While the rampant anti-Semitism among the coordinators of the now-annual Washington, DC Women’s March has finally cost it the support of many individuals and institutions, some local groups that had disaffiliated from the national organization nonetheless held their own simultaneous demonstrations on Saturday. Nicole Guzik, a Los Angeles rabbi, spoke beforehand with the leaders of the march in her city and received assurances it would not be allowed to become a platform for anti-Semitism. Unfortunately those promises proved hollow, as she writes in an open letter to the organizers of the Los Angeles gathering:

I was assured by . . . the founders of this march, [repeatedly], in a private meeting, that . . . in Los Angeles (unlike at the national march), Israel would not be attacked, labeling Israel as an apartheid state would be unwelcome on the stage, and if a speaker went off- script, the managers of the program would raise the music. In the very first hour, . . . all those promises were broken.

Marwa Rifahie, representing the Council on American-Islamic Relations, used her allotted time [addressing the gathering] to focus on the Palestinian agenda, a [subject] that I was told would not be a focus [of speeches]. I waited. When she called Israel an apartheid state, I waited. Where was the music? Where was someone asking her to remain on-script? Who vetted this speaker? Why was I assured that anti-Semitic statements would not be permitted or tolerated in this anti-hate arena? Why was someone allowed to defend the organizers of the march in Washington? . . .

If you want me back at next year’s march, someone like me [ought to] vet and screen your speakers. Someone like me must be willing to say that anti-Zionist speech is the language of hatred and won’t be allowed on stage. But until you take this course of action, it will be quite a while until I give someone like you the benefit of the doubt. I held a sign that read, “Jewish and proud Zionist standing for women’s equality.” . . . I hoped to find a place where those signs would be welcome and not attacked. It’s with the heaviest of hearts that I admit I was wrong. This march was clearly not meant for me.

In a momentous meeting with the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, President Trump announced that he is lifting sanctions on the beleaguered and war-torn country. On the one hand, Sharaa is an alumnus of Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who came to power as commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which itself began life as al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot; he also seems to enjoy the support of Qatar. On the other hand, he overthrew the Assad regime—a feat made possible by the battering Israel delivered to Hizballah—greatly improving Jerusalem’s strategic position, and ending one of the world’s most atrocious and brutal tyrannies. President Trump also announced that he hopes Syria will join the Abraham Accords.

This analysis by Eran Lerman was published a few days ago, and in some respects is already out of date, but more than anything else I’ve read it helps to make sense of Israel’s strategic position vis-à-vis Syria.

Israel’s primary security interest lies in defending against worst-case scenarios, particularly the potential collapse of the Syrian state or its transformation into an actively hostile force backed by a significant Turkish presence (considering that the Turkish military is the second largest in NATO) with all that this would imply. Hence the need to bolster the new buffer zone—not for territorial gain, but as a vital shield and guarantee against dangerous developments. Continued airstrikes aimed at diminishing the residual components of strategic military capabilities inherited from the Assad regime are essential.

At the same time, there is a need to create conditions that would enable those in Damascus who wish to reject the reduction of their once-proud country into a Turkish satrapy. Sharaa’s efforts to establish his legitimacy, including his visit to Paris and outreach to the U.S., other European nations, and key Gulf countries, may generate positive leverage in this regard. Israel’s role is to demonstrate through daily actions the severe costs of acceding to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions and accepting Turkish hegemony.

Israel should also assist those in Syria (and beyond: this may have an effect in Lebanon as well) who look to it as a strategic anchor in the region. The Druze in Syria—backed by their brethren in Israel—have openly expressed this expectation, breaking decades of loyalty to the central power in Damascus over their obligation to their kith and kin.