We'll all be discussing for quite a while the substance, context, and implications of yesterday's speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I thought I might just offer a personal note on what most struck me yesterday, sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives.
Three moments stood out for me, as a Jew—but, not, I think, only as a Jew.
Shortly after 11:00 a.m., with the chamber and galleries full and buzzing with anticipation, the doorkeeper announced in his stentorian voice, "Mr. Speaker, the prime minister of Israel." As one then watched Prime Minister Netanyahu enter the chamber, one couldn't help but reflect that those words—"the prime minister of Israel"—had never been uttered, could never have been uttered, prior to 1948. And for that prime minister to be welcomed enthusiastically by legislators of the world's most powerful nation—this was a moment to savor for anyone, Jew or Gentile, who has been moved by, "The hope of two thousand years,/To be a free nation in our land,/The land of Zion and Jerusalem."
And then there was the passage in Netanyahu's speech that prompted perhaps the loudest roars of approval, certainly from the predominantly Jewish spectators in the gallery, but also from Gentiles on the floor of the House: "We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves." Israel as not just a new nation in its ancient land, but a nation that can defend itself—that was the Zionist hope, and the prime minister of Israel proclaimed it as a reality, and the audience was moved by it.
I also found it oddly moving when Netanyahu quoted the Bible (Deuteronomy 31:6) in Hebrew: חִזְקוּ וְאִמְצוּ, אַל-תִּירְאוּ וְאַל-תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם. He then of course translated the passage into English: "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them." To see an Israeli prime minister, speaking to a world audience, quoting the Bible in the language in which it is written, a language brought back to day-to-day life in modern Israel ... this was a moment that will stay in memory.
At the end, as I joined in the sustained standing ovation, I thought of one sentence in the 1956 letter by the political philosopher Leo Strauss, in which he tried to convince the editors of the recently launched National Review that conservatives should be pro-Israel: "Political Zionism was the attempt to restore that inner freedom, that simple dignity, of which only people who remember their heritage and are loyal to their fate, are capable." One felt, watching the prime minister of Israel speak, whatever other challenges await, that in this task political Zionism has been successful.
Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress that the problem with the proposed deal with Iran is that it "paves Iran's path to the bomb."
"So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions. One, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program, and, two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad," said Netanyahu.
Backed by allied Shiite and Sunni fighters, Iraqi security forces on Monday began a large-scale military operation to recapture Saddam Hussein's hometown from the Islamic State extremist group, state TV said, a major step in a campaign to reclaim a large swath of territory in northern Iraq controlled by the militants.
Lost in much of the reporting about CPAC is that almost all of the likely presidential candidates—really, all of them, with the exception of Rand Paul—seemed to place themselves at the Reaganite hawkish-internationalist end of the foreign policy spectrum. The much-heralded return of Republican isolationism or anti-interventionism wasn’t much in evidence, except during Rand Paul's half hour on the stage.
This week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.
Is Barack Obama another Neville Chamberlain? I’ve been reluctant to make the comparison, but as talks with Iran have unfolded, it’s become impossible not to think of the 1938 Munich conference, where Britain and France agreed that strategically and economically vital Czech territory be ceded to Germany, leading soon after to German conquest of Czechoslovakia and World War II. America’s looming deal with Iran rivals Munich in its unnecessary and catastrophic recklessness.
President Obama has ignored the recent history of U.S. foreign policy, faithfully repeating failed strategies and turning his back on successes. The pattern is so strange and striking, we can almost hear it trying to tell us something. The something is this: You cannot be a nationalist and a globalist simultaneously; not if you take either of those ideologies seriously. The president takes them very seriously, and has made it clear that he is not a nationalist but a globalist.
Is Barack Hussein Obama wrong to avoid appending “Islamic,” “Muslim,” “Islamist,” or even “jihadist” to the terrorism that has struck the West with increasing ferocity since the 1990s? This question has at least two parts: Is the president historically correct to do this? And is he politically smart to do it?
Amid reports that a nuclear deal with Iran may freeze that country's ability to produce nuclear fuel for only ten years in exchange for sanctions relief, President Obama appeared to soften his words on the Iran negotiations if not his position.
The crisis between the United States and Israel has been manufactured by the Obama administration. Building a crisis up or down is well within the administration’s power, and it has chosen to build it up. Why? Three reasons: to damage and defeat Netanyahu (whom Obama has always disliked simply because he is on the right while Obama is on the left) in his election campaign, to prevent Israel from affecting the Iran policy debate in the United States, and worst of all to diminish Israel’s popularity in the United States and especially among Democrats.
Lindsey Graham is no one’s idea of a hot presidential candidate. Pulling in 1 percent support in the mid-February CNN/ORC International poll of prospective Republican nominees, he’s at the very bottom, alongside Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal.