Noting the increased blurring of once-firm distinctions among different Jewish religious communities in Israel, Moshe Koppel sees reason to hope that Judaism is entering a new era of flourishing in the Holy Land. Members of the younger generation in particular, he writes, “aspire for Judaism to be a culture, not a counterculture.”

[These Israelis] don’t need to prove that they’re not assimilating; there aren’t enough Gentiles [in Israel] to assimilate into. . . . They are also sick of wasting energy on broadcasting their loyalty to one or another narrow subset of Judaism. Their mix-and-match of modes of dress, ideology, and practices that seem incongruous to old fogies and diaspora Jews are simply inchoate attempts at breaking down [these narrow categories] and separating the signals from the substance. . . .

[Members of this younger generation are] looking for some form of authentic Judaism rich enough, substantial enough, realistic enough to serve as a national culture and not merely as a counterculture sufficient to sustain a minority. This will happen slowly and from the bottom up. . . .

The much bigger question regards what is happening with halakhah. Halakhah can’t and shouldn’t change dramatically or quickly. . . . But there is a qualitative difference between, for example, seeing Jewish agricultural law—sabbatical years, tithes, etc.—as a series of largely ceremonial obstacles that need to be circumvented, steamrolled, or dumped in somebody else’s backyard and wanting those same laws adapted to modern circumstances in a way that honors their purpose and intent. There is a difference between Shabbat as a personal observance and Shabbat as a communal and even national day of rest, prayer, and study. There are many more mitzvot that take on new meaning when they are observed by an entire society and not just a select minority. How will these evolve? It’s too soon to say. . . .

Israel’s success is the precise opposite of what many of its founders saw as its purpose. Instead of overcoming Jewish tradition, it has facilitated a return to it; instead of replacing Jewish communities with the state, it has given those communities the space to flourish and to influence each other. To complete this process, Israel needs to give its citizens freedom not only from enemies and hostile cultures but also from their own government. . . . The [old] Zionist notion that the big state will guide its citizens to the ideal balance of Jewishness and democracy has it exactly backwards; it is the [limited] “night-watchman” state that seeks to do no more than keep us safe—or rather that serves as the framework within which we keep each other safe—that will create the opportunity for us to figure it all out for ourselves very slowly and very surely.

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.