Last September, the New York Board of Regents amended the requirements imposed by the state on private and religious schools, with the aim of pushing Orthodox educational institutions to broaden their secular curricula. Ray Domanico examines the complex pedagogical and constitutional issues at play, and reports on his own experience visiting ḥasidic schools in Brooklyn. Among other issues, he addresses the complaint that such schools take public funds while ostensibly failing to educate students according to state-wide standards:

Yes, there is some public money going into [ḥaredi] schools; but no, most of it could not otherwise be used to support public-school budgets. If New York State and the federal government provide funding for various educational and support programs to private schools, they cannot exclude religious schools from participation. However, schools receiving these funds are required to conform to the conditions of the funding. Failure to comply should have consequences. If the schools are using city-funded childcare credits inappropriately, that is a reason to tighten the regulations on how that money can be used by eligible families, not a rationale for overhauling the schools’ curricula.

While their detractors claim that the most Orthodox schools contribute to poverty by failing to educate their students properly, or only cultivate members of narrow and parochial community, Domanico sees benefits that come from the ḥasidic way of life:

Every community has failings. But closed communities also create and grow social strength for their members. Sociologists refer to this as bonding social capital, the social capital within a group, or “people like us.” It is distinguished from bridging social capital, which is between social groups. The two types of social capital are not in conflict; both produce public goods, and bonding social capital can be the forerunner of bridging social capital.

A main argument against yeshivas is that they deny their graduates the skills needed to succeed materially. But that criticism avoids the economic benefits that the tight community bonds found in these communities provide to its members.

Domanic concludes:

The Board of Regents should resist the urge to be heavy-handed in enforcing the [regulations governing religious schools]. Any expectation of activists that these schools exactly mirror the curriculum currently in New York’s public schools will almost certainly be unmet. Further, the value of that public-school curriculum must be viewed in light of the actual outcomes of many public schools, as well as the intrinsic value present in the religious instruction in the yeshivas. . . . The ongoing low performance of numerous public schools and the state and city’s insufficient response to those concerns also raise legitimate questions about the current focus on yeshivas.

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.