The new amendment reduces the “life sentence” to twenty years. In general the amendments to punishments appear to be reductions. However what worries human rights groups is the expansion of the legal definition of “infiltrator.” Previously the order had a definition that at least corresponded to commonsense: someone knowingly entering “the Area” (=West Bank) illegally. Now the word “infiltrator” includes anyone found who doesn’t have (Israeli-issued) paperwork. Indeed, an infiltrator into the West Bank can be someone born and raised in the West Bank.

This comes in the midst of two other noteworthy events in Israeli policy. The first was the announcement of continued expansion of illegal settlements during Biden’s visit. This elicited pretended rage on the part of American officials, who follow nearly every criticism of Israel with affirmation of how “special” and “strong” their relationship is. More recently, Netanyahu decided not to attend Obama’s nuclear conference, consistent with Israel’s longstanding defiance of international norms and refusal to acknowledge what everyone has known since the 70′s.

UPDATE: On the amendment, There is a more detailed report by Amira Hass in Haaretz (widely considered Israel’s leading newspaper). Today the Haaretz editors also published a brief critical statement. The editorial points out an obvious contrast that I missed: “While all Jews can settle wherever they wish, in Israel or in the territories, Israel is trying to deprive the Palestinians of even the minimal right to choose where to live in the West Bank or Gaza.”

Now North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong Il, has the potential to kill millions in Japan as well as the South, and to lay waste US bases and airfields in both countries. It will force military strategists to rethink plans for war in Korea and significantly increase the potential costs of any intervention in a future Korean war. The shift from acknowledging North Korea’s nuclear weapons development programme to recognising it as a fully fledged nuclear power is highly controversial. South Korea, in particular, resists the reclassification because it could give the North greater leverage in negotiations.

Is that really all you need to do to neutralize nuclear threats? Just pretend they aren’t there? Or is the author suggesting that South Korean leaders are suffering from cognitive dissonance and have great psychological resistance to facts that would weaken their negotiating positions?