What are the ramifications of the current diplomatic showdown between the Western powers and Iran, as far as Israel is concerned?

I wish there were a diplomatic showdown between the West and Iran, but there is no such thing. Iran is winning in every possible way. Iran is calling all of the shots because of the United States' mistaken entry into a war with Iraq and the disaster that has ensued. The United States has no military credibility in threatening Iran. Israel may or may not have the capacity to threaten Iran. And further, I believe that most of the Western world is jockeying for the position to help Iran—Russia, France, and Germany, to some degree. Really only the United States and Great Britain are putting any diplomatic pressures on Iran. So there is no showdown at all, and I think the big winner in the last couple of years has in fact been Iran. It has been able to effectively use its surrogates—Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent HAMAS, which is operating in coordination with Hezbollah in some respects—and we can expect the use of more surrogates, more involvement of Iran in the Iraq war, and more involvement of Iran in Lebanon. It is impossible to know how the Lebanese situation will turn out, but what we do know is that it currently poses a significant threat to Israel, to American interests, and most importantly, to Lebanese democracy.

Speaking of Iraq, can you explain how Israel was affected by the war in Iraq? Did it derive any advantages or disadvantages from the situation, and which are more prominent?

There are not many pros. The Israelis made a dreadful mistake by urging the United States to go to war with Iraq. There are two phases of the war in Iraq: the first is simply the attack on Iraq, which essentially overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein, and the second is the occupation. Reasonable people might differ about the effect of the first on Israel, but no reasonable person can question the effect of the second. The second has been a disaster for Israel, and the Iraq war as a whole has been a disaster for Israel. It has diverted attention from a much greater threat to Israel: Iran. It is always better to have a secular enemy than a religious zealot enemy, and Saddam Hussein was a secular enemy—a relatively impotent secular enemy. The situation with Iraq prior to the war was a good one: there was a no-fly zone, Hussein was plagued with sanctions, he had no freedom of movement, and he was essentially a prisoner of the international community. Now the Islamic extremists have increased their power in that part of the world, and so has Iran. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Lebanese war would have been started by Hezbollah if the United States was not bogged down in Iraq. From beginning to end this has been a disaster for Israel, for the United States, and for the world in general.

What is your opinion on the supposed dealings between Israel and Syria to give back the Golan Heights and on the Baker-Hamilton Report’s argument that Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria?

I have always been an advocate of trying to make peace with Syria and also of returning all territories that can be returned without increasing any security threats to Israel. I would include a demilitarized Golan in exchange for a real peace. While I strongly disagree with the Baker-Hamilton conclusion that ending the occupation would in any way ease the situation in the Middle East because it will have relatively little impact, I do think it is the right thing to do strategically. I always separate security decisions from all others. Israel should do everything that is consistent with its security to make peace, including giving back virtually all of the West Bank, except for those small areas that have become so populated today that it is impossible to return them. But Israel should do nothing to compromise its security, and I would distinguish very sharply between holding onto land for settlers, which I am opposed to doing, and maintaining Israel's security advantages. The Golan Heights situation is a difficult one because this area does have major security interests, but these interests can be safeguarded by measures of demilitarization and other forms of protection. The fact that there are Israeli settlers in the Golan should not be a factor.

What are your opinions of the American Jewish Committee’s recent paper “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism?” Specifically, do you believe that there are divided opinions among the American Jewish community? If so, are they a serious threat to the United States' relationship with Israel?

The paper was done by one particular person who represents one particular organization: the American Jewish Committee. I personally do not think there is much of a division in the United States about the core, basic issues—what I call the 90 percent issues—within the Jewish community. The vast majority of American Jews and the vast majority of American non-Jews support Israel’s right to thrive as a Jewish democracy, Israel’s right to defend itself by proportional means, and Israel’s attempt to make peace. Perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the Jewish community is actively anti-Zionist, but these people attract a fair amount of attention because they have very loud voices. The Noam Chomskys, Tony Judds, and Michael Lerners do not reflect mainstream Jewish thought, but they are still loud. Their voices have become even louder as a result of the US mistake of going into Iraq. They are very strongly opposed to Iraq and have been able to get people in the anti-Iraq movement to associate the Iraq war with Israel, which is a falsehood. The truth is that the US Jewish community was more strongly opposed to the war in Iraq than any other ethnic group. I was against the war in Iraq, as were most people I know who support Israel, but there is an attempt by some of the hard left within the Jewish community to associate pro-Israel attitudes with attitudes favorable to the war in Iraq. This is a serious problem, and it escalates when you have prominent figures like former President Carter who can cite a Jew or two that agree with such views and get special credibility. However, this is not a problem within the Jewish community.