In the 1970s, there were very few Jewish thinkers on the political right, and no more than a tiny handful of them were women. One was Midge Decter, who had already established her bona fides among the New York intellectuals as a journalist and editor when she, along with her husband, Norman Podhoretz, helped found the persuasion that became known as neoconservative. A year after her death, Matthew Continetti reflects on Decter’s legacy:

Decter had a keen understanding of and an appreciation for social roles. She grasped that individuals are meant to play certain parts in the drama of society. Men and women, parents and children, singles and marrieds, and congregants and citizens have different functions in sustaining the institutions of civilization and in transmitting learning, rituals, and manners from one generation to the next.

Each of these roles carries special responsibilities. Children honor and obey their parents. Husbands and wives are faithful. Parents are committed to their children. Citizens respect the law. When we forget or abandon our duties, there is chaos. “Assuming responsibility for one’s life, for one’s everyday choices as well as for one’s moral conduct, is a practice that has been eroding in American life for a long, long time,” Decter wrote in [Commentary] in 1992.

Nowhere has the flight from responsibility been more destructive than in the turn against the traditional family. Decter neither romanticized nor idealized this foundational institution: “The rock of family can sometimes have a pretty scratchy surface,” she said in 1998.

Decter would have been the first to admit that living up to what the world demands of us is not easy. But the rewards of fulfilling our responsibilities are sublime.

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.