The wisdom of numerous pundits states that the upcoming Israeli elections are a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu. Not so, writes Elliott Abrams; they are a referendum on his chief rival.

Netanyahu has served as prime minister for ten years and been in politics for decades. He is a known quantity, and his poll numbers are not good. As Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher found out, ten years is a long time, and one builds up critics, opponents, and enemies. The public gets tired. There are almost inevitably scandals. A December survey “asked respondents whether they want Netanyahu to remain prime minister after the vote. Sixty percent said no.”

So why does this not mean that Netanyahu is done for, and that Isaac (“Buji”) Herzog will be the next PM? Because Israeli voters do not trust him—yet. Recent polls have shown that between 18 and 24 percent of Israelis are undecided—the swing voters who will decide the election. Though Herzog is fifty-four years old, is the son of Israel’s sixth president, has been in the Knesset since 2003, and has served as a cabinet minister several times, he’s not a well-known quantity. He has led his Labor party only since November 2013. One year ago, a third of Israeli voters knew little about him, and even now 20 percent “say they don’t have an opinion of him or have never heard of him,” according to the Times of Israel. That number will continue to decline as the election nears, but it is amazingly high for the man leading the main opposition party.

Israel is beset with security challenges: Iran and Hizballah have troops fighting in Syria, Islamic State spreads nearby, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is advancing, Hamas runs Gaza, and of course the administration in Washington is hostile to Israel while accommodating to Iran. For undecided Israeli voters the question is not “do I love Bibi,” it is “can I trust Buji to protect this country?”

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.