1. Jewish-American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg takes aim at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and immediately is quoted in every possible publication, as if he said something revolutionary that has never been said before. Netanyahu tries to convince the U.S. Congress to intensify the sanctions against Iran, in defiance of U.S. President Barack Obama's view, and it drives the White House and the liberal media crazy. When it comes to Iran, just as in dealing with the Palestinians, the root of the problem is whether or not you believe the other side. Netanyahu does not believe, and neither do most of the citizens of Israel. The lack of faith is not a personal thing, but is based on a long-term empirical study that we have conducted in the lab of the "peace process." The Americans are welcome to look back at the history of the negotiations with Iran and see for themselves whom they have led astray. Goldberg asserts that since Israel is the junior partner, it has no choice but to accept the U.S.'s dictates in order to maintain a stable relationship. Well, it is true that in certain respects, Israel is reliant on the U.S., but this relationship is far from feudal. In a situation where Israel's existential interests are at stake, a decent Israeli leader would opt to protect Israel's interests rather than to preserve cordial relations with the U.S. Netanyahu is worried that Obama will sign a bad deal with Iran, and Goldberg suggests that he should have engaged in discreet dialogue with the American president to influence his thinking. Wow. Great advice. These two statesmen's views on the West's response to global Islam, and specifically to radical Islam, could not be more different. Obama refuses to recognize the existence of Islamist terrorism, and it looks as though he does not believe that Iran will make good on its threats. He analyzes the Islamist threat with rational concepts like balance of deterrence, cost/benefit and logical interests. Netanyahu, on the other hand, sees things in a very different way. Since he is responsible for protecting Israel's survival in a crowded and hostile environment, he cannot afford to assume anything other than that Iran will follow through with its threat to use a nuclear bomb. In his eyes, the very agreement with the Iranians is a terrible thing. To him, the only viable solution is the total and irreversible eradication of the nuclear option. 2. Goldberg suggests that Netanyahu barter with Obama. How? By "working with Obama on issues that interest the United States (advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, for instance, by taking the initiative once in a blue moon) in order to make the American side understand that his government is interested in giving, not merely in taking." So Netanyahu doesn't believe the Iranians, and Goldberg, like many on the Left, doesn't believe that Israel truly wants peace. The Jews are to blame. We have not yet reached our quota of foolishness chasing around the Ramallah gang, whose members have never made any indication that they actually want to resolve the conflict. But the argument runs much deeper: What Goldberg and his ilk are actually saying is that Israel needs to leave itself open to attack on the one hand, in order to save itself on the other. Because that is the truth. In light of the vast experience we have amassed and in light of the enormous geopolitical changes sweeping over Islam and the Middle East, under the current set of circumstances, a Palestinian state would be just as much a ticking nuclear bomb as a nuclear Iran. In any case, Goldberg takes for granted that it was Netanyahu who chose to destroy the relationship with Obama. To hear him describe it, the White House has long felt disrespected by Netanyahu. (Goldberg neglects to mention that Netanyahu was humiliated by Obama in their first meetings.) But when your home faces an existential threat, you sometimes forgo the rules of etiquette and knock on every door. History teaches us that sometimes it is imperative to violate the traditional rules precisely in order to preserve the tradition. That is how we came to have the Mishnah. It was written down in the second century despite a centuries-long tradition prohibiting the writing of the oral Torah. Incidentally, Speaker John Boehner claims that the White House was notified in advance about the invitation extended to Netanyahu. But Goldberg continues to assail Netanyahu, arguing that additional legislation against Iran is "superfluous" because "only the most obtuse Iranian leader would fail to realize that a failure in the negotiations process would lead to more sanctions." On what is he basing this assumption? The Iranians have done nothing but buy time, and once they have a bomb, what good will sanctions do? The West doesn't know how to negotiate with Iran, just as the Israeli and global Left don't know how to confront terror organizations and evil nations. Neville Chamberlain was not a unique phenomenon in history; there are those who continue his work. The Iranians appear to be more sophisticated than the representatives of the West. They say simple things, but the longtime liberal attitude toward others, any others, and especially toward the Middle East, is complicating things. The castration of Western perception with the rules of political correctness, and the criticism offered by Edward Said in his book "Orientalism," which was widely adopted by liberals on both coasts, resulted in the West forgetting how to negotiate with the likes of the Iranians. The Iranians are guided by irrational faith, which the Western way of thinking is incapable of comprehending. 3. But the worst thing about Goldberg's article is the blood libel suggesting that Netanyahu told his associates that he had "written off" Obama. What a mean-spirited attempt to stir the pot, trying to win favors like a good court Jew. Goldberg can say what he will about the administration. I am certain that Netanyahu never said any such thing. Goldberg didn't hear it directly from Netanyahu, but still opted to publish the libelous quote as truth, and then has the gall to preach. Because only Goldberg and his gang of liberal gasbags understand the delicacy and complexity of Israel-U.S. relations. Netanyahu needs to learn from Goldberg. Unbelievable. Goldberg asserts that Netanyahu's appeal to Congress will undermine bipartisan support for Israel, because it would pit the Democrats against Netanyahu. Not necessarily. Members of Congress are able to distinguish between their ally -- Israel -- and this or that leader. Worst-case scenario, they will attack Netanyahu personally (as they are doing now). In any case, the overwhelming support for Israel will not be harmed, as every opinion poll since the dawn of time suggests. But things are a little more complicated than that. The thing that irks Goldberg is not concern that Israel will lose America's support, but something else: that Netanyahu is putting Jewish American liberals in an awkward position of having to choose between Netanyahu and Obama. I'll make it easier for you, Mr. Goldberg: Feel free to choose Obama. After the establishment of the Jewish state, you chose to remain in the Diaspora. That is your right. But the State of Israel is facing grave danger, and all that concerns you is that you feel uncomfortable as Jews. The idea of dual loyalty has been embedded in our people's history for many years. The behavior of critics like Goldberg, Thomas Friedman, Peter Beinart and others, is reminiscent of the behavior of German Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries. Then, too, Zionism got in their way of integrating into German society, because it singled them out as not belonging to Germany but rather to their ancient homeland. Who says history doesn't have a sense of irony?
