In 1956, Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” ensured that the demonic figure of Moloch would be known even to those who are not careful readers of the Hebrew Bible. Generally assumed to be a Canaanite deity, Molech (as the name is spelled in Jewish Bibles) is mentioned in the book of Leviticus, which states, “thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech.” The Tanakh elsewhere refers to the same pagan ritual as “passing one’s son or daughter through a fire.” Both rabbinic commentators and modern scholars debate whether this is a reference to literal child sacrifice or symbolically passing a child over a flame.

Daniel Vainstub explores the archaeological evidence in support of the former view:

So far, no archaeological discovery has been found in . . . the Land of Israel or in the surrounding areas that points to human sacrifices. Nevertheless, extensive evidence of child sacrifice has been found in the western colonies of Phoenicia. . . . Phoenicians belonged to the Canaanite cultural sphere in all ways, including religion and language. The Canaanites who lived in these coastal city-states, especially Tyre, were powerful sailors, who established colonies on the Mediterranean shores.

Eight of these Punic colonies, [as they were known to the Romans], established in today’s Tunisia, Sicily, and Sardinia contain burial grounds for burnt remains of babies—ashes and charred bones. The children ranged from several days up to one year old, and their ashes were placed in jars used as urns, and buried in the ground. . . . Anthropological studies have shown that in all of them the babies were sacrificed in the same manner: they were laid on their backs on a pile of firewood in the open air before the fire was lit.

Observing Hizballah’s increasingly effective use of rockets, drones, and anti-tank missiles against not only the Israeli civilian population but also strategically sensitive targets, Yaakov Lappin argues that the IDF’s campaign of limited strikes and the killing of key commanders is insufficient:

Hizballah’s widespread attack on the north on Wednesday demonstrates that the core threat lies not in any individual commanders but in the substantial firepower array that is entrenched deeply throughout 200 southern Lebanese Shiite villages, as well as in Beirut and in the Bekaa Valley.

Hizballah’s military-terrorist infrastructure and expansive manpower pose the largest conventional threat to Israel. The limitations of targeted strikes as an approach are becoming increasingly evident, as [are those of] IAF’s ongoing campaign to strike at Hizballah weapons-storage centers and command posts in a limited fashion, in line with the Israeli war cabinet’s directive.

Yet, short of invading southern Lebanon, Jerusalem has few other options. Lazar Berman argues that the time is far from ripe for an all-out war:

The challenges the IDF would face in Lebanon would be orders of magnitude greater [than in Gaza]. Hizballah has far more advanced anti-tank weapons and attack drones. Fighting in prepared defenses in open territory, they would be able to target IDF forces from kilometers away.

The IDF could take every square inch of territory ten—even twenty—kilometers from the border, and Hizballah would still be able to rain rockets down across Israel. . . . And it would end in a ceasefire agreement, one that residents of the north are unlikely to put much stock in.