In 2011, the U.S. ceased its funding for the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in response to the group’s recognition of a “state of Palestine.” In 2018 it withdrew from UNESCO completely. The White House is reportedly considering a reversal of both decisions, and urging Israel to follow suit. Alan Baker, Wade Ze’ev Gittleson, and Lea Bilke argue against doing so:

Rejoining UNESCO would be perceived to be an acknowledgment of Palestinian efforts to achieve statehood outside the framework of negotiations with Israel, [in violation of the Oslo Accords]. . . . Consequently, the United States and Israel, by rejoining the organization and thereby indirectly acknowledging a Palestinian state, [would] send the message to the Palestinians that they don’t have to fulfil their Oslo Accords obligation to negotiate with Israel to realize their ambitions, decreasing the likelihood of negotiations and consequently extending and exacerbating the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

UNESCO passed a total of 47 resolutions between 2009 and 2014, 46 of which were directed against Israel and only one against Syria. None of these resolutions made any reference to human-rights, educational, and cultural violations by the likes of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Islamic State, or any of the other culturally destructive regimes in the world.

Consequently, rejoining UNESCO at this point would be considered to be sanctioning UNESCO’s own neglect of its functions and purposes, namely “the contribution to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science, and culture,” as set out in Article 1 of its Constitution.

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.