Much as university presidents seem to prefer symbolic over substantive actions against anti-Semitism, Israel’s critics (outside of Iran) seem equally—and blessedly—enamored with symbolism. Douglas Murray examines what’s been happening in Britain, where, thanks to a constitutional reform known as devolution, the Welsh and Scottish parliaments can join Westminster in fretting about Israel, even if no war in history has ever come to an end due to calls for a ceasefire:

Last October, before Israeli ground operations in Gaza had fully begun, the Welsh Senedd took a vote on the war. You may ask yourself what the Welsh parliament has to do with any war in the Middle East. And you would be right to ask such a question. But it seems that it is a question members of the Welsh Senedd did not think to ask.

On that occasion, more than a third of the members of the Welsh Senedd called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Yet here is the thing. In no world that ever has existed or ever will exist could such a vote mean anything. To the best of my knowledge, the leadership of Hamas do not take instructions from the Welsh Senedd. At no point since this war began on October 7 last year will Yahya Sinwar have asked his guards in the tunnels under Gaza whether their campaign of terror is approved of or disapproved of by members of the Welsh Senedd.

The other thing that really gets [England’s] MPs to feel like they are significant is . . . when they get into things like “demanding” an end to hostilities in the Middle East. [Here is Foreign Secretary] David Lammy standing up in the Commons . . . and declaring a partial weapons embargo on Israel in the hope that it will affect the outcome of the war. Britain does not have a thriving defense industry, so we ought to be careful about how much of this our government gets up to.

I wonder if Lammy actually imagines he is a pivotal figure in this conflict? Does he believe himself to be an expert on warfare in densely populated civilian areas? Or, if pressed, would he explain that war is a bad thing and that what people need to do is seek peace? I suspect so. What delusions some of our politicians dwell in.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.