In the second half of the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court advanced an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment’s dictate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” creating a doctrine known as “separationism.” The Court is now moving in the opposite direction, which, Tal Fortgang argues, is a good thing:

Disestablishment and neutrality require the government to abstain from putting a thumb on the scale in the great ongoing debates about human nature and human purpose.

Importantly, though, a principle of non-interference and neutrality between sects does not mean that the state is antagonistic to any sect or to religion altogether. On the contrary, neutrality between sects is meant to allow all to flourish. This is the important distinction between separationism—which has mistakenly been touted as the best way to advance pluralism—and pluralism itself. By deeming religious behaviors and beliefs incompatible with public life, separationism denigrates traditional religion at the expense of secular belief systems. Pluralism is when a rabbi can offer a benediction at a public-school graduation as freely as any American who would speak about the value of liberation, equity, and justice.

But what about coercion? . . . On this front, perhaps some perspective from this yarmulke-wearing Jewish reviewer is indicated. My whole life has been spent standing apart from the mainstream in a distinctly religious way. Before hearing the national anthem at baseball games, I do not remove my hat, because Orthodox Judaism considers covering the head, rather than uncovering, a sign of respect. I learned that distinction from the earliest days my father and I would spend at Shea Stadium when I was just a small child.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.