that a peace deal is so urgent for Israel that it must be desperate to get one no matter what the cost. That nothing can go wrong with the new situation an agreement can create; that Israel’s prime goal must always be to keep the current president happy despite any judgment or considerations of its own.

Those who signed the letter — remember, they didn’t write it — are all good people, none of whom are anti-Israel. That’s why these people should have known better and written this letter differently.

None of this was necessary and the matter could have been handled with dignity and much greater effectiveness.

There are left-wingers, more powerful than ever before in U.S. history, who loathe Israel and want to see it greatly weakened or wiped out; there are conservatives who are pro-Israel, though some want to exploit it for partisan purposes. (By the way, it should be noted that the main group, the conservative Emergency Committee for Israel, is hypocritical since its leadership includes people who support Obama’s dangerous pro-Islamist policy, which is more dangerous for Israel than anything Obama is doing on the “peace process.”)

But: where are the liberal pro-Israel forces who should be speaking out sensibly, and not merely rubber-stamping Obama’s policy and mass media stereotypes?

Here is the letter’s text:

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu:

As Americans deeply committed to Israel’s security, we were heartened by President Obama’s recent historic visit and his unequivocal assertion that “so long as there is a United States of America, Ah-tem lo le-vad.” We also are encouraged by the rapprochement with Turkey, which was achieved in great measure due to your leadership.

We believe that this is a compelling moment for you and your new government to respond to President Obama’s call for peace by taking concrete confidence building steps designed to demonstrate Israel’s commitment to a ‘two-states for two peoples’ solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We urge you, in particular, to work closely with Secretary of State John Kerry to devise pragmatic initiatives, consistent with Israel’s security needs, which would represent Israel’s readiness to make painful territorial sacrifices for the sake of peace.

Your leadership would challenge Palestinian leaders to take similarly constructive steps, including, most importantly, a prompt return to the negotiating table.

We join with President Obama in expressing our steadfast support for your efforts to ensure Israel’s future as the secure and democratic nation state of the Jewish people.

So: what is wrong with this text?

The Spring 2013 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 2013, is now available. Read these articles free by clicking the link:

TWILIGHT LEBANON, 1990-2011

While far too late, the Obama administration may be adopting a sensible policy on Syria. The strategy, however, is unlikely to succeed. Oh, and there is also a very important clue—I think the key to the puzzle—about what really happened in Benghazi.

“The last thing anyone wants to see is al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in southern Syria next to Israel. That is a doomsday scenario,” said a U.S. diplomat in Jordan who was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject.”

So this is the likely fruit of the Syrian civil war, though that conflict is far from over. The old regime is still alive. What U.S. policy has helped to do is to create a big new threat to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. It’s also a threat to Lebanon, but since the Syrian Islamists will target the Iran-backed Hizballah there, Washington doesn’t mind.

What does this have to do with Benghazi? Find out on the next page.

An op-ed piece by former UK foreign affairs secretary Jack Straw reveals on how high-level Western statesmen think about international affairs and the Middle East.

Before beginning I want to make clear that my problem with Straw’s analysis is not his opposition to a military attack on Iran. Actually, I agree with him on this point. The problem is his reasoning on the framework around that point.

I don’t know if he is responsible for the title of the article in the Daily Telegraph but it does reflect the dangerous worldview of Western leaders. It is, “Even if Iran gets the Bomb, it won’t be worth going to war.” This is rather open-ended. The title might better have been: Going to War is Not the Best Response to Iran’s Nuclear Weapons’ Drive.

The trouble with the actual title is it basically implies that no matter what Iran does once it gets the bomb, it won’t be worth the West going to war.  And that is really what Straw is saying.

Straw’s first point is that he objects to the statement that “all options remain on the table” regarding Iran’s campaign. In other words, the West should drop this, making clear that no matter what Iran does the West won’t resort to force. He is thus advocating throwing out a prime aspect of Western leverage.

How does he justify this? Basically by saying that Iranians are proud and patriotic and thus resent such threats. Straw says they would be more flexible if they are assured that the West won’t attack.

While I oppose an attack, it is absurd to remove a prime incentive for an Iranian regime to make concessions or — as is far more likely since Tehran wants the bomb — to be more cautious. By removing this threat, the West would undercut those members of the Islamic Republic’s elite who — no matter how radical they are — warn that seeking nuclear weapons is too risky. Certainly, Obama has rejected taking any such step, verbally asserting the continuing possibility of a military response at some point.

Yet this is a common theme of contemporary Western diplomacy- — including Obama’s behavior toward radical Islamism generally- — assure your actual or potential foe that you won’t do anything nasty to them and then expect them to moderate. This isn’t how Middle East thinking or politics works.

Second, while he seems unaware of the implications of his argument, Straw takes a shocking stance on the threat to Israel and Arabs from an Iranian nuclear weapon:

If Iran were to attack Israel, or, say, one of its Arab neighbours, international law is clear: the victim has the right to retaliate. But such an attack is highly improbable. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council can authorise military action where there’s a `threat to international peace and security.’ Such resolutions were the legal basis for the actions against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and Libya in 2011. But there are no such Article 42 resolutions against Iran; and there won’t be – China and Russia would veto them.

It is paragraphs like that which make me think Western foreign policy elites are dunderheads nowadays. Let’s break it down:

–“If Iran were to attack Israel” or an Arab state, the victim has the right to retaliate. But, ahem, the whole purpose of policy toward Iran is to make such an attack impossible, to ensure they don’t become victim to mushroom clouds that kill hundreds of thousands of people. Straw is actually saying: No worries! If Iran drops nuclear warheads on Israel or Saudi Arabia they have the right under international law to retaliate!

–“But such an attack is highly improbable.” It isn’t clear to me whether he is saying that Iran won’t attack them—how about some serious argumentation to try to prove that — or whether they wouldn’t be able to retaliate. I think that an Iranian nuclear attack is unlikely but it could happen and one cannot just assume that it won’t. After all, a Soviet nuclear attack on America during the Cold War was far more unlikely but the United States and its allies spent huge amounts to create hundreds of warheads along with geopolitical efforts to prevent the USSR from ever thinking it could get away with an attack. And while the United States and NATO had plenty of resources to do so, how much of a margin does Israel or Arab states have for retaliation or defense?

–And if Iran does attack, well there isn’t much the UN could do about it. By the same token, the UN wouldn’t support a Western assault on Iran. Is it now official that the United States or Great Britain can only do things if the UN approves in advance? Should Israel conclude that its defense by allies is dependent on the UN agreeing that it should not be wiped off the map? Even Straw admits that Russia or China would probably veto any strong action against Iran.

Ten little countries standing in a line,

Iran had a revolution, then there were nine.

Nine little entities dangled just like bait,

Hamas took over Gaza and then there were eight.

Eight little countries that are praying for heaven,

Turkey chose some Islamists and then there were seven.

Seven little countries, in the geopolitical mix,

Lebanon elected Hizballah and then there were six.

Six little countries trying to stay alive,

The Brotherhood took Tunisia and then there were five.

Five little countries leaning on the door,

There goes Egypt and now there are four.

Four little countries redefining what is free,

Syria had a civil war and soon there will be three.

Three little countries doing something they will rue,

Afghanistan when Americans leave will probably make it two.

Who will be next? It’s not all that hard to say,

Some think Saudi Arabia already is that way.

Bahrain’s on the verge; Qatar’s on their team,

Things may be far worse than what they seem.

Obama, Brennan, Hagel, Kerry think this is good,

Do you really believe they should?

The Hungarian Communist secret police rationalized forcing  prisoners to sign false confessions by seeking to distinguish between ordinary “factual” proof and “political” truth, with the latter, of course, taking precedence.

” When the regime wanted to punish someone “the crime of which he was suspected became a `political truth,” justifying the invention of almost any `facts’needed to prove it.”  –Paul Ignotus, after being tortured into signing a false confession.

To travel to central Europe or the USSR and really immerse oneself in the recent past of those nations is to grasp a bizarre situation they lived through for decades. Let’s call it Double Reality. And it is what lots of us are experiencing in the West today. That’s why the lessons of Communist rule and society aren’t taught to American students today.

Double Reality was the situation under Communist rule in which one knew that everything was terrible but was daily  assaulted with the message that everything was wonderful. An important difference between the West today and the Soviet bloc experience from the late 1940s up to 1989 is that we, at least, can complain without getting hauled off to a re-education camp.

What we also have in the West, however, is the implementation of a left-wing idea that supposedly applied to democratic capitalist society. The Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse called it “repressive tolerance” while the extreme leftist philologist Noam Chomsky called the other side of the equation, “manufacturing consent.”

In short, for the far left today,which has more power in the United States than ever before and arguably the same point applies (at least in the intellectual sphere) to Western Europe, Marcuse’s concept covers the side of, Let them talk but keep people from listening. The dissenters are ridiculed, their ideas distorted, they are accused of thought crimes, and when possible are ignored completely

Chomsky got the part that says, We will control the schools, mass media, and other institutions so as to indoctrinate people into agreeing with us in order to “manufacture consent” for ideas that are ridiculous and which a few years earlier only a small fringe would have supported.

Double Reality means that the financial deficit is disastrous and the economy is bad month after month yet there are happy face talk everywhere saying that the first doesn’t matter and the second is doing well. The great leader has everything under control even while we know that he is handing out assets stolen from us to his cronies.

Double Reality means that political figures, cultural figures, teachers, and others don’t have to be fair because they know beyond question that they are right and that their rivals are primitive, evil, and don’t know what’s good for them.

And so for example we are told that the media is doing a terrific job (usually by that self-same media) and that universities are beacons of wisdom when both are falling down on their job of being watchdogs with only a few journalists and professors shouting warnings or evincing guilt.

Are we crazy to think that American foreign policy is in a terrible mess? Well, the goal is to make the masses think so or at least ignore what I and others say.

The counterrevolutionary plots must be defeated. The enemies of the people want to return the estates to the big landlords, oppress the proletariat, and institute concentration camps. Or, rather, they advocate the modern and American equivalents of such things: the alleged war on women, racism, Homophobia, Islamophobia,  and Illegal-Immigrantophobia. And on top of everything else, it is claimed that the opposition that seeks to deny freedom of speech and other rights to the hegemonic forces.

Again, things have not gone so far as they did in Central Europe except for one aspect: the doubling of reality, the pretense that full democracy and open debate is functioning as normal that everything is all right.

You can see these techniques in action in the museums devoted to the Communist era in places like Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Hungary.  Films showing happy peasants are displayed alongside texts describing how the state confiscated almost everything that farmers produced. Exhibits show how religious institutions were taken over by the party so that smooth-talking officials speaking about social justice forced out the most honest and dedicated clergy. Videos of show-trials portray the berating of real patriots and honest democracy advocates as the servants of vile forces of capitalism, Zionism, and other enemies of the people. The victims underwent “reeducation” and might tearfully confess their “crimes.”

”Don’t scare anyone. But once you gain ground then move ahead. You must utilize as many people as possible who may be of use to us.” — Joseph Stalin to future Communist dictator of Hungary Matyas Rakosi, December 5, 1944.

It really isn’t hard to understand what is happening in the Middle East if you gather the facts:

1. Jordan’s King Abdullah — whom President Barack Obama just visited — is clearly telling us what’s going wrong: the Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous, and the United States is supporting it. Presumably, this is what Abdullah told Obama.

2. U.S. policy is now escalating support for a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, and the Syrian rebels increasingly have open Brotherhood leadership.

3. Repression is gradually escalating in Egypt, with arrests of moderates, Islamists being sent to the military academy, and many other measures.

Regarding Jordan, Jeffrey Goldberg has written an extremely valuable profile of Abdullah. The Jordanian monarch is telling Western visitors that their countries are making a huge mistake by supporting the Islamists. He complains that the U.S. State Department is ignoring him, and further, that U.S. officials are telling him: “The only way you can have democracy is through the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Abdullah responds: the Brotherhood wants to impose anti-American reactionary governments, and his “major fight” is to stop them. No margin may be left for relative moderate and pro-American states between a Sunni Islamist alliance led by Egypt and including Turkey versus a Shia Islamist alliance led by Iran, says Abdullah. And he’s right. The only differences, Abdullah explains, between the Turkish and Egyptian regimes are their timetables for installing dictatorships.

And Egypt’s new president, says the king, is obsessed with a hostile view of Israel.

(Here’s the delicious irony: Last August, Jordanian Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh launched a ferocious personal attack on me. Why? Because I said that the Sunni-Shia battle was going to replace the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, his king just concurred with me. LOL.)

Meanwhile, while President Barack Obama was love-bombing Israel during his visit, U.S. policy was helping to install a Muslim Brotherhood supporter as the putative next leader of Syria. Obama’s strategy — with appropriate adjustments to the national scene — is the same as his disastrous policy in Egypt.

The new leader of the Syrian opposition coalition is Ghassan Hitto, an obscure figure who has long been a resident of the United States. His actual election contained two hints:

– He only received 35 votes from 63 members of the Syrian National Coalition. That show of support matches the number of Muslim Brotherhood supporters there.

– Only 48 out of the 63 even cast a ballot at all, showing lack of enthusiasm and possible U.S. pressure on groups to abstain rather than oppose Hitto.

During the Cold War, American policy toward Third World countries frequently looked for a “third way” democratic alternative — leaders who were neither Communists nor right-wing authoritarians. Today, however, the Obama administration doesn’t do the equivalent at all, despite pretenses to the contrary. Rather, it seeks leadership from the most seemingly moderate people … who represent Islamist groups. Of course, this moderation is largely deceptive.

That was the pattern in Egypt; now it is the same failed strategy in Syria.

Hitto is a typical example of such a person. He has lived in the United States and went to university there, so presumably he knows the West and has become more moderate by living there. He is involved in high-tech enterprises, so supposedly he is a modern type of guy.

Remember how now-dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad was lavishly praised because he studied and lived in London and was supposedly interested in … the internet?

In addition, nobody has (yet) uncovered an outrageous Hitto statement. His ties to the Brotherhood are not so blatant — even though they are obvious.

Yet the connections between Hitto and the Muslim Brotherhood — and those are only the ones documented quickly following his election — are extensive:

– He is founder of the Muslim Legal Fund of America, largely directed by Muslim Brotherhood members.

– He was a secretary-treasurer of the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine (AMELP), which is closely linked to the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), which supports Hamas and terrorism against Israel.

– Hitto was vice president of the CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth chapter, and director of the Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth Center of Dallas, which was a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

The list goes on and on.

To sum up the situation, Hassan Hassan of the United Arab Emirates newspaper The National published an article titled “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution.”

All fine sentiments. The students applauded wildly because they didn’t think he was attacking Israel but voicing the sentiments they already hold, indeed that most Israelis and their leaders have held for decades. The only problem is that Obama doesn’t seem to understand this fact.

Young people tend to think that the world is completely changeable. They look at current reality and see foolishness and suffering and contradictions in it. They think it possible to re-imagine the world.

Of course, change is often desirable, as long as it is a change for the better, and possible. Many things have happened — the fall of the regime in Egypt; the Syrian civil war, etc. — that were previously thought improbable.

And yet there are reasons why things are as they are. What you want to see happen must be a realistic goal or else it can turn out very badly. In 1979 — I remember this vividly — the idea seemed undeniable to most people that the fall of Iran’s shah had to produce a better outcome. That theme of revolution welcomed and then becoming a bloodbath goes back as far as the French Revolution.

Obama said:

But for the moment, put aside the plans and the process. I ask you, instead, to think about what can be done to build trust between people.

This is not a new idea. It is something Israelis have been thinking about and working on for decades and especially during the last twenty years. Israel’s declaration of independence, May 14, 1948,  declared:

We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

During the “peace process” era of the 1990s, Israelis worked strenuously to build such bridges. I taught a course on political analysis at a Palestinian university (Yasir Arafat’s niece was one of my students) and knew that doing so was at some risk to my life. When the university’s public report came out afterward, I was the only person on the teaching staff not identified by country. They could or would not admit that they had a professor from Israel. An Israeli doctor volunteering to help heal people in the Gaza Strip fared worse. He was axed to death.