With the Middle East engulfed in war, Israel has sought to stay uninvolved in the turmoil while keeping its borders reasonably secure. Moshe Yaalon, who served until recently as Israel’s defense minister, and previously as the IDF chief of staff, discusses Jerusalem’s current approach to the region, including its policy of nonintervention in “internal Arab conflicts,” its response to terror, and its pursuit and maintenance of alliances with Sunni states not dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In his view, the greatest threat to Israel remains the Iranian nuclear program, and he urges the U.S. to take a stronger stance against the Islamic Republic. (Interview by Robert Satloff. Video, 92 minutes. A summary is available at the link below.)

To Peter Berkowitz, the rot in American institutions of higher learning exposed by Tuesday’s hearings resembles a disease that in its early stages was easy to cure but difficult to diagnose, and now is so advanced that it is easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. Recent analyses of these problems have now at last made it to the pages of the New York Times but are, he writes, “tardy by several decades,” and their suggested remedies woefully inadequate:

They fail to identify the chief problem. They ignore the principal obstacles to reform. They propose reforms that provide the equivalent of band-aids for gaping wounds and shattered limbs. And they overlook the mainstream media’s complicity in largely ignoring, downplaying, or dismissing repeated warnings extending back a quarter century and more—largely, but not exclusively, from conservatives—that our universities undermine the public interest by attacking free speech, eviscerating due process, and hollowing out and politicizing the curriculum.

The remedy, Berkowitz argues, would be turning universities into places that cultivate, encourage, and teach freedom of thought and speech. But doing so seems unlikely:

Having undermined respect for others and the art of listening by presiding over—or silently acquiescing in—the curtailment of dissenting speech for more than a generation, the current crop of administrators and professors seems ill-suited to fashion and implement free-speech training. Moreover, free speech is best learned not by didactic lectures and seminars but by practicing it in the reasoned consideration of competing ideas with those capable of challenging one’s assumptions and arguments. But where are the professors who can lead such conversations? Which faculty members remain capable of understanding their side of the argument because they understand the other side?