Sunday and Monday saw an unusual exchange of fire between Israel and its enemies in Syria: first because the IDF struck its targets during the daytime rather than at night, and second because of the intense response from Iran and its allies, which included launching a missile at the Mount Hermon ski resort. These attacks come in the context of Jerusalem’s new willingness to claim responsibility for its strikes on Iranian targets in Syria. Considering Israeli strategy in this ongoing low-grade conflict, Ron Tira stresses the importance of not simply eliminating particular targets but of deterring Iran in its quest to transform Syria into the new front line of its war on the Jewish state:

The establishment of a network of precision missiles by Iran and Hizballah on Israel’s borders could give [the two] the ability to deliver a paralyzing blow against [Israeli] civil and military systems, causing enormous damage and changing the strategic equation in the theater. To be sure, this threat is not as severe as [that of a hostile power acquiring nuclear weapons], but neither is it akin to the threat posed by a buildup of weapons intended for warfare between armies or of [imprecise] weapons aimed at the home front. This is a new category of threat, and because of its severity, the overarching response must be one of prevention rather than of delay, containment, preemptive strike, or active and passive defense. . . .

In order to achieve prevention, Israel’s goals must be twofold. First, it must force the relevant actors to change their policy. Iran and Hizballah must suspend or abandon their drive to establish a network of precision weapons on Israel’s border, and the Syrian regime and Russia must actively oppose any further such efforts by Iran and Hizballah. Second, Israel must continue to deter any renewed attempts by Iran and Hizballah for the long term. . . .

Accordingly, . . . Israel must demonstrate to its enemies the potential for escalation and regional instability caused by the positioning of high-quality Iranian weapons in Syria. . . . It must also continue attacks despite increased risks and resistance. . . . If properly handled, the growing friction with the Syrian regime . . . could actually help to implement the strategy described above. The direct military hostilities with Iran (such as the events of February 10 and May 10, 2018 and January 21, 2019) in Israel’s backyard, over 900 miles from Tehran, [takes place in an area] where Israel has a clear advantage. Perhaps, therefore, [Iranian and Syrian retaliation and escalation] is not a risk to be avoided but rather an advantage to be exploited.

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.