Karine A Again. 
The Iranian arms ship parked at the edge of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal is loaded with rockets, artillery shells and other weaponry bound for Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The IDF
knows exactly what it is, and where it is bound. The US Navy has boarded it more than once in the past days and yet has not seized the cargo nor questioned the crew in depth. The Iranian captain traveled to Egyptian authorities to complain, and the dispute quickly went to Cairo. The pretense is that the Iranian arms are bound for Syria. Israel is at war with Syria and can interdict. The US is not at war with Syria and will not interdict. Right now there is no resolution; however the ship will be permitted to continue through the Suez Canal into the Med. It will not likely become a new Karine A (above), the Iran arms ship that was intercepted in the Red Sea in January 2003 that was bound for Gaza and Arafat.
George Mitchell
However the test here is not about the IDF and Hamas and Syria -- the test is about George Mitchell's embassy (right, with the President and the Secretary of State upon his appointment as Middle East Envoy) to the Middle East as HRC's new envoy to the Palestinian problem.
Mitchell goes first to Cairo, where he will do whatever it takes to keep the arms ship from becoming an incident. Hosni Mubarak will lie to George Mitchell, and George Mitchell will pretend to believe him, that the ship is Syria bound and not for Hamas. Why will Mitchell play along, the supple dhimmi? Because Mitchell is protecting the Obama administration's stubborn aim to open direct talks with Tehran regardless of the facts and the threat. Dennis Ross is tasked to be the new American voice to Tehran, and nothing is to keep Dennis Ross from pretending that Iran wants peace. The Obama administration insist upon making all the mistakes of the last thirty years, since Jimmy Carter and the Camp David treaty of 1979, and making them all quickly. The Iranian arms ship is plenty of evidence that Tehran is a deceitful, hostile, war-making power that cannot be stopped with jaw jaw, cannot even be slowed. When it starts, the Obama administration talks to Tehran as a dhimmi. Is the Obama administration aware what dhimmitude fully means? It is not about respect or candor or peace.
It is hard to imagine that the policies that the Obama administration is pursuing could have been crafted anywhere other than in the ivory towers of academe. From economic policy to foreign affairs, ideology appears to trump reality as it exists on the ground. As such, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Obama administration is not a friend of Israel. Many opinion articles in 'The Jerusalem Post' have been warning about this ever since the beginning of our (America’s) most recent electoral campaign - this, while other published commentaries cleverly twisted mounting evidence to appear otherwise.
Most American Jews chose to ignore the signals and voted for Barrack Obama. The natural bent of Jewish voters is to vote liberal (or against conservatism) without regard to what may be in their own best self-interest. They can be depended on to vote en masse and as a block. Blacks vote the same way but are less disciplined about it. This may be an example of those who implement ideology and those who are most directly affected both marching in lockstep toward the abyss, drawn inexorably into the maelstrom created by the tension between dissimilar realities (theoretical vs. practical).
Unlike airline pilots, who are taught to steer around thunderheads, these two populations consistently remain undeterred, calmly giving their money away to the likes of Madoff or, in a previous century, marching obediently into ovens while pretending these to be showers.
Both, blacks and Jews consistently seem to be putting their faith in the promise of utopian chimeras which requires no more effort to achieve than pulling the lever for “Democrat” in the voting booth. "Dhimmitude" is a neologism that has several distinct but related meanings, denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement particularly with regard to Islamic (sharia) demands. At its starkest, it connotes a predilection toward servitude. It is likely that Mitchell is not familiar with the word as such. I his mind all men are peaceful; skirmishes arise simply out of misunderstanding. Words can be crafted to bridge or transcend any dispute. A solution is merely an academic exercise which can be graded A-F.
“F”, of course, means do-over; more study required. Definitions may have to be altered; lines redrawn. Legitimate grievance is discounted and labeled “of marginal importance”, as is murderous intent, rage and hatred. Money is seen to soothe all ills. It may well work on paper, but not on the ground where people are willing to spill their guts for a cause. …while we continue to look the other way and refuse to honor their blood sacrifice.
Very well said Peter.
Since you like making comparisons to the 1930s contast this with the voyage of the damned the SS St. Louis in which a ship carrying German Jewish refugees fleeing from Europe could not find safe haven in any country. Now the Iranian ship can not dock because we want to keep our head in the sand.
The media in Israel was for the Gaza disengagement in 2005 and deliberately avoided reporting on the constant shelling of Sderot. If it was not printed or reported it did not happen. If the Israeli media was willing participants in deception why are they surprised by the reporting by Western media outlets like the BBc, Reuters, AP and CNN.
Unfortunately the US media followed a similar script during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Re "Tehran is a deceitful, hostile, war-making power that cannot be stopped with jaw jaw, cannot even be slowed."
Before we fire all those expensive cruise missile at the Iranians we would do well to recall their oil output now declines at a rate of ten per cent per year. Some observers blame bad management and underinvestment, others Peak Oil; but whatever the reason, Iran should be a net importer of oil by 2015, at which point the Mullahs will be too busy looking under the sofa cushions for spare change to bother their neighbors much. Shah mat.
Kenneth the Iranian regime is seeking Armaggedon they are not thinking about 2015. Plus they have their sights on the saudi Arabian oil fileds which is located in the shia portion of Saudi Arabia.
Re "...[T}hey are not thinking about 2015."
Good. Let them remain caught up in their childish fantasies between now and the day only a few years hence when their oil dries up and along with it their cash. Governments that run out of money to pay their soldiers somehow never seem to last very long.
It is no more likely that bankrupt Persians will overrun the Middle East than it ever was that the chutes of penurious Soviet troopers would have blossomed over the Rocky Mountains à la "Red Dawn." For the situation to resolve itself in our favor we need merely refrain from rash acts between now and then, rather than get carried away by our own equally childish fantasies.
I have a question: once we are no longer dependent on the Mid-east for oil (which will happen sooner or later), will our support for Israel "dry up" at the same time? Israel is our blunt instrument for keeping the door ajar so we can get in and out with the oil. Once we no longer need to keep that door ajar, Israel, quo vadis?
simply stupid - Not so fast, SS. Let me point out an inconsistency: If Tehran is seeking Armageddon, why would they have their sights set on the Saudi Arabian oil fields? I happen to think that your second point is correct. By keeping us distracted with worry about Israel, they're hoping we might just miss the point of their overall strategy. In my view, their (soon to be) nukes were never intended to be used against Israel, at least not initially; as this would indeed accomplish Armageddon. Iran’s nukes would be used to threaten its oil-rich neighbors instead. Iranian leadership is not as crazy as they would have us believe. Their plan aims at the full and complete domination of the Middle East and its (oil) resources.
Once the West is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil (as Lou anticipates), it is not Israel that will fade from our concerns – it is Middle Eastern oil. Besides, by that time, the question of Israel may already be moot.
Peter -
With due respect, I think you're being a bit overly optimistic about human nature to suppose that we would continue to care about Israel once it no longer served our own interests. Some of us would, sure - those with family and friends devoted to the Zionist cause - but enough of us to influence U.S. foreign policy? I really doubt it. In fact, it would amaze me.