Unlike Esther, who concealed her Jewish origins upon entering public life, and unlike those Jews mentioned at the beginning of today’s newsletter who wish distance themselves from the Jewish state, the famed composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein did neither. Shalom Goldman considers Bernstein’s affinity for Zionism, but first recounts a conversation Bernstein had with his mentor, the conductor Serge Koussevitzky, a Russian-born Jew who had converted to Christianity to advance his career:

In 1942, when Bernstein first emerged as a gifted and popular figure in the classical music world, Koussevitzky urged his protégé to change his name from Bernstein to Burns. “Your name is too Jewish, and too ordinary,” he said. But Bernstein would have none of it. Mid-20th-century America was not late-19th-century Russia, and the Boston Symphony Orchestra was a far cry from the Moscow Philharmonic. Bernstein sensed that American culture would accept performing artists with Jewish names and commitments. And, of course, he was right.

His first trip to Palestine in 1947 was a great triumph for Bernstein. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra offered to make him its musical director, and for a few weeks, while conducting in Europe, he considered it. From the U.S., Bernstein advanced his vision of a Jewish state through music—first and foremost by supporting the musical institutions already operating in British Mandate Palestine. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra was the most prestigious of these, formed by European Jewish refugees in 1936.

Bernstein returned to Israel in late October of 1948. He performed in the same cities he had visited a year and a half earlier—Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa—but now these cities belonged to the new state of Israel, and they were battlefronts in the Arab-Israeli war.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.