In recent weeks, John Ashton, a physician and public-health expert, has been a regular presence on the United Kingdom’s state-funded television station. Ashton, a member of the Labor party who has previously gotten himself into trouble for using foul language on Twitter, turns out to have a record of anti-Semitic pronouncements. Stephen Pollard writes:

Among other things, [Ashton] has compared “Zionists” to Nazis and written that “Jews” should reflect on the actions of the Israeli military. [A]fter calling Louise Ellman, [a Jewish Labor parliamentarian who resigned in response to the anti-Semitism in her party], a “vile Zionist,” he wrote: “Is it time for a human being to stand against Louise Ellman in next year’s general election?” In a message sent to Luciana Berger, [another Jewish MP who resigned from Labor for the same reason], after she highlighted the rising problem with food banks . . . in 2012, he wrote: “What about the Palestinians?”

When a prominent Jewish group wrote a letter to the BBC’s head of news, Fran Unsworth, calling these statements to her attention, and asking that Ashton’s television appearances be discontinued, she responded with a letter of her own stating that, while she understands her correspondents’ “strength of feeling about the views [they] have ascribed to Professor Ashton on Israel and Zionism,” he has not expressed such views on air. Moreover, wrote Unsworth, it would be bad policy to “ban” Ashton because of his “political views.” Pollard responds:

Anti-Semitic remarks, according to the BBC’s head of news, are merely “political views.” Yeah, some people won’t like them but, hey, others will and it’s not our job to take sides in the day-to-day cut and thrust of political views, you know. Anti-Semitism—it’s just a political choice.

The charitable explanation is that Ms. Unsworth is an idiot. . . . But I doubt very much she is an idiot. The real worry is that she knows exactly what the words she used mean and she genuinely does think that, when one of the BBC’s regular talking heads is exposed for having spouted such sentiments, he is merely expressing a political view.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.