Readers of the New York Times and the Washington Post might expect that the Arab world would greet Donald Trump—staunchly pro-Israel, responsible for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and author of the notorious “Muslim ban”—with grave concern, perhaps a bit of panic. And some have, as the Middle East Media Resource Institute (MEMRI) reports:

The Saudi journalist Abd al-Aziz al-Khames wrote on X: “The Hamas lunatics are saying: ‘The Democratic party’s loss is the natural price it must pay for its ‘criminal’ stance on Gaza. [They speak] as if the winner is an ally of theirs. What you saw during Biden’s term, you will see ten-times worse during Trump’s term.”

But many Arab governments are, to the contrary, breathing “a sigh of relief,” writes Yoel Guzansky:

[T]here is an expectation, particularly in the Gulf states, that Trump will adopt a tougher stance toward Iran than his predecessor, Joe Biden. Iran’s growing confidence and that of its proxies, as demonstrated in Hamas’s October 7 attack, are seen by many in the Gulf as linked to the relatively lenient stance that the United States took toward Iran under Biden’s administration. In addition, Trump is perceived by regional countries as having close relations with the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, more importantly, considerable influence over him, to the point of being able to impose his views on Netanyahu.

This attitude, according to MEMRI, is shared by several liberal Arab journalists:

The Palestinian journalist Ayman Khaled wrote: “The world is on the brink of change. The time has come for Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, Hizballah, and all [of Iran’s] militias to weep.” In another post, he wrote: “The real defeat is of ‘the father of the wars,’ Obama, who paved the way for the rise of Iran and its militias. I am not overly optimistic, but removing the obstacle of the Democrats is an important achievement in bringing change to the region.”

In October, a young Mauritanian national murdered an Orthodox Jewish man on his way to synagogue in Chicago. This alone should be sufficient sign of the rising dangers of anti-Semitism. Nathan Diament explains how the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) can, if passed, make American Jews safer:

We were off to a promising start when the AAA sailed through the House of Representatives in the spring by a generous vote of 320 to 91, and 30 senators from both sides of the aisle jumped to sponsor the Senate version. Then the bill ground to a halt.

Fearful of antagonizing their left-wing activist base and putting vulnerable senators on the record, especially right before the November election, Democrats delayed bringing the AAA to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, the election is over, but the political games continue.

You can’t combat anti-Semitism if you can’t—or won’t—define it. Modern anti-Semites hide their hate behind virulent anti-Zionism. . . . The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act targets this loophole by codifying that the Department of Education must use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in its application of Title VI.