Earlier this month, Oklahoma created America’s first religious charter school. Two days later, the state’s attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued the charter-school board for violating Oklahoma’s ban on such institutions, which the board—drawing on recent Supreme Court rulings—deems unconstitutional. Nicole Stelle Garnett dissects the attorney general’s logic:

In both the press release announcing his lawsuit and the brief itself, Drummond suggested that his suit would protect the religious liberty of Oklahomans by guaranteeing that taxpayer dollars would not fund religious schools—especially Islamic schools. In a press release, Drummond opined: “Today, Oklahomans are being compelled to fund Catholicism. . . . [T]omorrow we may be forced to fund radical Muslim teachings like sharia law. In fact, Governor Kevin Stitt has already indicated that he would welcome a Muslim charter school funded by our tax dollars.”

[Recent Supreme] Court decisions make two things clear. First, the Establishment Clause does not prevent the government from permitting religious institutions to participate in public programs that extend benefits to private organizations on a religion-neutral basis. Second, when the government extends public benefits to private secular organizations, the Free Exercise Clause requires it to extend these benefits to private religious organizations, too.

[T]he suppression of religious pluralism, . . . as Drummond’s comments lay bare, too often targets religious minorities. That suppression is not only unnecessary but also unconstitutional. The best, and constitutionally required, way to ensure religious pluralism is to embrace it, not to stifle it.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.