One way to ensure that Holocaust education, at least within the Jewish community, becomes more effective is to focus on a different set of figures from those who most often get attention. Figures like the philologist Zelig Kalmanovitch, who participated actively in various forms of Jewish nationalism before settling on Zionism and returning, near the end of his life, to religion. Daniela Ozacky Stern describes his record of life in Vilna under Nazi occupation.

His diaries, painstakingly penned under constant threat of discovery, offer a poignant account of his personal struggle and philosophical, existential musings. They reveal a man grappling with faith, the atrocities unfolding around him, and the role of a scholar in a world gone mad.

A central theme in Kalmanovich’s writings is his unwavering faith in Judaism. He viewed Jews as part of the big “sacred triad”—the Land of Israel, the Torah, and God—which provided a source of enduring strength and was a guarantor of ultimate Jewish victory. Even as suffering intensified, his diary entries resonated with deep optimism. He believed that by clinging to their heritage, Jews could preserve their identity and emerge stronger.

He championed the ghetto’s schools, synagogues, and libraries, viewing them as battlegrounds for the preservation of Jewish identity and a continuation of Jewish history. He believed that by clinging to their heritage, Jews could defy Nazi attempts to extinguish their spirit.

Eyewitnesses recalled his last words: “I laugh at you. I am not afraid of you; I have a son in the Land of Israel.” Indeed, his son emigrated in 1938 and settled in a kibbutz, where his descendants still live.

Kalmanovitch died in a Nazi labor camp in Estonia in 1943. If you click on the link below, you’ll find a photograph of a bearded man in a fur hat captioned, “Jewish librarian at the Vilna Ghetto.” This is no ordinary librarian but Khaykl Lunski, another outstanding figure who perished in the Shoah. I’ll be sure to write about him in a future newsletter.

In a momentous meeting with the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, President Trump announced that he is lifting sanctions on the beleaguered and war-torn country. On the one hand, Sharaa is an alumnus of Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who came to power as commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which itself began life as al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot; he also seems to enjoy the support of Qatar. On the other hand, he overthrew the Assad regime—a feat made possible by the battering Israel delivered to Hizballah—greatly improving Jerusalem’s strategic position, and ending one of the world’s most atrocious and brutal tyrannies. President Trump also announced that he hopes Syria will join the Abraham Accords.

This analysis by Eran Lerman was published a few days ago, and in some respects is already out of date, but more than anything else I’ve read it helps to make sense of Israel’s strategic position vis-à-vis Syria.

Israel’s primary security interest lies in defending against worst-case scenarios, particularly the potential collapse of the Syrian state or its transformation into an actively hostile force backed by a significant Turkish presence (considering that the Turkish military is the second largest in NATO) with all that this would imply. Hence the need to bolster the new buffer zone—not for territorial gain, but as a vital shield and guarantee against dangerous developments. Continued airstrikes aimed at diminishing the residual components of strategic military capabilities inherited from the Assad regime are essential.

At the same time, there is a need to create conditions that would enable those in Damascus who wish to reject the reduction of their once-proud country into a Turkish satrapy. Sharaa’s efforts to establish his legitimacy, including his visit to Paris and outreach to the U.S., other European nations, and key Gulf countries, may generate positive leverage in this regard. Israel’s role is to demonstrate through daily actions the severe costs of acceding to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions and accepting Turkish hegemony.

Israel should also assist those in Syria (and beyond: this may have an effect in Lebanon as well) who look to it as a strategic anchor in the region. The Druze in Syria—backed by their brethren in Israel—have openly expressed this expectation, breaking decades of loyalty to the central power in Damascus over their obligation to their kith and kin.