On Wednesday, mobs of anti-Israel demonstrators took over two buildings at Barnard (the all-female college at Columbia University), called in a bomb threat, and engaged in other disruptive activities—and were met with a typically feeble response from administrators. But there is hope that things may soon start to change. Nathan Diament takes stock of what the Trump administration has done thus far to restore Jews’ civil rights—beginning with federal investigations into five universities and four medical schools—and of what remains to be done:

It is striking that the new university investigations were not opened in response to students filing complaints—[unlike those begun by] the Biden team—but were launched proactively by the new administration. That alone sends a strong message to university leaders that there’s a new sheriff in town and a new era of enforcement in the White House.

Universities seem to be getting the message. Anti-Israel extremists on campus are now facing disciplinary action from schools. Six months ago, these same universities responded to anti-Semitic vandalism and intimidation with cowardly statements or a free pass.

[But] the fight against anti-Semitism must extend beyond the campuses. The Justice Department should use the full force of the law to prosecute raucous “protesters” in residential Jewish neighborhoods. These protests are designed to intimidate Jews as they attend synagogue and interfere with citizens’ right to enjoy basic constitutional rights. They are criminal and should be treated as much.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.