It’s been said many times before—but it bears repeating—that those who blame Israel alone for the lack of peace in the Middle East often rely on accusations that collapse under scrutiny. Yet far too many people accept these claims without taking the time to examine them. These accusations can be seductive. They’re repeated endlessly and delivered with apparent conviction, creating the illusion that they might be true.

Two of the most striking tactics behind these falsehoods are inversion—turning reality on its head—and projection—accusing others of the very wrongs you commit yourself. Together, they fuel much of today’s anti-Israel narrative.

Take the especially vile accusation that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza. I hesitate even to repeat it because it is such an obscene falsehood.  The Jewish people actually experienced genocide in living memory. During the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime murdered six million Jews—half the world’s Jewish population at the time. This was not an unintended consequence of war; it was the explicit goal. If not for the extraordinary efforts and sacrifices of the Allies, the Nazis might have succeeded entirely. As the daughter of Holocaust survivors, I carry this history personally. My family was decimated: eighty of my relatives were murdered simply because they were Jewish.

To use the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s war with Hamas is not only factually false—it is deeply insulting to the memory of those who endured real genocide. The suffering in Gaza is real, and every innocent life lost is a tragedy. But context matters. This war began when Hamas launched a savage attack on October 7th, murdering approximately 1,200 people—babies, children, the elderly, entire families—and kidnapping 251 others into Gaza, where dozens remain in savage captivity. Israel’s military campaign is aimed at dismantling Hamas’ vast terrorist infrastructure, which is deliberately embedded within civilian areas. The number of casualties in Gaza, while tragic, does not meet the criteria for genocide under any credible legal or historical definition. Genocide requires an intent to destroy a people as a people. Israel’s objective is to end Hamas’ capacity to wage terror—not to destroy the Palestinian people.

Another frequent accusation is that Israel is an apartheid state. Under South African apartheid, the Black majority was denied the right to vote, excluded from political life, and subjected to a legally codified system of segregation. By contrast, Arab citizens of Israel—about 20% of the population—vote in national elections, serve in the Knesset, sit on the Supreme Court, and have full legal rights under Israeli law. Is there inequality in Israel? As in any society, yes. Is there conflict? Certainly. But a system of racial apartheid, as defined by international law, does not exist. Ironically, Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for a state with no Jews. Jews are forbidden from living in Gaza. That is exclusion based on ethnicity and religion—something far closer to apartheid than anything in Israel.

Projection is another favorite tactic. Hamas and its supporters often brand Israel as the “real terrorist.” Yet Hamas fighters filmed themselves on October 7th gleefully murdering civilians, burning homes, raping women, and kidnapping children. Their entire strategy is built on terror: launching rockets from civilian areas, storing weapons in hospitals, hiding among schools, and daring Israel to respond. When Israel defends itself, Hamas cries “terrorism,” projecting its own atrocities onto its enemy.

Words like “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “terrorism” have real meaning. They are not casual insults to be thrown around in a propaganda war. Misusing them not only slanders Israel but also insults the memory of the actual victims of genocide, those who suffered under real apartheid, and the countless lives shattered by genuine terrorism.

And so we return to the core truth: these are not random misunderstandings—they are deliberate, calculated lies. Hamas is not just guilty of the crimes it accuses Israel of; it is defined by them. Hamas is the terrorist, the oppressor, the advocate of apartheid, the racist that dreams of a land cleansed of Jews. In calling Israel what Hamas itself is, Hamas turns morality inside out, hoping the world will lose sight of the obvious. We cannot allow that inversion to stand. Seeing clearly—and saying so without fear—is the first step toward defending truth, justice, and any possible hope for peace.

Roz Rothstein is co-founder and CEO of StandWithUs, a 24 year-old international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism 

As a rising junior at UC Irvine, I’m often asked by new parents and teachers how to navigate life on American college campuses in light of the antisemitic tidal wave of the last two years.

For some of us, the summer was a welcome reprieve. In the months after Oct. 7, 2023, on campus after campus, Jewish students suffered unchecked discrimination, with administrative indifference and even legal culpability in some cases. 

Unsurprisingly, a spring 2025 poll conducted by the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) determined that 74% of Jewish college students believe that antisemitism is a serious problem on campus, and 87% of Jewish college students are concerned that anti-Israel protests and petitions to boycott the State of Israel lead to hate crimes and violence. 

It’s a multi-front battle; we aren’t just under assault from our classmates. Even faculties have been infiltrated by an anti-Jewish ideology, with nearly one-third of American Jewish college students surveyed by the American Jewish Committee feeling that faculty members have promoted antisemitism or fostered learning environments hostile to Jews. 

Campuses were paralyzed by massive encampments and protesters who harassed visibly Jewish students, and in some cases even shut down classes and other on-campus activities — such as commencement ceremonies — for a period of months. On my campus, members of the Jewish community, including myself, were targeted by the encampment organizers who had people follow us whenever we went near the encampment. This surveillance led to one of my close friends being assaulted when we tried to talk to the numerous people with no relation to the UCI campus who had gathered outside the encampment to support it. Yet all of this hatred and disruption is masked as “anti-Zionism” in an effort to claim that what these people are doing is morally right. 

Many people misunderstand Zionism. Zionism is the belief in Jewish self-determination in our own land, and it is an integral part of Jewish identity for the vast majority of Jews. These past two years of organized anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and antisemitic harassment campaigns have made a vast majority of Jewish students and faculty feel openly excluded.

So, how will a combined student body of millions of undergraduate students marinated in an antisemitic miasma on social media receive its Jewish peers this fall? If the past is any indication, we should buckle up. 

We as Jews suffer 69% of all religiously-motivated hate crimes in the United States, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, while representing 2.4% of the population. Famous podcasters and music artists either deny the Holocaust or even say it was a good thing, selling Neo-Nazi paraphernalia. Even at the most recent mass shooting at a church in Minneapolis, the shooter had “6 million wasn’t enough” written on his holster. 

Yet through all of this, Jews are still excluded from campus areas that are meant to promote a safe space for students of all cultures. The intersectional narratives that dominate campus intellectual life, in disturbing parallels to the past, say that Jews cannot be recognized as victims because Jews “as a class” are “privileged.”  

The intersectional narratives that dominate campus intellectual life, in disturbing parallels to the past, say that Jews cannot be recognized as victims because Jews “as a class” are “privileged.” 

The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks z”l illustrated this phenomenon when he taught about the mutation of antisemitism. He showed that this very particular type of hate has evolved from attacking Jews for their peoplehood in ancient times, for their religion in the Middle Ages, for their “race” at the dawn of the modern era, and now for our statehood in this “postmodern” age.

In any conversation about today’s campus climate, it’s critical to make clear that the calls for Israel’s destruction that we hear are an inherently antisemitic act. The Jewish ethnic connection to Israel goes deep to the heart of our identity. 

As legal scholar Alyza Lewin puts it, “for the overwhelming majority of Jews, Zionism — the recognition that the Jews are a people indigenous to the land of Israel — is an integral component of how they define their Jewish identity.”

And yet, in our darkest hour, the last academic year showed Jewish students displaying tremendous courage and moral clarity. The bonds in the Jewish community have become unbreakable; we are weathering the storm together as is coded deep in our epigenetics. In our history as a people, we have learned the lesson time and again, but it bears repeating. When they attack, when the world turns against us, and when our equal status in society is revoked, our only way through is together. 

My message for Jewish students is this: We must make our voices heard when we find ourselves excluded, marginalized, or assaulted on or off campus. Take advantage of your campus resources and connect with other Jewish students. Never doubt our community will support you; no matter what, you will always find support from millions of Jews around the world. Above all, we must demand our seat at the table and in the classroom. The tide is turning, and together we will win.

Sevan Minassian-Godner is from Berkeley, California. He is a student at UC Irvine, majoring in political science with an emphasis on political theory and international relations. Sevan is the Vice President of Hillel at UCI, served as Pegisha chair for Chabad, and is on the board of his campus’s chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, the Jewish Fraternity. 

Education has long served as a thread connecting aspiration to opportunity for generations of Americans. Yet the promise of upward mobility that higher education has traditionally provided has become increasingly broken by the suffocating burden of student loan debt—an albatross that millions of borrowers are obligated to carry for decades, often with little hope of relief. 

Student loan debt is unlike virtually all other forms of consumer debt in one critical respect: It is largely ineligible for discharge through bankruptcy. This modern reality stands in stark contrast to the broad bankruptcy protections that shield individuals from the lifelong consequences of insurmountable debts. The time has come to recognize the moral imperative to restore bankruptcy protections to student loan debt — not only as an immediate matter of fairness and justice, but as an essential step toward a more equitable and prosperous society.

For most of American history, bankruptcy laws provided a safety net for those overwhelmed by debt, including higher education loans. In fact, the right to declare bankruptcy is stated in the Constitution before the right of a country to coin currency or even raise an army. This changed gradually, beginning in the late 1970s, as policymakers, erroneously concerned about potential abuse, began to chip away at these protections. In 1976, Congress first restricted the discharge of federal student loans through bankruptcy, requiring a waiting period. Over the ensuing decades, this waiting period was extended and, in 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act effectively eliminated bankruptcy discharge for nearly all student loans, including private loans, except in cases of “undue hardship” — a standard so stringent that relief is rarely granted. The result is that today, close to 2 trillion dollars in student loan debt hangs over the heads of American borrowers. This debt is, for most, an inescapable obligation, regardless of circumstances or personal catastrophe.

At the heart of bankruptcy law lies the principle of a “fresh start”: individuals who find themselves crushed by unmanageable debt, whether from medical expenses, credit cards, or failed businesses, may seek relief and begin anew. Student loan borrowers are the glaring exception to this rule. This discrepancy is unjust on its face. Why should a person who borrows to pay for gambling debts be able to discharge their debt, while someone who borrows to gain an education cannot? Denying bankruptcy protections to student loan borrowers violates the principle of equal treatment under the law and perpetuates a system in which financial ruin is codified based on the loan’s origin, rather than the borrower’s circumstance.

Critics of bankruptcy protections often invoke the issue of personal responsibility and “moral hazard.” Borrowers, they argue, should be held accountable for their choices. Yet personal responsibility is a two-way street. The social contract between citizen and state ought to guarantee that, when misfortune strikes — whether through illness, unemployment, or economic downturn — individuals are not condemned to perpetual penury. The bankruptcy system is designed not to reward irresponsibility, but to distinguish between bad faith and honest misfortune. In simplest terms, to strip one class of borrowers of this option is to hold them to an impossible standard, and to betray the foundational ideals of compassion and fairness.

Student loans are often marketed as a “pathway to opportunity,” but for millions, they become a generational shackle. Parents and even grandparents co-sign loans or borrow on behalf of younger family members, risking their own financial futures. When bankruptcy protections are denied, entire families may be drawn into a cycle of indebtedness that forecloses on the promise of upward mobility. Restoring bankruptcy rights to student loans is, at its core, a matter of intergenerational justice: It is a recognition that the pursuit of education should not lead to a lifetime of financial despair.

Student loans are often marketed as a “pathway to opportunity,” but for millions, they become a generational shackle.

The numbers paint a bleak picture. Over 43 million Americans carry student loan debt, and the average balance continues to climb. Borrowers who default or are unable to pay often face wage garnishment, ruined credit, lost professional licenses, and, in some states, even the loss of driver’s licenses. These consequences extend far beyond the borrower, undermining entire communities, depressing economic activity, and exacerbating racial and economic disparities. 

A particularly troubling aspect of the student debt crisis is the mounting burden faced by Americans over the age of 50. Once considered a problem for the young, student debt now haunts people approaching retirement and those long past their college years. Many in this age group are repaying loans for their own education, while a growing number have taken on debt to help children or grandchildren attend college. As a result, the number of Americans over 50 with student loan debt has ballooned in recent years, with balances sometimes stretching well into six figures. For these older borrowers, the consequences are especially dire. Many are forced to delay retirement, drain their savings, or even continue working into their seventies just to keep up with payments. Some face the garnishment of Social Security benefits — a lifeline meant to support Americans in old age — as a result of defaulting on student loans. The psychological toll is immense: Instead of looking forward to a secure retirement, many live with persistent anxiety and are trapped in a cycle of debt that, absent bankruptcy protections, may never be broken.

The effects are especially severe for borrowers from marginalized backgrounds. First-generation college students, people of color, and those who attend for-profit institutions are disproportionately likely to struggle with repayment. For these groups, the absence of bankruptcy protection transforms student loans from a stepping stone to a stumbling block.

Opponents of reform claim that restoring bankruptcy rights would open the floodgates to abuse. Yet, bankruptcy is neither easy nor consequence-free; it carries significant social and financial stigma, and remains a last resort for most. Evidence from before the 2005 reforms shows that rates of student loan discharge via bankruptcy were extremely low, and comparable to other forms of unsecured debt. Some argue that lenders, taxpayers, or the government would face unsustainable losses if bankruptcy protections were reinstated. But a humane bankruptcy system is designed precisely to balance the needs of creditors against the reality that some debts cannot, and will not, ever be paid. Moreover, the human cost of financial ruin—on health, families, and communities—is far greater than the theoretical risk to the lending system.

Allowing borrowers the option of bankruptcy does not mean opening the door to recklessness. Rather, it provides a critical safety valve for those who—through no fault of their own—cannot repay their debts. It restores agency, hope, and the possibility of redemption. A more compassionate bankruptcy regime would not only relieve individual suffering, but also enhance economic vitality. Freed from unpayable debt, former borrowers would be able to start families, buy homes, invest in their communities, and pursue entrepreneurial ambitions — all of which have multiplying effects on the holistic health and sustainability of our communities.

We must not allow the pursuit of knowledge to become a life sentence of debt. The time has come to reclaim bankruptcy protections for student loan debt, and in so doing, to reaffirm the values of empathy, equity, and opportunity that lie at the heart of the American dream.

Lisa Ansell is the Associate Director of the USC Casden Institute and Lecturer of Hebrew Language at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Los Angeles.

These were not soldiers. They were not “legitimate targets.” They were regular human beings, murdered because they were Jews. And yet even in the face of these murders, the same narrative persists, the one that excuses or explains away Jewish blood when it’s spilled.

And because of your tacit or overt support for Hamas and their radical Islamist ilk, I also blame you for the deaths of innocent Gazans.

I never went to college. That’s not a boast or a lament, just a fact. There are disadvantages to skipping higher education, but one advantage stands out: I wasn’t spoon-fed the ideological gruel that passes for wisdom on so many campuses. Chief among these doctrines is the crude formula: downtrodden = virtuous, successful = damned. That lens has warped the thinking of artists, journalists, intellectuals—and much of the music industry I’ve spent my life in.

I’ll resist naming names here, but rock stars and rock star-wannabes love to strike the pose of rebellion, casting themselves as tribunes of the oppressed. The irony is they do this while signing contracts worth millions, living in mansions, and gracing the covers of magazines. I remember one moment when the hypocrisy became impossible to ignore. Epic Records held a gathering in New York for their artists and management. Cyndi Lauper was there, warm and magnetic, just as you’d expect. And off to the side stood a new band, perpetually aggrieved, their very name suggesting they were outside the machine.

But there we were, all of us, in Sony’s skyscraper on Madison Avenue, surrounded by lawyers and executives. If you’re on the 30th floor of Sony’s headquarters, you are definitely part of the machine. That’s when I understood how deep the theatrics run. Image is fine—every artist has one. The problem comes when image hardens into ideology. And especially when that ideology is weaponized against Israel, and therefore against the Jewish people.

This “oppressor versus oppressed” binary makes Israel automatically the villain. The narrative requires it: Israel strong, Hamas weak. Once you’ve accepted that framing, the facts no longer matter. And here is where the human cost comes in. I have seen the images from Gaza—children torn apart, families buried. The kind of horror no parent, no human being, should ever have to witness. Anyone who claims those lives don’t matter has cut away their own humanity.

Yet, to see those deaths and leap to the word “genocide” is to compound the tragedy with a lie. When you declare that Zionists are Nazis, you are saying my mother, my late father and sister, my other siblings, my wife, my children, my grandchildren—you are calling nearly everyone I know and love a Nazi. You may revel in the irony of calling Jews Nazis. To you it feels clever. To me, it is sickening. It shows your ignorance, your gullibility, and your malice.

Because I’ve seen the other images too; the ones you never mention. October 7th. Hamas slaughtering, raping, burning people alive. Hostages dragged into tunnels, some barely alive, others fully murdered. And still, marches in Western capitals waving Hamas flags, demanding ceasefire before a single hostage was freed. Hamas is not a liberation movement. It is a death cult steeped in radical Islamist ideology that seeks not peace, but the eradication of Israel and the murder of Jews. That day, as today, showed us exactly what we are up against.

And here is the brutal irony: supporting Hamas does not “save” Gaza—it destroys it. Every rocket fired from a schoolyard, every tunnel dug beneath a hospital, every hostage still held prevents any chance of rebuilding. Gaza cannot be restored so long as Hamas remains, because Hamas thrives on ruin. It needs suffering as its currency. Those who excuse or endorse it are not allies of the Palestinian people. They are accomplices in ensuring that the rubble remains rubble.

And here is the brutal irony: supporting Hamas does not “save” Gaza—it destroys it. Every rocket fired from a schoolyard, every tunnel dug beneath a hospital, every hostage still held prevents any chance of rebuilding. Gaza cannot be restored so long as Hamas remains, because Hamas thrives on ruin. 

Imagine it closer to home. Imagine America waking up to the relative equivalent of 40,000 people slaughtered in a single day. Thousands raped, thousands kidnapped. Imagine, as in Israel, there is no one you know who isn’t personally affected by the tragedy. The killers camped just twenty minutes away. What would you demand your government do? Sit idle? Hold hands and sing? Or fight, however terrible the images on TikTok might look?

This is what the oppressor-versus-oppressed ideology erases. It flattens complexity. It demands you pick the weakest-looking figure and assign them all the virtue. But weakness and virtue are not synonyms. And strength does not equal cruelty.

What’s more, the very people pushing this binary don’t live by it. They talk about colonization while living on Native American land. They talk about privilege while sipping cocktails beside their pools. They rage at Israel from the safety of their bedrooms. If they truly believed their own slogans, they’d hand over the deed to their property tomorrow. They don’t. That gap—that hypocrisy—is not an oversight. It’s the whole point.

I can forgive ignorance. I can forgive not knowing. What I can’t forgive is the willful blindness of those who do know better but cling to slogans anyway. Because slogans are easy. They cost nothing. They make you look righteous on social media while absolving you of any real sacrifice. That’s not justice. It’s performance.

And when performance masquerades as justice, while Jewish bodies are burned, while Palestinian children are buried, while Hamas laughs and feeds their faces in the tunnels. That is not just hypocrisy. It is nothing less than a betrayal of humanity.

Peter Himmelman is a Grammy and Emmy nominated performer, songwriter, film composer, visual artist and award-winning author. 

Graham Linehan seemed to have it made. The Irish comedian had created some of the most successful sitcoms in British history, including “Father Ted” and “The IT Crowd.” He’d received five BAFTA Awards. In 2018 he announced that plans for a musical based on “Father Ted” — a show sure to be wildly popular — were in the works. In Britain and Ireland he was considered a national treasure.

And then in 2018, after months of mulling and wondering, “Am I missing something?” he tweeted concerns about “the transgender issue.” 

His career imploded. The “Father Ted” musical was canceled. Director jobs and comedy appearances were withdrawn amid charges he was a bigot. Almost none of his colleagues defended him. He was repeatedly banned from Twitter and sued. He resorted to hiding his car out of fear it would be repossessed. The backlash was so intense and stressful, his marriage ended. Last year he moved — or fled — to the U.S., where he’s found it’s still possible to do comedy. 

But he refused to stop speaking out about “transgenderism.” He’d seen a dead rat and the message “KILL TERFS TRANS POWER” slapped onto a Vancouver rape crisis center that wanted to remain woman-only. He saw a generation of gay kids being told they’re actually straight but in the wrong bodies, and that they need drugs and surgeries to cure their “problem.” He saw hulking men participate in sports against teenage girls, and women bombarded with violent threats for expressing support for J.K. Rowling. He has a daughter, he says, and a mum, and he used to have a wife. And he knew he couldn’t remain silent. 

Last week Linehan flew back to the U.K. to appear in court on charges related to a scrap between him and a young “transwoman” among his alleged crimes being “misgendering,” referring to his antagonist with male pronouns. On arrival at Heathrow airport, he was met by five policemen who told him he was under arrest for three tweets. As Linehan wrote, “In a country where pedophiles escape prison, where knife crime is out of control, the state had mobilized five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer for these three posts (and no, I promise you, I am not making this up).” 

Linehan was placed in a cell and interrogated, until a nurse checking his blood pressure found it was dangerously high and he was rushed to an emergency room. He was finally offered release on bail on condition that he not go on Twitter/X: that is, that he agree to a legal gag order.

The censorship, double standards and two-tier policing in Britain today are glaring. Thirty people are arrested every day for speech offenses, including tweets, cartoons and reposts, but they’re almost only ever on one side of the political aisle — the one the Labour government deems “right-wing.”  

The censorship, double standards and two-tier policing in Britain today are glaring. Thirty people are arrested every day for speech offenses, including tweets, cartoons and reposts, but they’re almost only ever on one side of the political aisle — the one the Labour government deems “right-wing.” 

Linehan tweets that if a man refuses to leave a woman-only space and police don’t help, the man should be punched in the balls, and he’s arrested; while Ian Bristow, an elected Liberal Democratic politician, tweets a meme of a pointed gun and the words “SHUT THE F— UP TERF” and faces no consequences. 

Lucy Connolly posted, and quickly deleted, an admittedly vile tweet after three little girls were slaughtered by someone believed to be a migrant, and is sentenced to 31 months in prison; while Ricky Jones, an elected Labour politician, told a crowd, “We need to cut all their throats,” referring to anti-migration protesters, and was found not guilty. 

As for British Jews, just this week the police refused to let the Campaign Against Antisemitism protest on Sept. 7 outside the headquarters of the BBC; while the police had no problem issuing a permit to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to hold a much larger demonstration ten days later at the exact same location. The BBC headquarters is, in fact, the starting point for many if not most of the proto-pogroms that have rampaged through London week after week. Yet when Jews wanted to protest the BBC spreading Hamas propaganda, the location was suddenly “unsuitable.” 

May Linehan’s arrest for wrongthink mark the beginning of the end of this blatantly unfair and outrageous farce. Certainly he has the spirit for facing it down. He showed up in front of the courthouse for his trial wearing a sign that read, “There’s no such thing as a ‘Transgender Child’” on one side, and “Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports” on the other. He not only has every right to express these views, but he is right, and ever larger numbers of people know it. 

On the podcast “Triggernometry,” Konstantin Kisin asked Linehan why, out of all the terrible things happening in the world, he’s focused on the issue of “transgenderism.” Linehan responded that even in conservative spaces, people don’t seem to understand how key this issue is. 

“This is the door that unlocks everything else,” he said. “If half the population can dominate the other half and take big slices of the pie, that over a hundred years after the suffragettes we’ve worked out (I know it’s a dread word, but) how to create equity between men and women, and suddenly there’s a group of men that are grabbing bits of this pie …” 

The assault on women’s rights has only been possible by turning material reality upside down and demanding society go along with it. Seemingly overnight, a woman was not what everyone knew she was, but a category open to any man who claimed to “feel” like a woman, whether or not he had any surgery (the vast majority don’t). Not only that, but these “transwomen” were to be regarded as far more oppressed and vulnerable than women, who were demoted as “ciswomen” or “vagina-havers.” It was now a criminal offense to say that these newly anointed women were, in fact, men. The ruin of Linehan’s career and life were intended to, and did, demonstrate what would happen to those who refused to go along.

But the spell seems to be breaking, and it’s thanks to the courage of Linehan, and Rowling, and Helen Joyce, and Abigail Shrier here in the States, and nurse Amy Hamm in Canada and so many others who faced down the mob and refused to parrot the lies. 

Still there’s a long way to go. Lesbians are still kicked out of Pride parades and threatened for refusing to accept men in their dating pool. Public schools still barrage kids with gender-woo, forcing them to ask themselves whether they’re transgender, nonbinary, genderqueer or pansexual. Once-reputable media still refer to “transgender” people according to their chosen pronouns, resulting in such marvels of reportage as “she exposed her penis.” Parents still take their children to gender clinics for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for playing with toys “wrong” for their sex.

Someday, and I hope it is soon, everyone will pretend that they never agreed with any of this. And Graham Linehan and so many other brave men and women may finally receive the homage they are due.

Kathleen Hayes is the author of ”Antisemitism and the Left: A Memoir.”