While Iberian and North African rabbis of the Middle Ages—like Abraham ibn Ezra, Moses Maimonides, and Moses Naḥmanides—read non-Jewish languages and had advanced secular educations, their counterparts in Germany and northern France did not. The great French exegete Solomon ben Isaac of Troyes (1040-1105), better known as Rashi, thus cites exclusively Jewish sources in his highly influential commentaries. But, writes Warren Zev Harvey, he “was well-versed in the surrounding Christian culture, and had connections with Christian scholars.” Harvey argues that it is quite likely that Rashi actually drew on Plato’s Timaeus in his exegesis of the opening verse of Genesis, and notes many parallels:

In 11th-century Christian Europe, the Timaeus was a popular book among the Scholastics (i.e., Christian theologians). It was, in fact, the only Platonic work then available in Latin. It was read in the translation of Calcidius (ca. 321), which included only the [dialogue’s] first part, and was studied with his commentary.

It is not known if Calcidius was Christian or pagan, but his commentary contains a comparison of the account of creation in the Timaeus with that in Genesis, which he calls Moses’ De Genitura Mundi. . . . Medieval Christian theologians used Plato’s Timaeus as an aid in interpreting the creation narrative in the book of Genesis. If Rashi was interested in the Timaeus, it was very likely for exegetical reasons, not philosophical ones.

Rashi could have read Calcidius’ translation, if his Latin was good enough; or he could have read quotations from it in popular Christian theological literature in Old French; or he could have received oral reports on its doctrine from Christian colleagues.

Much like Plato, Harvey points out, Rashi believed that “the world was created from primordial material” and “the four physical elements, earth, water, air, and fire, were all in existence before the creation of the world.” Furthermore, while Plato “identified the primordial [materials] with letters, Rashi identified them with the letters of the Torah and of the divine name.”

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.