When the Titanic set sail from the English port of Southampton to New York City, it had on board hundreds of prospective immigrants hoping to settle in the U.S. permanently; among them were Sinai and Miriam Kantor, originally from Vitebsk. The Kantors were just two of some 80 Jews aboard the ship, including Congressman Isidor Straus of New York who, together with his brother Nathan, had founded Macy’s department store; the Titanic even had its own kosher kitchen. While the Kantors were not nearly so wealthy as Straus, they were far better-off than most Jewish passengers on the vessel, as Sinai Kantor’s Hebrew watch—recently put up for auction—suggests. Menachem Wecker writes:

Sinai Kantor . . . took with him [on the Titanic] a Swiss-made pocket watch embossed on the back with a seated Moses holding the Hebrew-inscribed Ten Commandments. The timepiece, a symbol of Kantor’s Jewish faith, survived. Kantor did not. He was among 1,503 passengers who died on the Titanic’s maiden voyage. . . . When women and children were prioritized for rescue, Miriam, who was twenty-four, survived in lifeboat number 12.

On its face, the seawater-rusted watch, which is three inches in diameter, contains the Hebrew letters corresponding to the numbers one through twelve, though the watch hands are missing. On the back, a muscular Moses, clad in biblical garb, holds the . . . Ten Commandments in front of five palm trees and an arch with Doric columns. . . . [A]n accessory of this sort would have been a posh, luxury item, which was intended to be conspicuous, said Jonathan Sarna, professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. . . .

In coming generations, many Jews would wear jewelry adorned with Stars of David or otherwise publicly demonstrate that they were Jewish. In much the same way, Kantor clearly wanted everybody to know he was proud to be Jewish, Sarna said.

Since the war began, there has been a tension between Israel’s two primary goals: the destruction of Hamas and the liberation of the hostages. Many see in Israel’s renewed campaign in Gaza a sacrifice of the latter goal in pursuit of the former. But Meir Ben-Shabbat suggests that Israel’s attacks aim to bring Hamas back to the negotiating table:

The timing of the attack, its intensity, and the extent of casualties surprised Hamas. Its senior leaders are likely still wondering whether this is a limited action meant to shock and send a message or the beginning of a sustained operation. The statement by its senior officials linking the renewal of fighting to the fate of the hostages hints at the way it may act to stop Israel. This threat requires the Israeli political leadership to formulate a series of draconian measures and declare that they will be carried out if Hamas harms the hostages.

Ostensibly, Israel’s interest in receiving the hostages and continuing the fighting stands in complete contradiction to that of Hamas, but in practice Hamas has flexibility that has not yet been exhausted. This stems from the large number of hostages in its possession, which allows it to realize additional deals for some of them, and this is what Israel has been aiming its efforts toward.

We must concede that the challenge Israel faces is not simple, but the alternative Hamas presents—surrendering to its dictates and leaving it as the central power factor in Gaza—limits its options. . . . Tightening and significantly hardening the blockade along with increasing pressure through airstrikes, evacuating areas and capturing them, may force Hamas to make its stance more flexible.

But Ben-Shabbat also acknowledges the danger in this approach. The war’s renewal puts the hostages in greater danger. And as Israel makes threats, it will be obliged to carry them out.