Reviewing a new, comprehensive account of the philosopher Benedict Spinoza’s life, thought, and intellectual legacy by the historian Jonathan Israel, J.J. Kimche finds it a work of “remarkable scope, granularity, and analytical depth.” The book, Kimche observes, adheres to a thesis Israel has stated repeatedly over the course of his career about the “centrality and lasting impact of what he terms the ‘radical enlightenment.’” The “radical thinkers” who belonged to this movement

sought to uproot all prevailing norms regarding religion, science, politics, freedom, and the relationship between individual and state. In Israel’s account, it was to this uncompromising intellectual tradition, which demanded nothing less than the wholesale reorientation of humanity from superstition to reason, that we owe the benefits of modern democracy, liberty, science, and human rights. At the apex of this tradition, which Israel venerates as the true genesis of modern civilization, he places the renegade Jew.

Spinoza, “the renegade Jew,” might not deserve quite so much credit in Kimche’s estimation:

Yes, it is perfectly true that numerous important modern intellectuals—such as Goethe, Shelley, George Eliot, and Einstein—lauded Spinoza and acknowledged his foundational influence. Yet it is equally correct to note that the history of modern philosophy constitutes an extensive rebellion against Spinoza’s austere, omniscient rationality.

A more balanced assessment of Spinoza’s legacy, therefore, must note that the Western tradition has decided against his particular brand of relentless rationalism, and has recognized that a satisfactory account of religion, ethics, and politics must include other modes of understanding. It is in this light that even the religious traditionalist could develop an appreciation of Spinoza—when he is read as one important voice in the polyphonic ensemble of ideas that gave rise to the principles and institutions that permit the creation of a harmonious society. Rationality, when tempered by the empirical, aesthetic, sentimental, and numinous facets of the human experience, is indeed indispensable to human flourishing.

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.