Currently Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is holding up two bills that otherwise enjoy wide bipartisan backing. One authorizes $38 billion in security aid to Israel over the next ten years; the other simply expresses approval of state and local measures denying government contracts to businesses that boycott the Jewish state. The editors of the Weekly Standard dissect the senator’s position:

Rand Paul and other opponents of the [anti-boycott bill] say they’re worried it runs afoul of the First Amendment’s [guarantee of freedom of] speech. But the right to free speech does not entail a right to government contracts. . . .

As [for the other bill]: as usual, Paul is holding up critical legislation in order to make a confused political statement. His explanation for opposing the security-assistance bill was in effect a diatribe against foreign aid. He pointed repeatedly to the assistance given to “enemies of the U.S. and Israel” and named Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (PA). “Why are we giving twice as much money to nations that surround Israel, which forces Israel to spend more on defense?” Aid to Israel, he said, “should be paid for by cutting aid to people who hate Israel and America.”

But the United States does not give aid to Israel’s chief enemies: Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran. These entities are classified as foreign terrorist organizations or, in Iran’s case, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. We also routinely veto [UN] aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization. As for the PA, the United States can both cut aid to it—which it has in any case done under the Trump administration—and increase assistance to Israel. There’s no reason not to do both.

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.