In part, Israel’s current political stalemate stems from the Likud party’s inability to garner the combined support of, on the one hand, the right-wing and secularist Yisrael Beytenu party and, on the other hand, the ḥaredi parties. The past week has seen an exchange of barbs between the two groups. But left-wing parties, for their part, have rarely succeeded in forging alliances with Ḥaredim, argues Yeshoshua Pfeffer, and not only because the right is more likely to provide the necessary inducement. Instead, Pfeffer writes, Ḥaredim have a natural affinity with the right, stemming from a shared embrace of particularism in contrast to the universalism that has become ever more predominant on the left:

Recurring surveys indicate that members of Israel’s ḥaredi community hold political views that are firmly on the right—and [they are] often the most right-wing of all Israeli sectors. The longstanding alliance between the right and ḥaredi society cannot be dissociated from political positions, notwithstanding the recent statement by Moshe Gafni [the leader of the non-ḥasidic ḥaredi party] in which he asserted “I am on the right, even though on many policies I am not.” [Indeed], his assertion that his “voters’ views are closer to the left’s positions” is entirely divorced from reality.

At the time of Israel’s creation, it was the left that led the Zionist movement and the founding of the state. A far cry from the universalists of today, they might indeed have marched under the banner of “we must be like the nations of the world,” but they did so while maintaining a proud nationalism.

Over time, the Israeli left—at least its vocal majority—shed its original nationalist [and] Zionist characteristics in favor of a universalism that frowns upon, or disallows outright, all forms of particularistic group identities. A significant portion [of the left] has moved toward a post-Zionism of one sort or another. Their place in Israel’s nationalist aspirations has been filled by the Israeli right, who proudly bear their Jewish identity and with whom ḥaredi society is far more comfortable.

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.