Since taking over the leadership of Britain’s Labor party in 2020, Keir Starmer has done much to tackle anti-Semitism in the party ranks, which festered and spread during the leadership of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. One would hope, then, that prominent Labor politicians would have kept their distance from the Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who has a record of anti-Semitic declarations and animus toward Israel. Instead, writes Ian Austin, they “fawned over” her during her recent visit to the UK:

Unfortunately, it now seems easier for Labor’s leader to speak positively about Israel at lunches than challenge the hatred that took hold under Jeremy Corbyn. The Bradford MP and shadow minister for community cohesion Naz Shah called Omar an “inspiration.” The shadow justice minister Afzal Khan described her as “incredible,” adding: “We stand united against Islamophobia.” The London mayor Sadiq Khan said it was a “pleasure” to meet Omar, “to discuss how we keep building bridges, not walls.”

It is a disgrace that Muslim politicians are attacked because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship—but there are mainstream Democrats the mayor could work with on inclusion that have not caused offence with controversial statements like Ilhan Omar.

Labor has taken action to deal with the anti-Semitism that flourished under Corbyn. But progress has been slow and some people who ought to be nowhere near a mainstream party are given temporary suspensions when they should be permanently expelled. Starmer’s cheerleaders criticize those who make this point, but more thoughtful members of the party . . . agree it is clearly much too soon to claim, as Sir Keir did recently, that he has “rooted out the poison of anti-Semitism.”

Ron Ben-Yishai, reporting from a visit to IDF forces in the Gaza Strip, analyzes the state of the fighting, and “the persistent challenge of eradicating an entrenched enemy in a complex urban terrain.”

Hamas, sensing the war’s end, is mounting a final effort to inflict casualties. The IDF now controls 65 percent of Gaza’s territory operationally, with observation, fire dominance, and relative freedom of movement, alongside systematic tunnel destruction. . . . Major P, a reserve company commander, says, “It’s frustrating to hear at home that we’re stagnating. The public doesn’t get that if we stop, Hamas will recover.”

Senior IDF officers cite two reasons for the slow progress: meticulous care to protect hostages, requiring cautious movement and constant intelligence gathering, and avoiding heavy losses, with 22 soldiers killed since June.

Two-and-a-half of Hamas’s five brigades have been dismantled, yet a new hostage deal and IDF withdrawal could allow Hamas to regroup. . . . Hamas is at its lowest military and governing point since its founding, reduced to a fragmented guerrilla force. Yet, without complete disarmament and infrastructure destruction, it could resurge as a threat in years.

At the same time, Ben-Yishai observes, not everything hangs on the IDF:

According to the Southern Command chief Major General Yaron Finkelman, the IDF is close to completing its objectives. In classical military terms, “defeat” means the enemy surrenders—but with a jihadist organization, the benchmark is its ability to operate against Israel.

Despite [the IDF’s] battlefield successes, the broader strategic outcome—especially regarding the hostages—now hinges on decisions from the political leadership. “We’ve done our part,” said a senior officer. “We’ve reached a crossroads where the government must decide where it wants to go—both on the hostage issue and on Gaza’s future.”