What CNN Gets Wrong about Anti-Semitism

On Sunday, CNN aired an hourlong special on the subject of anti-Semitism, hosted by the anchor Dana Bash, who is herself Jewish. Melissa Langsam Braunstein praises the network for producing the program, but also points to some its shortcomings. Above all

far-left anti-Semitism deserved more attention. Far-right anti-Semitism, of course, remains reprehensible, but it’s readily identifiable. More people struggle to recognize far-left anti-Semitism, which has historically cloaked Jew-hatred in the language of social justice. It’s a problem across college campuses and increasingly in lower-level schools. CNN’s viewers are also more likely to encounter the far left. In that sense, the Brandeis Center for Human Rights president Alyza Lewin, who explained Jewish peoplehood and the connection between Judaism and Zionism, merited more airtime.

Jews face threats from numerous directions. Unfortunately, viewers may be left with the impression that the far right is dangerous, the far left makes unpleasant comments, and any other threats are vague. For the sake of American Jews’ safety, though, a comprehensive threat overview is necessary.

Bash’s comment that “experts across the board caution anti-Semitism is growing on the left, but it is not equivalent to hate from the right” was unhelpful. Anti-Semitism is a problem on the left. Debating whether the far right or the far left is “worse” is a waste of time—both pose dangers to American Jews. . . Further, given how many Jews live in blue [states], most Jews in the United States are more likely to encounter problems from the far left.

Read more at Washington Examiner

More about: American Jewry, Anti-Semitism, Journalism

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF