Apparently just mentioning the word “Palestinian” can get a medical-school class canceled, at least if the professor doing the mentioning is Jewish. Sheldon Rubenfeld, in a course he has taught at Baylor University’s medical school for the past twenty years, routinely cites his own experience helping a suicidal Palestinian to illustrate the need for physicians to set aside their own political biases. Last spring, this example caused an unexpected reaction:

[T]wo Baylor faculty members informed me that a student in this lecture filed an “anonymous grievance” because the student “felt uncomfortable.” They offered almost no specifics other than my use of the word “Palestinian” and said that the course could be canceled if students filed additional anonymous grievances. A faculty member from Baylor’s Center for Professionalism then told me that the policy of anonymous grievances is based on the school’s belief that medical students are a “vulnerable population.” . . . A few weeks later, the course was canceled.

But that is only one symptom of a much deeper problem, Rubenfeld explains:

Students at elite universities now engaging in protests that oppose Israel’s existence and call for violence against Jews will bring their anti-Semitism with them to medical school, where this or any other of their harmful biases are unlikely to be challenged.

Since October 7, we have seen confirmation that anti-Semitism has crept into medicine. In social-media posts, Dana Diab, an emergency-room physician in New York City, applauded Hamas’s massacre as giving Israelis “a taste of their own medicine”; for this she was fired.

Unless DEI, which incubates anti-Semitism, is eliminated from medical education, the consequences for today’s patients, especially Jewish patients, could be grave. Medical educators must recall that the first responsibility of physicians is to do no harm to a truly vulnerable population: their patients.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.