This week, Donald Trump made some disparaging remarks about Al Sharpton, leading the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination to rush to praise this notorious race-baiter who twice incited deadly violence against Orthodox Jews in New York City. Seth Mandel takes them to task for following the now-standard political principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my infallible hero”:

Sharpton is unworthy of such praise, so much so that the decision to back him reflexively is a massive moral demerit. Calling Sharpton a lifelong fighter for “justice,” [as did Elizabeth Warren], ignores his history of race-baiting and deadly anti-Semitic incitement.

Sharpton [remains] free of shame or apology. “You only repent when you mean it, and I have done nothing wrong,” he insisted years [after the murders he encouraged in the 1990s]. In 2011, he wrote a gobsmacking piece of revisionist history for the New York Daily News, claiming his remarks were being manipulated by “extremist Jews.” [Evidently], Sharpton doesn’t think he’s getting enough credit for his behavior.

[But] at Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, no one asked [Elizabeth] Warren about Sharpton’s record or the message she might be sending with such full-blown praise. Nor was Pete Buttigieg—who has struck up a very public alliance with Sharpton in an attempt to burnish his standing with black voters—prodded about the hypocrisy on display. Republicans, Buttigieg lectured, “are supporting naked racism in the White House, or at best silent about it.” . . . What would Buttigieg say about his own support for a public figure with a long history of bigotry? We don’t know, because no one thought to ask him at the debate. (I have repeatedly asked his campaign for comment, to no avail.)

We are routinely told that harsh criticism of minority members of Congress amounts to incitement to violence. What of Sharpton, who initially made his career out of explicit incitement to violence? [These days] this is no idle concern.

Last week, the Lebanese parliament chose Joseph Aoun to be the country’s next president, filling a position that has been vacant since 2022. Aoun, currently commander of the military—and reportedly supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia—edged out Suleiman Frangiyeh, Hizballah’s preferred candidate. But while Aoun’s victory is a step in the right direction, David Daoud sounds a cautionary note:

Lebanon’s president lacks the constitutional authority to order Hizballah’s disarmament, and Aoun was elected as another “consensus president” with Hizballah’s votes. They wouldn’t vote for a man who would set in motion a process leading to their disarmament.

Habib Malik agrees that hoping for too much to come out of the election could constitute “daydreaming,” but he nonetheless believes the Lebanese have a chance to win their country back from Hizballah and, ultimately, make peace with Israel:

Lebanon’s 2019 economic collapse and the 2020 massive explosion at the Beirut Port were perpetrated by the ruling mafia, protected ever since by Hizballah. [But] Lebanon’s anti-Iran/Hizballah communities constitute a reliable partner for both the U.S. and Israel. The Lebanese are desperate to be rid of Iranian influence in order to pursue regional peace and prosperity with their neighbors. Suddenly, a unique opportunity for peace breaking out between Israel and Lebanon could be upon us, particularly given President Trump’s recent reelection with a landslide mandate. It was under Trump’s first term that the Abraham Accords came into being and so under his second term they could certainly be expanded.

As matters stand, Lebanon has very few major contentious issues with Israel. The precisely targeted and methodical nature of Israel’s war in Lebanon against Hizballah and what has unfolded in Syria make this outcome a far more attainable goal.