Every few hours for the past several days, there has been some new morsel of news about the ceasefire negotiations, their chances of success, and the remaining bones of contention. Among them it seems is Israel’s continued control of the Philadelphi Corridor, the border strip between Gaza and Egypt, which since 2007 has been the main conduit of arms to Hamas. Ariel Kahana explains that withdrawing from the corridor, under which the IDF has located dozens of smuggling tunnels, before Hamas is defeated would be tantamount to “reviving” the terrorist group.

David M. Weinberg, meanwhile, examines the risks of a ceasefire even if it doesn’t involve such major concessions—and the cruel dilemma Israel faces:

According to government sources, the deal currently under discussion between Israel and Hamas would see between 500 and 1,000 Palestinian terrorists, 100 of them considered “heavy” terrorists (i.e., bloodthirsty butchers), released from Israeli jails in exchange for 22 live Israeli hostages, mainly women and other civilians, alongside the bodies of another dozen deceased hostages.

Some Israelis will argue that the IDF can be sent back continuously to crush Hamas in Gaza after the deal is done (although manifestly, this will not be possible given inevitable diplomatic restraints).

The released terrorists assuredly will strike again, with God-only-knows how many Israeli casualties in the future. . . . I know this to be a fact because this has been the case with every previous terrorist release. Israel repeatedly has erred by letting terrorists loose to murder more Israelis. And each time, in advance of every deal, the Israeli security establishment . . . assured Israeli politicians and the public that it “would know how to manage the situation,” i.e., how to track the terrorists and crush any nascent return to terrorist activity without too much harm done.

But this has never proved to be true. Every deal involving the release of terrorists has led to much bloodshed, planned and carried out by these released terrorists.

In October, a young Mauritanian national murdered an Orthodox Jewish man on his way to synagogue in Chicago. This alone should be sufficient sign of the rising dangers of anti-Semitism. Nathan Diament explains how the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) can, if passed, make American Jews safer:

We were off to a promising start when the AAA sailed through the House of Representatives in the spring by a generous vote of 320 to 91, and 30 senators from both sides of the aisle jumped to sponsor the Senate version. Then the bill ground to a halt.

Fearful of antagonizing their left-wing activist base and putting vulnerable senators on the record, especially right before the November election, Democrats delayed bringing the AAA to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, the election is over, but the political games continue.

You can’t combat anti-Semitism if you can’t—or won’t—define it. Modern anti-Semites hide their hate behind virulent anti-Zionism. . . . The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act targets this loophole by codifying that the Department of Education must use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in its application of Title VI.