Considering the dangerous anti-Semitic trends that have recently emerged from certain dark corners of the American right, Natan Ehrenreich looks to the precedent set by William F. Buckley, the founding editor of National Review who, more than anyone, created U.S. conservatism in its present form. Buckley, in his long career, more than once anathematized conservative writers—including those with whom he had close personal and professional relationships—who developed unhealthy fixations on the Jews. Ehrenreich hopes contemporary rightwing leaders will learn from his example:

I was taken aback by the recently leaked messages from the conservative influencer and [former fellow at the prestigious rightwing thinktank] the Claremont Institute, Pedro Gonzalez. That Gonzalez was an ardent anti-Semite was not that surprising; he has publicly tweeted about “Rothschild physiognomy.” But the sheer hatred displayed toward Jews, especially from someone who dwells in lofty intellectual circles, is nothing less than astounding.

A few samples: “Yeah like not every Jew is problematic, but the sad fact is that most are.” [Of the alt-right Holocaust denier and social-media personality Nick Fuentes]: “Fuentes does one good thing when he trolls Jews: He shows people how subversive they can be.”

What’s most pertinent to our moment, though, is the fact that today’s popular conservatism has shifted closer to the “paleoconservatism,” [an analogue to neoconservatism], that Buckley thought relatively more likely to produce anti-Semites than the popular conservatism of the 90s. As he notes in [his In Search of Anti-Semitism], the great Irving Kristol predicted this shift, and he was far less confident that Buckley’s crusade against conservative Jew-hatred was complete.

History, it seems, has proved Kristol right (though it would, of course, be a terrible mistake to label most paleoconservatives as inherently anti-Semitic). . . . It is becoming rather obvious that if modern conservatism is to thrive, the work Buckley began must persist as well. Conservative leaders can look to In Search of Anti-Semitism for inspiration that such work can succeed, but also to see why it is necessary.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.