Given the increasing prevalence of fanatical hatred of Israel at American universities, it’s hard to be surprised by the Harvard Crimson’s recent editorial endorsing the movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction the Jewish state (BDS). But why now? Dara Horn writes:

I had to hand it to the Crimson for timing, given that the editorial followed several weeks of terror attacks in Israel during which fifteen people were stabbed, shot, and car-rammed to death while engaging in such provocative behaviors as drinking at a bar or walking down the street. . . . Why after these events, one might ask, would these Harvard students change their position now?

Well, one might ask that if one knew nothing about how college students think. The editorial made clear that the editors were inspired less by events overseas than by events in front of students’ noses—specifically, a billboard-sized mural created by Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. Its prominent placement in Harvard Yard meant that its contents were forced onto the eyeballs of every undergraduate on campus for a week, and it was apparently quite inspiring.

Fifteen years ago, Horn observes, such murals were filled with information, even if it was “presented in a tendentious fashion and frequently featured obvious distortions.” The current anti-Israel display at Harvard is different:

I naively expected those old-school panels of facts and figures, interspersed, as usual, with paintings of doves. . . . Instead, I saw a propaganda mural that would have been at home in any Middle Eastern authoritarian state, where it would have been painted by government lackeys to illustrate classic talking points that openly genocidal groups like Hamas, Hizballah, and their state sponsors in Iran have been pushing to local and Western audiences for years.

And such propaganda isn’t especially concerned with fine distinctions between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. Neither are the students at Rutgers who routinely throw eggs at Jewish fraternity members publicly commemorating the Holocaust. Horn found something similar during a visit to the University of California, Santa Cruz:

Two weeks before my visit, the school’s student government had voted down a resolution against anti-Semitism. Once the students had resolved that they were not against anti-Semitism, they apparently decided that they were in favor of anti-Semitism. This became clear four days before my visit to campus, when multiple university buildings were vandalized with spray-painted images of swastikas and nooses. . . . I asked the professor hosting me whether these passionate artists were students, or perhaps people from the town.

“Oh, we definitely think they were students,” my host told me. What made her think so, I asked.

“Because,” she explained, “we found the empty spray paint cans in the recycling bin.”

What are your politics? Kill the Jews, save the turtles.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.