In 2015, the Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was close to concluding his investigation into the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish center (AMIA) by Iranian operatives. But he was found dead the day before he was supposed to report to the country’s congress on his findings that high-ranking government officials, including then-President Cristina Kirchner, now the vice-president—covered up Iran’s responsibility for the bombing. Benny Avni writes:

Kirchner and her supporters in the press quickly spread the notion that Nisman committed suicide—a strange act for a man about to make public a case marking the culmination of his life’s work. Consequent investigations completely demolished the suicide theory. . . . During the presidency of Kirchner’s successor, Mauricio Macri, the suicide theory was widely discarded.

[Meanwhile], a documentary series on Nisman’s death, widely distributed on Netflix, tries to present both as possibilities. The six-part series claims to show “all sides”: Kirchner acolytes insist on the suicide theory while others maintain he was murdered. That is, both flat-earthers and scientists are given equal time.

Macri, [whose presidency lasted from 2015 to 2019], tried to end the charade. . . . During his tenure, Kirchner and others were indicted on coverup charges. But Macri is [now out of office] and she is vice-president, and as such immune from incarceration. Worse: in February the judge assigned to continue Nisman’s investigation into the terrorism cases . . . passed away [and] Kirchner loyalists were named as successors.

So it looks like the government is set to wind down the AMIA investigations. The Iranian masterminds, Hizballah operatives, and Argentine collaborators will not be brought to justice. Kirchner is protected from any accusation of complicity in Nisman’s death. Any hope of closure for terror victims’ loved ones is fast fading.

On Friday night, a Palestinian opened fire at a group of Israelis standing outside a Jerusalem synagogue, killing seven and wounding several others. The day before, the IDF had been drawn into a gunfight in the West Bank city of Jenin while trying to arrest members of a terrorist cell. Of the nine Palestinians killed in the raid, only one appears to have been a noncombatant. Lahav Harkov compares the responses to the two events, beginning with the more recent:

President Joe Biden called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to denounce the attack, offer his condolences, and express his commitment to Israel’s security. Other leaders released supportive statements as well. Governments across Europe condemned the attack. Turkey’s foreign ministry did the same, as did Israel’s Abraham Accords partners the UAE and Bahrain. Even Saudi Arabia released a statement against the killing of civilians in Jerusalem.

It feels wrong to criticize those statements. . . . But the condemnations should be full-throated, not spoken out of one side of the mouth while the other is wishy-washy about what it takes to stave off terrorism. These very same leaders and ministries were tsk-tsking at Israel for doing just that only a day before the attacks in Jerusalem.

The context didn’t seem to matter to some countries that are friendly to Israel. It didn’t matter that Israel was trying to stop jihadists from attacking civilians; it didn’t matter that IDF soldiers were attacked on the way.

It’s very easy for some to be sad when Jews are murdered. Yet, at the same time, so many of them are uncomfortable with Jews asserting themselves, protecting themselves, arming themselves against the bloodthirsty horde that would hand out bonbons to celebrate their deaths. It’s a reminder of how important it is that we do just that, and how essential the state of Israel is.