Iran on the Brink
The cries of Iranian youth for personal freedom have no doubt worsened the disarray. There are 88 million Iranians. Half of the population is under 32 years old. They are ruled by a grizzled and sclerotic clerisy that funnels resources to its private army, the terrorist Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Mahsa Amini represented a generation of Iranians who want more than the limited options, cruelty, and state-imposed religion that have been on offer for 43 years. That is why she has become a symbol for all those who disapprove of, and dissent from, the mullahs' hard line.Understanding the depth of Israel-Bashing one night in Basel
A push from the United States would make all the difference. There is no better time for a change in U.S. strategy. The nuclear deal is going nowhere. Accepting Iran's most radical demands at the negotiating table would make America look weak, foolish, and callous. Give in to Khamenei as he murders his citizenry and supplies Russia with weapons to use against Ukrainians? The stomach churns at the idea.
If the current disorder were a test, Biden answered the first question correctly. He has yet to complete the exam.
America's two previous chief executives did not pass it. In 2009 President Obama stood mute as students took to the streets in the so-called Green Revolution. In 2019 President Trump delivered mixed messages while Iranians rebelled against government corruption and economic mismanagement. Obama did not want to jeopardize his plans for détente with the mullahs. As a rule, Trump's personal foreign policy deemphasized human rights and democracy. Crippling sanctions were his weapon of choice.
The motivations of the two presidents differed. The results did not. In both cases, the regime used brutal means to survive the upheaval. And the Ayatollah Khamenei continued to build his nuclear infrastructure and spread havoc throughout the region and the world.
Draw the line here. U.S. officials say they have made their final offer to Iran. Fine. The ayatollah rejected it. Now America must reject him as well. Isolating and punishing the Iranian regime for its malign behavior abroad and oppression at home would further American interests in the Greater Middle East. It would undermine one of Russia's few allies. And it would help the Iranian people in their struggle to put their government where it belongs: on the ash heap of history.
Europe is the occupier of Palestinians, having created Palestinian dependencies on both Europe and on conflict-permutation. Europe successfully reduced Palestinianism to a single issue – the occupation – and turned the Palestine Authority’s budget to be dependent on conflict-related grants. Hence, the end of the conflict could mean the end of Palestinianism.
This is on top of European abuse of Palestinians, such as sabotaging Palestinian employment and mentorship in Jewish-owned companies such as SodaStream, and even residence in joint Jewish-Palestinian neighborhoods such as Givat Hamatos.
Europe denies the Palestinian the right to self-determination as an individual. So if Parmelin were truly concerned, he should have given this part of the polite speech in Brussels rather than be the party pooper of the 125th anniversary of Zionism.
Perhaps he should also learn a lesson in etiquette and chivalry from the president of the Jewish state. President Herzog did not speak about Jura, nor did he address Swiss alleged human rights violations.
Switzerland’s astonishing decision to reverse granting citizenship to a qualified Muslim woman, solely due to her refusal to have physical contact with a male Swiss official, is horrifying. Instead, President Herzog spoke about positive things, such as our mission to reclaim Zionism, which he called “the mission of our generation.”
PARMELIN IS certainly a friend, but his actions as a friend demonstrate how core Israel-bashing is to today’s European psyche, just as antisemitism was core to the European psyche then.
Herzl understood that dogmatic minds cannot be changed in such circumstances through public diplomacy (hasbara). “Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of efforts to ‘combat antisemitism,’” he wrote. Therefore, a radical out-of-the-box solution was needed, and that was Zionism and the establishment of the Jewish state.
Applying Herzl’s thinking today, combating dogmatic Israel-bashing through conventional means is not likely to be effective. Yet, a global recognition that Judaism has transformed, and Zionism is now its organizing principle, would turn Israel-bashing to Jew-bashing, and that would dramatically alter the nature of the threat.
The Israel-basher must stay in Judaism 2.0 so he can mask his opposition to Judaism as merely opposition to Zionism. Until there is a broad global consciousness that we are in Judaism 3.0, a European political leader can claim to have zero tolerance for old-style antisemitism (the existential threat to Judaism in the early 20th century) while actively engaging in Israel-bashing – the existential threat to Judaism today in the 21st century.
“We are coming home,” Herzl proclaimed in Basel 125 years ago. That journey home began in that hall in 1897 with the Sheheheyanu blessing, thanking God for bringing the Jewish people to that moment. The 125th-year celebrations in that same hall concluded with a prayer for God to preserve and protect the State of Israel. The next day, I was home in Jerusalem.