Considering the way the anti-Israel left combines its peculiar ideas of morality with its peculiar brand of anti-Semitism, Yehoshua Pfeffer explains the challenge it poses:

In a world that cares only about power inequality, the Jew loses all status. Abraham was chosen by God for his dedication to justice; he cannot live in a justice-free space. Moreover, when seen through the binary progressive lens of oppressor and oppressed, the Jew represents the quintessential evil: he becomes the epitome of whiteness, colonialism, imperialism, and patriarchism; he is oppression incarnate, and the oppressed Arab (or Palestinian) is goodness personified. . . .

Right-wing anti-Semitism drove us, decades ago, to physical independence in the Jewish state. Today, left-wing anti-Semitism inspires us to build on our spatial freedom and achieve a type of independence we have yet to develop and cultivate: intellectual independence.

To achieve such independence, writes Pfeffer, Jews must be willing to reject the recent trends of the world of ideas, and try to recover modes of thought and moral ideals rooted in their own tradition:

Notwithstanding its political independence, Israel has not made concerted efforts to cultivate a parallel [intellectual] space free from the shackles of academic uniformity. On the contrary, core institutions have copied the liberal ideas that 20th-century Jews had become so enamored with. In its early years, socialism was a dominant force in Israel’s economy and social models. Though socialism has declined and the kibbutzim mainly privatized, Israel’s universities, popular media, state institutions, and significant elements within branches of government (in particular the legal system) continue to reflect the same left-progressive principles that are breeding anti-Semitism worldwide.

Today, in an age of Jewish sovereignty and a period of unprecedented crisis, we must ensure that these study halls, haredi and otherwise, devote significant energies to the great questions of human life that contemporary academia [seeks to answer]. Israel must become the countercultural reaction against the anti-Semitism-breeding academic orthodoxy.

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.