According to the book of Genesis, the Moabites are descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew and sometime acolyte. While they appear throughout the Hebrew Bible as enemies of the Israelites, a Moabite, Ruth, is also the ancestor of King David. Bruce Routledge gives some historical background to the ambiguous relationship between the two peoples:

Moab was a land, a people, and a kingdom located east of the Dead Sea in what is now the kingdom of Jordan. Moab as a land is first mentioned in the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II (circa 1270 BCE). The kingdom of Moab emerged in the 9th century BCE and disappeared a few decades after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BCE. . . .

One of the most important inscriptions related to [the history of ancient] Israel derives from the Moabites: it is the Mesha stele, discovered at the site of Dhiban (in present-day Jordan) in 1868. This inscription commemorates events in the reign of King Mesha of Moab, including his overthrow of Israelite rule (see the parallel account in 2 Kings 3). The language of this inscription is very close to biblical Hebrew; in fact, Israelites and Moabites probably could have conversed without a translator.

The Mesha stele also reveals a theological view of history similar to parts of the Hebrew Bible. History unfolds . . . on the basis of the chief god’s anger or pleasure. [According to the stele], Moab was oppressed by Israel because the main Moabite god, Kemosh, was angry with his land, whereas Mesha’s success was the result of Kemosh’s favor.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.