Responding to the recent wave of anti-Semitic attack and incidents in the United States, Shannon Walsh calls on her fellow Roman Catholics not to remain passive:

Catholics have a unique and urgent responsibility to confront anti-Semitism wherever they find it. In the words of Nostra Aetate, the first Catholic document to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms, Christians are linked to the Jewish people by a “bond that spiritually ties the people of the new covenant to Abraham’s stock.” On last year’s anniversary of the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, I . . . called on Catholic educators to take a more active role in the fight against anti-Semitism. The spike in anti-Jewish violence over the last three weeks compels me to extend that call to all American Catholics.

Pope Francis has been outspoken against anti-Semitism throughout his tenure at the Vatican, and even goes so far as to name anti-Zionism as the same sin under a different name. In 2015, he told the World Jewish Congress, “To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the state of Israel is also anti-Semitism. . . . There may be political disagreements between governments and on political issues, but the state of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity.”

Catholics should continue to pray for peace and understanding in the land where Jesus walked. However, Catholics must also understand that invalidating Israel’s right to exist and condemning it as an “apartheid state” is not only unhelpful but anti-Semitic. Attacking Jews under the banner of “Free Palestine” is beyond anti-Semitic. It is undeniably evil.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.