Since the news broke that there would be a fourth national election in March, several new political parties have emerged in the Jewish state: for Likudniks dissatisfied with Benjamin Netanyahu, there is New Hope; for retirees, there is Vatikim (“old-timers”); for disaffected members of the centrist Yesh Atid, there is Tnufa, unless they want to join the revived Telem faction, or the Economics party. Meanwhile, the longstanding alliance between the ḥasidic and non-ḥasidic ḥaredi parties may be about to crumble. All this bodes ill for the Jewish state, write the editors of the Jerusalem Post:

[The erstwhile Labor politician Ron] Huldai launched a political party named the Israelis. . . . Cynically, although the party is set to run in the March 23 election, the seventy-six-year-old Huldai did not give up the job he has held for the last 22 years as mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. What does this say about his seriousness and his intentions should he be elected an ordinary back-bench Knesset member rather than receiving a cabinet position as he obviously desires?

The greater the number of parties running on a center-left platform [endorsed by Huldai and some other new parties], the smaller their chances of passing the electoral threshold. In this case, the votes will have been wasted instead of going to a bloc with a chance of having some influence and making an impact.

If would-be politicians cannot find their place in a current party and therefore decide to establish a list of their own, it does not bode well for their chances to work productively in a future Knesset and government. Having too many small parties creates political instability and makes it difficult for a government to be able to do what it is elected to do: govern. This opens the door to political blackmail, not democratic plurality.

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.