Last month, the former Illinois congressman Paul Findley died at the age of ninety-eight. For most of his 22-year career in the House of Representatives, he remained uninvolved in foreign policy, but in the late 1970s he paid a visit to South Yemen, during which he met some officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). He thereafter developed a reputation, which he himself embraced, as Yasir Arafat’s “best friend in Congress”—singularly focused on exposing the imagined evils of Israel. Jonathan Schanzer elaborates:

After Findley left office, however, things got far uglier. . . . In 1985, he authored They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby. In the book, updated and republished twice, Findley unleashed a torrent of venom toward Israel and its supporters, and lionized Israel’s detractors. He spoke disapprovingly of Jewish money, Jewish groups in Washington, Jewish groups on campus, Jewish congressmen, and Jewish influence. Findley claimed that the pro-Israel community had a stranglehold on congressional politics and American foreign policy. . . . Findley even lamented how the former president Jimmy Carter, no fan of Zionism, was “yielding to the lobby on relations with Israel.” All of these claims were not only false—they also veered into the realm of anti-Semitism.

Findley’s obsession with Israel’s alleged wrongdoing continued to deepen. . . . In 2002, he blamed the 9/11 attacks on Israel. [His] preoccupation with the supposed silencing of Israel’s critics is another distinctive feature of pathological opposition to Israel. He asserted: “On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out . . . were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.”

While most of this, especially the claims about “free speech,” can be found in the mouths of today’s congressional Israel-haters, Schanzer notes that much has also changed since Findley formed his opinions about the Jewish state. Then the Republican party was moving toward the solidly pro-Israel stance it is known for today, while Findley was a holdover of its more pro-Arab wing.

Ilhan Omar, [by contrast], is riding the crest of a very different political wave. Democratic support for Israel has been dropping steadily in recent years. . . . And while there were some positive findings, [a recent] poll found that overall American support for Israel has fallen. As a result of the changes in American culture and attitudes, what used to be considered beyond the pale is slowly becoming mainstream. For Omar and her fellow travelers, this means that displaying overt animosity toward Israel comes at little to no cost. . . . Paul Findley would almost certainly have approved.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.