In recent weeks, Manhattan’s Center for Jewish History and its affiliate, the American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS), have been tangled in controversies involving to what extent Jewish communal institutions should support those who object to the state of Israel’s existence. Jonathan Tobin weighs in on two of these:

The problems began with criticism of the appointment of the UCLA historian David Myers as the president and CEO of the Center for Jewish History. Myers is a man of the left, a supporter of J Street and the New Israel Fund, and this prompted a furious response from the Zionist right. . . . I have little sympathy for his politics and question [his] judgment, . . . [but] so long as Myers, a respected academic, sticks to his job of promoting the study and understanding of Jewish history, there is no reason to take issue with his appointment.

But to table the kerfuffle over Myers is not the same thing as declaring that lines should never be drawn. The American Jewish Historical Society . . . illustrated this [point] by co-sponsoring a panel to commemorate next month’s centennial of the Balfour Declaration organized by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), where the featured speakers would be a Palestinian critic of Zionism alongside a Jewish one. When the egregious nature of this program was pointed out to the AJHS, it promptly canceled the event as well as an upcoming reading of a play by a JVP supporter.

Predictably, this [decision] prompted a new wave of criticism, this time from the left, which accused the AJHS of “silencing” Jewish dissent and overreacting to the Myers controversy. . . . That sounds reasonable to Jews who see the drawing of lines—especially with respect to debate about Israel—as unacceptable in 21st-century American life. But . . . it is a dangerous mistake to think Jewish institutions should welcome or sponsor those who effectively advocate waging war on Israel and the Jewish people.

For me the line of demarcation is easy to define. Those who may oppose the policies of Israel’s government but support Zionism . . . deserve a hearing even if we disagree with their views. Those—like JVP—who deny the right of the Jewish people to a state and its right of self-defense are on the wrong side of the line. . . . A community that believes inclusion is the only value is one that ultimately stands for nothing.

Yesterday, the beepers used by hundreds of Hizballah operatives were detonated. Noah Rothman puts this ingenious attack in the context of the overall war between Israel and the Iran-backed terrorist group:

[W]hile the disabling of an untold number of Hizballah operatives is remarkable, it’s also ominous. This week, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant told reporters that the hour is nearing when Israeli forces will have to confront Iran’s cat’s-paw in southern Lebanon directly, in order to return the tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their homes along Lebanon’s border under fire and have not yet been able to return. Today’s operation may be a prelude to the next phase of Israel’s defensive war, a dangerous one in which the IDF will face off against an enemy with tens of thousands of fighters and over 150,000 rockets and missiles trained on Israeli cities.

Seth Frantzman, meanwhile, focuses on the specific damage the pager bombings have likely done to Hizballah:

This will put the men in hospital for a period of time. Some of them can go back to serving Hizballah, but they will not have access to one of their hands. These will most likely be their dominant hand, meaning the hand they’d also use to hold the trigger of a rifle or push the button to launch a missile.

Hizballah has already lost around 450 fighters in its eleven-month confrontation with Israel. This is a significant loss for the group. While Hizballah can replace losses, it doesn’t have an endlessly deep [supply of recruits]. This is not only because it has to invest in training and security ahead of recruitment, but also because it draws its recruits from a narrow spectrum of Lebanese society.

The overall challenge for Hizballah is not just replacing wounded and dead fighters. The group will be challenged to . . . roll out some other way to communicate with its men. The use of pagers may seem archaic, but Hizballah apparently chose to use this system because it assumed the network could not be penetrated. . . . It will also now be concerned about the penetration of its operational security. When groups like Hizballah are in chaos, they are more vulnerable to making mistakes.