In his extensive writings, especially his polemics against various heretical groups, the church father Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) made frequent reference to Jews and Judaism. Paula Fredriksen explains the role Jews played in early Christian thought, the inconsistency of Augustine’s approach to the issue, and his attitude toward the real-life Jews of North Africa.

Christianity emerged in the 2nd century CE as a family of warring sects composed almost exclusively of ex-pagan Gentiles. As they faced off against one another, each claiming to be the true community of revelation, these Gentile sects derided their Christian rivals by accusing them of being “Jews,” of being “like the Jews,” or of being “worse than the Jews.” It was in this period that [what some scholars term] “thinking with Jews” became hardwired into Christian theology, [and] thus Christian identity. . . .

[This happened] in part because “Jews” were put forward as a polemical category by [Christian scripture itself]. Paul’s complaints about his apostolic competition (“Are they Hebrews? So am I! . . .”) and Jesus’ complaints about Pharisees, Sadducees, and chief priests shape the [New Testament]; while the Torah and the Prophets are filled with the complaints of Moses, of Jeremiah [and other prophets], and of God about the stony hearts, stiff necks, and spiritual inconstancy of the people of Israel. [Later] this older intra-Jewish polemic mutated into anti-Jewish polemic. . . .

Augustine is both a conspicuous exception to this patristic intra-Christian tradition of anti-Jewish rhetoric and a no less conspicuous, indeed ferocious, continuator of it. His discourse differed according to his enemy. Against those heretics par excellence, the Manicheans, Augustine surprisingly developed original, irenic, and positive ways of “thinking with Jews.” Against the Donatists, [a Christian schismatic group], however, no anti-Jewish calumny was too low, no imputation of malice too vicious. . . .

[And] what about [Augustine’s own day], and the practice of Augustine’s Jewish contemporaries? Did [contemporary] Israel—that perduring community of unbelievers—have any positive relevance for the community of Christ? Augustine considers the Jews’ continuing practice “a marvel to be greatly respected. . . . The Jewish nation under foreign monarchs whether pagan or Christian has never lost the sign of their law, by which they are distinguished from all other nations and peoples.” Some divine initiative must continue to preserve and to protect Jewish practice.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.