Peggy Noonan

Fareed Zakaria opened his CNN show last weekend with a commentary that seemed to me a signal moment in the DEI/woke/identity-politics wars. I don’t know how Mr. Zakaria would characterize his political views, but there was a quality of something building within him that finally came out. It was an earnest commentary that perhaps took some daring.

“When one thinks of America’s greatest strengths, the kind of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy, America’s elite universities would long have been at the top of that list,” he said. “But the American public has been losing faith in these universities for good reason.” He scored the three presidents who’d come under fire in the House for their “vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institutions’ codes of conduct.” Their performance was understandable if you understand that our elite universities “have gone from being centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas.” Those agendas, “clustered around diversity and inclusion,” began in good faith, “but those good intentions have morphed into a dogmatic ideology and turned these universities into places where the pervasive goals are political and social engineering, not academic merit.”

“In the humanities, hiring for new academic positions now appears to center on the race and gender of the applicant, as well as the subject matter, which needs to be about marginalized groups. A white man studying the American presidency does not have a prayer of getting tenure at a major history department in America today. . . . New subjects crop up that are really political agendas, not academic fields.”

“Out of this culture of diversity has grown the collection of ideas and practices that we have now all heard of—safe spaces, trigger warnings and microaggressions.” Schools have instituted speech codes “that make it a violation of university rules to say things that some groups might find offensive. Universities advise students not to speak, act, even dress in ways that might cause offense to some minority groups.” When the George Floyd protests erupted, universities publicly aligned their institutions to those protests. “In this context, it is understandable that Jewish groups would wonder: Why do safe spaces, microaggressions and hate speech not apply to us? If universities can take positions against free speech to make some groups feel safe, why not us? Having coddled so many student groups for so long, university administrators found themselves squirming, unable to explain why certain groups (Jews, Asians) don’t seem to count in these conversations.”

The House testimony “was the inevitable result of decades of the politicization of universities. America’s top colleges are no longer seen as bastions of excellence but partisan outfits.” They should “abandon this long misadventure into politics . . . and rebuild their reputations as centers of research and learning.”

This was a realistic and straightforward assessment of where the universities are and what they should do. It would be helpful if all on the sane left would drop their relative silence, rise up and end the misadventure.

I make two points connected to Mr. Zakaria’s larger statement. He emphasized the decreasing number of Americans who have confidence in our elite universities. I have been reading Edmund Wilson’s 1940 classic, “To the Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History.” It famously offers a portrait of the groundbreaking French historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874), a father of modern historiography. The whole section reads like a tribute to the idea of learning, of understanding, of telling. It is not too much to say it is a kind of paean to the idea of the university.

What a scholar Michelet was, what a searcher for truth. His early life, in Wilson’s words, was “sad, poor and hard.” Natural brilliance drove him to and through the academy. He received honors, tutored princesses, but he was really a historian. He longed to know the facts of the past and to understand them. Appointed to the civil service, he was put in the Record Office. He was in charge of the archives of all of France. Wilson: “No one had really explored the French archives before; the histories had mostly been written from other histories” and by hired hands. Over the coming decades Michelet would write the first serious, documented, comprehensive history of France from its beginning through the 1789 revolution.

Michelet said there came to him in the archives “the whispers of the souls who had suffered so long ago and who were smothered now in the past.” His approach was rational and realistic, not romantic, though there was plenty of color and sweep in his work. The story of Joan of Arc interested him because her story was fully documented—“incontestable”—and because he saw her as the first modern hero of action, “contrary to passive Christianity.”

Michelet said the historian is one who, “taking history as something more than a game, makes the effort in good faith to enter into the life of the past.” He treated history as the crowded, jagged thing it is, Wilson observes, and he didn’t simplify. He saw the story of France, and history in general, as complex, braided, intertwined, and driven in the end more by the masses than their leaders.

The idea of this man—a true scholar who attempts to find the honest truth—seems inapplicable to the current moment. And the reason is the three words he uses—“in good faith”—to define how the historian must act. In the DEI/woke regime, the good faith of the scholar is sacrificed to political fashion. In going all in on the regime, those who run the universities negate their own worth. Faculty and professors, administrators and department heads lower their own standing. Because they are not now seen as people of the mind, of the intellect, but as mere operatives, enforcers. They thus give up their place of respect in the public imagination.

Regular people used to imagine what a university looks like—rows of gleaming books, learned professors, an air of honest inquiry. That isn’t now a picture the public can see. Now it’s something else, less impressive, less moving. Less important to our continuance as a people.

The elites who run our elite colleges are killing their own status. They are also lowering the esteem in which college graduates are held. Your primary job as a student is taking in. You read, learn, connect this event with that, apply your imagination, empathize, judge. It is a spacious act—it takes time to absorb, reflect, feel—which is why you’re given four whole years to do it. But if the public senses that few are studying like independent scholars in there, not enough are absorbing the expertise of their field, that they’ve merely been instructed to internalize a particular worldview and parrot it back . . .

Well, if that’s the case, who needs them? Is it even worth having them around in the office? The people of a country have a greater stake in all this than universities and their students understand. And the elite schools are lowering their own standing more than they know.

At first I didn’t understand. Among Hamas’s crimes of 10/7: little children and babies murdered, some burned to death; children forced to watch parents chased, beaten and shot. Old couples murdered in their homes; families who’d taken refuge in safe rooms burned out and killed. Hamas attempted to behead a kibbutz worker, and killed old women standing at a bus stop. Women were abused—raped, it seemed certain. But I didn’t understand why, from day one, the last received such emphasis. Defenders of Hamas kept demanding proof and claiming there was no evidence. It was as if they were saying: Sure we behead people and kill infants but raping someone, that’s crossing a line!

But now I understand what was done. It was grim and dreadful, but it was also systematic and deliberate. And since there’s going to be a lot of 10/7 trutherism—there already is—we have to be clear about what happened.

In the days after the attack, chaos reigned in the attack areas. At least 1,200 people had been murdered, their bodies scattered through kibbutzim and on the site of the Nova music festival. The crime scene was huge; the priority was identifying the dead and informing their families. Documentation of crimes was incomplete, forensic evidence not always recorded, evidence perishable. The testimony of witnesses, body collectors and morgue workers came in unevenly. It has built and is becoming comprehensive.

A stunning report appeared last weekend in London’s Sunday Times, by reporter Christina Lamb. Bar Yuval-Shani, a 58-year-old psychotherapist treating the families of victims, told Ms. Lamb she has been told by several witnesses of rape at the music festival. A police commander told Ms. Lamb, “It’s clear now that sexual crimes were part of the planning, and the purpose was to terrify and humiliate people.” Ms. Lamb quotes Yoni Saadon, 39, a father of four and shift manager in a foundry who was at the music festival. He said he hid as a young woman was raped, and saw Hamas fighters capture another young woman near a car. “She was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her. They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her.”

“We didn’t understand at first,” Ms. Lamb quoted Cochav Elkayam-Levy, a Hebrew University expert on international law, who heads a commission into the Hamas crimes. She said survivors arriving at hospitals weren’t asked about sexual abuse or given rape kits, but those who volunteered to collect bodies started reporting that many of the women were naked and bleeding from the genitals. The commander of a unit of a volunteer religious organization that collected the remains of the dead told Ms. Lamb they collected 1,000 bodies in 10 days from the festival site and the kibbutzim. “No one saw more than us. . . . It seemed their mission was to rape as many as possible.”

Israel Defense Forces sources told the paper that Hamas fighters caught in Gaza reported in police interrogations that they had been instructed by superiors to “dirty” and “whore” the women.

A few days after the Sunday Times report came one on the mounting evidence of violent sexual abuse from BBC correspondent Lucy Williamson. Several of those involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of the dead told the BBC that they had seen “multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears, and that the victims ranged from children and teenagers to pensioners.” Video testimony of an eyewitness to the music festival, shown to journalists by Israeli police, “detailed the gang rape, mutilation and execution of one victim.” The BBC saw “videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack.”

The gallant gents of Hamas were filming their own war crimes.

Israeli police have privately shown journalists filmed testimony of a woman at the music festival. She describes Hamas fighters gang-raping a woman and then mutilating her. The last of her attackers shot her in the head. She said the men cut off parts of the woman’s body during the rape. In other videos, Ms. Williamson writes, women carried away by the terrorists “appear to be naked or semi-clothed.”

Reuters on Dec. 5 quoted an Israeli reservist who worked at a makeshift morgue. “Often women came in in just their underwear,” she said. “I saw very bloody genitals on women.” Reuters spoke to seven people, first responders and those dealing with the dead, who attested to the sexual violence. Reuters quotes written testimony from one volunteer, who said he saw dozens of dead women in shelters: “Their clothing was torn on the upper part, but their bottoms were completely naked.”

This Monday a meeting at the United Nations laid out proof of the violent abuse. In the New York Times
, reporters Katherine Rosman and Lisa Lerer quoted the testimony of Simcha Greinman, a volunteer collector of remains at the kibbutzim. He said the body of one woman had “nails and different objects in her female organs.” A person’s genitals were so mutilated “we couldn’t identify if it was a man or a woman.” Other women had mutilated faces. The head of the International Crime Investigations Unit of the Israeli police was asked how many women were abused. He said, “I am talking about dozens.”

If half of this testimony is true, then what was done to the women at the music festival and in the kibbutzim wasn’t a series of isolated crimes. It happened at scale, as part of a pattern, and with a deliberateness that strongly suggests it was systematic. The rape, torture and mutilation of women looks as if it was part of the battle plan. Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon.

Why has the progressive left in the West, for two months now, been disbelieving, silent or equivocal about what Hamas did to women? One answer is that the progressive left hates Israel and feels whatever is done to Israelis is justified. Another is that the sick brutality of Hamas’s actions undercuts its position in the world, undercutting too the cause they falsely claim to represent, that of the Palestinian people. Why have women’s groups of the progressive left been silent? Because at bottom they aren’t for women; they are for the team.

All of this makes more remarkable the exchange between Dana Bash of CNN and Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Seattle. Ms. Bash pressed Ms. Jayapal on why she wasn’t condemning what had been done to women on 10/7. Ms. Jayapal was evasive, tried to redirect, said rape is “horrific” but “happens in war situations.”

“However,” she said, “I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians.”

Balanced? How do you balance a story like the horrors of Oct. 7? You don’t, you just find and tell the truth. Some stories don’t have two sides. This is one of them.

Why is it important? Because it happened. Because it reveals something about the essential nature of Hamas and reflects its ultimate political goals. Progressives admiringly quote Maya Angelou’s advice that when people show you who they are, believe them. Oct. 7 was Hamas showing you who they are. Believe them.

Recently while sharing a meal an acquaintance said something arresting. We were speaking, as happy pessimists do, about where the 21st century went wrong. We’re almost a quarter-century into it, it’s already taken on a certain general shape and character, and I’m not sure I see much good in it beyond advances in medicine and science. He said he was working on a theory: The 21st century so far has been a reverse Y2K.

By 12/31/99 the world was transfixed by a fear that all its mighty computers would go crazy as 23:59:59 clicked to 0:00:00. They wouldn’t be able to transfer over to 2000. The entire system would have a hiccup and the lights go out. It didn’t happen. Remedies were invented and may have saved the day.

It is since 2000, the acquaintance said, that the world’s computers have caused havoc, in the social, cultural and political spheres. Few worried, watched or took countering steps. After all, 2000 turned out all right, so this probably would too. We accepted all the sludge—algorithms designed to divide us, to give destructive messages to kids, to addict them to the product—passively, without alarm.

We are accepting artificial intelligence the same way, passively, and hoping its promised benefits (in medicine and science again) will outweigh its grave and obvious threat. That threat is one Henry Kissinger warned of in these pages early this year. “What happens if this technology cannot be completely contained?” he and his co-authors asked. “What if an element of malice emerges in the AI?” Kissinger was a great diplomat and historian, but he had the imagination of an artist. AI and the possibility of nuclear war were the two great causes of his last years. He was worried about where this whole modern contraption was going.

I’ve written that a great icon of the age, the Apple logo—the apple with the bite taken out of it—seemed to me a conscious or unconscious expression that those involved in the development of our modern tech world understood on some level that their efforts were taking us back to Eden, to the pivotal moment when Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. The serpent told Eve they would become all-knowing like God, in fact equal to God, and that is why God didn’t want them to have it. She bit, and human beings were banished from the kindly garden and thrown into the rough cruel world. I believe those creating, fueling and funding AI want, possibly unconsciously, to be God, and think on some level they are God.

Many have warned of the destructive possibilities and capabilities of AI, but there are important thoughts on this in a recent New Yorker piece on Geoffrey Hinton, famously called the godfather of AI. It is a brilliantly written and thought-through profile by Joshua Rothman.

Mr. Hinton, 75, a Turing Award winner, had spent 30 years as a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. He studied neural networks. Later he started a small research company that was bought by Google, and he worked there until earlier this year. Soon after leaving he began to warn of the “existential threat” AI poses. The more he used ChatGPT, the more uneasy he became. He worries that AI systems may start to think for themselves; they may attempt to take over human civilization, or eliminate it.

Mr. Hinton told Mr. Rothman that once, early in his research days, he saw a “frustrated AI.” It was a computer attached to two TV cameras and a robot arm. The computer was told to assemble some blocks spread on a table. It tried, but it knew only how to recognize individual blocks. A pile of them left it confused. “It pulled back a little bit, and went bash,” knocking them all around. “It couldn’t deal with what was going on, so it changed it, violently.”

Mr. Hinton says he doesn’t regret his work, but he fears what powerful people will do with AI. Vladimir Putin might create “an autonomous lethal weapon”—a self-directing killing machine. Mr. Hinton believes such weapons should be outlawed. But even benign autonomous systems can be destructive.

He believes AI can be approached with one of two attitudes, denial or stoicism. When people first hear of its potential for destruction they say it’s not worth it, we have to stop it. But stopping it is a fantasy. “We need to think, How do we make it not as awful for humanity as it might be?”

Why, Mr. Rothman asks, don’t we just unplug it? AI requires giant servers and data centers, all of which run on electricity.

I was glad to see this question asked, because I have wondered it too.

Mr. Hinton said it’s reasonable to ask if we wouldn’t be better off without AI. “But it’s not going to happen. Because of the way society is. And because of the competition between different nations.” If the United Nations worked, maybe it could stop it. But China isn’t going to.

I found this argument, which AI enthusiasts always make, more a rationale than a thought. If China took to hunting children for sport, would we do it? (Someone reading this in Silicon Valley, please say no.)

What is most urgently disturbing to me is that if America speeds forward with AI it is putting the fate of humanity in the hands of the men and women of Silicon Valley, who invented the internet as it is, including all its sludge. And there’s something wrong with them. They’re some new kind of human, brilliant in a deep yet narrow way, prattling on about connection and compassion but cold at the core. They seem apart from the great faiths of past millennia, apart from traditional moral or ethical systems or assumptions about life. C.S. Lewis once said words to the effect that empires rise and fall, cultures come and go, but the waiter who poured your coffee this morning is immortal because his soul is immortal. Such a thought would be familiar to many readers but would leave Silicon Valley blinking with bafflement. They’re modern and beyond beyond. This one injects himself with the blood of people in their 20s in his quest for longevity; that one embraces extreme fasting. The Journal this summer reported on Silicon Valley executives: “Routine drug use has moved from an after-hours activity squarely into corporate culture.” They see psychedelics—Ketamine, hallucinogenic mushrooms—as “gateways to business breakthroughs.”

Yes, by all means put the fate of the world in their hands. They’re not particularly steady. OpenAI’s Sam Altman, 38, the face of the movement, was famously fired last week and rehired days later, and no one seems to know for sure what it was about. You’d think we have a right to know. There was a story it was all due to an internal memo alerting the board to a dangerous new AI development. A major investor said this isn’t true, which makes me feel so much better.

We are putting the fate of humanity in the hands of people not capable of holding it. We have to focus as if this is Y2K, only real.

Right about now Time magazine would be choosing its Person of the Year, a designation I’ve followed from childhood because their choices tend to vary from sound to interesting. Also I almost always know who they’ll choose and enjoy finding out if I’m right. Here I tell you who it will be and must be or I will be displeased.

Miss Taylor Swift is the Person of the Year. She is the best thing that has happened in America in all of 2023. This fact makes her a suitably international choice because when something good happens in America, boy is it worldwide news.

I have been following her famous Eras tour since it began in March. Everyone says she’s huge, she’s fabulous, but really it’s bigger than that. What she did this year is some kind of epic American story.

Here are the reasons she should be Person of the Year:

Her tour has broken attendance and income records across the country. She has transformed the economy of every city she visits. The U.S. Travel Association reported this fall that what her concertgoers spend in and around each venue “is on par with the Super Bowl, but this time it happened on 53 different nights in 20 different locations over the course of five months.” Downtowns across the country—uniquely battered by the pandemic and the riots and demonstrations of 2020—are, while she is there, brought to life, with an influx of visitors and a local small business boom. Wherever she went it was like the past three years didn’t happen.

When Ms. Swift played Los Angeles for six sold-out nights in August she brought a reported $320 million local windfall with her, including 3,300 jobs and a $160 million increase in local earnings. From Straits Research this month: Ms. Swift’s tour is “an economic phenomenon that is totally altering the rules of entertainment economics.”

When the tour became a bona fide record-breaker Ms. Swift gave everyone in her crew—everyone, the dressers, the guys who move the sets, the sound techs and backup dancers—a combined $55 million in bonuses. The truck drivers received a reported $100,000 each.

Bloomberg Economics reports U.S. gross domestic product went up an estimated $4.3 billion as a result of her first 53 concerts.

The tour made her a billionaire, according to Forbes the first musician ever to make that rank solely based on her songs and performances.

When Ms. Swift made a film of the ongoing tour she reinvented how such things are financed and marketed, upending previous models, and when the film opened, on Oct. 13, it became the most successful concert film in history.

Foreign leaders have begged her to come. One said, “Thailand is back on track to be fully democratic after you had to cancel last time due to the coup.”

All of this is phenomenal, groundbreaking, but it’s just economics. Ms. Swift brings joy. Over the summer I was fascinated by what became familiar, people posting on social media what was going on in the backs of the stadium as Ms. Swift sang. It was thousands of fathers and daughters dancing. When she played in downtown Seattle in July, the stomping was so heavy and the stadium shook so hard it registered on a seismometer as equal to a magnitude 2.3 earthquake.

People meaning to compliment her ask if she’s Elvis or the Beatles, but it is the wrong question. Taylor Swift is her own category.

Here I wish to attest personally to the quality of her art but honey, I’m not the demo, I’m Porgy and Bess, the American Songbook and Joni Mitchell. She writes pleasing tunes with pointed lyrics. They’re sometimes jaunty, sometimes blue, and famously have a particular resonance for teenage girls and young women. She has said she sees herself primarily as a storyteller. They’re her stories and those of her audience—breakups, small triumphs, betrayals, mistakes. Her special bond with her audience is that for 17 years, more than a generation, they’ve been going through life together, experiencing it and talking it through. It’s a relationship.

Nine years ago, in an interview with CBS’s Gayle King, Ms. Swift coolly self-assessed. “My life doesn’t gravitate towards being edgy, sexy, or cool. I just naturally am not any of those things.” Pressed for what she is, she said: “I’m imaginative, I’m smart and I’m hardworking.” She was only 24 but all that seems perfectly correct. She’s focused, ambitious, loves to perform, loves to be cheered, loves to strut. Great careers are all effort. She works herself like a rented mule.

In the Atlantic magazine, the writer Spencer Kornhaber captured her opening show. Over more than three hours she played an amazing 44 songs in Glendale, Ariz. “Somehow seeing her up close made her seem more superhuman.” She has “the stamina of a ram.” She was fearless and inventive. “At one point she induced gasps by seeming to dive into the stage and then swim to the other side, as if it were a pond.”

Friends, this is some kind of epic American thing that is happening, something on the order of great tales and myths. Over the past few months as I’ve thought about and read of Ms. Swift my mind kept going back to phrases that are . . . absurd as comparisons. And yet. “When John Henry was a little baby . . . ” And a beautiful lyric I saw years ago that stayed with me. “Black-eyed peas asks cornbread/ ‘What makes you so strong?’/ Cornbread says, ‘I come from/ Where Joe Louis was born.’ ”

There is just something so mightily American in Taylor Swift’s great year.

Am I getting carried away? Oh yes, I am. And yet I think, isn’t it great that somebody’s shown such excellence you get carried away?

We end with her recent purported famous romance with football star Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs. Is it real, everyone asks. Who knows? Maybe they don’t know. I don’t understand the argument that they’ve come together for publicity. That’s the one thing she doesn’t need more of and could hardly get more of. As for Mr. Kelce, as J.R. Moehringer noted this week in the Journal, his mug is all over too. Whatever it is they owe no stranger an answer.

But here are reasons people would like it to be real. Because it makes life feel more magical—the prince meets the princess. Because it’s sweet. Because if it’s real then not everything is media management, which is the thing that deep down we always fear. Because it’s fun. Marilyn and Joltin’ Joe made America more fun, more a romantic place where anything can happen and glamour is real. Also if it’s real it adds to the sum total of love in the world, literally increases its quantity, and the love enters the air and the world breathes it in and, for a moment, becomes: better.

Onward to further greatness, Taylor Swift. Onward Travis Kelce. Win the Super Bowl this year, make an impossible catch, jump a man’s height to snatch the ball from the air with 10 seconds to go, score the winning touchdown, hold the ball up to your girl in the stands as the stadium roars and the confetti rains down.

Leave a 100 billion memories. Remind everyone: It’s good to be alive.

Because it is.

And Happy Thanksgiving weekend to the great and fabled nation that is still, this day, the hope of the world.

The crisis of comportment on Capitol Hill is getting worse. Two months ago it was an argument over whether senators should be allowed to wear children’s play clothes on the floor, because one senator felt this was emotionally necessary for him. His emotions were overridden and the old dress code restored. Now it is how members feel free to act in public. If you follow the news you’re familiar with most or all of the instances.

The former House speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), was walking through the halls with his security team when he was charged with elbowing a kidney of Rep. Tim Burchett (R., Tenn.), who’d been part of the successful effort to remove him as speaker. NPR’s Claudia Grisales was there and saw it all. “Have NEVER seen this on Capitol Hill,” she tweeted. “McCarthy walked by with his detail and McCarthy shoved Burchett.” Mr. Burchett lunged forward, and a chase ensued, followed by a verbal confrontation.

Did this happen? Of course. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), in a memoir published earlier this year, wrote that Mr. McCarthy had twice gotten physical with him in almost exactly the same way. “As he passed with his security man and some of his boys he veered towards me, hit me with his shoulder and then kept going.” Mr. McCarthy denied Mr. Burchett’s charge, at first allowing that “I guess our shoulders hit or something,” and later growling, “If I kidney-punched someone, they would be on the ground.”

Mr. McCarthy is someone who’d want to avenge himself on a foe, and what’s he going to use, his wit? He is an odd man in that as soon as he became a figure of some height and sympathy, after wrongfully being taken down last month, he decided to remind everybody why nobody liked him.

Also this week, in a public hearing, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R., Okla.) challenged Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to a fight. Mr. O’Brien had gotten lippy on Twitter, calling Mullin a “moron” and “full of s—.” Why not fight it out here, at the hearing? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) stopped it—“God knows the American people have enough contempt for politics, let’s not make it worse.” Afterward Mr. Mullin told an Oklahoma podcaster how he fights and what we missed. “By the way, I’m not afraid of biting.” “I’ll bite 100%. In a fight, I’m gonna bite. I’ll do anything, I’m not above it. And I don’t care where I bite, by the way.”

The same day in the House, Rep. James Comer (R., Ky.) called Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D., Fla.) a “Smurf” and “a liar” after Mr. Moskowitz accused Mr. Comer of personal corruption. And Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) lacks the “maturity” to understand the implications of her political actions, which prompted her to reply with a tweet saying Mr. Issa lacks—and here she posted emojis of a football, a basketball, a baseball and so on. In June she was picked up calling one of her competitors, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R., Colo.), “a little bitch” on the House floor.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D., N.Y.) didn’t do anything at all this week, which is amazing because he is a one man death-of-comportment unit, but two weeks ago he pleaded guilty to falsely pulling a fire alarm in a Capitol Hill office building, which had to be evacuated. Earlier he had denied it and likened his Republican critics to Nazis. In March he distinguished himself by standing in the halls and screaming, of Republicans, “They’re freaking cowards, they’re gutless.”

What is wrong with these people? Why do they do act this way?

Some part of it is surely psychological—a working out, in public, of the fact that they have low regard for the institution because it is populated by people like them, and no regard for the political process because it allows people like them to rise. Here is a rule of life: Deep down mooks always know they’re mooks, the shallow know they’re shallow, the dumb know they’re dumb. Their constant attempts not to let you see what they know leads to much bad behavior.

A larger part would be that they’re certain the people back home like it. Mr. Mullin was sharply dressed, in a crisp white shirt camera-ready for his moment. He didn’t expect to be outfaced by the union guy: “You stand your butt up.” Mr. Mullin was showing his base how rough, tough and macho he is. He’s not gonna let any fancy deep-state rules on decorum dictate to him; he’s real, authentic, a man. Which he can show by punching and kicking people. Here, watch! I wonder if he’s right that the people of Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain, like that sort of thing. It isn’t really a compliment to them that he thinks they would.

I think the biggest reason for Congress’s behavioral deterioration may be simply that all Americans now, especially people in politics, are media-addled. Lawmakers don’t experience themselves as political figures doing the business of the nation but as actors in a streaming series called “Populism!” on some tacky cable network, and they have to keep it lively and keep the action going. They are celebrities back home, like Real Housewives, famous for being famous and eager to do selfies to show how salt-of-the-earth they are. Once I talked to the producer of a weekly TV drama and told him I found it interesting that his actors, in their scenes, always seem to show they’re thinking. Before answering a question they linger and take time, as if they’re trying to show how thinking looks. He smiled and said no, it’s just an actor’s trick, they’re trying to keep the camera on their face.

That’s what the members are doing, keeping the camera on their face.

Here we point out why all this is bad for America. It makes democracy look cruddy and small, like something shrinking before our eyes. It makes our leaders look second rate and insubstantial. It disheartens parents, who are trying to create rules for the road for their children. It disheartens normal Americans who are worried for their country and see in its increasing wildness and lack of dignity a sign that we may not be able to hold together in the long term.

And of course it pleases our competitors in the world. They think we’re a sinking nation, poorly educated, riven by race, seeking refuge in drugs. The embarrassing behavior of our political leaders is, to them, more evidence of our breakup. Do you wish you knew Chinese president Xi’s thoughts this week as he traveled through a San Francisco bedecked in Chinese flags? I’ll tell you. He thinks we are on a long slide, our time is over, America was the 20th century but this is the 21st.

We have to look at ourselves here. Why do we accept this? Do we think this is all just a show called “Populism”? How’s it going to end? Aren’t these questions earnest? It’s embarrassing to be earnest, isn’t it?”

Where are we, one year from the 2024 presidential election?

The incumbent is famously, historically unpopular and has been for some time, so it’s not a blip or event-related. He should help his party’s prospects by stepping aside and letting Democrats fight it out. He won’t, we all sense this.

Republican hopefuls continue their battle, but everyone knows who’s way ahead in the polls. The front-runner, however, faces criminal trials on federal and state charges, which may take place during primary season. We don’t know if that will cast a shadow, or how broad or long.

We do know that we’re going on December, the Iowa GOP caucuses are on Jan. 15, and the New Hampshire primary will follow soon after. Things are going at a clip even if they don’t seem to be. The debate this week was all about the front-runners after Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, two candidates different in stands, approach, talent, temperament and appeal. Between the two of them they’re a fair enough approximation of their party. The other candidates, having given their all, should step aside, withdraw their names, and throw their support to either Ms. Haley or Mr. DeSantis.

Let them duke it out in the clear. That’s where a breakthrough is possible. Let one emerge as the leader of the not-Trump half of the party and go from there.

In a way both parties are being held hostage, the Democrats by the needs of an old man who wants to stay, the Republicans by an old man who wants back in. And both parties are at the mercy of cults, the Republicans’ one of personality and the Democrats’ of policy. They can’t free themselves from unpopular stands on such issues as illegal immigration. Both cults are self-limiting. This is why the majority of the American people, when polled, admit a second Trump-Biden race leaves them depressed.

Joe Biden’s main problem, the perception that he is too old for the job, is guaranteed to get worse each day. This makes his vice president more important than vice presidents ever have been. When people consider voting for Mr. Biden for the presidency they’ll know it is likely they’re really voting for Kamala Harris. This will only hurt Democratic fortunes, because she is uniquely unpopular. The practical path would be to make a change that reassures, to a veteran, highly regarded figure in whom people might feel confidence. This wouldn’t be easy and would give the president a black eye with some portion of his base, but black eyes heal in a year, and none of those angered will be voting for Mr. Trump.

I have been fascinated by Ms. Harris’s lack of success in her role considering the impressiveness of her previous résumé—district attorney, California attorney general, U.S. senator. I think she didn’t fully understand the nature of the vice presidency and thought she did. I think she let her political ego dictate her calculations. She was surrounded by friends and staff who had made a study of her but not the job and who assumed that by virtue of her first-ever status—first ever woman to hold the role, first ever black and Indian-American—she should be bold, remake the position, make her special significance and importance clear, be less an understudy than a co-star. But you can’t effectively change a thing unless you understand it first.

She meant to establish her place as the future president by showing off her charm and ease. Which is how she got in trouble with dramatic interviews, winging it with ad-libbed, mad-libbed arias in speeches, and taking on portfolios—immigration during an immigration crisis—that were important but not promising, and in fact dangerous. In three years under bright lights she proved herself insubstantial—not seeming to understand issues in any depth, getting lost as she discussed them, laughing in ways that said “please see me as a happy warrior.”

In her previous life she never had to use the tools of seriousness. She rose in a one-party state. Charm, networking and picking your way through the intraparty progressive minefields was enough. But at the level of the vice presidency it isn’t.

Her attempts to turbocharge the role left the press free to judge her on different terms. Here it must be said that many jobs in the top level of the federal government are hard, but vice president isn’t one of them. Every morning you get up and put on clothing. You then often leave for a trip—to the funeral of a head of state, to the Detroit Economic Club for a speech, or a party fundraiser in Bismarck, N.D.—and what you talk about there is the administration’s policies and plans, its claimable successes.

It is a boring speech—vice presidents’ speeches are always boring, are prepared to be such, because the people at the White House want the vice president to be boring. They want the vice president to be substantive, but they don’t want any attention off the president, or any disadvantageous comparisons made. Another reason vice-presidential speeches are boring is you wind up repeating the same stuff—policies, plans, hopes. Another reason is that you’re always speaking of serious, not playful things—domestic challenges, approaches to the world.

But it’s OK. Because everyone you speak to—everyone—knows it’s your job to be boring and gives you a pass.

If this sounds like “Wow, no one should ever become vice president, how insignificant,” no. You get a mansion; you’re not under the most intense daily scrutiny; people take care of you. The boon and political gift of the job is picking up chits and forging relationships for when you run for president.

You also get to help the administration you presumably believe in, and thus help the American people with good policies. It’s a good job. And all the American people ask of you is that you seem serious, well-versed, and possibly, beneath the boringness, wise, so that if something bad were to happen they can feel secure that yes, you can do the job.

I don’t think Ms. Harris understood this, not the institutional history of the job or why it has been done by most of its holders with certain hard boundaries. With her faith in her charm and ability to be warm and relatable, as they say, she forgot to be modest or to imitate modesty. But people do expect humility of vice presidents, a grown-up sense that they know they’re the second banana, that today they’re nothing but tomorrow they may be everything, as the first vice president, John Adams, said. But today is today so do your sturdy, boring job, and learn more every day about the inner workings of this thing called the federal government. Previous vice presidents have been a mystery. Our age is one of TikTok feeds, not mystery, but there is power in being a step away.

The way to approach the vice presidency is with low-key humility and carefulness. You don’t take the job and shape it to your persona; you take your persona and fit it into the job, which existed long before you and ideally will exist long after.

I continue to think about the fault lines exposed by what has happened in Gaza, including the generational division on support for Israel.

Political splits between old and young aren’t new. May 1968 in France was a split between college students and their elders and it was fierce and culture-changing. When I was in college, Vietnam split America between the rising young and the generation that fought World War II.

Splits aren’t new, but the one happening now is troubling in unique ways. For one, the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian university students this time are reflecting a generation of indoctrination in higher ed: They’ve been taught to hold progressive views and do, taught to approach history as a matter of oppressor/oppressed, with the West the oppressor, and do.

American students in the 1970s hadn’t been instructed all their lives in the proper view on Vietnam. For all the intellectual fads and fashions that swept through their era, their commitments rose up pretty much from the students themselves: The anticommunist obsession of the U.S. government was wrong-headed, the domino theory mindless, the bombing of innocent agrarian villagers wicked. Young men didn’t want to be drafted, so they took to the streets.

If you’re in your 20s now, you’ve been taught throughout high school and college to view the world within a certain framework: white privilege, Western imperialism, the whole woke agenda. Every time you try to describe that regime you feel like you’re reciting clichés, which is part of its brilliance as an ideology: It makes you feel as if you’re chasing ghosts when you know you’re not.

While students were being indoctrinated, they weren’t being educated. Critical thinking can only get you in trouble, so stick with the narrative, don’t read too deep. A professor at an esteemed college mentioned this week that when he likened the airport mob in Dagestan to a “pogrom,” not one of his students knew what the word meant.

But what’s newest in these protests is the bloody-mindedness. The letters produced by students and the prevaricating responses of university leaders came immediately following 10/7, when it was already clear that unarmed Israeli civilians had been targeted, children and old people executed or taken hostage in the kibbutzim. One might call them innocent agrarian villagers. The college groups were aligning themselves with the strategically deliberate use of violence on civilians. And the final shock—that “We support the Palestinian people” devolved so quickly into hatred for Jews. This anti-Semitism was new. That’s not America, that’s not how we roll. It is beyond disquieting and feels like an active threat to the American future.

What are the universities going to do about this? It is good that alumni and donors are pushing back, good that some professors are speaking out. But I must say the general mood of many people my age is an astounded sense that we began in our youth, in the 1960s and ’70s, saying “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” And now, as we survey the wreckage the woke regime has done to the academy, the arts, the corporate office, we are thinking something that had never crossed our minds. “Don’t trust anyone under 30.”

We continue to think in this space that the invasion and bombardment of Gaza was a mistake, and not only because of the intractable question of who will govern it when the Israelis are done.

After the morning of 10/7 Israel was a wounded and grieving nation. It had endured a profound and gruesome shock; everyone in the country knew someone among the dead or abducted. In the world, those with a fully developed moral interior suddenly saw Israel differently. In their shock, opponents felt an easing of their coldness, supporters a quickening of their warmth.

In our view what was needed for Israel was an absorbing, a regirding. Sometimes you must wait, build up your strength, broaden your resources, reach out to friends, let opportunities present themselves—everything shifts in life; some shifts are promising. But don’t get sucked into Gaza and spend months providing the world with painful and horrifying pictures of innocent Palestinian babies being carried from the rubble. (“We told them to leave,” isn’t enough. Some people can’t leave, they’re not capable, they’re old people in an apartment somewhere.)

A few weeks of that and the world goes back to its corners.

Every day as things turn more kinetic, more fiery, with more casualties, there is the increased possibility it all spills over into the region, and new fronts are opened, and, as Israel goes deeper, the hostages are killed.

All this is a gift to cable news. Here is a truth: Anything good for cable news is bad for humanity.

Our final point. If the Gaza operation continues, it is even more important for Israel to face the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu is the wrong leader for this crucial moment. His own country doesn’t trust his leadership. He sapped the Israeli people’s strength over the past year by forcing on them a deeply damaging dispute over his judicial power grab, sundering what unity they had. His actions smeared Israel in the eyes of the world as increasingly undemocratic. He has been aggressively deaf on the rights of the Palestinian people.

Whatever war decisions he makes will be interpreted as not moving out of protectiveness and high strategy but from a desire to salvage his own reputation. He has allowed the messianic settlers of the West Bank to expand and dominate, and they may deliver to Israel a new war front. From the Financial Times on Thursday: “Armed settlers have stepped up their assaults on Palestinians, especially those in remote villages.” The European Union this week called it “settler terrorism” and asked Israel to stop it. Some think only Mr. Netanyahu has the clout to make them stop. But they haven’t stopped. Maybe they too see his weakened position.

The corruption charges that have dogged him leave him, always, with a reputation for untrustworthiness. As for his judgment, after Oct. 7 he essentially hid out from his own people and, having decided to come out and speak more, he decided to send out a Trumpesque tweet accusing Israeli’s security and military institutions, not him, of being responsible for Oct. 7. In the outcry that followed he did something uncharacteristic, which is admit the mistake and delete the tweet. You have to wonder what those he insulted have on him.

Sometimes a leader has too much history.

Everything is being remade now; all the pieces are moving on the board. Israel’s meaning must be made new, as if the young are looking at it and trying to understand it for the first time. It would be good for them to have a new person the world could look at, freshly weigh his or her words, sift them. Even if this person isn’t “much better,” an unknown variable might shake this up in a way that benefits civilization.

The U.S. in its support of Israel is tied to this discredited man in a way that doesn’t help.

It is a mistake for Israel, for its Knesset, to allow him to continue.

This is about describing and showing and making things clear. In the fog of war these things are never more essential.

Here is some first-rate describing, from Ruth Margalit in the New Yorker, in a piece called “The Devastation of Be’eri.” Be’eri is a kibbutz three miles from Israel’s border with Gaza. Hamas terrorists came there as Oct. 7 dawned. There were more than 100 of them, wearing camouflage and green Hamas bandannas. Many came on motorcycles, and all were heavily armed. Many cried “Allahu Akbar!”

Ms. Margolit wanted to know what the individual attackers looked like. She quotes an eyewitness description: “Like they had just come out of the gym. With crazy joy in their eyes, like they were high on something.” It’s the kind of statement you read and immediately know it was true. They were sleek young men, hopped up and murderous.

It tells you a lot about their purported cause. It tells you who they are.

This week we learned more about their actions. We learned it in large part because it wasn’t enough that the terrorists did it; they had to memorialize it. Some of them wore body cameras and took cellphone videos. The Israel Defense Forces compiled a video record, which also included footage from Israeli security cameras and dash cams, and showed it at a military base near Tel Aviv. Hundreds of journalists came. They were asked not to reproduce the 43-minute video but were free to describe what they saw.

From Graeme Wood in the Atlantic: “Men, women and children are shot, blown up, hunted, tortured, burned, and generally murdered in any horrible manner you could predict, and some that you might not.”

A man and his young sons are in their pajamas: “A terrorist throws a grenade into their hiding place, and the father is killed. The boys are covered in blood, and one appears to have lost an eye. They go to their kitchen and cry for their mother. One of the boys howls, ‘Why am I alive?’ and ‘Daddy, daddy.’ One says, ‘I think we’re going to die.’ The terrorist who killed their father comes in, and while they weep he raids their fridge.”

An IDF spokesman at the screening was unable to say whether the boys survived.

A terrorist uses a phone to call his family in Gaza. “I killed 10 Jews with my own hands,” he tells his father. “Put on Mom! Your son is a hero!” He tells them to open WhatsApp to see his pictures.

Andrew Neil of the Spectator wrote on social media: “Other footage shows IDF soldiers beheaded with their lifeless corpses left splayed in the streets.” The BBC noted the “stark detail” of the “sheer horror.” Hamas gunmen cheered with joy as they shot unarmed civilians on the road. There was “an attempt to decapitate someone who appeared to be still alive using a garden hoe.”

Isabel Kershner of the New York Times described a litany of images: “An emergency medical worker pouring mineral water from a bottle to douse the smoldering remains of charred bodies. . . . Brutalized young women, one of them naked. . . . Victims are seen gagged. . . . Faces are frozen in shock and agony. Women’s bones are broken, their legs twisted in impossible angles.”

Later, the Twitter account of the Israeli government showed clips of their interrogation of Hamas prisoners. One is asked what his mission was in Be’eri. “To conquer,” he replied. (The warriors now prisoners seem to be admitting people were murdered but denying they did it, blaming the other guy in the battalion. Interestingly, a few of them expressed resentment toward the leaders of Hamas, who live in luxury while they fought in the field. This managed to sound both rehearsed and genuine.)

Why did Israel put together these pictures and sounds and show them to reporters? There is already copious testimony from eyewitnesses and survivors. Hamas has never bothered to deny what it did. But the world needs proof it can’t forget or sweep away. This includes Hamas’s supporters in the U.S. and elsewhere.

But also: It happened. If it happened, you have to show it. Big history is coming, in which Israel will be saved or not saved, and you owe it to history to tell what tipped the world into this moment.

Anyway, the IDF did a first-class job of telling. Here is one way it can continue. All wars are of course now propaganda wars, and maybe always have been—“Bleeding Belgium” was more than a century ago. But now the propaganda is instantaneous, worldwide and expertly produced. The Israelis lost a big propaganda battle in the story of the Gaza hospital. By the time they and American intelligence were able to counter Hamas’s accusations, the Arab street had exploded. And yet Israel did the right thing: It didn’t immediately deny Hamas’s claims, it said it was investigating, gathered the data, presented it to the world, and its explanation—that it was an errant terrorist missile—was in the end widely accepted.

The Israelis played it straight. They should keep playing it straight, adopt it as a strategy. If they do, it will be understood in time that Israel’s communications apparatus is the only one that can be trusted. This will matter a great deal down the road. There will be temptations along the way to lie, fudge or dodge because nations at war make mistakes and blunders. There are misjudgments, accidents and failures. But something tells me that in this war you won’t be able to fight propaganda with propaganda, only truth.

I end with the observation that we are seeing a fairly stark generational divide over all that’s happening. Speaking generally, if you are middle-aged or older, chances are good you feel sympathy for and old loyalty toward Israel. The young are more prone to antipathy toward Israel, sometimes accompanied by rage, sometimes by almost violent accusations against the colonialist oppressor state. At the bottom of today’s progressive politics there is blood lust. They speak of justice and equity but that’s not what they want, they want dominance. It’s all about the will to power. Progressive students have absorbed the idea it’s good to be militant in your views, it shows you’re authentic. No, it shows you got the talking points.

I was with a more peaceable group the other night at the Al Smith dinner, the big annual bipartisan dinner of the Catholic Archdiocese of New York. One of the speakers, Mary Erdoes, told the audience that anti-Semitism appears to be on the rise and our friends need to know who’s with them. There was an envelope at each plate, she said, and if you open it you’ll find a blue lapel button. Wearing it is meant to show identification and affiliation with our brothers and sisters. Suddenly at that madly noisy dinner, all you could hear was one sound, envelopes being torn open, and the sight of buttons being affixed.

It was a great moment of making it clear.

It’s a powder keg, a story unfolding with the highest possible stakes. An interesting aspect: We know more than we did last week, but I haven’t seen any minds change. People are where they started. I am also.

Now and then you just want to share your worries. Here is one of mine, one of many. A day or two after the Oct. 7 horror I wrote to friends: “What is happening now doesn’t feel like the past, when, say, a surprised and underdog Israel, a tough and scrappy nation, spiritedly repelled its invaders. Or, later, when an unstoppable and determined nation came down hard on its foes, with all the hardware those foes didn’t have. This feels—and has felt from the beginning—like a nation that is not as competent, not as certain.” It felt like an Israel that had grown less disciplined, with a government that was complacent and distracted, “an Israel more generationally removed from its founding ideas, and its founders.”

Over and over I have seen the footage of the terrified young men and women running from the rave in the moments they first understood they were under attack. The most-used clip shows a young man in his 20s in some sort of knee-length caftan or cloak, his long hair up in a pony tail. The first impression was: modern. My second thought: That’s not David Ben-Gurion. Israel is a thoroughly modern Western culture in a neighborhood that isn’t thoroughly modern and doesn’t like all Western-inflected things. It’s long seemed to me societies that grow steadily more affluent grow stronger, and then at some point weaker.

Israel is unified by what has happened, but it will have to be strong now, and very cool. I find I am reacting to everything—from the first day, with the slain and abused children, with the videotape of babies sobbing as they were grabbed and taken hostage—not as a thinker on politics, or one who has read a lot of history, or lived long in the world, but simply as a mother. All of the instincts of a parent, especially a mother, are protective: You want to keep the young from harm so everyone gets to go on and live.

And so, even as I fear it may be too late—it looks to me as if plans for a ground invasion of Gaza are in place, that decisions have already been made, possible repercussions considered and perhaps accounted for—I am where I was:

Israel was attacked on Oct. 7 because its enemies thought it was weak—divided and distracted, with unwise leadership. Its job now is to get stronger—build itself up internally and in the world. In this corner we have urged a strategy of refortification, of digging deep and making foundations more stable. Strengthen, on all borders and within. Build up. Get Hamas in a way superior to what you have attempted in the past, dust off plans never acted on, step it up, be more focused, vigorous and professional. The world will not only understand it will be impressed by Israel methodically getting its tormentors. It largely won’t understand, in part because it doesn’t want to understand, more maximalist measures.

Why should Israel focus on making itself stronger? Because it is vulnerable. It is surrounded by passionate enemies and ambivalent friends. Because in the end it will never be able to do away with everyone in Hamas, it can’t get rid of all of Hezbollah. The region will only keep making them. Some problems can’t be solved, only managed. And because, in the end, all paths leading to a greater protection, and a new flourishing, run through politics—through diplomacy and deals and agreements and treaties.

If more fronts open it will be dangerous. Israel must do everything in its power to prevent them from opening. It is hard to see how a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza would make Israel’s position stronger. It will more likely bleed the country and deplete it, even as it produces an untold number of innocent casualties and a refugee crisis. It will make Israel look bloody-minded in the eyes of the world.

And Gaza is, most likely, where most of the hostages are—203 of them, at latest count, possibly including 13 unaccounted-for Americans. They haven’t been the focus of things the past week, and they need and deserve more.

Pounding, entering and holding Gaza will likely be a long, brutalizing exercise, and innocents will suffer. In conversation one picks up an air of, “It’s a terrible idea but the only idea we’ve got.” When your only idea is a bad one, that’s a sign to wait and think harder.

When the hospital grounds were bombed in Gaza this week, it was a revealing drama. Many thought Israel was responsible for a simple reason: Israel had been bombing Gaza, and a hospital in Gaza was bombed. Hamas is experienced and talented in propaganda, and it immediately pumped out the word: Israel targeted and bombed the hospital. What used to be called the Arab street exploded with demonstrations. Within a day or two the preponderance of evidence and intelligence showed it wasn’t Israel but an errant terrorist rocket.

It matters who was responsible because it matters who killed innocent people. But it is in the nature of what is under way in Gaza that there will be large-casualty events down the road. People will immediately blame Israel because they wish to, and because Israel is in Gaza. The propagandists will do their instant work. Shortly after the hospital explosion Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted: “Israel just bombed the Baptist Hospital killing 500 Palestinians (doctors, children, patients) just like that.” She and her friends in the Squad are quickly becoming America’s Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party leader who’d grown so extreme and anti-Semitic in his rhetoric—he called Hezbollah and Hamas his “friends”—that in 2020 he was thrown out of the party.

A Gaza invasion will be brutal, too, for Israeli troops. The other night in New York a great retired American general spoke of trying to hold such places—of the effect on soldiers, the psychic and emotional price, and the attrition, with time, of their capacity, as they go room to room to clear them. “How many rooms are there in Gaza?” he asked.

Finally, a Gaza invasion marks a historic gamble on the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Will people have confidence in his judgment? This week the liberal newspaper Haaretz reported the families of the Israeli hostages have organized and begun a worldwide media campaign, with pro bono legal and media advisers. Amazingly, it reported, the families have even hired their own hostage negotiators—formerly high-placed veterans of Shin Bet, the security service, and Mossad who are believed to have “deep contacts in the Arab world.” “That’s how low their confidence is in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.”

It is hard to lead a successful long war when that’s where you’re starting from.

I hope Israel digs deep, refortifies, and devotes its focus to making itself stronger than it seemed on Oct. 6.

We are again in a new place. What has happened in Israel the past week is different. I have spent much of my life as you have, hearing regular reports of fighting in the Mideast, so when news broke last Saturday of what was happening near Gaza my mind started to process it as a continuation of the past. Within hours, as the facts of the October horror began to emerge, I understood no, wait, this is a new thing. And I felt a foreboding.

We must start with what was done. Terrorists calling themselves a resistance movement passed over the border from Gaza and murdered little children; they took infants hostage as they screamed. They murdered old women, tormented and raped young women, targeted an overnight music festival and murdered the unarmed young people in cold blood or mowed them down as they ran screaming. They murdered whole families as they begged for their lives; they burned people alive; they decapitated babies.

There is no cause on earth that justifies what these murderers did. There is no historical grievance that excuses or “gives greater context” to their actions. Spare me “this is the inevitable result when a people are long abused.” No, this is what happens when savages hold the day: They imperil the very idea of civilization. They killed a grandmother and uploaded pictures of her corpse to her Facebook
page. They cut an unborn child from a mother’s body and murdered both.

This wasn’t “soldiers morally brutalized by war who, in a frenzy, butchered people.” Butchering people was the aim. It is what they set out to do. This wasn’t cruelty as an offshoot; it was cruelty as an intention.

This sadism was strategic. It’s meant to force something.

I have been troubled by, angered by, Israel for years—expanding settlements, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s high-handedness with American political leaders, his party’s embrace of an ignorant populist nationalism. I feel no shame at this and am certain I am right. But you can’t see what we have seen this week and not feel—how to put it?—a reawakened sense of affiliation with this suffering people, a sympathy reborn; as an American Catholic I am experiencing it as a renewed sense of loyalty to kin. And if you can’t feel any of these things, or appreciate how they might be justified, and if you instead use this occasion to say Israel deserves it as the price of its sins—sorry, wrong word, they don’t even know what sin is—then you are a walking, talking moral void.

I’m not going to dwell on The Squad, or the Ivy League student groups that declared support for Hamas. Except to say, about the latter, we seem to be raising a generation whose most privileged and educated members appear to be incapable of making moral distinctions. They made me think of the Oxford Union vow, in 1933, not to fight for king and country: High-class dopes always get it wrong. In Oxford’s defense, when World War II came many of them did their part. These guys are apparently upset they might not get jobs on Wall Street. What cold little clowns.

I will only quickly say of Mr. Netanyahu that I think of him as I thought of Boris Johnson, a bad man who is bad because he thinks politics now is beyond bad and good; you don’t even have to make a choice, there’s nothing in being “good”; it’s all about you and your quest for power and greatness. It never occurs to them not to be selfish because the self is all. This is how he divided his country over domestic questions, alienated his armed forces, stigmatized functioning establishments, and left his country vulnerable to the epic intelligence and security failure that is now his legacy.

“Nothing is the same in Israel as it was two days ago,” read a Monday Haaretz headline on a column by Linda Dyan. “Everyone trusted that the state would protect us,” she wrote. Everyone thought Israel was as strong as in the past. But its enemies saw it wasn’t.

I am worried for Israel. Here I speak of my fears.

It is impossible to me the savagery was not the strategy. The sadism the terrorists delivered was intended to do something, elicit a particular response.

What? We can’t be sure, but there are many possibilities. Maybe the terrorists and Iran, their masters, want to leave Israel with no choice but to go at Hamas by pummeling, then taking and occupying Gaza. That will be a terrible battle—a wracking and, in the end, a hand-to-hand, door-to-door fight. Maybe the point is to bleed Israel there, focus it there, and allow the world in coming weeks and months to absorb the gruesome pictures that will surely follow, as innocent people, including children, are among the collateral casualties. Almost half the population of Gaza is under 18.

Maybe they hope to see Israel preoccupied in Gaza while they open second and third fronts, with Hezbollah moving in from Lebanon, or the West Bank suddenly engaged.

Here is what I hope: that Israel be deliberative, farsighted, cautious. If that means slow, then slow.

Caution isn’t rousing or bold, and it certainly isn’t satisfying. It doesn’t bestow on the grieving any sense of justice. But the famously dangerous neighborhood has never been more so, and one senses Israel’s enemies think this is their moment. Israel must make itself safer and move against Hamas without starting World War III.

The Israelis should reach out in every way, including diplomatically, in their grief. Is the peace deal with Saudi Arabia still gettable? Do everything to get it. Might Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman enjoy saving them? Let him.

They must look to internal stability and security—fortify, build up defense positions, firm up security and intelligence on the borders and internally. Replenish arms and ammunition, continue making arms available to the people. Israelis have to begin feeling secure in their homes again. Do everything possible to proceed in attempting a return of the hostages. Be frank about this.

Continue to unmuddy the moral waters. What Hamas did was stone evil. Tell the world and show the world, over and over.

For now they must bury the dead and mourn. But something else. There is something Israel has shown to a heroic degree each day since that terrible Saturday morning.

It has led with its heart.

On a Zoom call this week a man living with his family in Israel told Americans a story. One of the young women killed at the rave was from Brazil. Her mother and sister flew in for the funeral. But someone on WhatsApp sent out word, a fear that no one else would be there to mourn. So the man’s teenage son jumped in his car and drove, and he had to stop 25 minutes from the site, traffic at a standstill, because . . . 7,000 or 8,000 people showed up, having heard that the family might be alone. My eyes filled as I heard it, and fill again as I write.

What a people. Hearts like that can awe and move the minds of the world.