Israel’s new governing coalition is the first since 2013 not to include the ḥaredi parties—the leaders of which have been hurling invective at it since it was sworn in. In general, these parties have always tried to find their way into the government regardless of which party dominates, hoping to trade their valuable Knesset votes for support on issues of particular importance to their constituents. Haviv Rettig Gur explains:

Ḥaredi parties . . . have been part of nearly every coalition—left, right and center—since the 1970s. . . . Historically, [these] parties largely ignored questions of national security, regional strategy, land, or Palestinian independence. Their top priority was always ensuring state funding for their institutions and communities.

That’s no accident. The Israeli ḥaredi community is deeply dependent on state funding, with large families and high rates of nonparticipation in the workforce, especially among men who choose to study in yeshiva full time. . . . Roughly 1.3 billion shekels ($400 million) in state funding goes to their yeshivas each year and billions more to the vast slew of ḥaredi charities, school networks, and community institutions.

But looking behind the scenes and reading between the lines, Gur notes a shift away from this purely transactional model:

Ḥaredi society once rejected “secular” Israel out of hand. Slowly, in piecemeal increments, that’s flipped. Most now identify deeply with the state, and as that identification grows, the demand to have a say in shaping Israeli society grows with it. Studies now show that ordinary Ḥaredim feel a cultural affinity with traditionalist right-wing voters, [that is, those who are religious Zionists or merely somewhat religiously observant].

So it is that anyone who follows the overheated rhetoric of the ḥaredi MKs in recent days will notice that they have studiously avoided all talk of money and focused instead on the religious culture war.

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.