After Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, in a hearing, slandered both her own country and the Jewish state by not only accusing them of “atrocities” but by placing them in the same category as Hamas and the Taliban, a handful of her Democratic colleagues issued a very gentle rebuke. Omar responded with much indignation, and her fellow members of the “Squad”—as she and other young hard-left House members have been dubbed—along with left-leaning pundits, rushed to her defense and joined in her outrage. Christine Rosen comments on what happened next:

No doubt as a result of a phone call from Democratic leaders, Omar, still insisting that she was being “taken out of context,” conceded that she was “in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries.” The House Democratic leadership then issued a statement saying they “welcome the clarification” by Omar. This is the model Democrats followed in 2019 when Omar made anti-Semitic remarks and Democrats refused to condemn them outright. Instead, they passed a resolution condemning all bigotry, effectively condemning nothing at all. Democratic House leaders have failed to call out Omar’s remarks for what they are: clear evidence of her unfitness to serve on the House Foreign Relations Committee at the very least, and evidence of her continued poor judgment.

Of course, even this mild non-rebuke was too much for Omar’s fellow wing-women in the Squad. Representative Rashida Tlaib raged on Twitter that “Freedom of speech doesn’t exist for Muslim women in Congress. . . . House Democratic leadership should be ashamed of its relentless, exclusive tone policing of Congresswomen of color.” The Progressive Caucus in the House issued its own statement blaming a “right-wing media echo chamber” for the response to Omar’s remark.

Which is probably why Pelosi found herself backpedaling on CNN on Sunday.

Criticism of a public official for questionable or misleading statements she made in the course of doing her job, [however] isn’t “tone policing” or Islamophobia or racism. It’s part of the job of being a public servant; you have to answer for your public statements.

Examining the effects of Iran’s decision to launch nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, Benny Morris takes stock of the Jewish state’s strategic situation:

The massive Iranian attack has turned what began as a local war in and around the Gaza Strip and then expanded into a Hamas–Hizballah–Houthi–Israeli war [into] a regional war with wide and possibly calamitous international repercussions.

Before the Iranians launched their attack, Washington warned Tehran to desist (“don’t,” in President Biden’s phrase), and Israel itself had reportedly cautioned the Iranians secretly that such an attack would trigger a devastating Israeli counterstrike. But a much-humiliated Iran went ahead, nonetheless.

For Israel, the way forward seems to lie in an expansion of the war—in the north or south or both—until the country attains some sort of victory, or a diplomatic settlement is reached. A “victory” would mean forcing Hizballah to cease fire in exchange, say, for a cessation of the IDF bombing campaign and withdrawal to the international border, or forcing Iran, after suffering real pain from IDF attacks, to cease its attacks and rein in its proxies: Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

At the same time, writes Morris, a victory along such lines would still have its limits:

An IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a cessation of Israeli air-force bombing would result in Hizballah’s resurgence and its re-investment of southern Lebanon down to the border. Neither the Americans nor the French nor the UN nor the Lebanese army—many of whose troops are Shiites who support Hizballah—would fight them.