In accordance with state law, the California government sometimes pays private schools to educate children with disabilities whose particular needs cannot be readily met by the public schools—so long as those private institutions have no religious affiliation. Such a qualification, argue Maury Litwack and Michael A. Helfand, violates the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of the last six years. So too claim two Jewish schools and three Jewish families who challenged the law’s constitutionality in a federal district court, which recently ruled in favor of the schools. Litwack and Helfand criticize the decision:

The state outlines, in its laws, the various requirements regarding the educational quality and content a school must provide in order to become state-certified. There is no reason to assume, by definition, that religious schools cannot provide [appropriate] education. If other private schools can do so, religious schools should be given the same opportunity. Failing to do so, regardless of how it is described, is just another way to practice religious discrimination. Moreover, the government cannot circumvent this constitutional violation by simply saying it has the right to select which schools to contract with.

Indeed, the Supreme Court—in a case curiously omitted in the federal court’s opinion—explicitly rejected this argument in a 2021 decision. Requiring that schools not be religious in order to qualify for government contracts and student referrals is, again, just another form of religious discrimination.

Most disturbing are the consequences of this discrimination. As the court recognized, some of the plaintiff parents have alleged that their inability to send their special-needs children to a religious, state-certified school—one that can provide all the pedagogical benefits afforded by any other private school—has meant that the students’ progress is impeded because of their absences for religious holidays.

Even worse, the public schools continue to serve the unwitting children non-kosher food even as the parents have reiterated their religious objections to teachers. And maybe worst of all is the continued insinuation of California’s law that religious schools, willing and able to assist these students with disabilities, are somehow not worthy of joining the effort to provide special-needs children with an environment geared to helping them reach their potential.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”