Anyone who follows the online discourse of Israel-haters will find that, every once in a while—and far less frequently than one might hope—one will chastise another for engaging in the most naked forms of anti-Semitism. The chastiser will usually point out that it “hurts the movement” to put such bigotry on display. David Schraub wonders if it really does:

Anti-Semitism is one of the most powerful mobilizing forces the world has ever seen; it would be stunning if it did not provide at least some help to any movement that managed to harness it successfully. To the extent Americans can be persuaded that Jewish nationalism is why the U.S. doesn’t have good healthcare, that’s very likely to make more Americans anti-Zionist and so benefit anti-Zionism as a movement. It would be, when you think about, far too convenient that “opposing anti-Semitism” only entails opposing things that already hurt the movement—that’s a cost-free action. The trouble comes when opposing anti-Semitism means actually forgoing useful tactics and ceding promising opportunities—but that’s where the rubber hits the road.

The suggestion that Americans don’t have good healthcare because of Israel isn’t a theoretical one. Here Schraub has in mind a social-media post from one Rupa Marya, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who believes that the “presence of Zionism in U.S. medicine should be examined as a structural impediment to health equity.” This sentiment has emerged as a frequent calumny of the anti-Semitic left in the past few weeks. Marya later complained about the “trolls who cannot have a substantive debate about Zionist ideology” and thus engage in “ad-hominem attacks” by calling her an anti-Semite. Schraub describes this response as an

almost reflexive treatment of “anti-Semitism” not as a subject or component of “substantive debate” but as an obstacle to it. This invariably occurs in tandem with the speaker demanding absolute free rein to open fire on Zionism as racist and white-supremacist and colonialist and apartheid and genocidal. We must have an open debate on the merits about those important allegations! But not so “open” that “anti-Semitism” can be part of the discussion.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.