In Chicago on Saturday morning, Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi shot a visibly Jewish man who was on his way to synagogue. The shooting took place in a neighborhood with a large Jewish population, and Abdallahi yelled “Allahu Akbar,” details that local authorities at first tried to suppress. Josh Kraushaar comments:

The degree to which these political leaders, law enforcement, and even the local media are downplaying the apparent anti-Semitic nature of the crime is shocking—but it’s part of a growing pattern where crimes against Jews don’t seem to merit the same degree of attention or scrutiny as [those against] other minority groups.

And it’s not the only recent example of the anti-Semitic motives of a high-profile crime getting overlooked. One of the big political stories this week was the arson of two ballot drop boxes in Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon, which destroyed hundreds of ballots in a closely contested congressional race. Two days later, we’re now learning that devices were found at both scenes emblazoned with the words “Free Gaza.”

The New York Times . . . euphemistically acknowledges the “political sensitivity” of declaring the case motivated by anti-Israel animus and anti-Semitism. It shouldn’t be politically sensitive to declare anti-Semitism when it rears its ugly head, but that’s increasingly the case—especially in deep-blue jurisdictions where far-left activism is increasingly a part of some local governments.

Also in Chicago, anti-Semitic statements by the newly appointed school-board president recently came to light—and the governor and mayor rushed to his defense in a way that is hard to imagine if the comments were aimed at another group. Additional pressure, however, led to his resignation.

In a sense, the most successful negotiation with Hamas was the recent agreement securing the release of Edan Alexander, the last living hostage with a U.S. passport. Unlike those previously handed over, he wasn’t exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and there was no cease-fire. Dan Diker explains what Hamas got out of the deal:

Alexander’s unconditional release [was] designed to legitimize Hamas further as a viable negotiator and to keep Hamas in power, particularly at a moment when Israel is expanding its military campaign to conquer Gaza and eliminate Hamas as a military, political, and civil power. Israel has no other option than defeating Hamas. Hamas’s “humanitarian” move encourages American pressure on Israel to end its counterterrorism war in service of advancing additional U.S. efforts to release hostages over time, legitimizing Hamas while it rearms, resupplies, and reestablishes it military power and control.

In fact, Hamas-affiliated media have claimed credit for successful negotiations with the U.S., branding the release of Edan Alexander as the “Edan deal,” portraying Hamas as a rising international player, sidelining Israel from direct talks with DC, and declaring this a “new phase in the conflict.”

Fortunately, however, Washington has not coerced Jerusalem into ceasing the war since Alexander’s return. Nor, Diker observes, did the deal drive a wedge between the two allies, despite much speculation about the possibility.