Israel

Granted there was something about George W Bush that sent plenty of otherwise reasonably normal people a little nuts too and perhaps the nature of politics and technology today is such that this kind of crazy is inevitable regardless of who wins elections. But what, in the name of god, has Obama done to merit this kind of stuff from Glenn Reynolds? Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That’s plausible — certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really. OK! I guess that White House seder is proof of how deep the conspiracy runs? Evidently the administration is protesting too much. Only a White House riddled with anti-semites would feel the need to have a seder!

I agree with Melanie Phillips that the principle reason there's no middle-east preace prcess worth the name is the Palestinian's reluctance to recognise and guarantee Israel's security. I believe there are other reasons too, mind you, that help to obstruct any path towards a proper and just settlement. Still, since Melanie doesn't believe there should be a Palestinian state, what does she think should be done? However much some people might wish it, the Palestinians cannot be wished away. They're not going anywhere. Right? And if this is so, then at some point some kind of a deal will have to be reached. Perhaps not for many years, but sometime for sure. Meanwhile, I'm somewhat perplexed by her estimation of American power.

I confess I don't know very much about Isi Leibler, but he's a columnist at the Jerusalem Post who wrote this week that: The exploitation of Judge Goldstone's Jewish background by our enemies intensifies our obligation to confront the enemy within - renegade Jews - including Israelis who stand at the vanguard of global efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state. Such odious Jews can be traced back to apostates during the Middle Ages who fabricated blood libels and vile distortions of Jewish religious practice for Christian anti-Semites to incite hatred which culminated in massacres. It was in response to these renegades that the herem (excommunication) was introduced...

So, in addition to everything else the Israeli Defence Forces are organ-hunters, feasting on the livers and kidneys of murdered Palestinians? From Haaretz: A leading Swedish newspaper reported this week that Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs, a claim that prompted furious condemnation and accusations of anti-Semitic blood libel from a rival publication. "They plunder the organs of our sons," read the headline in Sweden's largest daily newspaper, the left-leaning Aftonbladet, which devoted a double spread in its cultural section to the article.

As is customary, James and I disagree about Iran. Or perhaps we merely have different ideas about what constitutes the most important Persian questions. James, I think (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong), places the nuclear issue above all others. I'm more agitated by the nature of the regime in Tehran. That is, I doubt that we can prevent Iran from acquiring a nulear capability at some point and that, while it would certainly be preferable if Iran didn't have the bomb, we might have to get used to the idea that it will. It's also quite possible, perhaps even probable, that a new regime in Tehran (if and/or when that happens) will also want nukes. This would make sense, given that Iran feels it is being threatened by outside, hostile powers.

Marty Peretz makes a sensible point: A story by Parisa Hafezi at Reuters knocks the wind out of the expectation that, if Dr. A'jad loses his re-election campaign, Iran's nuclear policy will be changed. These matters rest in the head and hands of the Ayatollah Al Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, successor to the revolutionary founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Well, it's a sort-of-sensible point. I'm not sure how many people really think that Iran's nuclear policy might change, regardless of the result of the elections. However, it is important that more people understand that Ahmadinejad is not the man in charge when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Of all the many reasons to be wary of bombing Iran, one of the best is also one of the simplest: it won't work. Or, rather, whatever advantage there may be in delaying Iran's nuclear ambitions by a year or two is unlikely to be worth the unfortunate consequences involved, merely increasing the risks of a nuclear Iran further down the line. As Deence Secretary Robert Gates says: Using his strongest language on the subject to date, Gates told a group of Marine Corps students that a strike would probably delay Tehran's nuclear program from one to three years. A strike, however, would unify Iran, "cement their determination to have a nuclear program, and also build into the whole country an undying hatred of whoever hits them," he said.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg has a very interesting interview with Benjamin Netanyahu which includes this passage: Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.” He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America.

How do you know the Obama administration isn't "soft" on Israel? John Bolton says it is. To wit, Bolton was asked at CPAC today if Obama would defend Israel "when" the "Arab nations" attack it and here's what he said: BOLTON: I would certainly hope they would come to Israel’s assistance, but I think there’s no guarantee of it. I think the more likely response is to appoint a special envoy and try to negotiate an end the hostilities. Q: Your short answer then would be “no”. BOLTON: I very much fear that’s right. Bolton is an engaging fellow who is always good copy (apart from anything else he is very diligent about returning reporters' phone calls) and sure this is just CPAC and all that, but still, this is, in a word, nuts.

Melanie Phillips makes a pretty remarkable claim at the end of this post: The fact is that Israel faces the nightmare scenario that it now stands alone -- and against America. Whether through naivety, ideology or rank malice, there is now a fifth columnist in the White House, undermining the cause of the free world. The vast majority of Americans who staunchly support Israel's struggle to exist in the face of genocidal attack, and understand only too well its role as the front line of defence for the free world, need to become aware of what is being done in their name. As polemic, this is fine stuff. But as analysis I confess I find it somewhat exaggerated.