Shortly after the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced their normalization of relations, the Chinese foreign minister expressed opposition to peace deals between Israel and the Gulf states, calling instead for the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and the creation of a mechanism for “collective security” in the Middle East. Addressing the UN Security Council in October, Wang backed down somewhat, instead making vague appeals to “good neighborliness” and promoting stability “without the intervention of biased non-Gulf players.” Tuvia Gering comments:

China views Donald Trump’s [diplomacy] in the Middle East and the recent breakthroughs in the Gulf as limiting its influence. . . . China seeks a multipolar alternative that challenges the Western-led “traditional security concept” enabled by “American hegemony” and [wishes] to replace it with a Chinese-led “shared security concept.”

Specifically, Beijing continues to support the Iran deal and reject sanctions against the Islamic Republic. China is expected to encourage the incoming Biden administration to rejoin the nuclear deal and end Trump’s strategy of “maximum pressure.”

For China, a U.S. military presence is necessary for keeping the Gulf calm, but the [Biden] administration’s skepticism of Egypt and Saudi Arabia (relating mainly to human rights) could force these countries to extend cooperation with their “comprehensive strategic partner,” China, in fields other than economy and trade. . . . Israel must do everything in its power to raise its concerns with the new administration in this regard. It would be a mistake to engage Iran at the expense of American regional security partners. Doing so would boost China’s foray into the region and undermine the positive momentum of the Abraham Accords.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.