Seeking to explain the various ways racism runs counter to the Jewish moral tradition, Daniel Z. Feldman points to the extensive prohibition on speaking ill of others, which applies to groups as much as it does to individuals. He then observes that for this sin,

repentance, as normally required by Jewish law, is profoundly difficult. The basic obligation of attaining forgiveness from the victim becomes an insurmountable challenge when the offense is against a large group with undefined members. More so, undoing the damage in this case is usually beyond possibility.

Of course, speaking ill is not the only prohibition that the racist violates:

Both within and beyond the specifics above, degrading treatment of all kinds constitutes an assault on human dignity, or k’vod ha-briyot. This is a hallowed meta-value in the Torah’s worldview, occupying an elevated perch in the hierarchy of halakhah. By its very nature, this value is addressed universally, as it is rooted in the creation of all humanity in the image of God; the demeaning of any human is considered an affront to the Creator.

The Talmud specifically states that humanity is descended from a common ancestor, Adam, so that no group would invoke genetics to claim superiority over any other (Sanhedrin 37a), a point repeated stressed by Rabbi Jacob Kamenetsky [1891–1986, a leading Russian-born American scholar].

The distinct status of the Jewish people is not based on racial differentiation, but rather on the common belief system that unites them. This was stated by Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen, where he writes that it is only the Torah that distinguishes the Jewish people.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.