According to Jewish law, the prohibition on carrying objects outside on the Sabbath can be circumvented with a system of poles and string or wires that creates a symbolic wall around a large area. Many American cities with significant Jewish communities have them, and on a few occasions the construction of this inconspicuous legal fiction has caused strife with other locals. Eruvim are somewhat less common in Europe, but the Orthodox community in the English village of Hale decided to ask permission to build one. Local official issued a report in favor, but then, the Jerusalem Post reports:

over 1,000 complaints over the plan [were submitted to the municipal council]; many of the complaints were dismissed by the council as “racist.”

In addition to a large number of complaints, households in the area reportedly received leaflets complaining of a “permanent religious boundary” “for a tiny minority”—with some objectors claiming that 8,000 homes would be affected by the “religious enclave” in an unspecified way.

As has often been the case, one of the loudest objectors appears to be Jewish himself:

The property developer Mark Guterman, who claimed Jews didn’t want the construction of an eruv, claimed, “With the heightened tensions of the Middle East and anti-Semitism on the rise, a small group of vigilantes are fronting for Hale Synagogue. This has made life much more uncomfortable for Jews that live in the area, and it is destroying years of inter-faith work for what purpose?”

Whatever Guterman’s actual motivations, the idea that Jews putting their Jewishness on display will provoke anti-Semitism is one of the most damaging to Jewish well-being, and one of the most thoroughly disproven. But there is good news too: despite the uproar, the council approved the eruv.

Ron Ben-Yishai, reporting from a visit to IDF forces in the Gaza Strip, analyzes the state of the fighting, and “the persistent challenge of eradicating an entrenched enemy in a complex urban terrain.”

Hamas, sensing the war’s end, is mounting a final effort to inflict casualties. The IDF now controls 65 percent of Gaza’s territory operationally, with observation, fire dominance, and relative freedom of movement, alongside systematic tunnel destruction. . . . Major P, a reserve company commander, says, “It’s frustrating to hear at home that we’re stagnating. The public doesn’t get that if we stop, Hamas will recover.”

Senior IDF officers cite two reasons for the slow progress: meticulous care to protect hostages, requiring cautious movement and constant intelligence gathering, and avoiding heavy losses, with 22 soldiers killed since June.

Two-and-a-half of Hamas’s five brigades have been dismantled, yet a new hostage deal and IDF withdrawal could allow Hamas to regroup. . . . Hamas is at its lowest military and governing point since its founding, reduced to a fragmented guerrilla force. Yet, without complete disarmament and infrastructure destruction, it could resurge as a threat in years.

At the same time, Ben-Yishai observes, not everything hangs on the IDF:

According to the Southern Command chief Major General Yaron Finkelman, the IDF is close to completing its objectives. In classical military terms, “defeat” means the enemy surrenders—but with a jihadist organization, the benchmark is its ability to operate against Israel.

Despite [the IDF’s] battlefield successes, the broader strategic outcome—especially regarding the hostages—now hinges on decisions from the political leadership. “We’ve done our part,” said a senior officer. “We’ve reached a crossroads where the government must decide where it wants to go—both on the hostage issue and on Gaza’s future.”