Last year, the United Nations released a “Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech,” which includes anti-Semitism among the various forms of prejudice it is designed to combat. Such a move is most welcome from an institution that has often been a forum for the promotion of vicious hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. But, argue Emilie Kao and Joel Griffith, its approach is thoroughly wrongheaded:

The “Strategy” encourages states to censor “hate speech,” according to vague and subjective standards. This jeopardizes every person’s freedom to speak and live according to his conscience, including Jews. In reality, the safest space for religious and racial minorities is a free society.

Authoritarians abuse speech restrictions to enforce orthodoxy and maintain control. For example, Pakistan quickly embraced the “Strategy” as a means of combatting “Islamophobia.” But Pakistan’s record as a leader of a previous UN campaign to stop “defamation of religions” does not impress. . . . Recently, the Pakistani press has taken to blaming Jews for the coronavirus, calling it a plot to shut down mosques. What is needed in societies like Pakistan is more counter-speech by and on behalf of Jews, Christians, and all those who hold minority viewpoints.

[Moreover], it’s worth noting that Europe’s Holocaust-denial laws fail to address the roots of hatred, and have not prevented the growth of anti-Semitic parties in Austria, France, and Germany. They may even be counterproductive. Criminal prosecutions give anti-Semites added notoriety and a persecution narrative to exploit.

The UN, Kao and Griffith conclude, would do better to focus on cleaning its own house of anti-Semitism.

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.