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.

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.