After the determinedly anti-Israel congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib introduced a resolution defending the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction the Jewish state (BDS), Speaker Nancy Pelosi and more mainstream Democrats responded with a resolution condemning BDS—which was passed by a crushing bipartisan majority. Jonathan Tobin warns, however, that this victory over anti-Semitism may be only a temporary one:

The House had an opportunity to deal decisively with this issue earlier this year when both Omar and Tlaib made anti-Semitic statements in which they accused American Jews of dual loyalty to Israel and stated that supporters of the Jewish state had bought Congress. . . . [T]hat should have been enough to motivate Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership to strip the pair of their committee assignments and to pass a resolution rebuking them by name. But with the very vocal Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others on the left springing to their defense, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats were cowed into backing down.

Rather than being isolated, Omar and Tlaib became the darlings of the mainstream media, as well as fodder for late-night shows where they were given laudatory coverage and fawning interviews. Their undeserved status as popular heroines was only enhanced when earlier, this month, President Trump denounced the two congresswomen and suggested that they “go back where they came from.”

Had Pelosi chosen to let the House vote on the Senate’s [more muscular anti-BDS] bill, it’s likely that it, too, would have passed overwhelmingly. But loath to stand up to liberals who have bought into the false arguments about the Senate bill violating free-speech rights of BDS supporters, the only measure that she allowed to come to a vote was a resolution without any penalties for those who engage in the kind of discriminatory actions that should be considered just as illegal as bias rooted in race, sex, or sexual orientation.

[S]o long as Ocasio-Cortes, Omar, Tlaib, and others making egregious comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany are still being treated as the “future of the Democratic party”—in the words of the Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez—and benefiting from being the objects of Trump’s Twitter abuse, the BDS movement they support won’t be confined to the fever swamps of American politics.

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.