Jewish leaders speak often about the need to combat anti-Semitism, and have invested considerably in efforts to do so. Even in the 18th century, a variety of Jewish intellectuals took up their pens to dispel various libels and malicious stereotypes, and in the 19th century organizations were founded for this purpose. Yet sometimes it seems that Jews are almost congenitally unable to defend themselves effectively. Andrew Fox, a non-Jewish British military veteran who, since the October 7 attacks, has been a brave defender of Israel and an astute commentator on the war, has some suggestions:

Instead of framing [rallies and demonstrations against anti-Semitism or support of Israel] as being in favor of Jewish or Israeli interests, frame them as a British issue—concern for public safety, rule of law, and national values. . . . We should use messaging that emphasizes British Jews as part of the broader British identity (e.g., “British Jews Stand Against Extremism”). Hammer home the point that British Jews are inextricably part of our national identity.

At protests, Israeli flags may reinforce out-group status. . . . Waving British flags instead of Israeli flags asserts belonging and aligns British Jews with national identity rather than foreign-policy disputes. I understand the desire to show solidarity with Israel, but in the context of fighting British anti-Semitism, Israeli flags are unhelpful. British flags move the protest from being a Middle Eastern problem to a British one.

While Fox’s point is sound, the enemies of the Jews wish to make everything associated with Israel or Zionism shameful, something not tolerated in public spaces. By proudly displaying the Israeli flag, British (and American) Jews can show that they are neither afraid nor ashamed, although there is no reason not to display it alongside the Union Jack. The masses of American and Israeli flags displayed by U.S. Jews at the rally on the National Mall in the fall of 2023 certainly made an impression, similar to what Fox describes here about a similar even in London in December:

The speeches and march were all very well, but the most powerful moment of the day was the march stopping at the Cenotaph, [England’s monumental memorial to its war dead], to sing “God Save The King.” What a striking juxtaposition with the shrieking Palestinian hate marches, who stand against all things British. This should have been the set of images that led all publicity after the march.

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.