With the Israeli election over, it seems likely that before too long the White House will unveil its promised proposal for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Yossi Kuperwasser argues that, whatever the plan’s particulars, Jerusalem’s response should emphasize the “red lines” it will not and cannot cross. He elaborates:

[N]o lasting peace can be reached without: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, a security plan that leaves the Jordan valley under Israeli responsibility and allows the IDF to deal with threats from the West Bank, and an end to the indoctrination and incitement that inculcate support for terror and [reinforce the] Palestinians’ commitment to a state “from the river to the sea.”

If the Palestinians reject the plan, Israel together with the U.S. administration should continue conveying the message that there is a price for Palestinian intransigence. They should seek to . . . convince the Palestinians of the need to . . . accept the existence of a Jewish people that has a sovereign history in this disputed Holy Land [and also to] accept the need to share this land with them.

[Israel’s government must also] refrain from moving toward unilateral concessions disguised as “separation” from the Palestinians. This is a dangerous idea as it ignores the Palestinian narrative and may lead to greater Palestinian terror while simultaneously causing higher tensions within Israeli society.

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.