In a well-known rabbinic legend, a group of rabbis are walking on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, a city destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, and see a fox wandering among the ruins of the Temple. They respond with tears—except for Rabbi Akiva, who bursts into laughter. Justifying their sorrow with a biblical verse, they ask Akiva to explain his bizarre behavior; he does so, citing a series of verses of his own. Meir Ben-Shahar offers a novel reading of Akiva’s answer, arguing that it originally served as an immediate call for armed revolt against Roman rule.

Akiva uses an innovative interpretation of Isaiah 8:1-2 to link a destructive prophecy—“Zion shall be plowed as a field” (Micah 3:12)—“with the prophet Zechariah’s redemptive vision that “there shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem” (8:4-5). . . .

Micah’s prophecy about Zion being plowed as a field fits nicely with seeing the Temple Mount in shambles. But why, of the many prophecies of consolation in the book of Zechariah, did Akiva choose to quote these particular verses?

Note that the verse preceding the aforementioned prophecy in Zechariah states, “Thus said the Lord: I have returned to Zion, and I will dwell in Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the City of Faithfulness, and the mount of the Lord of Hosts the Holy Mount.” . . . Significantly, the only other verse in the Bible that place the terms “Zion, Jerusalem, and the mountain of the house / mountain of the Lord” alongside each other is the verse cited from Micah that predicts the calamity. . . . For this reason it is likely that Zechariah 8:3, and not the following verses, was originally quoted in Akiva’s homily. . . .

For some 60 years after its destruction [in 70 CE], Jerusalem served as a camp for a Roman legion. This situation changed after Emperor Hadrian’s visit to the East in 129-130 CE. If Hadrian indeed founded a new city on the ruins of Jerusalem during this visit, [as mounting historical evidence suggests], then Akiva’s interpretation essentially constitutes a call to revolt, together with the reassurance that now, when Micah’s prophecy of devastation has been realized in full, the time has come for God to return to Jerusalem as Zechariah promised.

Indeed, in 132 CE, the Jews, led by Simon bar Kokhba (whom Akiva is known to have supported) rose up against Roman rule. Ancient sources confirm that this revolt was provoked when Hadrian began rebuilding Jerusalem as a pagan city. According to Ben-Shahar, the text’s redactors, writing after the Bar Kokhba revolt ended in failure, altered Akiva’s words to leave the reader with a message of hope in the messianic future rather than with a call to arms.

While conventional wisdom in the Western press believes that the war with Hamas has left Jerusalem more isolated and scuttled chances of expanding the Abraham Accords, Gabriel Scheinmann points to a very different reality. He begins with Iran’s massive drone and missile attack on Israel last month, and the coalition that helped defend against it:

America’s Arab allies had, in various ways, provided intelligence and allowed U.S. and Israeli planes to operate in their airspace. Jordan, which has been vociferously attacking Israel’s conduct in Gaza for months, even publicly acknowledged that it shot down incoming Iranian projectiles. When the chips were down, the Arab coalition held and made clear where they stood in the broader Iranian war on Israel.

The successful batting away of the Iranian air assault also engendered awe in Israel’s air-defense capabilities, which have performed marvelously throughout the war. . . . Israel’s response to the Iranian night of missiles should give further courage to Saudi Arabia to codify its alignment. Israel . . . telegraphed clearly to Tehran that it could hit precise targets without its aircraft being endangered and that the threshold of a direct Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear or other sites had been breached.

The entire episode demonstrated that Israel can both hit Iranian sites and defend against an Iranian response. At a time when the United States is focused on de-escalation and restraint, Riyadh could see quite clearly that only Israel has both the capability and the will to deal with the Iranian threat.

It is impossible to know whether the renewed U.S.-Saudi-Israel negotiations will lead to a normalization deal in the immediate months ahead. . . . Regardless of the status of this deal, [however], or how difficult the war in Gaza may appear, America’s Arab allies have now become Israel’s.