In the Israeli system, seats in the Knesset are divided proportionally among those parties that received a minimum of 3.25 percent of the national vote. Votes for any party that does not meet the 3.25-percent threshold are thus “wasted” since they don’t translate into potential members of a governing coalition. Thus, in order to ensure that both parties would pass the threshold, the religious Zionist Jewish Home party, at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s urging, merged with the Kahanist party Otzma, creating much handwringing about a supposed rising tide of chauvinism in Israel. Evelyn Gordon argues that, whatever Otzma’s defects, the real problem isn’t a change in attitudes but a 2014 decision to raise the electoral threshold from 2 percent:

With a lower threshold, Netanyahu would have no interest in promoting a merger between Jewish Home and Otzma: by definition, any party that couldn’t get elected on its own would win so few votes that [a potential governing coalition] could probably spare it. Today, however, Jewish Home could easily fail to pass the threshold while still wasting enough votes to cost the right its majority. So for anyone who considers a continuation of right-wing policy essential, as Netanyahu and Jewish Home both do, shoring up the latter through a joint ticket suddenly looks essential as well. . . .

In the seventeen years preceding Netanyahu’s 2009 victory, Israelis thrice elected former generals who campaigned against diplomatic concessions [to the Palestinians], which they promptly turned around and implemented once in office. . . . But Netanyahu has proved for ten years now that he [won’t do such a thing]. Thus anyone fearful of further territorial concessions has good reason to stick with him rather than gambling on [his leading rival, the former general Benny] Gantz. And given what previous withdrawals have cost, such fear is unquestionably justified. Yitzḥak Rabin’s Oslo Accords and Ehud Barak’s failed summit [with Yasir Arafat] both sparked upsurges of terror that together killed some 1,500 Israelis. Ariel Sharon’s disengagement [from Gaza] led to 20,000 rockets being launched on Israel’s south. . . .

[Furthermore], a lower threshold would facilitate the entry of new parties that Israel actually needs, like a moderate Arab party and a moderate ḥaredi one. Demand exists for such parties in both communities. But a higher threshold discourages voters from taking a flyer on a new party, since it means the party will have less chance of getting in and will waste more votes if it fails. Yet, as the last two elections have counterintuitively proven, a lower threshold also reduces the likelihood of extremists entering the Knesset by eliminating a powerful incentive to merge with them.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.