One of the latest targets of obsessive Israel-haters has been J.K. Rowling, the author of the wildly successful Harry Potter books, who has become a vocal critic of the endemic anti-Semitism of Britain’s Labor party. Chiming in, a representative of a group called Jews for Racial and Economic Justice accused Rowling of trying to make up for the “viciously antisemetic [sic] scenes in [her books] that destroyed Jewish kids” with “right-wing Netanyahu talking points.” Liel Leibovitz comments:

Just what sort of wicked deeds did the beloved author commit to warrant the accusation of destroying Jewish children, a charge previously limited to, say, the Nazi Einsatzgruppen? . . . In the Harry Potter universe, the banks are controlled by goblins, and the chief goblin is called Griphook. Get it? Grip, because he has a tight grip on money, and hook because he has a hooked nose! Which means he’s a Jew! Which makes J.K. Rowling some sort of slightly more feminine Goebbels!

In their well-scrubbed moments, the boycotters insist that singling out the world’s only Jewish state for opprobrium even though—or even because—it’s a pluralistic democracy has nothing to do with Jews. You can, they insist, be an anti-Zionist and not an anti-Semite. L’affaire Rowling proves yet again that you can’t: the author had nothing to say about Israel. Her concern was the hatred of Jews in Britain, a hatred the community itself has unanimously and unequivocally characterized as a clear and present threat. And for that the boycott-divest-and-sanction lowlifes pounced, arguing that anyone who bravely stands with Jews and speaks out against anti-Semitism must be some sort of bigoted emissary of the dark King Bibi himself.

Previously, this sort of reasoning was reserved to those who dwelled in padded cells and spent their days lining up for meds. But now we have Twitter, where such mad drivel can pass for sophistication. But hey, it’s the holidays, time to be kind and compassionate to each other. So in the spirit of brotherly love, if you believe that singling out the world’s only Jewish state for harsh criticism is totally not anti-Semitic but criticizing [Labor’s leader Jeremy Corbyn], who declared Hamas and Hizballah his friends, truly is, I hope you get all the help you need.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”