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.

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.