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.

Yesterday, President Biden reportedly met with his advisers to discuss how to achieve a breakthrough in hostage negotiations. Meir Ben Shabbat takes a closer look at what the terrorists themselves are saying:

Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s deputy chief in Gaza, reiterated that this issue is merely one of several demands his group has put forward as conditions for a deal. “We stress that any agreement must encompass a full cessation of hostilities, complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing [which allow Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies from Egypt], unimpeded return of displaced persons to their homes, aid and relief for Palestinians, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange,” al-Hayya stated.

This stance isn’t new. What stood out in its presentation was the self-assurance displayed by the senior Hamas official, during a week when he and his associates were expected to be on edge, fearing repercussions for the killing of six hostages. However, the reaction to this in Israel and the United States prompted an opposite response from them. From their perspective, not only did they avoid consequences for the heinous act, but through it, they managed to escalate tensions and internal disagreements in Israel, while also prompting Washington to consider presenting a framework defined as a “final offer, without room for negotiation.

Hamas assumes that a final American proposal will inevitably come at Israel’s expense. The primary pressure to reach an agreement is already being applied to Israeli leadership. Hamas faces no consequences for prolonging the process, and so long as it holds hostages, it can always resume negotiations from where they left off.