An Anti-Israel Witch Hunt at Connecticut College

This spring, Andrew Pessin, a professor of philosophy at Connecticut College, was subjected to ferocious criticism and harassment—first by student groups, and then by the college’s faculty and administration—over a Facebook post in which he compared Hamas to “a rabid pit bull.” The episode culminated in Pessin’s taking a leave of absence. Richard Landes explains how an entire college campus surrendered to the mob:

The predictable tragedy of the whole affair was how, in the name of progressive goals, a revolutionary moment empowered some of the most anti-progressive forces on campus. The administration quickly appointed three interim “deans of institutional equity and inclusion” [in response to the uproar over Pessin], . . . who planned a series of events that, at least where Israel was concerned, systematically pumped hate propaganda into the campus community. . . .

One can make a case that the entire incident resembles an unalloyed, albeit small-scale, victory in the cognitive war being waged by Islamists against Western democracy. To most of those prominently involved, especially in postmodern [and] post-colonial guilds like race and gender studies, such a claim seems outlandish, even paranoid: in their minds the Pessin business had nothing to do with jihad or Islamism, but everything to do with human rights, dignity, and democracy. They may genuinely believe as much, however, and still be useful dupes in service to those with different priorities.

Anyone familiar with Islamist [tactics] would see the Pessin affair as a major success across the board. Consider: it served up extensive cooperation between the global jihadist right and the global progressive left, all in the name of a common revolutionary desire to transform the nascent global community and oppose U.S. imperialism. It bonded the [the two groups] over their shared view of Israel as the Antichrist, the apocalyptic enemy in the battle for world salvation. Destroy Israel for World Peace!

Read more at American Interest

More about: Anti-Zionism, Islamism, Israel & Zionism, Israel on campus, University

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF