In the spring of 2015, Andrew Pessin, a philosophy professor at Connecticut College, became the target of student and faculty activists over a Facebook post in which he compared Hamas to a rabid dog. The ensuing campaign of harassment—which began after he took down the post—eventually drove Pessin and his ailing wife from campus. In the recently published book Salem on the Thames, the historian Richard Landes has collected a number of essays, written mostly by other academics, about the affair. Reviewing the book, Jonathan Marks highlights the most chilling aspects of the events at Connecticut College:

What is surprising, even stunning, is that, in response to the controversy—and student pressure—academic department after academic department lined up to issue statements, some specifically mentioning the Facebook post, the others meaning to show themselves on the right side of the matter. Even the members of Pessin’s own philosophy department, while sweetening their letter by declaring their eagerness to welcome Pessin back into the fold, felt they had to denounce Pessin’s post as dehumanizing.

There were a handful of faculty dissenters, but one has the impression, adding to the disgrace, that students, on average, showed more courage than faculty. In the judgment of [one contributor to the volume], most faculty “signed their petitions because everyone else was doing it, too, and because there was an indistinct but definite apprehension that not signing would, as the saying goes, have consequences.”

The administration’s response was nearly as appalling. Pessin was urged not to defend himself. The adults would handle it. Yet the chief adult, [the college’s president], at a hastily-called open forum, praised the “valor” and “intellectual acuity” of the students who had, at best, egregiously mischaracterized Pessin’s comments. . . . There is more, much more, but perhaps it suffices to say that the student who set all this in motion received a Scholar Activist Award.

There is a missed opportunity here, for the Pessin case, well-documented here, is so over-the-top awful that it could be exhibit A for those seeking to persuade persuadable members of what Landes calls the “global academic community” that something is badly amiss. Although the case is worse than most I know of, I suspect many middle-of-the-road faculty members, with no stake in [the Israel-Palestinian conflict], can imagine such a thing happening on their campus or in their departments. By reflecting on the Pessin case, such faculty members might discover that they do, after all, have a stake.

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.