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... The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception. I believe there is a logical compromise... "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,"... In other words, build "up" rather than "out."

This sounds like the Google Earth test - Israelis can build what they want inside settlement blocs but they can't cross the border - although it's not entirely clear if this version would allow new buildings to be constructed within existing boundaries. That's not a trivial issue since you can't build a school on top of a shopping plaza.

But none of that matters since "only vertical growth" isn't Obama's policy. It's just not. It might be nice if it was his policy. It might be helpful if it was his policy. But it's not his policy. His policy is a total ban on any kind of growth even in the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem.

I'm genuinely baffled how Dershowitz can think that this little exegesis proves anything. I'm even more baffled how a few lines down he can tell pro-Israel voters not to worry as if "only vertical growth" was Obama's policy. Which, as a reminder, it's not.

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.

Actually the White House has very deliberately backed away from the commitment to demilitarization that Obama floated back in May. A nice little bait-and-switch that Obama's pro-Israel supporters should be pretty familiar with. In any case: this part of the settlements section is more "not true" than "intellectually incoherent," but I thought I'd pause and mention it anyway.

A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion.

This line about Israeli support for a settlement freeze is also probably untrue. But let's pretend that it is, or at least admit that it's close to 50/50. That means that Obama picked literally the only red line where Netanyahu is to the left of the Israeli electorate. It's a strange choice because even the Palestinians had implicitly accepted "growth within settlement blocs" as a valid negotiating position. Although - Obama might believe he can use the issue to topple Netanyahu and get a more compromise-friendly Israeli government. Then it wouldn't be a strange choice at all. Really bad for Dershowitz's argument, but not strange.

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.

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.

Now the Iran section, which is closer to the "not true" side of the spectrum. This part will be a little more link-heavy:

The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Nope. Obama has implicitly accepted an Iranian bomb by offering to extend the US's nuclear umbrella over Israel.

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... should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.

Yes it should be disavowed. But instead it was reaffirmed by Obama during his Cairo speech. But wouldn't it be cool if that wasn't true?

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.

Too late. Gates already took it 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.

It sucks how the Obama administration has gone out of its way to deny Israel that option. Israel has been getting set up to take the fall for Obama's diplomatic failures since before the inauguration. His surrogates have made it clear that even rumors of Israeli self-defense will be blamed for kneecapping US diplomacy. Brzezinski went so far as to say that even bringing up the possibility of military action would cause a "lot of resentment." Gates and Biden echoed that sentiment, which also made a random but convenient appearance in the NYT news section. But again - wouldn't it be cool if that wasn't true?

Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Actually Dennis Ross is no longer the Obama administration's point man on Iran, having been moved out of State and into the White House. He's actually been given a kind of promotion - he's been relieved of his Iran-specific duties and given more responsibilities "than most mortals could hope to coordinate." Which is great for Ross, but less so for anyone making an argument premised on Ross being "the Obama administration's point man on" Iran.

A related threat to Israeli security comes from Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas... The range of their weapons now extends to Israel's heartland... [The IDF] must retain the ability to prevent and deter rocket fire, even if it comes from behind human shields... There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.

"No" is a really strong word. It's not one that I would use, say, in a world where the White House is pushing a Palestinian unity government that will let them fund Hamas and boosting the Lebanese security assistance that's crippling Israel's anti-Hezbollah efforts.

There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state... 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.

Fair enough. "Getting tough on settlement expansion" - a nice euphemism for how Obama is violating past US-Israeli assurances and expecting Israel to accept new assurances on a red line issue - should only be interpreted as an attempt to detonate the US-Israeli alliance.

The Iran stuff though - that definitely undercuts Israel's security.

References:
* Obama Defenders: What Brzezinski Guy? (Plus: That's Not Even Their Worst Argument) [MR]
* Obama Gearing Up To Present Ultimatum To Israel, Detonate US-Israel Alliance [MR]
* Obama's Foreign Policy Advisers Not Exactly Fans Of The Jewish State (Plus: Brzezinski Snubs Israel After Tete-A-Tete With Assad) [MR]
* It's Official: Obama Policy Triggers "Most Tense Encounter" In Years Between US And Israel (Plus: Can You Guess MR's Blind Item?) [MR]
* Gibbs: Obama spoke up about Honduras so that people wouldn't think we were behind the coup [Hot Air]
* Obama's Anti-Hamas Stance Short On Change And Hope, Long On Rank Hypocrisy [MR]
* Dershowitz defends Obama to NY Jews [JPost]
* Has Obama Turned on Israel? [Dershowitz / WSJ]
* 70 Percent Of American Jews Ready To Say "We Didn't Know" When Obama Detonates US-Israel Alliance (Plus: They Most Definitely Know) [MR]
* End the Spat With Israel
* Abrams: Of Course There Was A Bush-Sharon Agreement On Settlements [MR]
* U.S. officials skeptical on a demilitarized Palestine
* Ayalon: Obama's plan differs little from Bush's [JPost]
* Poll: 56% of Israelis back settlement construction [Ha'aretz]
* Is Obama Aiming to Bring Down Bibi? [PJM]
* Obama and a Settlements Freeze [MEF]
* Obama "Accepts" Iran's Bomb [PJM]
* Obama: Since We All Know That Engagement With Iran Won't Work, How About A US Nuclear Umbrella For Israel? [MR]
* Obama: We Must Achieve Peace By Forcing Israel To Give Up Jerusalem And Open Its Borders [MR]
* Gates: Bombing Iran won't stop them from getting nukes [Hot Air]
* Predictable Media Meme Congealing: Israeli Self-Defense Is Bad For Obama [MR]
* Brzezinski: Israeli Campaign Against Iran Will Detonate US-Israel Relations [MR]
* Gates: Israeli Attack On Iran's Nukes Will Cause Iran To Pursue Nukes, Detonate US-Israeli Relations [MR]
* NYT: Israel Is Kind Of Undermining Obama's Diplomacy, Isn't It? [MR]
* Dennis Ross's broad portfolio [Shadow Gov't / FP]
* State Dept. Banning Pro-Israel Obama Officials From Speaking Out [MR]
* White House Pushing Palestinian Unity Government, Says It Will Let Them Fund Hamas [MR]
* US Security Assistance To Lebanon Already Being Turned Against Israel [MR]

Previously:
* Indyk: Of Course Obama Is Going To Pressure Israel
* No Kidding: Obama To Pressure Israel On Its Nuclear Deterrent
* Israeli Officials: Hey, It's Almost As If Obama's Trying To Detonate The US-Israeli Relationship