On International Holocaust Remembrance Day (January 27), the Canadian prime minister issued a politely anodyne public statement that somehow omitted any mention of Jews. Gil Troy, addressing Prime Minister Trudeau in an open letter, explains why this enraged so many of his Jewish constituents:

The key to understanding the Holocaust and to empathizing with those of us who felt excluded when you didn’t single the Jews out for sympathy is realizing that the Nazis singled us out for slaughter. Yes, they killed others, targeting dissidents, Communists, and gays. But . . . killing Jews . . . was central to their ideology, to their mission. It was “the war against the Jews,” not just an unjust war. It wasn’t any kind of evil. It was a specific evil, with a particular pathology and focus. . . .

This visibility-invisibility issue is playing out to our disadvantage again. Shortly after your statement, Israeli [security forces] killed three heavily armed Palestinian terrorists in mid-attack outside Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate. The terrorists had killed Hadar Cohen, a sweet nineteen-year-old who had just been drafted two months earlier to serve her country. Yet CBS News proclaimed (in a headline that was amended after complaints): “Three Palestinians killed as daily violence grinds on.” . . .

It’s not “daily violence” that both sides provoke equally. It’s not Palestinians being killed as part of some routine. It’s Palestinian terrorists hunting Jews. . . .

Please reassure freedom-lovers worldwide that while positioning Canada to be a constructive force for peace, you won’t succumb to the moral laziness of a pox-on-both-your-houses evenhandedness, failing to see who is guiltiest for perpetuating this conflict.

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.