In the book of Genesis, after punishing him for murdering Abel, God places an unspecified mark on Cain to protect him from harm. Eva Mroczek notes some of the varying interpretations of this passage:

The Bible connects the mark with divine protection, but some interpreters link it with the curse that God placed upon Cain, imagining it as a badge of shame. One suggestion in a Jewish midrash, for example, is that Cain was punished with leprosy. . . .

The mark of Cain has also been interpreted in anti-Semitic ways. Some Christian interpreters saw Cain as the prototype of the Jewish people (although, according to the biblical genealogy in Genesis 5, Jews are not Cain’s descendants—nor, for that matter, is anyone else, as it was Noah’s family, descended from Seth, who survived the flood). Saint Augustine (354–430) connected the “mark of Cain” to the observance of Jewish law: the Jews “never lost the sign of their law, by which they are distinguished from all other nations and peoples,” whereas another Christian theologian, Isidore of Seville (560–636), linked it more precisely with circumcision. Extrapolating from these motifs, other Christian readers imagined Cain according to offensive stereotypes of Jews—with a hooked nose or horns, distinct in appearance and condemned to endless wandering. . . .

But other interpreters did read the mark as something protective. The same midrash that mentions leprosy also suggests a range of other possibilities: for instance, it relates that Cain grew a horn, which is both a mark of identity and a defensive weapon. This same text also speculates that God gave Cain a dog as the “mark.” Though dogs tend to be portrayed negatively in classical Jewish sources, the dog might be a sign both of stigma and of protection from attackers.

Robert Clark explains why the resumption of hostilities is both just and necessary:

These latest Israeli strikes come after weeks of consistent Palestinian provocation; they have repeatedly broken the terms of the cease-fire which they claimed they were so desperate for. There have been numerous [unsuccessful] bus bombings near Tel Aviv and Palestinian-instigated clashes in the West Bank. Fifty-nine Israeli hostages are still held in captivity.

In fact, Hamas and their Palestinian supporters . . . have always known that they can sit back, parade dead Israeli hostages live on social media, and receive hundreds of their own convicted terrorists and murderers back in return. They believed they could get away with the October 7 pogrom.

One hopes Hamas’s leaders will get the message. Meanwhile, many inside and outside Israel seem to believe that, by resuming the fighting, Jerusalem has given up on rescuing the remaining hostages. But, writes Ron Ben-Yishai, this assertion misunderstands the goals of the present campaign. “Experience within the IDF and Israeli intelligence,” Ben-Yishai writes, “has shown that such pressure is the most effective way to push Hamas toward flexibility.” He outlines two other aims:

The second objective was to signal to Hamas that Israel is not only targeting its military wing—the terror army that was the focus of previous phases of the war up until the last cease-fire—but also its governance structure. This was demonstrated by the targeted elimination of five senior officials from Hamas’s political and civilian administration. . . . The strikes also served as a message to mediators, particularly Egypt, that Israel opposes Hamas remaining in any governing or military capacity in post-war Gaza.

The third objective was to create intense military pressure, coordinated with the U.S., on all remaining elements of the Shiite “axis of resistance,” including Yemen’s Houthis, Hamas, and Iran.