According to the rabbinic tradition, Gentiles are entirely exempt from the 613 commandments that constitute the terms of the Jewish covenant with God, but they are obligated to follow seven laws given to Noah after the Flood. These include prohibitions on murder, theft, and so forth. With this distinction in mind, Michael Broyde tackles the question of how Orthodox Jews ought to respond to the question, raised anew by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, of whether abortion should be legal, which in turn rests on the nature of halakhic attitudes toward abortion:

It is well known that the nature of the prohibition [on abortion] is disputed in Jewish law. Some rabbinic authorities rule that nearly all abortions are non-capital murder, permitted only to save a pregnant woman’s life. Others rule that abortion is almost never murder but some lesser prohibition, and is permitted [under many circumstances]. Still others rule that abortion flips from non-murder to non-capital murder in the middle of the pregnancy. Despite the vast literature on this matter, no consensus has developed.

At the same time, it is equally obvious that Noahide law prohibits more abortions for Gentiles than Jewish law does for Jews.

The reason for this unique situation is that the Noahide laws do not come with an interpretive tradition that would allow for the adjudication of hard or ambiguous cases, exemptions, and intermediate categories. Thus, many rabbis conclude, for Gentiles abortion is simply murder. But, asks Broyde, where does that put Jews in relation to abortion law:

Is there, then, a halakhic obligation for Jews to urge non-Jews to follow Noahide law? Maimonides (Hilkhot Malakhim 8:10) seems to indicate that Jews share an obligation to participate in and enforce Noahide law, but nearly all other [medieval rabbis] disagree. . . . Indeed, most [rabbinic authorities] of the last 500 years permit a Jew, for his or her economic benefit, to participate in a transaction even if a Gentile in the transaction thereby violates Noahide law. This speaks volumes about practical Jewish law on this subject.

In my view, American Orthodoxy’s decision to support the expansion or contraction of civil or political rights in American law has never been a Jewish-law discussion, nor will it ever be.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.