Some of the anti-Israel activists causing so much disorder on American college campuses picked up their ideas from their professors, others from friends. But some students likely arrive as freshman already firm in their hostility toward the Jewish state—quite possibly because of what they’ve learned in high school, or even earlier. Hannah Meyers describes a “Curriculum Share for Palestine” in which teachers at New York City public middle schools explained how “to teach students to despise Zionism.” The organizers’ opening statement made their agenda clear:

“As educators committed to doing our part in the fight for Palestinian liberation,” [they explained], “let’s remember struggles are interconnected.” Then, participants received a list of acceptable emotions for engaging in the discussion. You can only ask questions that “come from” the right place and you must “understand that anti-Zionism is NOT anti-Semitism.” As it unfolded, the meeting’s brainstorming was not actually about curricula in the traditional sense; rather, participating teachers strategized on how to connect children’s feelings to ordained feelings about Zionism.

One teacher, Meyers reports, proudly explained that she sees it as her duty “to help the twelve-year-old boy who’s an amazing kid, whose parents identify as strongly Zionist, to understand why the ideology is both harmful and offensive to others.” Meyers also notes another tendency evident in addition to the naked politicization of teaching, namely the emphasis on emotion, a broader trend that is creating “a generation of young people who cannot reason from data” and who are “taught that to do so is racist and lacks empathy.”

In a sense, the most successful negotiation with Hamas was the recent agreement securing the release of Edan Alexander, the last living hostage with a U.S. passport. Unlike those previously handed over, he wasn’t exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and there was no cease-fire. Dan Diker explains what Hamas got out of the deal:

Alexander’s unconditional release [was] designed to legitimize Hamas further as a viable negotiator and to keep Hamas in power, particularly at a moment when Israel is expanding its military campaign to conquer Gaza and eliminate Hamas as a military, political, and civil power. Israel has no other option than defeating Hamas. Hamas’s “humanitarian” move encourages American pressure on Israel to end its counterterrorism war in service of advancing additional U.S. efforts to release hostages over time, legitimizing Hamas while it rearms, resupplies, and reestablishes it military power and control.

In fact, Hamas-affiliated media have claimed credit for successful negotiations with the U.S., branding the release of Edan Alexander as the “Edan deal,” portraying Hamas as a rising international player, sidelining Israel from direct talks with DC, and declaring this a “new phase in the conflict.”

Fortunately, however, Washington has not coerced Jerusalem into ceasing the war since Alexander’s return. Nor, Diker observes, did the deal drive a wedge between the two allies, despite much speculation about the possibility.