Reporting on the recent “Inaugural Conference on Jews and Conservatism” in New York City, sponsored by the Jewish Leadership Conference (JLC), Peter Berkowitz sums up its highlights:

The one-day event attracted some 400 participants from around the country and from Canada, Mexico, and Israel. It featured prominent scholars, educators, policy professionals, and leaders from religion and politics, along with a rousing concluding keynote address by the Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer.

The conference was part of the JLC’s ambitious effort to fortify American Judaism and American conservatism by forging an alliance between them. It is a welcome undertaking since Judaism and conservatism share a fundamental interest in reconciling faith and liberty. It is also fraught with perplexities because both Judaism and conservatism are simultaneously riding high and suffering from an identity crisis. . . .

The conference [organizers] are acutely aware of the challenge. They believe, however, that the ties that bind the traditions present a golden opportunity. As Eric Cohen and Aylana Meisel argued in a 12,000-word manifesto in Commentary that launched the initiative, “Like Judaism itself, conservatism still honors the importance of fidelity to tradition, communal obligation, and the role of religion in sustaining a moral society.”

The conference’s major speeches and policy breakout sessions reflected [certain] core principles. These include the embrace of individual freedom, human equality, and civic responsibility along with dedication to the preservation of a distinctively Jewish way of life and the celebration of the achievements of Jewish civilization. In addition, the JLC seeks to protect religious liberty for all. It aims to defend parents’ right to educate their children in schools that reflect their religious beliefs. It undertakes to bolster enduring marriages and strong families built around the gift and responsibilities of raising children. And it champions Israel as the sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people and as America’s strategic and moral ally. . . .

Ron Dermer closed the conference with trenchant remarks on the enduring bonds linking America and Israel. . . . He also cautioned conference participants to respect the difference between Judaism and conservatism. “Judaism promises a holy life that brings individuals closer to God,” he said. In contrast, “politics can be inspired by faith, but politics can never replace faith.” Amid the current political tumult, not the least advantage of the alliance between Judaism and conservatism is the prospect of restoring a better understanding of that which links, and that which distinguishes, biblical faith and political freedom.

As this newsletter noted last week, Gaza is not suffering from famine, and the efforts to suggest that it is—which have been going on since at least the beginning of last year—are based on deliberate manipulation of the data. Nor, as Shany Mor explains, does international law require Israel to feed its enemies:

Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does oblige High Contracting Parties to allow for the free passage of medical and religious supplies along with “essential foodstuff, clothing, and tonics intended for children under fifteen” for the civilians of another High Contracting Party, as long as there is no serious reason for fearing that “the consignments may be diverted from their destination,” or “that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy” by the provision.

The Hamas regime in Gaza is, of course, not a High Contracting Party, and, more importantly, Israel has reason to fear both that aid provisions are diverted by Hamas and that a direct advantage is accrued to it by such diversions. Not only does Hamas take provisions for its own forces, but its authorities sell provisions donated by foreign bodies and use the money to finance its war. It’s notable that the first reports of Hamas’s financial difficulties emerged only in the past few weeks, once provisions were blocked.

Yet, since the war began, even European states considered friendly to Israel have repeatedly demanded that Israel “allow unhindered passage of humanitarian aid” and refrain from seizing territory or imposing “demographic change”—which means, in practice, that Gazan civilians can’t seek refuge abroad. These principles don’t merely constitute a separate system of international law that applies only to Israel, but prolong the suffering of the people they are ostensibly meant to protect:

By insisting that Hamas can’t lose any territory in the war it launched, the international community has invented a norm that never before existed and removed one of the few levers Israel has to pressure it to end the war and release the hostages.

These commitments have . . . made the plight of the hostages much worse and much longer. They made the war much longer than necessary and much deadlier for both sides. And they locked a large civilian population in a war zone where the de-facto governing authority was not only indifferent to civilian losses on its own side, but actually had much to gain by it.