Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Hosni Mubarak was a key U.S. ally who upheld the Arab world’s first peace treaty with Israel. By letting his regime fall, Barack Obama has threatened the survival of the Jewish state.

Print Email
A protest against the Mubarak regime in Istanbul, February 4. (Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content

Nation State

Nationalism plays a vital role in Egyptian life, and its influence—despite Arab nationalism’s frequent association with dictatorial regimes—could be a key bulwark against religious extremism there

Jewel of the Nile

Yussuf al-Qaradawi, the world’s most popular and authoritative Sunni cleric, is a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Egyptian based in Qatar. A return to his home country would be dangerous for Israel and the West.

With recent events in the larger Middle East—the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Iran—this seemed like an opportune time to reconsider Israel’s place in the region. This week I argue that Israel is in big trouble—indeed that it is in danger of being swallowed up by its neighbors. Next week I’ll make the opposite case: that Israel’s power and influence in the Middle East will only grow.

Things have been trending badly for Israel for some time now, but Hosni Mubarak losing control of Egypt makes the Jewish state untenable. That’s right: Israel is no longer feasible. I don’t mean that in the manner the international left usually does—that nationalism is passé and we must move on to higher forms of communal existence. I mean it in the old-fashioned way of nations and peoples who are vanquished when the balance of power tips against them. And I mean it strategically—a tiny country with a Jewish majority of 6 million can’t survive surrounded by enemies and forsaken by its superpower ally.

For several decades American policymakers from both sides of the aisle traveled to the Middle East to explain how much peace there meant to Washington. During the October 1973 war, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s airlifts showed the Arabs that it was futile to make war on Israel while they were backed by an awesome superpower. The Arabs could not hope to beat Israel in war so they would have to petition the Israelis’ U.S. patron if they wanted any concessions. Besides, there were great rewards, such as American military aid, to be had for anyone who would sign a deal—which essentially amounted to a bribe.

Coming to power in Egypt after Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated for signing a treaty with Israel, Mubarak kept the peace and thereby underwrote the integrity of the peace process. Egypt was the trophy that Washington kept on display to show all the other Arab states what they, too, might have should they come to their senses and just sign a deal. But as it turns out, the peace treaty must not have been that important because the man who preserved it for some 30 years in the face of domestic as well as regional opposition—enduring several attempts on his life—was tossed aside by the Obama Administration. In doing so, the United States showed that everything it had ever said about the peace process was total nonsense.

America’s Arab allies were astonished that the White House would treat a close ally like Mubarak as it did; but they were also dumbstruck that the Americans could undermine their own position in the region without a second thought. If binding the region together in a peace process is no longer the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East strategy, what do the Americans have up their sleeve? Washington only has one move, which is to throw Israel under the bus.

Sure, things were bad for Israel even before Yussuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatar-based radical cleric who is the spiritual voice of the Muslim Brotherhood reappeared last week in Cairo to call for the liberation of Jerusalem. But consider the most optimistic scenario for Egypt, in which it follows the Turkish model, once a strategic ally that in the space of just a few years has become moderately hostile. Ankara’s involvement with the Mavi Marmara incident made Turkey part of an international delegitimization campaign against Israel, waged largely in Europe but making inroads now in the United States.

For instance, consider the administration’s bizarre mishandling last week of the Palestinians’ proposed Security Council measure denouncing Israeli settlements. Not only did Washington delay in vetoing a proposed resolution that in the past it would’ve batted down immediately, but the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, felt compelled to make a statement covering the administration’s flank. The veto, she explained, should “not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity.”

Washington, it seems, is tired of having to stick up for Jerusalem. It’s bad enough that having Israel’s back always sets the United States against the rest of the international community, but in the wake of the Arab uprisings, defending Israel also means that Obama has to cross the Muslim and Arab masses he’s courted ever since his 2009 Cairo speech. But nothing Washington is able to wring out of Israel never seems to satisfy anyone. Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 bought it tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets, while its 2006 war there bought it international opprobrium. The 2005 withdrawal from Gaza that was supposed to burnish Israel’s bona fides with the international community only won it more rockets. And after the war with Hamas in the winter of 2008, Israel got the Goldstone Report.

Now, with the end of Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, Washington will have no choice but to move further away from Israel. It’s an understandable move from a superpower whose prestige is waning in the Middle East.

So what of the near future? There will still be a peace process, but it will be rather like a living will, in which the party with power of attorney, Washington, decides when to pull the plug on Israel—and how to dispose of the corpse. Indeed, the Obama Administration still wants talks between Israel and Syria—even though Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has said that a peace deal would cost his regime its life. It is Assad’s resistance to Israel, through his support of Hezbollah and Hamas and Syria’s alliance with Iran, that has endeared him to the Syrian masses. Syria is stable, said Assad, because “you have to be very closely linked to the beliefs of the people. This is the core issue. When there is divergence … you will have this vacuum that creates disturbances.”

In other words, the peace treaty with Israel that Egypt signed has now been exposed as a suicide pact. In Assad’s view, the former Egyptian president’s great misstep was diverging from the beliefs of his people, who are anti-Israel. Or, as Syria’s foreign minister put it, “the leaders of regional countries should befriend their peoples. That’s the best choice.”

The notion that the Arab masses hate Israel is difficult for Washington policymakers to swallow. Their working assumption for the last several decades is that Arab rulers were responsible for anti-Israel sentiment by redirecting popular anger at their own regimes onto the tiny Jewish state. But as we’re seeing, the Arab public is more than able to voice its discontent with their rulers while also hating Israel. Whether Washington grasps the fact that Arabs hate Israel is immaterial, for Arab rulers cannot afford to forget it without losing their grip. And the United States will have no choice but to make those rulers happy if it is to pursue its interests in the region. Unfortunately, this means that Israel is no longer viable. By which I don’t mean that 6 million Jews are going to be killed, only that if they want to survive they can’t stay in Israel.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Barry Meislin says:

No surprise there.

Since “peace” is defined by so many as “the disappearance of Israel” (i.e., by definition, the existence of the Jewish State is the reason why there is no peace), then one may be justified in concluding that Obama is working night and day to prove that he is most deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The only thing missing from your “modest analysis” is the reaction and response of Israel.

This is perfectly understandable, since so many believe that Israel is irrelevant when it comes to the pursuit of peace (since Israel has not yet been able to persuade/cajole/convince the Palestinians to come to a peace agreement—understandable, perhaps, if one understands that the definition of “peace” for the Palestinians is “the disappearance of Israel”; see above).

Yes, so many are certain that Israel and Israelis should have absolutely no say in the matter of their defense, or their existence—to the contrary, Israel must acquiesce in others’ attempts to emasculate her (which is defined by said others as “strengthening” her) or else face the consequences of her refusal to acquiesce, as we have seen over the past several years.

Those (increasing numbers of people) who have despaired altogether of the peace process—which despair stems from the fact that Israel has not (or not yet) seen the light when it comes to the utilititarian, not to mention ethical need for her to commit suicide—are now firmly persuaded that Israel has, by not agreeing to commit suicide, lost every moral justification for her existence.

Nonetheless, it should be made clear that Israel, when it comes to her destruction, may well, in spite of the best intentions of many (including her closest neighbors as well as her erstwhile allies), put up a fight.

Even if (even though) doing so would make her even more hated than she already is (if that were possible).

Just so that is clear.

Kirillov78 says:

An absurd piece of neoconservative hogwash. Mr Smith’s central premise – that Obama could or should have dictated to the Egyptian people how they should be governed – cuts right to the problem. If any US president’s policies in the middle east have endangered Israel, George W Bush takes the cake. His criminally negligent intervention in Iraq has succeeded in empowering Iran as a key regional power. His dithering for 8 years over peace negotiations helped to drive the level of hopelessness even higher than it was before. How Obama’s “failure” to continue to prop up a brutal dictator is a threat is beyond me. What is even further mystifying is why Tablet lets Lee Smith spew this kind of nonsense into my inbox with such frequency.

Richard Diamond says:

To those not based in New York, Cambridge and San Francisco, Obama is definitely not popular in the rest of the country. I think the November elections were definitely a referendum on Obama and he lost. Last I checked, Texas is gaining population and Congressional seats, and the blue states are losing both population and Congressional seats. Here in Texas, commitment to Israel is strong as ever. Israel simply needs to ignore Cambridge, MA and focus on it’s deep well of regard in the heartland and do what is right. Personally, the worst that Israel can do is assume the New York Review of Books has political influence beyond the Fairway market in New York.

M. Brukhes says:

This is a ridiculous article on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. Let me start, nonetheless:

1) What is untenable is not the prospect of an Israel deprived of Mubarak’s money-laundered patronage; what is untenable has been America’s foreign policy of the past 30 years, supporting despots, pirates, and dictators provided that they give lip-service to a notion of support for Washington’s policies.

2) Barack Obama did not toss aside Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian people did. And if you lived in Egypt, you would have too.

3) We have no idea what the next Egyptian regime will look like. We can only hope that the military will remain in power just long enough to allow a democratic process to take place, that elections will take place as scheduled in September, and that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as a voice, not the only voice, in a new dispensation. That would be the best case scenario–as would the recognition by the Egyptian people that however much history has changed in the last few weeks, revisiting the disastrous wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 would in no way move their nation forward.

4) Achieving the goal of a functioning democracy at least nominally committed to maintaining peace with Israel cannot be achieved by nay-saying, antagonism, or outside efforts to meddle in the affairs of the Egyptian people. We cannot impose democracy–cf, Iraq, Afghanistan–and we ignore or subvert native efforts at democracy only at our own peril. Neither Washington nor Israel can afford to ignore or bemoan what’s happening in Egypt today, or in the rest of the Arab world. If democracy is in any way to take root in Egypt, we can only hope it will by showing the Egyptian people what’s to be gained by creating their own democratic culture, and what’s to be lost by trading one form of despotism for another.

An Egyptian democratic culture must emerge that will benefit Egyptians, primarily, not the U.S. or Israel. There are no alternatives, for anyone.

fred lapides says:

I am over 80 and thus have seen and read lots of dumb stuff in my life but this post certainly ranks among the top ones.

1. We should support all dictators and then boast that Israel is a democracy in part founded because of a German dictator and what he carried out.
2. We should force our will not just on Egyptian people but throughout the region and in turn expect that Arabs will love us and embrace Israel.

3. We should now move into Libya and keep that nutter in place!

and on and on.

meantime: Our concern as far as Israel and the Middle East is concerned should be the willingness of Egypt and Jordan to abide by the peace treaty they have made with Israel. And thus far, the military has said it would We do after all send them lots of money and arms and if need be we can stop doing that if they turn on Israel and the treaty.

True to their colors those who bate Obama find the world to blame but especially how he is causing harm to the Jewish nationalist fervor. The cause of uprisings in the world is the deterioration of the human existence resultant from being trapped like rats in the city environs. When community leaders will represent the public bodies that elect them we can initiate work projects such as manufacturing and installing solar electric, or harvest and distribution of city harvesting into the lots of vacant decay; from which the income will be directed towards the tax burdens and community services. Such corporations to be democratic must offer training to each person equally to serve in any capacity and salaries based on the joint purpose of human equality. Profit pays the wages and secures the pathway onto the wider market; a “family” community within geographic definitions.

Ken Besig, Israel says:

I respect Lee Smith and his knowledge and experience regarding the Middle East, Islam, and yes, even Israel.
However, I am not convinced that his gloomy estimation of Israel’s chances of survival is correct.
Certainly difficult times are ahead for Israel, the Middle East, and the West in general, politically, socially, and economically, but to posit that Israel has the most to fear is I believe incorrect.
First of all, it will take months, if not years for the political instability in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Baharain, and Egypt to settle, if ever.
Secondly, while the populations in those countries certainly loathe Israel and the Jews and would be happy to finish us off, the various tribes and ethnic groups in the region are at each other’s throats all the time and they will be more concerned with settling old scores among themselves before they get around to Israel.
Thirdly, Iran is the most important problem facing everybody, even if the Obama administration and the Europeans wish to ignore it. Iran will almost certainly set it’s sights on destabilizing Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan before it will move on Israel.
Finally, Israel has a say in some of these matters, and is presently able to defend itself and deter aggression. There is also the matter of energy and oil, and the West may now appear weak, divided, and uncertain but a serious threat to their political, economic and social stability will, much like a death sentence for a prisoner, focus their minds wonderfully on their own survival.

believing Jew says:

Behold, the Guardian of Israel doth neither slumber, nor sleep.

Dear Havri,

I can’t believe I’m saying this but all these events are starting to add up to Armageden and 2012. Blame it on Zuckerberg, a Jew by accident, and no friend of Israel or the Jews. Well, I’m going to be giving all my money and possessions away. Anyone want a Ferrari or Silver Cloud RR? Letme know. Reading some of the comments just proves that Jews don’t like each other. I certainly don’t want to share the 21st century equivalent of a box car with any of you. Jews won’t fight to protect themselves and they seem to have lost the survival genes over the last millenia. Jonathan Pollard is rotting in jail for 25 years because Jews are too afraid to speak up and demand his release. We Jews don’t have a schmuck like Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson to speak out. We only have the children of billionaires who think they are Kings of the Jews as Edgar Bronfman used to like to say. All these people are not strong, they’re pathetically weak and they make the Jews look weak in the eyes of our enemies,which we do have plenty.


Bill Levy

Stuarta11 says:

As a British Jew, committed Zionist of many years and with a second home in Israel,
I never fail to be amused by the arrogance of some American commentators when
analysing the current situation.

The assumption is that if American politicians decide to cease supporting Israel, for whatever reason, then Israel will cease to exist.

This ignores the various deterrants that Israel has at its disposal in order to exert a not inconsiderable influence on its own destiny.

Remember the words of the State’s founding fathers – “Never again”, whether America wills it or not.

Israel is, and will continue to be, the last true refuge for Jews to live as Jews.

well, the egyptian military will/ should in the end serve whoever takes power in the democratic process, and even if this is not the moslem brotherhood, any government that upholds the peace process will be seen as american/ israeli stooges in some way. long -term this may not stay tenable and so, indeed the state of Israel can feel at risk

But it is ridiculous today to say that the arab masses just want to destroy israel because they hate jews. Extremists among them do feel so, but they need political opportunities to take power in a democratic process. The only sustainable hope against this is to truly support the moderates, not only because it is morally right, but also because this offers the only true chance to influence events if the go the right way.

And most ridiculous is to leave one big factor out of the equation: the Israeli settlement policy. As long as we lead an aggressive policy ourselves, how can we not expect people to react? Hamas, Ahmedinajjad & co have only one true strategic ally when influencing the arab masses: The Israeli RIght wing. There is no justice in the settlement policy. And that little problem should not be mentioned at all???

A.L. Bell says:

This article is like a modern, genuine sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (or The Protocols the Bloggers of Zion).

In reality, I think that all of us, even Lee Smith, would like to see all of the people in the Middle East having freedom, justice and prosperity. We’re just terrified of how Egypt will deal with Israel going forward.

I think that’s a reasonable fear, and I think it’s reasonable for Israel to plan to strike back extremely hard if it’s attacked. If Israel does have nuclear weapons, maybe it’s time to get them tuned up.

I’m still not even sure that Mubarak was all that bad, as Middle Eastern rulers go. Maybe he was a cream puff when compared with the rulers of Libya and Bahrain.

But I think spreading the idea that Zionism means wanting the United States to support torture and oppression in our name, because that supposedly preserves peace, is sort of like putting a sign on the back of the Jewish people that says, “Please eliminate us.”

Oppression may be one of the grim facts of political life, but I don’t think it’s safe for us, let alone ethical or moral, for us to be enthusiastic supporters of it.

I’m curious to know what the vehement critics of this article make of Qaradawi’s rally in Cairo last Friday, which Lee Smith references.
Somewhat worrying, no? I don’t know that I would take the logic of Smith’s argument as far as he does, but I think to dismiss it out of hand is to ignore the dangers of the current situation.

Didnt anyone notice the caveat from Lee Smith:

“Next week I’ll make the opposite case: that Israel’s power and influence in the Middle East will only grow.”

Democracy encourages healthy debate.

Who knows – maybe the emergence of mostly secular democratic neigbors will allow for economic, cultural and intellectual cooperation in the region. Perhaps we (Westerners) could consider Israel & its neighbors as a better option than India and China for knowledge workers and out-sourcing.

Conor, thank you. I did NOT notice that caveat.

I spend hours every week looking for intelligent discussion on current issues regarding the land of Israel. Happily I have found some here, not in Lee Smith’s article, but in a few of the comments. Many thanks to M. Brukhes and to Fred Lapides who apparently read the whole article so I wouldn’t have to. When the subtitle contains hyperbolic language, saying, “Barack Obama has threatened the survival of the Jewish state” a big flag goes up that says, “This Article Is Not Intended For Critical Thinkers Or Anyone Who Actually Cares About The Truth.”

If the discussion was actually about Israel’s survival as a country, and not political ravings, there might be something to learn here.

To the reference of “that old-fashioned way of nations and peoples who are vanquished when the balance of power tips against them, ” can I offer a more positive perspective?

The nation of Israel has survived a pretty long time without Mubarak or any other neighbor. Jews have always – though not unanimously – taken solace in the words of the Torah, in Which God says that He took Israel out from slavery, and He will always protect His people. Looks like the balance of power is tipped towardIsrael.

Ken Donow says:

What an appalling piece of nonsense! There was NOTHING that Obama could possibly have done to “rescue” the Mubarak regime. If he is to be criticized for his stane during the revolution it must be that he was a little too slow to back the forces of change. They will get over it in short order. However, if he took a more forward posture of backing Mubarak, it would be decades before any Egyptian would let that pass. Egypt is a necessary ally of the US. Anything that fails to recognize the importance of that is harmful to Israel.

Like the song from South Pacific says, the Arabs hate the Jews because they were taught to do so. Many probably do not know why. In my pipe dreams I see democratic regimes exposing their populace to more of what is transpiring elsewhere in the world where the people learn that it is more to their advantage to learn something positive from the people they hate rather than expending their energies for destructive purposes.

Neveragain says:

It has taken me many years to fully realize that, as opposed to what I learned as a kid, folks everywhere are not the same. They are a product of their culture, including religion.
Each Arab land has its own culture and influences. If you have ever known any Arabs, they do not automatically like Arabs from other countries.
However, there is a constant: no history of democratic princlples in any of these lands. There are 2 possibly results of the current turmoil: a. military dictators will prevail; b. Islamic militants will take over. Not good for Jews or Americans of any ilk.
However, that does not mean that Obama is responsible for the situation. Blaming him out of frustration is partisan and just plain nuts (and I am a Republican).
Further, Israel will still be here when we are all gone. Smith knows that; it is irresponsible for him to say otherwise in an attempt to get attention.

The Egyptian revolution brings the total disarray among those who “really know what’s going on”. It is nothing short of pathetic to witness otherwise intelligent individuals living in denial and espousing the impossible. What, exactly, would coming to the aid of Mubarak have looked like? American troops in Tahrir square? Sending the drones in against the demonstrators? Even if moral support is the only thing implied by Lee Smith, what possible positive effect could that have had on either Israel or the United States?

We are currently living in a world of known unknowns. Thank goodness for that – the one certain thing about known unknowns is that we’re all going to learn something. Ensconced in Lee Smith’s post is the mourning of the “expertise” of the folks who “really know what’s going on”. And thank goodness for that. We’ve been asleep at the wheel going morally bankrupt.

Israel has an unfortunate history of doing America’s dirty laundry as a pass-through for arms sales to Taiwan, apartheid South Africa and a coterie of shady states with which America wanted to continue doing business but could not be seen to be doing so. This laid the backdrop for our unending and cancerous occupation of the Palestinian Territories. America taught us moral equivocation years ago. Now that there’s a new-ish sheriff in Washington, the “expert” supporters of despots look down to find their pants around their ankles. And so there has never been a better time for us in Israel to do some moral housecleaning of our own.

artcohn says:

I think that Lee Smith is too influenced by our current occupant of the Presidency. The economic disaster and the aberration of the US populace’s judgement that brought us Obama most probably won’t persist. The American people and the Congress that represents us are solidly behind Israel. We can hope that the next President will be so also. I hope that he/she will clean out the foolishness that characterizes the State Department, not only under the current Secretary, but for over 70 years. I think that Israel needs strong USA backing. I hope that the next Administration will do so, and erase the current foolish policy.

I had no idea Barack Obama could control every world event. I guess he’s to blame for Tunisia too. And my coffee was cold this morning. Why did the President of the United States let me be served cold coffee. What a stupid article. If this reflects the quality of writing on this site, I’ll just play more Words with Friends and Angry Birds. I’ll learn more.

I swore to myself I would not read the self-hating Jewish posts on this site anymore, but I did it again! Not until Conor’s post did any of you even notice that Lee wrote he WOULD MAKE THE OPPOSITE CASE IN THE NEXT ARTICLE. “Next week I’ll make the opposite case: that Israel’s power and influence in the Middle East will only grow”
As for some of the Lee Smith critics, read it again. He doesn’t call for any of the totalitarian societies you tried to hang on him. He simply notes what you don’t want to hear. President Obama is a man who glorifies moral equivocacy; a man who is rather amoral in his deeds regardless of what he states in his inspirational speeches. The veto last week wasn’t the issue, what he did to motivate Abbas the last year is; what he did with Mubarek was not Smith’s focus but rather how he read the Eqyptian situation and acted generally is; And how’s he doing with Libya? No, Obama tends to beat up any ally (he has completely trashed our relationship with Saudi Arabia), and ignore the immorality of our enemies (think Iran). I think Lee is taking this side to show that Obama’s belief that the cause of Mideast strife is an intransigent Israel, has been disproved. Bush, Carter, Clinton and Bush all thought Arab leaders were the contributors to war with Israel not the Arab street. Now they must confront what many have said all along, the Arab street rabidly hates Israelis and Jews. With those leaders gone, the problems remain. What will Lee say next week? Perhaps with the state sponsored media anti-Jewish hate machines gone, the people may want some of all that great Israeli medicine, technology and trade.

The more I read Lee Smith, the more I question why I still subscribe to Tablet. I used to enjoy reading Nextbook, but in this incarnation as Tablet it now seems to feature neoconservative nonsense regularly. The fact that Smith–or anyone–is blaming Obama for the downfall of Mubarak is about as ridiculous and preposterous as blaming Obama for the heavy snowfall this winter. And shame on you for publishing this drivel!

jacques says:

DEar Kirillov78 and Debra:

There is a simple reason “why Tablet lets Lee Smith spew this kind of nonsense into my inbox with such frequency.”

It is the same reason why in “this incarnation as Tablet it now seems to feature neoconservative nonsense regularly.”

Nextbook and Tablet are funded by Mem Bernstein and other conservative philanthropists associated with Roger Hertog and the Tikvah Fund. They have made it their business to dominate the Jewish-idea business.

These are the same people behind the “Jewish Review of Books” and “Jewish Ideas Daily.” The one is nominally more serious but also publishes drivel. The other is mostly drivel.

I’m sad to say, but I think they are a very nasty bunch.

I go to Tablet online to see what’s going on. But I’d never let them into my inbox.

arcaneone says:

I love the comments blasting TABLET’s style, especially that it is reviled from what seem to be both the right and the left. The commenters seem far ahead of TABLOT’s staff. There seems to be near-universal agreement that TAB is publishing nonsense.

GJF118 says:

uhhh, did anyone notice that in his intro to this article, Lee Smith said that next week he will argue the opposite argument, ie, that Israel’s power and influence in the Middle East will only grow?

I’m not criticizing his conclusions about Israel’s influence so I don’t care about his qualifier. I’m criticizing his ridiculous attribution of the causation of Mubarak’s fall to Obama. Ironically, the same morons who invade Arab countries to spread democracy (and to punish them for non-existent ties to Al-Queda) also criticize the President for failing to keep a dictator from falling. Is it possible that Mr. Smith is more a political partisan than a geo-political thinker? Or perhaps he just likes to imagine that the United States has the ability to control the world? It must be hard to grow up and realize there are things out of your control.

Walter Sobchak says:

“Washington, it seems, is tired of having to stick up for Jerusalem.”

It is not Washington. It is B Hussein Obama. He personally doesn’t like Israel. The Reverend Wright didn’t like Israel, Minister Farrakhan doesn’t like Israel. Susan Rice doesn’t like Israel. Socialists all over the world don’t like Israel. And Obama is, if nothing else, a socialist.

Come 2012, things will change.

Well Mr. Smith, Israel has been written off before – BeH we are here and will remain here, despite your “expert” prediction. I would not bet against us.

The author states:
“Unfortunately, this means that Israel is no longer viable. By which I don’t mean that 6 million Jews are going to be killed, only that if they want to survive they can’t stay in Israel.”

This is an idiotic conclusion that does not follow, from Smith’s arguments and not from the facts on the ground. Neither the turmoil in their countries, nor the high level of emotional hatred of the Arabs toward Israel and the Jews makes their Armies any stronger than yesterday. On the contrary it will likely make them weaker.

Some of us know that the survival of Israel and the Jews depends ONLY on our Covenental relationship with Hashem and not any alliance with America or the apparent strength of our enemies. Since Mr. Smith is so certain that the nature of things is that Israel in untenable, is he willing to put his soul on the line to back that argument? If Israel survives this crisis, Mr. Smith, will you become a Torah observant Jew and dedicate yourself to the Service of Your Creator? The gauntlet has been thrown…

For those who wish to point out (ad my nauseam at least) that Lee Smith will make the argument next week that Israel will only become stronger:

Lee Smith is apparently only interested in proving his brilliance in tackling both sides of the question. As such he loses, not gains, any integrity he might have had. Are you WITH your people, Lee? Or are you only an intellectual acrobat?

Lee Smith is a defeatist; ready to turn and run with a shift in the breeze. Fortunately, he has not been chosen to be an Israeli leader.

Maria B says:

Right off the author says that next week he’ll make the opposite case. What’s that? Professional trolling?
That was enough to tell me not to waste time reading more than a paragraph or two of this article or any of the coming sequel.

ricky martino says:

What an idiot! As if the United Statesean (Mexico is in “America”) president had any control over the fall of the eygptian dictator!

Awesome impression Grace! I was appetitive you’d accomplish this amidst your biz encounter upstanding continuity. We by reason of you!

I’ve said that least 3698886 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.


Hosni Mubarak was a key U.S. ally who upheld the Arab world’s first peace treaty with Israel. By letting his regime fall, Barack Obama has threatened the survival of the Jewish state.

More on Tablet:

How To Make Middle Eastern Stuffed Vegetables

By Joan Nathan — Video: Filled with warm rice and unexpected spices, they’re perfect for a cool autumn night—as a side dish or vegetarian entree