Unlike most conservative Christian denominations, Orthodox Judaism tends to be more hedged in its opposition to abortion. Gidon Rothstein analyzes an essay on the subject by the late Aharon Lichtenstein, one of the greatest Modern Orthodox talmudists. In brief, Lichtenstein’s reading of halakhah generally permits abortion until the 40th day from conception, forbids it in all but extreme cases in the third trimester, and entertains a variety of reasons to allow it, in specific circumstances, during the intervening period. Rothstein writes:

Lichtenstein closes [his essay] with two general points. First, he has left some areas of the discussion not fully determined. This was not out of any hesitation to come to conclusions, but because he thinks [halakhic decisions] cannot be painted with too broad a brush, which is why he was always . . . insistent on laying out parameters rather than giving firm answers; the flexibility in the sources means the same rabbinic authority might in one case prohibit an abortion but in another case . . . allow it.

He wrote as he did to leave room for human input into decisions, which is how halakhah is supposed to work. . . .

Without apologizing, he did note that the “liberal” view on this issue comes at the expense of the humanity of the fetus. In order to allow the mother to do what she feels right, the liberal view had to ignore or dismiss the concerns and humanity of the fetus.

In arguing that the decision often [should] go the other way, Lichtenstein closed by reminding his listeners and readers that this isn’t only out of obedience to the will of God, but is also an expression of halakhah’s concern with human dignity and welfare, which “rises up in indignation against the torrent of abortions.”

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.