Despite the fact that Black Lives Matter formally endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, and accused Israel of genocide, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has refused to cut its ties with the organization. Similarly, when a congressman referred to Jews living in the West Bank as “termites,” the ADL mustered only a weak response. Isi Leibler takes these and other instances as evidence that Jonathan Greenblatt—a former White House staffer who assumed leadership of the ADL last year—has lost sight of its mission:

Greenblatt . . . has behaved as though he ‎remained employed by the Obama administration. He was entirely out of line in his ‎condemnation of the Republican platform as “anti-Zionist” for omitting reference to a two-‎state solution. One can disagree about a two-state policy. But for an American Jewish ‎organization, which must remain bipartisan and should be concentrating on anti-Semitism, to ‎issue such a statement breaches all conventions. It is totally beyond the ADL’s mandate to ‎involve itself in such partisan political issues.‎

Greenblatt is clearly obsessed with the subject of being “open-minded” and tolerant of anti-‎Israeli groups. He made the extraordinary statement that, while disagreeing with the boycott, ‎divestment, and sanctions groups that promote anti-Semitism, he considers that they ‎are “animated by a desire for justice” and we should “acknowledge the earnestness of their ‎motives.” One is tempted to remind him that Islamic fundamentalists are also sincere in their ‎beliefs and equally animated by their perverted concept of justice.‎ . . .

The ADL’s central mandate must be to combat anti-Semitism, which is today largely manifested ‎in the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. If it elects to abandon this objective, it ‎does not warrant Jewish communal support.‎

In 2003, the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, spooked by the American display of might in Iraq, decided to destroy or surrender his entire nuclear program. Informed observers have suggested that the deal he made with the U.S. should serve as a model for any agreement with Iran. Robert Joseph provides some useful background:

Gaddafi had convinced himself that Libya would be next on the U.S. target list after Iraq. There was no reason or need to threaten Libya with bombing as Gaddafi was quick to tell almost every visitor that he did not want to be Saddam Hussein. The images of Saddam being pulled from his spider hole . . . played on his mind.

President Bush’s goal was to have Libya serve as an alternative model to Iraq. Instead of war, proliferators would give up their nuclear programs in exchange for relief from economic and political sanctions.

Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that President Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Limiting enrichment even to low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says.

Iran is not a normal government that observes the rules of international behavior or fair “dealmaking.” This is a regime that relies on regional terror and brutal repression of its citizens to stay in power. It has a long history of using negotiations to expand its nuclear program. Its negotiating tactics are clear: extend the negotiations as long as possible and meet any concession with more demands.