About 1,000 words in length, and written no later than the 8th century CE, the Hebrew Sefer Yetsirah (Book of Creation) is attributed by tradition to no lesser a figure than the patriarch Abraham. Its terse and esoteric nature has made it ripe for commentaries—by both rabbis and modern scholars—which have understood it in radically different ways. Tzvi Langermann describes the book and some of its interpretations:

The “book” itself contains very little prose; it consists mostly of catalogs of the components of the cosmos, in groups of two (pairs of opposites), three, and seven, and their sums—10, 12, 22, and 32. The cataloged components are those making up the physical universe, the human body, and time. The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are very significant [to the author] as well, and are matched to the other components of the universe. . . .

Some claim that [the book] was originally meant to be a work of mystical magic, but this reading is clearly prejudiced by the kabbalistic appropriation of the text, a process which began in the 12th century, and, even more so, [by] a fierce turf defense by academic specialists in the Kabbalah. . . .

[H]owever, the first interpreters of Sefer Yetsirah read . . . it as a book of science. We possess extensive commentaries [in this vein], in Judeo-Arabic and in Hebrew, written by individuals throughout the Jewish Diaspora in the early medieval period. . . .

A mammoth sea change in the [book’s] interpretation was initiated by Isaac the Blind (late 12th-century Provence), one of the seminal figures in the spread of the Kabbalah. . . . Isaac was the first person to identify the ten s’firot, usually translated as “emanations,” mentioned at the beginning of Sefer Yetsirah with the s’firot of the Kabbalah. . . . At the same time, however, Isaac did not reject the philosophical-scientific reading established by earlier commentators. Instead, he built upon it; in his day, Kabbalah and philosophy were alternatives, not enemies, as they would later become.

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.