Most of the Bible deals with experiences very different from those of Jews living in the Diaspora, who must struggle to uphold their religious obligations in the face of persecution and/or social pressure. But the figures of Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon stand out as archetypes of piety in exile. Phillip J. Long writes:

In both stories the hero is described as committed to the Law and therefore as successful. Both Joseph and Daniel experience the blessings of the covenant and rise to powerful positions in the administration of a foreign government.

Joseph and Daniel [each confront] a crisis when they are pressured to do something that is against Torah. In Genesis 39, Joseph resists adultery; in Daniel 1, the issue is unclean food; in Daniel 3 and 6, it’s prayer to an idol. The hero is then persecuted and stripped of his position, yet nonetheless remains faithful. Because of their continued faith, they are restored once again to a state of blessing.

This pattern appears yet again in the apocryphal book of Tobit, which was written by Jews, most likely in the 2nd century BCE. Although Jews included the book in the ancient translation of the Bible into Greek known as the Septuagint, and it remains in the scripture of some Christian denominations, the rabbis eventually rejected it from the canon. But its themes are familiar to Jews today:

The book begins with Tobit in captivity in Assyria. Tobit claims to do all that the “everlasting covenant” requires, and to be the only Jew in the Diaspora who attends festivals in Jerusalem. He makes all of the appropriate tithes and offerings required by the Torah. . . . He marries within [his extended] family rather than marrying either outside the clan or outside of the people of Israel.

Like Daniel, Tobit states he has kept himself from Gentile food, despite the fact that many Jews ate this potentially unclean food. Because he was “mindful of God” with all his heart, the Lord gives him favor and good standing in the government of Shalmaneser. Tobit [also] does “acts of charity.” . . . Like both Joseph and Daniel, Tobit’s commitment to core elements of his Jewish faith result in real-world prosperity despite suffering as a result of his commitment.

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.