In December, an Indiana judge declared recent state legislation restricting access to abortion unenforceable, on the grounds that it violates the religious freedom of Jews, Muslims, and others who believe that abortion is obligatory in certain cases. (In the Jewish case, even the strictest interpretations of halakhah agree that a pregnancy must be terminated if it poses a threat to the life of the mother.) The decision, rooted in Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) doesn’t merely grant religious exemptions from the abortion law in specific cases, but effectively strikes it down. Tal Fortgang and Howard Slugh comment:

Under the RFRA, once a plaintiff has shown that a law burdens her sincere religious practice, the state can still win if it can show that it is advancing a compelling interest in the manner least restrictive of religious liberty. But in this case, the judge denied the state’s claim that it was advancing the compelling interest of protecting fetal life because “the plaintiffs do not share the state’s belief that life begins at fertilization or that abortion constitutes the intentional taking of a human life.” Having already found that plaintiffs and the state do not see eye to eye, the judge simply handed the plaintiffs a brass ring. Once the religious objectors proved their initial case, it became a fait accompli that the government could not prevail. The state would not be permitted to enforce laws that the court determined were based on principles the religious objectors did not share.

Making no attempt to balance state power and individual rights, [the court] struck down a democratically enacted law on the grounds that it violated an unprecedented definition of religious liberty. It gave the state no real opportunity to prove that it had a sufficiently important need to burden religious exercise, much less that it had tailored its regulatory scheme carefully. Plaintiffs seeking religious vetoes over state laws, rather than compromises or carve-outs, similarly signal their shallow view of the relationship between democracy and religion.

Allowed to stand, this ruling would have ghastly consequences for religious liberty. States would have to choose between religious liberty laws and every other law they would enforce, nearly all of which burden someone’s conscience and limit behaviors some people consider obligatory. Faced with such a choice, states will have to give up protecting religious liberty altogether. What appears to be a victory for religious liberty—a court’s granting a religious claim great weight—is really just the opposite.

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.