Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and quixotic challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, recently launched his campaign to run for the New York City mayoralty. To many Jewish voters, his vocal anti-circumcision stance, which he has sought to moderate somewhat since arriving on the national stage, is a source of concern. Jon Levine writes:

In a [March 2019] interview, . . . Yang elaborated, saying he originally planned to have his two boys circumcised but his wife talked him out of it. “From what I’ve seen, the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky,” Yang said. “It’s sort of pushed on parents in many situations.” Yang added that he supports anti-circumcision activists, known as “intactivists,” although he also believes in every parent’s right to choose.

Circumcision has existed in traditional Jewish culture for thousands of years. . . . “There are . . . anti-circumcision activists who are pretty aggressive and threatening. They call up [traditional circumcision providers] and threaten them,” one rabbi told the Post. . . . “I can tell you from a religious and multicultural standpoint, this can be taken in a very negative light,” added Mendy Mirocznik, a Staten Island rabbi. “I hope that comments like this do not cause the flame of anti-Semitism to be ignited even further.”

Yang said he supports a live and let live approach to the procedure. “I have attended multiple friends’ brises and felt privileged to do so. I believe in religious freedom. This is every parent’s personal decision and not a role of government,” he said in a December 2020 tweet.

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.