In an electronic referendum held in June and July, members of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) voted 2,016 to 835 for a resolution boycotting Israeli academic institutions. The resolution’s text and the debate surrounding it are all too typical of the movement in the universities to ostracize the Jewish state, its citizens, and its sympathizers. Miriam Elman and Raeefa Shams respond:

If the boycott is indeed implemented, the AAA will have devolved from an academic association ostensibly committed to open intellectual inquiry into an advocacy group mandating political and ideological orthodoxies. It will push away many of its own members who do not want to be associated with discriminatory policies, and it will face legal challenges for pursuing such policies, particularly in states with anti-BDS laws on the books.

In the meantime, anthropologists who wish to take a stance for academic freedom and against double standards have a range of options. They can reach out to senior administrators on their campuses to ensure that they maintain or even expand joint programs with Israeli institutions. They can present about contemporary Israel, Jewish identity, and anti-Semitism at conferences, providing AAA members the opportunity to hear new perspectives. They can encourage their campuses to disaffiliate from the AAA, and drop their own membership, as long as it continues its policy of boycotting Israeli institutions.

The passage of the boycott resolution at the AAA will unfortunately serve as inspiration for ideologues at other associations to pursue similar campaigns. It is up to responsible scholars to demonstrate that discrimination has consequences.

If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons, the war in Gaza, let alone the protests on college campuses, will seem like a minor complication. Jonathan Schachter fears that this danger could be much more imminent than decisionmakers in Jerusalem and Washington believe. In his view, Israel seems to be repeating the mistake that allowed it to be taken by surprise on Simchat Torah of 2023 and Yom Kippur of 1973: putting too much faith in an intelligence concept that could be wrong.

Israel and the United States apparently believe that despite Iran’s well-documented progress in developing capabilities necessary for producing and delivering nuclear weapons, as well as its extensive and ongoing record of violating its international nuclear obligations, there is no acute crisis because building a bomb would take time, would be observable, and could be stopped by force. Taken together, these assumptions and their moderating impact on Israeli and American policy form a new Iran concept reminiscent of its 1973 namesake and of the systemic failures that preceded the October 7 massacre.

Meanwhile, most of the restrictions put in place by the 2015 nuclear deal will expire by the end of next year, rendering the question of Iran’s adherence moot. And the forces that could be taking action aren’t:

The European Union regularly issues boilerplate press releases asserting its members’ “grave concern.” American decisionmakers and spokespeople have created the unmistakable impression that their reservations about the use of force are stronger than their commitment to use force to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to enforce its own sanctions comprehensively: Iranian oil exports (especially to China) and foreign-currency reserves have ballooned since January 2021, when the Biden administration took office.

Israel’s response has also been sluggish and ambiguous. Despite its oft-stated policy of never allowing a nuclear Iran, Israel’s words and deeds have sent mixed messages to allies and adversaries—perhaps inadvertently reinforcing the prevailing sense in Washington and elsewhere that Iran’s nuclear efforts do not present an exigent crisis.