The Houthis’ official slogan contains the phrase “Death to Israel” alongside “Curse on the Jews,” lest anyone mistake them for mere critics of Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy decisions. The possibility of such confusion is very much on the minds of the “Jewish writers, artists, and activists” who signed an open letter, recently published in a New York-based literary magazine, complaining about the “widespread narrative that any criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic”—which then went on to accuse the Jewish state of possessing “genocidal intent” and to defend Hamas apologetics. But, notes Phoebe Maltz Bovy, supporters of Israel are not advancing such a claim. Rather, the blurring of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism begins elsewhere:

Anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism, goes the mantra. The problem is, anti-Semites themselves aren’t in on this distinction. Somewhere along the way—in France, maybe?—they realized that they could tack on an “it’s because [of] Palestine” to any anti-Jewish act, however unrelated to the Middle East. It gave plausible deniability, and made it seem as if being mad at local Jews for existing was a humanitarian geopolitical gesture.

And every Jewish target turns out to be an Israeli one, if you look real hard. . . . Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, but all anti-Semitism these days calls itself criticism of Israel.

Perhaps this is made clearest, notes Bovy in another post, by the use of the word “settler.”

We’re living in a moment when much of the left has embraced the idea that social justice is the global struggle against “settlers,” [and] classifies everyone across the globe as either home, displaced from home, or invading someone else’s house.

In Israel, according to anti-Zionist understandings, all Jews are settlers. Not just Jews living in the settlements [in the West Bank]. An Israeli Jew in Tel Aviv is, by the understandings of those who think Israel itself it illegitimate, no matter its borders or leadership, a settler.

To test her analysis, Bovy asked her social-media following if there is some place Jews would not be considered settlers; she discovered that “a lot of people are stumped.”

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.