On Thursday the White House issued a much-anticipated executive order on religious freedom. The editors of National Review argue that this order tries to accomplish what it cannot, and does little if anything to fix substantive problems:

[The order] is a vague and unworkable mishmash of executive direction that has the potential to make the problem worse.

First, the president purports to, as he put it, “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment,” a law that forbids tax-exempt religious organizations to endorse or oppose candidates from the pulpit. While religious organizations already enjoy the right to advocate and agitate in the political arena, the Johnson Amendment represents a free-speech restriction that is almost certainly unconstitutional [and] at odds with a tradition of First Amendment jurisprudence barring the linkage of government benefits to the restriction of unrelated constitutional rights. The problem, which President Trump does not quite seem to comprehend, is that an executive order cannot simply overturn a piece of legislation. . . .

Instead [of working with Congress to craft new legislation], President Trump will imitate President Barack Obama’s approach to illegal immigrants and simply order that “prosecutorial discretion” be expanded and codified in such a way as to forbid categorically enforcing federal law. . . . We are . . . skeptical that such an approach would last five minutes should another Democrat end up in the White House, which, alas, is bound to happen someday, and which would leave churches vulnerable to future sanction for deeds done under the assumption that the prosecutors would be permanently sidelined.

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.