The world of publishing has, over the course of the past year, revealed itself as even more deeply in the clutches of anti-Israel zeal than academia. Last month, the novelist, essayist, and short-story writer Elisa Albert was scheduled to appear on a panel at the Albany Book Festival. Beth Herman, a writer, essayist, and admirer of Albert’s work, tells the story:

Two days before the event, Albert received an email from one of the organizers letting her know about “a crazy situation developing.” He suggested they speak by phone. “Basically, not to sugarcoat this,” he explained, “Aisha Gawad and Lisa Ko don’t want to be on a panel with a Zionist.”

Aisha Abdel Gawad is a Muslim writer in her mid-thirties, so her withdrawal may not be a complete surprise. But the Chinese American Lisa Ko won the 2016 PEN/Bellwether Prize for Socially Engaged Fiction, and her first book was nominated for a National Book Award. Meanwhile, the third panelist, crime writer Emily Layden, decided to drop out because, as she explained, she wished to “avoid controversy.”

Layden won’t win any awards for bravery, but Albert should. She was completely taken aback by being canceled by an organization she had been dedicated to for years. . . . Yet, she still volunteered to appear onstage alone. But the organizers, too cowardly to stand up to hate, refused. Then, instead of enlightening festival participants as to why the session was cancelled, administrators at the Writers Institute at the University of Albany chose to ignore the rabid anti-Semitism put forth by Gawad and Ko and issued a statement that the panel was canceled due to “unforeseen circumstances.”

Albert considers herself a “proud Jew,” with strong ties to Israel.

As is so often the case, it’s not the hatred of the anti-Semites but the pusillanimity of those who surrender to their demands that is most galling.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.