Currently Harvard University is locked in a battle with the Trump administration, which has withheld billions of dollars from the school after its refusal to protect the civil rights of Jewish students. Larry Summers, the former Harvard president who years ago spoke forcefully and perceptively about the growing legitimation of anti-Semitism on American college campuses, has responded by siding publicly with Harvard. While there are serious conversations to be had about the degree to which the federal government should force its will on private institutions, Summers had weeks earlier made clear his lack of resolve, as Meir Soloveichik wrote at the time:

Given all that Summers has said, written, and reported about Harvard, the question must be asked: would he express the same sentiments regarding funding if we were speaking of a Harvard rife with white supremacists? If racist pseudo-history were being taught throughout the humanities departments? If Harvard’s professional schools were to embrace racial hatred and refused to discipline racist mobs? Would Larry Summers still applaud the sustained supply of the federal spigot? To ask this question is to answer it.

Summers has persuasively made the case that a significant part of the university is sunk in a fetid stew of Jew-hate. Why, then, should taxpayers support such an institution short of a determined effort to eradicate this hatred?

Could it be that Summers sees anti-Semitism as a temporary and unfortunate illness afflicting his beloved institution? Can he not acknowledge the anti-Semitism he describes as an evil, one included in the Civil Rights Act’s prohibitions and protections pertaining to all federally funded institutions?

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.