The acclaimed Irish writer Sally Rooney, whose 2018 novel Normal People was adapted as a television series by the BBC, recently rejected an Israeli publisher’s offer to bring out a Hebrew edition of her most latest book, citing her antipathy to the Jewish state. (She has not expressed any objections to her book being published in China, or any other country.) Erika Dreifus sees a lesson to be learned from a previous case of literary anti-Semitism, involving no less a figure than Charles Dickens. A recent children’s book by Nancy Churnin recounts this episode:

Eliza Davis (1817-1903) refused to be daunted when writing to the famous author, whose portrayal of “the Jew Fagin” in Oliver Twist landed “like a hammer on [her] heart,” as Churnin describes it. . . . Quoting the correspondence, Churnin conveys Davis’s message: Fagin “encouraged ‘a vile prejudice’” against her people. . . . In response, Dickens declared that Fagin was based on real-life Jewish criminals. . . .  Davis tried again; evidently, Dickens didn’t write back.

But the Jewish character in his next novel—the estimable Mr. Riah in Our Mutual Friend—was no Fagin.

While Fagin is a gangster who seduces children into a life of crime, Riah is a moneylender made into a scapegoat by his villainous Gentile boss—and in the book’s denouement proves his kindness and generosity.

After that novel appeared, Davis thanked Dickens for “a great compliment paid to myself and to my people.” This time, Dickens responded much more warmly. He went further, notably in a magazine essay in which he referred to Jews as “an earnest, methodical, aspiring people” and in changes to a subsequent printing of Oliver Twist, when he instructed the printer to remove many instances in which he referred to “the Jew” and to use Fagin’s name instead.

Eliza Davis’s reaction to Dickens’s words—her sense of betrayal by an admired author whose compassion somehow didn’t extend to Jews—mirrors my own increasingly frequent experience. . . . I don’t expect “great compliments to me and to my people” from authorial idols and colleagues. . . . All I’m seeking is fairness—and freedom from vile prejudice.

Below, today’s newsletter will return to some other reflections on the one-year anniversary of the outbreak of the current war, but first something must be said of its recent progress. Israel has kept up its aerial and ground assault on Hizballah, and may have already killed the successor to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader it eliminated less than two weeks ago. Matthew Levitt assesses the current state of the Lebanon-based terrorist group, which, in his view, is now “a shadow of its former self.” Indeed, he adds,

it is no exaggeration to say that the Hizballah of two weeks ago no longer exists. And since Hizballah was the backbone of Iran’s network of militant proxies, its so-called axis of resistance, Iran’s strategy of arming and deploying proxy groups throughout the region is suddenly at risk as well.

Hizballah’s attacks put increasing pressure on Israel, as intended, only that pressure did not lead Israelis to stop targeting Hamas so much as it chipped away at Israel’s fears about the cost of military action to address the military threats posed by Hizballah.

At the same time, Levitt explains, Hizballah still poses a serious threat, as it demonstrated last night when its missiles struck Haifa and Tiberias, injuring at least two people:

Hizballah still maintains an arsenal of rockets and a cadre of several thousand fighters. It will continue to pose potent military threats for Israel, Lebanon, and the wider region.

How will the group seek to avenge Nasrallah’s death amid these military setbacks? Hizballah is likely to resort to acts of international terrorism, which are overseen by one of the few elements of the group that has not yet lost key leaders.

But the true measure of whether the group will be able to reconstitute itself, even over many years, is whether Iran can restock Hizballah’s sophisticated arsenal. Tehran’s network of proxy groups—from Hizballah to Hamas to the Houthis—is only as dangerous as it is today because of Iran’s provision of weapons and money. Whatever Hizballah does next, Western governments must prioritize cutting off Tehran’s ability to arm and fund its proxies.