Over the weekend, a Jewish student at the University of Michigan was reportedly approached by a group of men who asked if he was Jewish. When he replied in the affirmative, they physically attacked him. This and other incidents suggest that the new school year will see as much harassment of Jewish students as the last. The federal government, along with local police, could be doing much more to crack down on these abuses, writes David E. Bernstein. For instance:

The Ku Klux Klan Act prohibits conspiracies to deprive Americans of their civil rights. This act could be invoked against student groups that are blocking Jewish students from traversing their campuses, as at UCLA, and against groups that blockade public roads, depriving people of their right to travel. The act has been invoked in private lawsuits, but the Justice Department has not brought a single case.

The FACE Act prohibits “the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” Hillel buildings serve as houses of worship, and various campuses have seen acts of intimidation of and interference with those students trying to enter or exit Hillel buildings. No one involved in these incidents has been charged under the act.

Various complaints and lawsuits against universities have documented threats and assaults against Jewish students in violation of their civil rights. The Justice Department has not brought any criminal or civil charges against the perpetrators, with the exception of a Cornell student who threatened to kill Jewish students. Lower-level and less well-publicized threats, harassment, and assaults have not attracted Justice Department intervention.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.