As the United Kingdom prepares for its next election, the Labor leader (and likely next prime minister) Keir Starmer released a campaign video in which he talks at length about the problem of Islamophobia, and alludes to using the legal system to combat it. Meanwhile, in the U.S., politicians and public institutions have gotten themselves in the habit of responding to every outburst of hostility to Jews with condemnations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Ed Husain argues that these two things are not alike:

Islamophobia is a fear of ideas, beliefs, and attitudes. Violence or discrimination against adherents of any religion is obviously indefensible, but it should also go without saying that in a free society people should be at liberty to criticize or mock any organized religion. No intelligent Muslim should place the word “Islam” and the word “phobia” together in a single phrase. This is why the word did not exist until relatively recently. [The term] Islamophobia has been largely promoted by Islamists and jihadists, to protect them from scrutiny.

Legislating against “Islamophobia” would have disastrous consequences. The German judge who refused to grant a Muslim woman a divorce from her abusive husband in 2007 did so on the grounds that the abuse was culturally acceptable and sanctioned by the Quran. Such incidents would become normal for fear of accusations of “Islamophobia.” Let’s remember that the i-word has been used not only against politicians but also against Muslims who confront jihadists.

Information about a supposedly near-finalized hostage deal continued to trickle out yesterday. While it’s entirely possible that by the time you read this a deal will be much more certain, it is every bit as likely that it will have fallen through by then. More likely still, we will learn that there are indefinite and unspecified delays. Then there are the details: even in the best of scenarios, not all the hostages will be returned at once, and Israel will have to make painful concessions in exchange, including the release of hundreds of hardened terrorists and the withdrawal from key parts of the Gaza Strip.

Unusually—if entirely appropriately—the president-elect’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has participated in the talks alongside members of President Biden’s team. Philip Klein examines the incoming Trump administration’s role in the process:

President-elect Trump has repeatedly warned that there would be “all hell to pay” if hostages were not returned from Gaza by the time he takes office. While he has never laid out exactly what the specific consequences for Hamas would be, there are some ominous signs that Israel is being pressured into paying a tremendous price.

There is obviously more here than we know. It’s possible that with the pressure from the Trump team came reassurances that Israel would have more latitude to reenter Gaza as necessary to go after Hamas than it would have enjoyed under Biden. . . . That said, all appearances are that Israel has been forced into making more concessions because Trump was concerned that he’d be embarrassed if January 20 came around with no hostages released.

While Donald Trump’s threats are a welcome rhetorical shift, part of the problem may be their vagueness. After all, it’s unlikely the U.S. would use military force to unleash hell in Gaza, or could accomplish much in doing so that the IDF can’t. More useful would be direct threats against countries like Qatar and Turkey that host Hamas, and threats to the persons and bank accounts of the Hamas officials living in those counties. Witkoff instead praised the Qatari prime minister for “doing God’s work” in the negotiations.”