From hardcore neo-Nazis to David Duke to such newer faces as Richard Spencer, many members of what has been termed the “alternative right” have displayed an admiration for Bashar al-Assad. Since Assad is the head of a political party that combines nationalism and socialism, and has dedicated a great deal of effort to killing Jews, perhaps this should not be particularly surprising. Liz Sly and Rick Noack write:

Assad’s politics—and those of his father before him—have historically been associated more with the left than the right. His late father, President Hafez al-Assad, was the closest Middle Eastern ally of the Soviet Union throughout the cold war. The son has enjoyed the stalwart support of international leftists throughout his attempt to crush the six-year-old rebellion against his rule.

In recent months, however, Assad has [also] become an icon for the far right, whose leaders and spokesman have heaped praise on the ferocity with which he has prosecuted the war, his [alleged] role in fighting Islamic State, and his perceived stance against Muslims and Jews.

That Assad’s harsh methods have resulted in [hundreds] of thousands of civilian casualties seems only to have enhanced his stature. In a video posted on Twitter, three men who participated in the Charlottesville protests hailed Assad’s use of barrel bombs to subdue communities that turned against him. One is wearing a T-shirt that says: “Bashar’s Barrel Delivery Co.” . . .

The far right’s love affair with Assad [should] not be entirely unexpected. His Baath party is fiercely nationalist and ethnocentric, focused on the promotion of Arab identity. One of the few [other] political parties permitted by his regime and one of his staunchest supporters in the war is the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, which drew the inspiration for its logo from the swastika.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.