As Netanyahu pointed out in Washington, the conclusion of the nuclear negotiations must be that Iran stops attacking other countries, renounces terror and ceases threatening the Jewish state of Israel with annihilation. If all three conditions are not met, there can be no deal. Because no deal is better than a bad deal.
Few leaders were more important to and decisive in mobilizing public opinion in support of the march than leaders from the American Jewish community. Ironically, it was this historic coalition that came to mind when I listened to and read the 24/7 media commentary around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress.
The Obama administration should answer the substance of the Israeli prime minister's concerns if the Jewish State is supposed to live under the ever-expanding shadow of Iran's nuclear umbrella. If the deal is so good, why is Barack Obama moving to block any role for Congress in approving this historic agreement?
Declassified high-level documents from Britain, France, Russia and the United States reveal that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were not going to attack Israel and Israel knew it. In fact, they did not attack Israel. Instead, Israel mounted the first attack in order to decimate the Egyptian army and take the West Bank.
Israel and Russia may not share much in common (indeed, since its founding Israel has welcomed waves of Soviet/Russian Jews desperate to leave that country), and trying to isolate Iran is not the same thing as invading another nation, but both draw a certain kind of moral legitimacy from the memory of World War II.
With the exception of a few courageous journalists, the American view of Gaza -- the posture of looking away with pity and calling it "heartbreaking" as if the wild disparity of deaths did not exist -- has been an abortion of moral responsibility. It testifies to a poverty of leadership almost as desperate as that of the Israelis and the Palestinians half a world away.