In The Beginning of Politics: Power in the Biblical Book of Samuel, published last year, Moshe Halbertal and Stephen Holmes argue that the author of this biblical book is “an uncannily astute observer of politics” and tease out from his words a sophisticated political argument about the perils of monarchy. Sam Brody, while finding much to praise about The Beginning of Politics, also expresses some reservations:

The term “observer” is key here. Working as he did in narrative form, our anonymous writer is of course not to be regarded as a systematic political “theorist” in the Aristotelian mode, but rather as a witness to an experiment, namely the institution of dynastic monarchy in a society to which such governance had previously been foreign, and as a savvy and trenchant commentator on the pitfalls and dangers of that experiment. . . .

[One of the book’s problems] has to do with an attitude not uncommon to political scientists. Halbertal and Holmes argue that the author of Samuel is writing about politics, rather than merely staking out a partisan political position (say, pro-David or pro-House of Saul). The book of Samuel, [according to Halbertal and Holmes], has grander aims; it “sets forth the proper attitude that should be assumed toward the political project as a whole.” “The” political project, as seen here, is the centralization of political and military authority in a hierarchical structure with immense extractive power, including the ability to conscript and to tax. This is what makes Samuel relevant to our times—the dynastic monarchical form is only one historical manifestation of “the” political project; the liberal state is another, which could also be subject to the same critique. The attitude is tragic; horrific flaws are endemic to such politics, and yet they are necessary, as dramatized by God’s decision to abdicate the throne and allow the people to have a human king. “The” political project, then, is all of the following: autonomous, human, necessary, dangerous, flawed, and sovereign.

But we may ask ourselves whether this is, indeed, all that politics is. The decision to abandon the divine anarchy prevailing in [in the previous book of] Judges is presented in two ways that are somewhat in tension with each other: as absolutely necessary, and as a trade-off. “This is because leaderless interregna will inevitably invite attacks by foreign enemies and spark violent succession struggles, civil wars, or even a shattering of the community,” as Halbertal and Holmes explain at the beginning of the book.

But they then go on to explain how the choice for monarchy, itself, invited attacks by and on foreign enemies, violent succession struggles, civil wars, and even a shattering of the community. So why wouldn’t the conscious choice for anarchy—holistic, divine-human, contingent, dangerous, flawed, and non-sovereign—also count as “a” political project? . . . The answer, it seems to me, is tautological and embedded in the self-definition of political science as the study of a practice that can only truly emerge once God is dethroned. The real claim of The Beginning of Politics is that the author of Samuel engaged in such a study.

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.