On October 10, an instructor at Stanford University, in two separate classes, singled out Jewish and Israeli students as colonizers and oppressors. The instructor was suspended, but Peter Berkowitz asks how it is possible that, in our age of sensitivity, one of America’s most prestigious universities hired someone who thought such conduct would be acceptable:

The suspended Stanford instructor’s proselytizing reflects a powerful pedagogical creed within the American educational system. Throughout the nation, teachers indoctrinate students to believe that the crucial categories for understanding America in particular and Western civilization in general are variations on the theme of oppressor and oppressed: colonizer and colonized, subjugator and subjugated, villain and victim.

These vulgar binaries force students to place themselves—and cram the rest of humanity—into one of two mutually antagonistic camps. They obviate the need to study the evidence of science, the intricacies of history, the subtleties of literature, and the arguments of philosophy because they render the good guys and the bad guys fixed and unalterable. And they foster ignorance, self-righteousness, and intolerance.

Unfortunately, the fostering of intolerance within the American education system extends well beyond universities; . . . in the name of inclusivity and under the rubric of ethnic studies, K-12 schools teach students to understand life in America primarily in terms of oppression manufactured by America’s privileged to maintain their power. For instance, . . .  James Logan High School in California offered a course in ethnic studies and social justice that aimed “to teach students to challenge and criticize ‘power, oppression, capitalism, white supremacy, imperialism, colonialism.’”

These curricula always rank Jews as among the oppressor, not the oppressed.

Before exploding electronics in Lebanon seized the attention of the Israeli public, debate there had focused on the Philadelphi Corridor—the strip of land between Gaza and Egypt—and whether the IDF can afford to withdraw from it. Egypt has opposed Israeli control of the corridor, which is crucial to Hamas’s supply lines, and Egyptian objections likely prevented Israel from seizing it earlier in the war. Yet, argues Mariam Wahba, Egypt in the long run only stands to lose by letting Hamas use the corridor, and has proved incapable of effectively sealing it off:

Ultimately, this moment presents an opportunity for the United States to hold Egypt’s feet to the fire.

To press Cairo, the United States should consider conditioning future aid on Cairo’s willingness to cooperate. This should include a demand for greater transparency and independent oversight to verify Egyptian claims about the tunnels. Congress ought to hold hearings to understand better Egypt’s role and its compliance as a U.S. ally. Despite Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s nine trips to the Middle East since the start of the war, there has been little clarity on how Egypt intends to fulfill its role as a mediator.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns, Egypt is undermining its own interests, prolonging the war in Gaza, and further destabilizing its relationship with Jerusalem. It is time for Egyptian leaders either to admit their inability to secure the border and seek help from Israel and America, or to risk being perceived as enablers of Hamas and its terrorist campaign.