Ten years ago, researchers discovered in the Vatican archives a rare manuscript of Benedict Spinoza’s Ethics, which had come into the possession of the Roman Inquisition in 1667 because of its theologically suspicious content. While the Church banned the book much as, decades earlier, the Amsterdam Jewish community had expelled the philosopher for his unorthodox opinions, the 18th-century German intellectual Novalis would later proclaim Spinoza “a God-intoxicated man.” In England, Spinoza’s work would later appeal to the secular proto-Zionist novelist George Eliot as well as the religious conservative Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Clare Carlisle and Yitzhak Melamed urge readers to take seriously the possibility that Spinoza was not the atheist many have made him out to be, and that his oft-quoted invocation of “God or Nature” may in fact betray the influences of his Jewish youth:

Spinoza confessed that “I favor an opinion concerning God and Nature far different from the one Modern Christians usually defend.” Yet he aligned himself with older religious traditions, both Jewish and Christian: “That all things are in God and move in God, I affirm with Paul, and . . . with all the ancient Hebrews, as far as we can conjecture from certain traditions, corrupted as they have been in many ways.” Spinoza’s reference to “certain traditions” may allude to Kabbalistic literature in which the identification of God and Nature is ubiquitous. In pre-modern Hebrew, the literal meaning of Kabbalah is “tradition,” and in the 17th century the Kabbalah was widely regarded as an ancient wisdom of the mysteries of being.

The separation of God from nature that Spinoza, in 1675, recognized as distinctively “modern” was sharpened in 18th-century deism, and found striking expression in the image . . . of a divine designer whose relation to the natural world was analogous to a watchmaker’s relation to a watch. We can now recognize this anthropomorphic deity as the God of those modern atheists who caricature religious belief as a wish-fulfillment fantasy about a cosmic father-figure.

Looked at this way, deist and atheist challenges to traditional religion, far from following in Spinoza’s footsteps, are decidedly un-Spinozist. If the 17th-century churches had been more attentive to the Ethics they might have better fortified their God against the ravages of secularism to come. Instead, Protestants and Catholics alike denounced Spinoza as an atheist.

[Yet] Spinoza’s religion does not fit easily into any pre-existent category. Like Thomas Aquinas, he treated religio not as a system of beliefs but as a virtue—the virtue of honoring God.

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.