In my last post, I condemned the president of my alma Mater, Northwestern, as a dishonorable Jew for giving perks to the pro-Hamas demonstrators while doing nothing to make Jewish students and others feel safe on campus. Shortly after, I received an email from President Michael H. Schill, linking to His OP-ED in the Chicago Tribune, explaining his actions. Eagerly, I clicked to see if his assurance that Jewish students were still welcome and safe at N.U. is clearly stated. I’d rather be wrong about him if the campus were welcoming and safe for all. 

It’s sad to say that Schill is even worse than I thought. Even though Jews are the ones most threatened, he only mentions them obliquely, “First and foremost, we needed to protect the health and safety of our entire community, including our Jewish students.” The protestors are pro-Hamas. The group that just murdered and savaged the most significant number of Jews since the Holocaust and still holds hostages. Even with the “settlement, “keffiyeh-wearing demonstrators remain on Deering Meadow for another month. Wearing the headscarves shows solidarity with those desiring to dispose of all the Jews between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

In the 1930s, Germans wore brown shirts to show their hatred of Jews. Now, the protestors wear keffiyehs to convey the same sentiment. How does this deliver any feeling of welcome or safety to Jews on campus?

Understandably, Schill’s “settlement” and actions have drawn Jewish wrath. Rather than fighting the clear and present antisemitism, he equates it with virtually non-existent anti-muslin acts. “Second, we believe in free expression, but that most assuredly does not include antisemitic or anti-Muslim harassment or intimidation.” 

While Schill rolled over and placated the demonstrators, Ben Sasse, the University of Florida President, faithfully adhered to his school’s rules. Those rules allowed free speech, but if you broke them, you faced immediate suspension. As a result, students, including Jews, went about the business of learning without disturbance. 

Which one would you feel most at ease with your children or grandchildren attending? What do you think about the choice?  

Now Biden stops arms deliveries to Israel over the latter’s plans to finish off Hamas in Rafah. Congress recently voted to fund these supplies, but Biden refuses to deliver them. One would think the Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schumer, would be livid, but the highest-ranking Jew in government backs Biden.  

At least New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would see the light and protest undermining of Israel, but no, he falls in line while continuing his vendetta against the country’s prime minister. He ignores the fact that Israel’s war cabinet is drawn from across the political spectrum and backs Israel’s finishing the job in Rafah.

I wish I were wrong about Schill, Schmer, Friedman, and other like-minded Jews, but they continue to confirm my profiles of them. They aren’t profiles in courage or honor. To be sure, some Jews collaborated with the Nazis, but mostly to try to save their lives and their family’s lives. What is their excuse? 

The situation around Rafah in Gaza has revealed fractures between Israel and the U.S. Having cornered the bulk of Hamas’ remaining forces in that area, Israel needs to finish the job, or it will achieve nothing. There can be no peace while Hamas remains an armed force. So why is the U.S. withholding weapons?

The truth is Israel, at this point, has no other choice but to finish the job in Rafah. Destroying all of Hamas’ military capabilities is the only way forward. Thomas Friedman’s fairy tale idea of the Palestinian Authority establishing order in Gaza with Hamas still armed is a recipe for disaster. 

Friedman and his supporters conveniently forget when Israel left Gaza in 2005, the Palestinian Authority took charge. Hamas tossed its members off buildings and won the only election. With Hamas on the rise even in the West Bank, the ruling Fatah party did away with elections on the West Bank to keep the aging, corrupt leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in power.

The idea these guys are going to control an armed Hamas defies reality. More likely, Hamas and its allies take control of the West Bank, giving it the ability to attack Israel from two directions. The idea of a multi-nation Arab force to police Gaza while Hamas remains armed is laughable. Surely, Friedman knows all this but continues pushing the discredited “Two State Solution.”

Israel has offered several times in the past a two-state solution, only to be roughly rebuffed. Why should it work now with even more radicalized Palestinians likely under Hamas control?  Would Friedman have a mass murderer as a neighbor? Why should he expect Israel to continue to live next to people who want them dead?

Friedman and others ignore the elephant in the room. Rafah sits on the Egyptian border. Simply opening the Rafah crossing to women and children would save the non-combatants: 

Defusing the situation in Rafah could mirror other conflicts, such as in Ukraine, with a neighboring nation taking in vulnerable refugees. Poland accepted all the Ukrainian women and children showing up on its border. 

So why doesn’t Arab brother Eygpt put out the welcome mat? They’re terrified Palestinians from Gaza would destabilize their nation. Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition to the reigning Egyptian government. Even though the United States has excellent leverage over Egypt through its generous aid, it isn’t about to undermine a shaky ally.

The same logic applies to other Arab neighbors. Palestinians had to be put down by Jordan’s Monarchy and are considered akin to a dangerous cancer by the rest. Who wants to take in people capable of the viciousness of October 7? It might give N.U.’s Shill pause that he seems to be the only one in the world desiring more Palestinians. 

This problem is why I proposed an alternative Israeli attack plan. 

For those pooh, poohing my idea of destroying buildings while protecting women and children by removing them to safety on the same ships bringing in supplies as unworkable, a new pier will be bringing in substantial supplies. Sadly, those ships won’t be taking the most vulnerable away to safety. My idea could’ve saved lives while ending the conflict by Humas seeing its position as hopeless or no one left in Gaza. Rather than being outlandish, the plan is practical.

Defusing Palestinian refugees by sea widely in smaller groups throughout the Arab world takes the pressure off the neighbors while giving refugees a chance at a better life.

My plan is still a better way. Even today, it could still be implemented with the enhanced port easing the way. Sadly, supposedly intelligent people stay lost in their narratives rather than finding workable solutions.