Behnam Dayanim

A lot of subscribers have asked what I made of the Nick Kristof oped. So much has already been said. What more is there to say? My first thought was everyone else's. Horrifying. Testimonies of pain and torture. We know that the Israeli Prisons Service is notoriously incompetent. There have been cases of Hamas prisoners abusing each other, and even famous cases of them abusing female Israeli guards. We know, too, that all prison systems struggle with the problem: New York prisons face 2,000 claims against them. So abuse of prisoners isn't merely possible, it's guaranteed. October 7 and the ensuing war sent thousands of detainees into the prisons. And in the early months, drafted into the system undertrained reservist guards. Guards who had seen Hamas's videos gleefully documenting their crimes. I expected, therefore, a hard-hitting story of real abuse, something Israeli leaders must take notice of. And then I came across the first obvious lie. And then the second. And then an odd claim -- maybe possible, but how exactly? -- and then another just like it. And a famed Hamas propagandist laundered as a reliable source. And then another. Why, if there is no doubt that abuse occurred -- and there is no doubt -- was there so much obvious propaganda in Kristof's oped? I won't pretend the lies weren't a relief. They were. It's agony to read about Israeli criminality, and the lies let me cast doubt on the whole narrative. There's an obvious propaganda campaign at work here. But as claim followed claim, it became hard not to wonder: Despite the propaganda, what part is nevertheless true? How bad has it gotten? So here's what we know, or at least what I think I know. This is a campaign that seeks our destruction. Kristof quotes people who celebrated October 7 and want Israel destroyed, and will lie to achieve that goal. We know how the lies in this story made their way into it, where they came from and what purpose they serve. Even so, I'm not willing to conclude there's no truth at all in there, just because there are lies. Dogs did not rape anyone. The people who invented that particular inanity claimed it without evidence, knowing that no one, certainly not self-appointed moral arbiters like Nick Kristof, would ever bother checking the provenance of the claim. Because they never, ever do. Because why would they? So the claim spreads through the millions-strong activist network without investigation, exciting and mobilizing -- not because anyone understands how it might be possible but for the sheer thrill of it. And it's cited by Kristof as a reliable report. A recent report by a Norwegian NGO, also referenced, claimed "systemic sexual violence" in the West Bank by citing just 16 cases across three years in a geographic region containing as many as three million Palestinians and over half a million Israelis. And some of the examples scarcely cleared the bar for harassment. But the NGO in question knew for a fact that no journalist would look too deeply into any of it. And indeed, no journalist did. Because they never, ever do. Because why would they? Friends, a paper trail is being created. Just like they created a paper trail on mass starvation in Gaza -- mass starvation first claimed in early 2024, and then claimed again and again by NGOs, the UN, everybody. Some were nuanced warnings of a "possibility," some declared it had arrived. The headlines from both were largely the same. And then, in thundering silence, the mass starvation claim just faded away, never having materialized -- while billions of ordinary people around the world who don't follow too closely remain convinced that countless Gazans died of starvation. So they moved on. A Lancet letter claiming hundreds of thousands of deaths spread like wildfire, mostly because (a) nobody actually read or understood what it claimed and (b) nobody cared enough to check if it was remotely plausible. Then, just in case anyone forgot Lancet, came the claim by UN rapporteurs of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children -- 380,000 infants under five allegedly died, more than the entire population of infants in Gaza. Stupid, right? But it was repeated again and again by activists and protestors. No one checks, no costs are exacted for the never-ending barrage of fakery. Because why would they? A wild religious frenzy has taken hold. Hatred of Israel is now definitional to the left, and to parts of the right. Greta Thunberg has forgotten all about climate change. An enemy of humanity has been identified just in time to unleash all the pent-up religious rage that this troubled secular age won't allow against anyone else. And by complete and utter coincidence, that enemy you're suddenly allowed to hate is vaguely associated with the Jews. Yes, alas, it really is that simple. But also, dear friends -- bear with me -- it isn't. All the above is true. They're fucking liars and bigots. They marched in their millions, again and again and again, for weeks and months and years -- marches completely unprecedented in their size, regularity and duration in all the history of the West, in all the history of war, larger by orders of magnitude than all other marches for all other conflicts and wars and suffering combined, even those caused by their own governments. And no serious person pretends that anything similar could ever have coalesced or will ever coalesce again unless Israel is involved. "But we fund you," shouts the American activist to explain this mind-numbing selectivity. Then why did one-third of the city of Amsterdam march? Or millions of Spaniards, Brazilians and Indonesians? It was unprecedented and it was everywhere. And Kristof has joined the new religion. Not by being concerned about abuse, but by not caring one whit whether he's trafficking in truths or lies. Only the Jews will ask to distinguish between the two. He just needs to throw it all on the page, and his membership in the glorious crusade is assured. Alas, the Jews are correct about the nature of this moment. Some things are so big and fundamental, so assumed and widespread, that they become hard to see. Fish don't notice the water. Activists who can only ever march against Jews are convinced they are merely righteous people enraged by war, without ever pausing to wonder why the only war that ever enraged them or ever made its way to their phones was one particular war, and not larger and deadlier wars also conducted with Western weapons and money. And so the Jew is made fearful once more. Throughout Christendom and Islam, he is being returned to his proper place in the social hierarchies of old, complete with anxious conversos and ideological purity tests. And yet, still, despite it all, their lies aren't the end of the story. Their lies are a separate story. A campaign of lies that constitutes a return to the mean for the Jewish condition in the West. A campaign meant to justify brutality against us, not to end war or suffering. And despite all of it, dear Jews, there really is abuse. It's nowhere near as much as the psychotic claims of these fantasists. Not by orders of magnitude. If it was, they wouldn't need to lie so much. But it's there nonetheless. Many dozens of cases at least, probably in the low hundreds by now, most of them without any sexual aspect, but still wanton violence. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the army gave a few estimates to the courts a couple of times over the past three years. There have been many indictments filed against soldiers, serious ones. I know something about a handful of those cases. I know that the problem is real. It's there, it's real, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. And if it isn't stopped with an iron will and uncompromising hand, it will continue to fester and grow. And it must be said: neither Ben Gvir nor Netanyahu are interested in fixing it. Nobody at the top cares about the rights of prisoners. Let me be clear: For the first time in my life, I support a death penalty. No one who crossed over the border to massacre and kidnap on October 7 should be left alive; they came to kidnap children precisely because they sought the release of mass murderers kept alive in our prisons. Hamas, as always, in its totalizing brutality, forces the choice: If their murderers live, our children may die. I choose our children. And those who came for our children cannot be deterred, reformed or deradicalized. They murder their own to clear a path to murdering ours. And so I believe they must die. We must try, convict and destroy them. And even I, radicalized in this narrow, specific way, say we cannot collapse into torture or abuse. That's not justice. It isn't even vengeance. It is participation in Hamas's way of war. Nor do our leaders seem to care about the simple breakdown of discipline that these abuses represent, the kind of breakdown we saw again and again with the incidents of looting in Gaza and in the early cases of prisoner abuse that came to light. No, dogs aren't being trained to systematically rape prisoners, you nattering halfwits. And no, Hamas propaganda operatives are not reliable sources on the question of Israeli crimes. The vast, vast majority of soldiers are honorable men who walked into fire so our families may live. The whole world may turn on them; I will stand with them, grateful for their sacrifice. And Kristof, a willing purveyor of propaganda happily feigning that he can't see the water and thrilling to a moral crusade engineered by would-be genocidaires he pretends not to understand -- is no messenger of moral reckoning. But friends, so fucking what. Let the narcissistic guttersnipes strut their moral emotions before the world, let the UN publish endless reports that don't hold up to basic scrutiny, let the NGOs dream their rabid, sick dreams that no journalist ever fact-checks -- yes, they're lying. But so fucking what. We still, for ourselves -- because fuck them -- must see that it isn't all fake. The problem is real. It's far smaller than they claim, but real nonetheless. And when discipline and morality break down, it can only get worse. We either crack down now or we watch it fester and grow. And our own Ben Gvirs are stubbornly refusing to fix what is actually broken, the real thing in the real world. And so we are caught in a strange sort of vise, the same vise we find ourselves in with the genocide lie: A vast propaganda machine that seeks to destroy us -- countless activists too high on their own self-regard to see the irony of raging against a "genocide" while calling for the erasure of a people -- all while our own incompetent, venal, self-absorbed political class insist in their mindless chatter on confirming every claim of our enemies for sheer, bald egomania. I'm sick of it all. I know you're all sick of it too. And that, in a nutshell, is what I think about this. Just because they're lying, just because a vast perfidious campaign has overwhelmed global elites in a bid to clear the way for our removal, just because they're still, after two millennia, building their visions of redemption on The Evil Jew -- doesn't mean there isn't also, separately, a problem on the ground. So what do we do now? Simple. We see it, we acknowledge it's happening, we bring our rage to our inept leaders until they bend to our will and act to stop the breakdown... And we soldier on. We soldier on because the enemy really is coming to murder us. Because Hamas must still go if Gaza is ever to rise to a new day. Because Hezbollah will yet destroy Lebanon on the altar of destroying us. Because the ayatollahs built their whole damn religion on the extermination of our children. We fix the broken things within us as if the pogromists and their simpering Kristofs don't exist. We owe no answers to the propagandists who seek to clear a path to our deaths. But we do owe answers to ourselves. Let the screaming mob rage and churn like so much sea-foam. Despite that raging mob, despite the enemy who still seeks our destruction, and yes, despite feckless incompetents like Ben Gvir, our minister of prisons, who claim to lead us -- we remain the strongest, freest Jews who ever lived, more capable and committed than our self-destructive enemies ever imagined. And the task is still before us, yet to be completed, the sacred duty given to our generation to ensure our children don't have to face the genocidaires who now surround us. We do not waver, we do not stumble. We soldier on. Because fuck them all.

Bedouin on the way to vote in the Negev

Every news story follows a predictable decay function- it peaks, then is soon forgotten. That is, every story except one: Israel. I analyzed 14.7 million news articles in 65 languages, cable news airtime, and social media data from X. The results were staggering. 🧵

Defenders — and some critics — of Hasan Piker just don’t get it. The issue isn’t (just) that he lumps all Jews together and holds us all accountable for the supposed evils of Israel. It’s that his nonstop drive to demonize the world’s sole Jewish state, along with those who support its survival, crosses the line — by miles — between criticism and Jew hatred of the ancient variety.  Also, Mr. Piker, Zionism is in fact bound up with Judaism. It is not “false conflation.” Yes, some Jews are anti-Zionists. And yes, you have helped turned the Z-word into a slur such that large numbers of Jews, particularly younger ones, disown it partly out of misunderstanding. But when Jews are attacked for supporting Israel, they are being attacked for a core part of their Jewish identity. It is Jew hatred, it is unacceptable, and your rhetoric encourages it. Spare us all your taxonomy of good Jews and bad Jews.

Hi @DovWaxman, I'm extremely thankful that you took the time to respond to this because when you first made the accusation I tried to engage in a good faith conversation with you and even privately messaged you. Let's discuss this, shall we? A blood libel is something that is libelous because it is objectively false and meant to cause harm to the Jews, often physical harm. The genocide accusation is objectively false if you understand what the requirements for genocide actually are (we will get to those and why they are inapplicable here and why the circular reasoning of "academics" is harmful), and it has caused actual harm to Jews. In fact, I can think of at least two people murdered because of the accusation in Washington, D.C., another in Boulder, a synagogue attack in Michigan, another on Yom Kippur in the UK, for example. Because this is libelous because it is objectively false, and is being done to spin up violence and physical harm against Jews, it is a blood libel. And serious interlocutor on this would be willing to admit that. Now you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews." This is factually true. There is no basis whatsoever supported by the evidence to support it. You then said: "In reality, numerous human rights groups, including a leading Israeli human rights group, have compiled detailed reports substantiating this accusation, and numerous highly respected experts on genocide have also made this accusation." So, here's one of the numerous human rights groups (Amnesty International's) own words (page 101 of their report) on the accusation and the legal conclusion: "However, its [the ICJ] rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations." Now, here's the Israeli NGO you cite (B'tselem) on page 13 of their report titled "Our Genocide": This report relies on the legal definition of genocide as outlined in the UN Convention, but adopts a broader analytical framework, drawing on Raphael Lemkin's original conception as well as historical and sociological research, when examining the process that led to the genocide in Gaza and Israel's genocidal acts in the Strip." In the UN Commission of Inquiry report that made the initial accusation of genocide they brought up Hamas' tunnel infrastructure one time, and it happened to neglect to mention that the tunnel that they specifically discuss was the tunnel that Mohammed Sinwar was killed in. This fails the legal test (we're about to get to those tests, hang with me here), and causes doubt was to the intent being genocide (again legal test coming). So, what does the law say is required to determine genocide? It says that the accused must commit one of the five acts of genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. "Act with the intent to destroy" denotes the intent requirement we are looking for, known as dolus specialis (specific intent). It requires that the accused act with the specific intent to destroy a protected group because of their membership in the group, in whole or in part. To make the determination of inferring intent requires that it be the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence (here's why Amnesty's report fails and why they say it would PRECLUDE a finding of genocide). See: Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point (emphasis added) to the existence of such intent.” This is known as the ONLY reasonable inference test and requires that there be no other reasonable explanation for the harm or conduct, such as the existence of tunnel infrastructure, human shielding, diversion of aid, all things that we know Hamas has done. Now, let's look at the ICTY's test from the Tolimir decision (2012) para. 745: "Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent based on “all of the evidence, taken together”, as long as this inference is “the only reasonable [one] available on the evidence”. Factors relevant to this analysis may include the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership in a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. The existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others may also support an inference that the perpetrator had formed the requisite specific intent." Same test as above. Meaning, to establish intent requires that there be no other plausible explanation for the harm. Not a single one of those human rights groups, or claimed experts has actually applied this test. One must ask why that is if they are "experts" on the law of genocide? This is besides the fact that many are not actually experts on it and are instead historians, not legal scholars. The reason they don't apply it, Prof. Waxman, is because they know it would defeat the analysis that they are pushing and they know to be not founded in objectivity. This is strike one for it being a blood libel. Now, let's do the rest of this analysis and demonstrate this even further with the language from the text of "in whole or in part." In part destruction requires a substantial portion of the population be destroyed, relative to the whole, within the area of control, to threaten the very existence of the group. To understand this requires us to look again at the ICTY chambers but this time in the Krstic decision, which will be quite a few paragraphs below: Para. 8: "It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." Para. 9: "In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.” This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group." Para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention. Para. 11: "The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.” Para. 12: "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4." Relevant is the Sikirica Trial Chamber (2001) decision para. 72: "For the purpose of determining the number of victims within the terms of Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), one is, therefore, left with a number of approximately 1000-1400 Muslims out of a total of 49,351 in the Prijedor municipality. This would represent between 2% and 2.8% of the Muslims in the Prijedor municipality and would hardly qualify as a “reasonably substantial” part of the Bosnian Muslim group in Prijedor. It also needs to be borne in mind that not all the detainees at Keraterm were Muslims. (This demonstrates that about 3% is not considered substantial enough to constitute "in part" destruction). So, we can discuss this now. When Amnesty made their accusation about 43,000 people (still a lot) had reportedly been killed. At the time it was estimated that number included about 20,000 combatants. In Gaza that would have constituted about 1.9% of the pre-war population; and under the totality of control: 0.78% of the Palestinian population. Amnesty's argument included both Gaza and the West Bank but hinged on Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in whole in Gaza and thus in part of all of what would be considered Palestine. This argument falls apart on its face. B'tselem's report never addresses this issue, nor does the UN COI or any other accuser, why would that be? Today the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza is about 73,000 out of the 2,230,000 pre-war population. That's about 3.28% of the pre-war population (and this does not account for live births which we also know have outpaced deaths per the Palestinian MoH). So, we can look towards the decision in Sikirica and see a similar death rate in which the ICTY chamber determined that it was not substantial enough to constitute genocide. This is important because we are now almost three years into this war and we can make a further comparative analysis on the inference of intent. In Srebrenica it was about 20-30% of the population destroyed in about 3 days (all males, which was determined to make it substantial because of the patrilineal society and difficulty in procreation). In Rwanda it was 80% (800,000+) in 100 days. Today is day 1,036 of the war in Gaza and the population has seen 3.28% destruction not accounting for live births. If Israel was intending the in part destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza, it has not gotten to the point where it would be substantial enough to demonstrate the intent to do so, or the act to do so (more on this in a second). This informs us that the substantiality requirement for genocide is also missing and any objective analysis would find that there is no genocidal actus reus or mens rea. So we now have two parts of the analysis demonstrating that it is unlikely that the tests can be sustained to make a finding of genocide. This gives us strike two on it being a blood libel because a serious accusation would know this requirement and work to sustain it. They didn't and the only reason they didn't is because they know it would defeat their predetermined conclusion. Finally, to commit genocide you must do all of the above and then act with the knowledge and predetermination to further that intent. This brings us the dolus generalis requirement. This requires, as in the preceding sentence, that the accused act with the intent to destroy the group, and you do so with the knowledge of committing the act for that purpose. What's fascinating is that not a single accuser has done this. They make assumptions but don't test the other plausible explanations for that harm. For example, the existence of Hamas weaponizing healthcare infrastructure causes such facilities to lose their protections under the law (GC IV 19), the diversion of aid in a manner that materially benefits a belligerent and is harmful to the other belligerent permits the ending of aid (GC IV 23), the use of human shielding does not immunize those locations from being attacked (GC IV 28 & API 51(7)), the existence of hostages in certain areas permits expressly the ability to conduct war in that area (GC IV 34). If these things are true, and we know that they are true, then the harm cannot be done with the furtherance of genocidal intent. And thus, it cannot be genocide as there are other reasonable explanations for the harm. Again, not a single accuser assesses this. Why? The only reasonable inference for this would be that they know that the determination would fail and that their predetermined conclusion would likewise fail. This is strike three on it being a blood libel because they know that they are misrepresenting the law and jurisprudence, Amnesty and B'tselem expressly tell us this. Yet, they do it anyways. Why? And with three strikes, they're out, they know what they are doing is libelous and false. And we know that it has caused serious and irreparable harm to people (because it has killed them). Thus, this is a blood libel. Another substantive issue here is that when we do this, and we permit these groups and people to get away with what they are doing to degrade the Genocide Convention just so they can accuse Israel of genocide, it causes more harm to the Palestinians in Gaza. Ultimately, the goal should be to stop the harm that's happening to innocent people, all innocent people. Hamas is culpable for that harm and by perpetuating the blood libel of genocide you negate the agency that they must have for their actions. We know that Hamas is using human shielding, we know that Hamas has used children in combat (I just watched a child testify to this yesterday), we know that they have diverted aid, we know that they have tortured Palestinians, we know that they have committed numerous atrocities against them and if we conclude that genocide has happened in Gaza, it means that there is no other reasonable explanation for that harm, which allows Hamas to continue to get away with harming innocent Palestinians. That's morally abhorrent, and legally unconscionable. So, back to this in where you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews." Yes, this is absolutely true, as demonstrated here on every element of the crime of genocide. It is being done to perpetuate an animus against the sole Jewish state because it is the Jewish state. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim. We should not let people change the jurisprudence to find Israel committed genocide as a means to perpetuate harm against Jews. And that's what you have done by allowing them to use an appeal to authority for something that they are not actually authorities on. As a side note, you should ask Omer Bartov about his talk at Brown University in which he admitted that it's not genocide and didn't care.

Welp, I think we're done here. Trump himself is now saying he buckled under the pressure of Hormuz. It's as bad as it could possibly be. He's saying aloud that Iran can have anything it wants because America can't afford the staring contest. If this is his own explanation in his own words, then the fact that the sanctions relief is front-loaded...suddenly becomes important. The fact that the inspections regime that will verify compliance will be negotiated by an American side that has already admitted defeat, that needs this more than the opponent needs it...is now significant. And the fact that the proxy system is now recognized as legitimate by the United States -- is suddenly exactly the disaster you feared it might be. And the fact that America has declared aloud that it's not actually capable of imposing its will even in the world's most vital energy chokepoints, causing its allies in the Gulf to already begin to seek a new accommodation with Iran -- makes all of this worse than Obama and worse than the JCPOA. Remember: the great unfixable flaw of the JCPOA that none of its boosters ever had a good answer for was that it merely kicked the can down the road. It solved nothing. Trump's deal, as of this moment, is not even close to accomplishing so much. "Iran never won a war and never lost a negotiation," Trump famously said of Obama's deal (as a reporter reminded him at today's press conference). Ironic that the Iranians would win a negotiation most spectacularly against a man who styles himself the greatest negotiator to ever grace the White House. So what does it all mean? It means that in the coming years, nuclear programs will sprout like mushrooms after the rain throughout the Middle East. It means that many nations will now build out new and larger ballistic missile arsenals. It means that the state system will give way before the march of the region's transnational ideological axes. Minorities will again be trampled, new wars will be fought by stronger states to dominate the power vacuums within weaker ones. You're thinking of Israel in Lebanon -- but that's just a specific campaign against a specific enemy. Think Turkey, which right now occupies a region of Syria vastly larger than Israel's presence in Lebanon. Think heightened Iranian support for the Houthis in Yemen and a new influx of money and guns to the different sides in Libya. It means, in other words, that we will have a few more wars to fight, a few more technologies to invent to deal with this new age of cheap missiles and drones -- and also of supersonic Chinese missiles bearing nuclear warheads that Iran will eventually, inevitably, be capable of deploying against us. And it didn't have to be this bad. (And maybe, when he's heard all the criticism, it won't be.) He could have left something, anything, to concede later. He could have kept the Iranians a little bit in the dark, just a smidgen, as to just how defeated America feels. Israel's position in all this is simple, and more or less unchanged from last week. America gave us more than we had a right to ask for. But we may be going it alone from here out. Dust off the nukes. Maybe test one somewhere far away from anywhere. Quadruple the interceptor production lines, double the size of the Mossad and the Air Force. And no, don't let Hezbollah breathe, not for a second. It's the 1960s again. And Israel will have to defeat a couple more enemies before it can once again eke out a few decades of peace.