On Sunday, the Nation of Islam’s leader Louis Farrakhan was visiting Iran, where he led a chant of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” He has also been praised repeatedly by two of the leaders of the Women’s March, which was organized in 2016 to protest Donald Trump’s election and scheduled to occur a third time in January. And admiration of Farrakhan, writes Karol Markowicz, is but one sign of the organization’s problem with Jews:

Linda Sarsour, one of the [march’s] leaders, . . . supported the radical Muslim Brotherhood, [parent organization of Hamas]. In 2012, she tweeted: “When we write the history of Islam in America, the Nation of #Islam is an integral part of that history.” . . .

People change, goes the argument, and Sarsour made these comments several years ago, before she became a high-profile political figure on the left. Perhaps she’s more responsible now. But in September, Sarsour said American Muslims shouldn’t “humanize” Israelis. There was no overwhelming response from the left to remind her that Israelis are actually human. American Jews who ignore this hatred are fooling themselves. Anti-Semitism is specifically about dehumanizing Jews until their murder makes sense. . . .

Then there’s the Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory. In a February 2018 speech, Farrakhan said, [that he], “by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.” Mallory attended the speech. She once posted a picture of herself embraced by Farrakhan, referring to him as “the GOAT” (Greatest of All Time). Just last May, Mallory praised the “bravery” of Hamas terrorists. So when she pointedly refused to condemn Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT comments after being asked, it was no surprise. . . . .

And note: while “Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Muslim women, [and] lesbian, queer, and trans women” are all specifically mentioned in the [march’s] “Unity Principles,” Jewish women are not. Meanwhile, anti-Semitic attacks account for more than half of all hate crimes in the U.S. Maybe it’s not a coincidence.

As this newsletter noted last week, Gaza is not suffering from famine, and the efforts to suggest that it is—which have been going on since at least the beginning of last year—are based on deliberate manipulation of the data. Nor, as Shany Mor explains, does international law require Israel to feed its enemies:

Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does oblige High Contracting Parties to allow for the free passage of medical and religious supplies along with “essential foodstuff, clothing, and tonics intended for children under fifteen” for the civilians of another High Contracting Party, as long as there is no serious reason for fearing that “the consignments may be diverted from their destination,” or “that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy” by the provision.

The Hamas regime in Gaza is, of course, not a High Contracting Party, and, more importantly, Israel has reason to fear both that aid provisions are diverted by Hamas and that a direct advantage is accrued to it by such diversions. Not only does Hamas take provisions for its own forces, but its authorities sell provisions donated by foreign bodies and use the money to finance its war. It’s notable that the first reports of Hamas’s financial difficulties emerged only in the past few weeks, once provisions were blocked.

Yet, since the war began, even European states considered friendly to Israel have repeatedly demanded that Israel “allow unhindered passage of humanitarian aid” and refrain from seizing territory or imposing “demographic change”—which means, in practice, that Gazan civilians can’t seek refuge abroad. These principles don’t merely constitute a separate system of international law that applies only to Israel, but prolong the suffering of the people they are ostensibly meant to protect:

By insisting that Hamas can’t lose any territory in the war it launched, the international community has invented a norm that never before existed and removed one of the few levers Israel has to pressure it to end the war and release the hostages.

These commitments have . . . made the plight of the hostages much worse and much longer. They made the war much longer than necessary and much deadlier for both sides. And they locked a large civilian population in a war zone where the de-facto governing authority was not only indifferent to civilian losses on its own side, but actually had much to gain by it.