Drawing on the work of the anthropologist Richard Schweder as well as on rabbinic sources, Moshe Koppel divides the various regulations Judaism imposes on its adherents into three groups, which, respectively, enforce fairness, loyalty, and restraint. Correlatively, violations of these rules are harm, disrespect, and degradation. Although all societies have taboos in each of these categories, today’s liberal cosmopolitans put a disproportionate value on fairness, while Jewish tradition tends to regard them as close to equal. Koppel illustrates his point by referring to two archetypal figures from his own life—a religiously observant Holocaust survivor named “Shimen” and a Jewish graduate student named “Heidi”:

Shimen . . . wouldn’t say kiddush over a stolen bottle of wine. He knows that under certain circumstances one can violate a prohibition in order to observe a positive commandment, but it would never occur to him that this principle would include violation of duties to other people. . . . So, Shimen does not regard the fairness foundation and the loyalty and restraint foundations as being exactly equal.

Likewise, Heidi shares Shimen’s revulsion at disrespect and degradation. She shares Shimen’s instinctive sense that incest [a violation of restraint], for example, is wrong. Similarly, she agrees that speaking ill of one’s deceased father [a violation of loyalty], even if nobody is harmed by such speech, is wrong. She is as revolted by cannibalism, [another violation of restraint], as any conservative would be, even if the deceased has died naturally and willed his body for that purpose.

So Heidi is not completely insensitive to the loyalty and restraint foundations [of morality]. . . . [But] in Heidi’s culture, fairness is given much greater importance than loyalty and restraint. . . . When two different moral foundations rub up against each other, fairness always wins. Thus, if homosexual acts are regarded as dissolute, as they were in Heidi’s culture until recently, while restrictions on such acts are now seen as causing undue harm to homosexuals, the outcome is clear. The very idea of dissoluteness sounds archaic to Heidi. Similarly, if intermarriage is regarded as a betrayal of tribal loyalty, as it was in Heidi’s culture until recently, while restrictions on intermarriage are now seen as intolerant, the resolution is again obvious. The very idea of tribal loyalty sounds bizarre to Heidi.

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

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

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

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