When Joe Lieberman heard that his political challenger, Ned Lamont, had dined with Israeli Vice Premier, Shimon Peres, it must have reminded him of the day when Jim McGreevy switched from the Lieberman presidential campaign to declare for Howard Dean.

By December 19, 2003, Mr. Dean and the anti-Iraq war Democrats were riding high and the then New Jersey governor thought to catch the wave — even though he had been backing Mr. Lieberman and his political line for years.

Mr. McGreevey called the senator to rationalize his public endorsement of Mr. Dean, and Senator Lieberman replied, “Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.”

Since Mr. Peres seeks no office here, he lacks even Mr. McGreevy’s cynical excuse. So what possible justification could there be for him to interfere in the middle of an internal fight among moderates and liberals in the Nutmeg state, a fight with widespread national implications?

Should Mr. Lamont triumph in November, it would be entirely appropriate for pro-Israel liberals to sidle up to him in order to verify his claim that he is of their camp.

It is possible to be opposed to the Iraq war and supportive of Israel. It is possible to be supportive of a renewed peace process and pro-Israel. Only demagogues on the hardcore pro-Israel right and those on the anti-Israel left would deny the authenticity of these positions or assert that they are inherently contradictory.

But why now?

Moreover, how could Mr. Peres intervene in such a way so as to undermine Joe Lieberman, of all people?

The Connecticut Senate race, it shouldn’t have to be said, is not Israel’s business. And if it is, there should be a presumption in Joe Lieberman’s favor.

Mr. Peres’ faux pas has a pedigree. In 1972, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Yitzhak Rabin clearly sent clear signals of support for incumbent Richard Nixon and against anti-Vietnam War candidate George McGovern, riling Jewish liberals (pardon the redundancy) who couldn’t abide Tricky Dick. (Having received one of Mr. Rabin’s signals face to face, I can tell you it was an unforgettable experience.)

In 1980, the defense minister of Israel, Ezer Weizman, made a splash when he flew with Jimmy Carter on a campaign flight. The incumbent Jimmy Crack Corn (or was it peanuts?) Carter was all right by Mr. Weizman because they had both attended the finishing school at Camp David. Camp David was Mr. Weizman’s electric cool aid acid test: like Ken Kesey and merry pranksters on the bus, for Mr. Weizman, “You were either at Camp David with Begin and Sadat, or you weren’t.”

The thing of it is, Mr. Peres’ intervention has the effect of offering Mr. Lamont a certificate of kashrut — a he’s-all-right-on-Israel stamp of approval.

The only purpose of providing Mr. Lamont with such a seal is to fortify the Lamont campaign and to demoralize Mr. Lieberman’s.

But at least Mr. Rabin and Mr. Weizman had a good excuse. President Nixon was arguably a more serious man regarding America’s security commitments abroad (a view that would be vindicated during the 1973 Yom Kippur war), especially as compared to the isolationist Mr. McGovern. And Mr. Carter had — whatever he would do or say in later years — presided over the first ever Israel-Arab peace treaty.

Mr. Lamont has understood all along that his opposition to the Iraq war, as well as his choice of opponent, potentially undercut his appeal to those who strongly back Israel.

Thus, either for reasons of personal belief or political expediency or both, Mr. Lamont has on his website and in interviews consistently presented as pro-Israel.

But the nature of Mr. Lamont’s campaign has attracted outside support from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and representatives Maxine Waters and Marcy Kaptur. It is the nature of the beast: an anti-war campaign always brings out the leftish fringe as well as a broader section of liberal opinion.

Like other Democrats, Mr. Lamont combined his pro-Israel stance with a critique of Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy and for allegedly ignoring the Israel-Palestinian peace process.

Mr. Lamont says that while Mr. Bush “left us bogged down in Iraq … we lost focus on a far more important matter: achieving a peaceful settlement of disputes between Israel and its neighbors.”

Specifically, Mr. Lamont opines, Mr. Bush “missed a great opportunity to exercise constructive leadership at the time when Mahmoud Abbas became president of the Palestinian Authority.”

This is now a widespread canard, but it is largely balderdash. It takes the responsibility for what transpired and removes it from the Palestinian leadership, putting it at the White House door.

Nevertheless, the appearance of fiasco in Iraq and the unhappy ending to the round of fighting in Lebanon have opened up space for competitive political themes. In both instances, the Bush Doctrine has come under critical scrutiny.

Thus Daniel Levy, an engaging fellow who has worked closely with Israel’s leading doves, argues in the Forward that “The idea that current American policy advances Israeli security and national interests is thoroughly discredited … is now openly aired in the Israeli media, and raised, albeit in more discreet circles, by Israeli Cabinet ministers.”

Should the Bush administration not be swayed by Mr. Levy’s friendly persuasion, he proposes reaching out to “internationalist Republicans and anti-war Democrats.”

How quickly we move from theory to action.

Perhaps it might appear unfair, but I blame this all on the Likud party. In 2000, the Likud and its parliamentary allies succeeded in electing Moshe Katzav president of the State of Israel by a narrow vote of 60-57 thus scuttling the one elegant opportunity to retire Mr. Peres from active political life. Now Mr. Katzav is drowning in allegations of sexual misconduct while Mr. Peres, in place of minding his own business at the president’s house in Jerusalem, is making rain in Connecticut.

Mr. Twersky is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.