It’s a story all too familiar from European history, from 12th-century England to 20th-century Russia: a non-Jewish child goes missing or is found dead, and what is in fact a tragic accident is blamed on the Jews. Mob violence ensues. A week ago, this familiar pattern repeated itself when an eight-year-old Arab boy went missing in Jerusalem. The next day he was found dead, apparently having drowned in a pond. But by that time, rumors had spread—with help from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib—that Jews had kidnapped and murdered him. Aaron Kliegman writes:

Acting on this unsubstantiated claim, Palestinians searching for the boy marched toward a nearby Jewish neighborhood, believing its residents had kidnapped him. Demonstrators threw rocks at police, who blocked the mob from entering the neighborhood. Ultimately, twelve people were injured and three protesters arrested.

The rumors of kidnap and murder spread on social media. A Twitter account named “Real Seif Bitar” tweeted that Abu Ramila was “kidnapped and executed” by a “herd of violent Israeli settlers,” who assaulted him and threw his body in a well. The Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi retweeted these allegations. . . . And then, Rashida Tlaib retweeted Ashrawi, sharing the vicious lies with her nearly one million followers.

Once authorities concluded the boy had likely slipped and drowned, . . . Tlaib deleted her retweet. But she never apologized, and despite her self-serving acknowledgement a few days later, her followers may still think Jews murdered Abu Ramila.

Whether it’s Israelis supposedly wantonly murdering Palestinian children or medieval Jews drinking the blood of Christian children—the effect of these libels is the same: poisoning public opinion against the Jewish people and stoking the oldest hatred. And while Tlaib may believe she is speaking truth to power when she makes false claims about Israel and Jews, responsible people in her party must hold her accountable for spreading misinformation and propping up illegitimate claims without scrutiny.

Examining the effects of Iran’s decision to launch nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, Benny Morris takes stock of the Jewish state’s strategic situation:

The massive Iranian attack has turned what began as a local war in and around the Gaza Strip and then expanded into a Hamas–Hizballah–Houthi–Israeli war [into] a regional war with wide and possibly calamitous international repercussions.

Before the Iranians launched their attack, Washington warned Tehran to desist (“don’t,” in President Biden’s phrase), and Israel itself had reportedly cautioned the Iranians secretly that such an attack would trigger a devastating Israeli counterstrike. But a much-humiliated Iran went ahead, nonetheless.

For Israel, the way forward seems to lie in an expansion of the war—in the north or south or both—until the country attains some sort of victory, or a diplomatic settlement is reached. A “victory” would mean forcing Hizballah to cease fire in exchange, say, for a cessation of the IDF bombing campaign and withdrawal to the international border, or forcing Iran, after suffering real pain from IDF attacks, to cease its attacks and rein in its proxies: Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

At the same time, writes Morris, a victory along such lines would still have its limits:

An IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a cessation of Israeli air-force bombing would result in Hizballah’s resurgence and its re-investment of southern Lebanon down to the border. Neither the Americans nor the French nor the UN nor the Lebanese army—many of whose troops are Shiites who support Hizballah—would fight them.