In 2012, a former deputy prime minister was asked a question about the earl of Beaconsfield during a BBC interview, and replied, “Who the hell is Disraeli?” Georgia Gilholy argues that such ignorance of the novelist, proto-Zionist, and Tory politician Benjamin Disraeli (1874–1880), who served as prime minister in 1868 and again from 1874 to 1880, might be part of what is, in her mind, ailing today’s Conservative party. She makes the case for a recovery of his legacy:

Disraeli, the grandson of Italian Jewish immigrants, converted to Anglicanism as a teenager, following his father’s blazing row with the local synagogue. Disraeli’s championing of his unusual status as “the blank page between the Old Testament and the New” offers a glimpse into his eccentric yet productive acceptance of both his Britishness, aided by his adoption of Anglicanism, and his Jewish roots.

Disraeli had his fair share of blunders, but the policies he backed often made concrete and positive changes to everyday life for millions. [His] fondness for bridging the class divide, however opportunistic, did not translate into a leftist disdain for free enterprise or property rights.

By far Disraeli’s most radical domestic achievement was the Second Reform Act 1867, which roughly doubled the electorate in England and Wales from one to two million men. While the move was partly a cunning attempt to persuade voters against his arch-rival, [the Liberal politician William] Gladstone, it was a stroke of genius. [Disraeli thus] transformed conservatism into a popular tradition dedicated to the defense of the cultural values and economic interests of the working class. The right must stop being ashamed of where it came from. Disraeli certainly wasn’t.

Disraeli, [however], was dealing with a culture still steeped in the language of history and biblical morality. He did not need to start from square one . . . by having to deliberate about obvious facts—that marriage is a good thing, or that real-life communities make people happier and safer.

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.