During her thirteen years as director of a prominent British civil-liberties organization, Shami Chakrabarti never gave the impression “that she had any solution to the problem of Islamic terror—or even that she viewed it as particularly perilous,” writes Jonathan Neumann. She left that position earlier this year to chair the Labor party’s inquiry into anti-Semitism in its ranks, producing a report incapable even of acknowledging the pervasiveness of the disease. And then, Neumann writes, there is also the appearance of impropriety:

To remind you of the chronology: Labor’s Baroness Royall was tasked with investigating anti-Semitism at the Oxford University Labor Club after one of its chairs resigned in disgust at the club’s “problem with Jews.” The party leadership suppressed Royall’s report, and invited Chakrabarti to produce a more wide-ranging one on anti-Semitism “and other forms of racism” within the Labor party. This report was meant to be independent, but, for reasons that would soon become clear, Chakrabarti decided to join the party beforehand. Royall was enlisted as a deputy to this new inquiry, which, it was anticipated, would incorporate her report in full. It did not.

Chakrabarti defended the decision by noting that Royall’s report referenced individual students, whose names it wouldn’t be appropriate to publish. Royall, by now regally fed up, leaked her report. The only student mentioned by name was the one whose resignation prompted the report in the first place.

The Chakrabarti inquiry declared that Labor was “not overrun by anti-Semitism,” a conclusion undermined by the report’s release at a chaotic press conference that saw the party leader compare the Jewish state to Islamic State and one of his . . . lackeys oblige a Jewish Labor MP to leave the room in tears—all while [Jeremy] Corbyn and [Chakrabarti] delivered their remarks behind a sign saying “Standing Up Not Standing By.” The report was a whitewash.

Following a cringe-worthy interview on a Jewish channel where Chakrabarti childishly evaded questions about whether she had been offered a peerage, it was announced that she was indeed receiving one. From Jeremy Corbyn. Who had said he wouldn’t be nominating anyone to the Lords.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.