In America, unlike in Britain, even Democratic politicians have tried to stop the pro-jihadist mania. For instance, when students at the University of Michigan shut down the quad and assaulted police officers, the state attorney general Dana Nessel brought charges against them. But what happened next was much less encouraging—and sets a terrible precedent. Seth Mandel writes:

The Democratic representative Rashida Tlaib led the chorus of those accusing Nessel, who is Jewish, of acting out of bias and demanding her recusal. . . . On CNN, Nessel responded: “I don’t think you have to be Angela Lansbury to figure this out. Clearly, she’s referencing my religion.”

“I’m not going to get in the middle of this argument that they’re having,” the Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer said when asked by Jake Tapper to respond to the accusations against Nessel.

Meanwhile, as the case dragged on, Nessel was left to fend for herself and the “Jewish disqualification” argument persisted. The judge was even considering granting a hearing on it. That same judge, from Nessel’s perspective, had slow-walked the case nearly to a stall while the attorney general took steady fire from the left. It was too much for Nessel. This week, she threw in the towel, dropped all the charges, and, according to court observers, surprised even the defendants with her actions.

To her credit, Nessel said in a statement that not only were the charges justified, but “a reasonable jury would find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged.” But to her shame, she cast blame on the Jewish Community Relations Council, as Mandel details—throwing the Jewish group under the bus to save her reputation.

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.