In 2013, the Egyptian military launched a coup to seize power from an elected government affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and apparently bent on undermining democracy. Something like the same thing occurred in Turkey last week—except that there the coup was unsuccessful. But Egypt’s Islamists were watching closely, writes Eric Trager:

[Egyptian] Islamists believe that Erdogan’s victory can inspire [their country’s] various opposition movements to come together. “Perhaps this will lead revolutionaries inside and outside Egypt to unify around the goal of ending this coup,” Brotherhood leader Gamal Heshmat said in an interview. Other Brotherhood leaders suggested that Erdogan’s success indicates that no coup can last forever. And whenever Egypt’s current [military] regime falters, the Brotherhood intends to follow Erdogan’s example in quickly targeting enemies within the state.

Nor is the Egyptian Brotherhood the only Islamist group that, according to Jonathan Schanzer, has reason to be pleased with Erdogan’s restoration:

Turkey has never been fully committed to countering Islamic State. The Erdogan government has been more eager to topple the Assad regime in Syria. This position is understandable, given the atrocities Assad has committed. But, what is inexcusable is Turkey’s decision to allow its southeastern frontier to be exploited by Islamist fighters seeking to join the fray. Islamic State has undeniably benefited. . . .

For the past few weeks, it seemed that Turkey was ready to buckle down, particularly after the terror attack on Istanbul’s airport. But that was fleeting. Friday night’s coup attempt is now sure to pull Ankara into another protracted battle: the purge of domestic enemies.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.