In a recent New York Times essay, the president of Wesleyan College, Michael Roth, argued that Jews should be wary, if not frightened, by the Trump administration’s efforts to curb anti-Semitism on university campuses—expressing a sentiment that is gaining traction in many circles. Seth Mandel dismantles Roth’s argument, which rests largely on muddying the waters, misdirection, and what Mandel terms “fascism by association.”

Roth wants to pollute even the obviously reasonable policies. The coalition for whom Roth speaks has a very clear position: anti-Semitism is real but absolutely nothing must be done about it. Here is how he characterizes the administration’s recent moves: “Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile—Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us.”

By “the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas” Roth means the attempt to root out anti-Semitic lawbreaking in public spaces.

Roth [also] argues that Trump is a hypocrite because he is fighting anti-Semitism while tolerating the presence of anti-Semites in his own administration. This is undeniably true. [But] Roth says that the president and his circle have legitimized people like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, and then says “These are our defenders?” But Owens and Fuentes agree with Roth! “Republicans can’t claim to defend free speech while simultaneously using government to punish American citizens for criticizing Israel,” Fuentes posted.

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.