Last year, the American Studies Association became the only major U.S. academic organization to endorse a boycott of Israel. It has recently backed down from the boycott, but it is now trying to shield its upcoming annual conference from press scrutiny by making the process of getting a press badge “as complicated, arbitrary, and daunting as getting a press pass for the North Korean Politburo meeting.” This reaction, writes Eugene Kontorovich, only shows how much something is wrong at ASA:

Of course, ASA is well within its rights—it could have entirely excluded journalists. That would have looked much better than creating a byzantine mechanism for cherry-picking those who can attend. It is also understandable that they do not want their conference to be constantly under the microscope for evidence of national-origin discrimination. Of course, the best way to avoid that would have been to not adopt a discriminatory policy.

While the ASA’s original boycott was discriminatory, and possibly illegal, the press policy is something that is arguably worse for a scholarly organization: ridiculous, heavy-handed, and self-parodying. This is an organization whose statement this week defending themselves from discrimination charges boasted of its “spirit of openness and transparency,” and described the conference as a “broad and inclusive event.”

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.