A common theme of today’s anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. is the notion that Israelis are European (i.e., “white”) colonizers oppressing the non-European (i.e., “brown”) indigenous Palestinian Arabs. Such a framing of the conflict reduces it to racial terms familiar to most American, with clear moral valences. But, as Hen Mazzig notes, it has little connection to reality:

Only about 30 percent of Israeli Jews are of solely Ashkenazi (i.e., European) descent. . . . Jews that were expelled from nations across the Middle East have been crucial in building and defending the Jewish state since its outset. Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, was established . . . for all Jews, from every part of the world—the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia, Asia and, yes, Europe. No matter where Jews have physically resided, they have maintained a connection to the land of Israel, where our story started and where today we continue to craft it.

The likes of the Women’s March activist Tamika Mallory, the Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, and, more recently, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib falsify reality in their discussions of Palestinians’ “intersectional” struggle [which implies an inextricable tie to racial grievances in the U.S.], their use of the term “apartheid” to characterize Israeli policy, and their tendency to define Israelis as Ashkenazi Jews alone.

I believe their misrepresentations are part of a strategic campaign to taint Israel as an extension of “privileged” and powerful white Europe, thereby justifying any and all attacks on it. This way of thinking signals a dangerous trend that positions Israel as a colonialist aggressor rather than a haven for those fleeing oppression. [And], it [entirely ignores] the story of my family, which came to Israel from Iraq and Tunisia. . . .

Israel is a place where an indigenous people have reclaimed their land and revived their ancient language, despite being surrounded by hostile neighbors and hounded by radicalized Arab nationalists who cannot tolerate any political entity in the region other than their own. Jews that were expelled from nations across the Middle East, who sacrificed all they had, have been crucial in building and defending the Jewish state since its outset.

Earlier this month, an operative working for, or in conjunction with, Hizballah snuck across the Israel-Lebanese border and planted a sophisticated explosive near the town of Megiddo, which killed a civilian when detonated. On Thursday, another Iranian proxy group launched a drone at a U.S. military base in Syria, killing a contractor and wounding five American soldiers. The former attack appears to be an attempt to change what Israeli officials and analysts call the “rules of the game”: the mutually understood redlines that keep the Jewish state and Hizballah from going to war. Nadav Pollak explains how he believes Jerusalem should respond:

Israel cannot stop at pointing fingers and issuing harsh statements. The Megiddo attack might have caused much more damage given the additional explosives and other weapons the terrorist was carrying; even the lone device detonated at Megiddo could have easily been used to destroy a larger target such as a bus. Moreover, Hizballah’s apparent effort to test (or shift) Jerusalem’s redlines on a dangerous frontier needs to be answered. If [the terrorist group’s leader Hassan] Nasrallah has misjudged Israel, then it is incumbent on Jerusalem to make this clear.

Unfortunately, the days of keeping the north quiet at any cost have passed, especially if Hizballah no longer believes Israel is willing to respond forcefully. The last time the organization perceived Israel to be weak was in 2006, and its resultant cross-border operations (e.g., kidnapping Israeli soldiers) led to a war that proved to be devastating, mostly to Lebanon. If Hizballah tries to challenge Israel again, Israel should be ready to take strong action such as targeting the group’s commanders and headquarters in Lebanon—even if this runs the risk of intense fire exchanges or war.

Relevant preparations for this option should include increased monitoring of Hizballah officials—overtly and covertly—and perhaps even the transfer of some military units to the north. Hizballah needs to know that Israel is no longer shying away from conflict, since this may be the only way of forcing the group to return to the old, accepted rules of the game and step down from the precipice of a war that it does not appear to want.