In South Africa, student-council presidents praise Hitler and call on their universities to expel Jewish students, while major political parties endorse BDS, cutting diplomatic ties with Israel, and prosecuting South African Jews who have served in the IDF. R. W. Johnson discusses the roots of this shift:

Thabo Mbeki, who became president [of South Africa] in 1999, suffered badly from paranoia and a grandiosity complex. He wanted to be president not just of South Africa but of all Africa and even of the whole Third World. Thus he pumped life and money into the long-defunct Non-Aligned Movement so that he could preside over it. And like so many who have spent their life in the struggle, he wanted the struggle to go on. If Africa’s liberation was now complete, where else should the struggle move? Obviously, to Israel—another mainly white implant in the Third World. . . .

Mbeki [worked to lay] the groundwork for an international anti-Israel campaign closely modeled on the old anti-apartheid model, with mounting pressure for boycotts, disinvestment, and sanctions. The African National Congress was still well connected to the old international anti-apartheid network and was able to use this array of generally left-wing organizations to popularize the new cause. The result has been the mushrooming growth of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.