At the recent annual conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), its executive director declared the organization’s total commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Isi Leibler sees this move as a misguided attempt to regain support from younger, left-leaning Jews and thus maintain AIPAC’s bipartisan bona fides:

American Jews, like Israelis, are entitled to have varying views on the two-state solution. But in the face of the intensified Palestinian Authority campaign of terror and incitement, most Israelis, like myself, who once supported a two-state solution now realize that it is impossible.

The Palestinians have one goal—Israel’s destruction. A nascent terrorist state in Judea and Samaria would be opposed by a clear majority of Israelis across the political spectrum. For diplomatic reasons, the government has not explicitly stated this but it has assiduously avoided endorsing a two-state solution. . . . Even the Trump administration has repeatedly announced that it would support any decision both parties endorsed and did not call for a two-state solution.

Thus, it is with incredible hutzpah that an organization purporting to act with Israel’s and America’s best interests in mind has formally adopted a two-state policy. AIPAC is, in effect, pressuring Israel to move beyond what President Trump himself has demanded, and is encouraging the administration and Congress to pressure Israel in this direction.

This outrageous behavior will not induce liberals to support AIPAC but may encourage our American supporters to view Israel as intransigent and press it to make further concessions. . . . The only way to strengthen Israel’s support among Democrats and liberals is painstakingly to explain the case for Israel, which is not difficult—if they are willing to listen.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”