This Rosh Hashanah marks the beginning of the sabbatical year, shmitah in Hebrew, during which the Bible prohibits plowing, sowing, and harvesting in the Land of Israel. While modernity has in some ways made shmitah observance easier—since produce can be shipped and stored cheaply and efficiently—in other ways it has posed new difficulties. David M. Weinberg explores the dilemmas facing Israel in the upcoming year:

Shmitah is meant to teach man humility before God. Its observance, even to the point of financial loss to the farmer and economic hardship for the consumer, is considered an extremely important test of society’s religious and moral mettle. However, with modern Israel beset by agricultural and economic difficulties and diplomatic-military challenges, absolute shmitah observance is far from simple. A few hardy farmers indeed are letting their fields lie fallow. But that is not a solution for the entire country, which still needs to eat and keep its agricultural sector solvent.

In response, rabbinic leadership 125 years ago crafted the heter m’khirah, the “sale” of agricultural land to non-Jews for the year of shmitah under a trust agreement, which permits Jews to farm the land and sell the produce under certain conditions. The heter m’khirah end-run around shmitah has been reluctantly re-ratified by the chief rabbinate every shmitah since then, but its implementation grows ever more problematic. To begin with, [it] was meant as a temporary arrangement, not a two-century-long exemption. . . .

Orthodox Jews who impose on themselves stricter standards of shmitah observance get through the sabbatical year primarily by buying Arab-grown produce or expensive foreign produce. Indeed, the various kashrut organizations of the ḥaredi world have been busy signing produce-supply contracts with Palestinian Authority, Gazan, Jordanian, and Turkish farmers. This infuriates me. Primary reliance on Arab produce is neither realistic nor acceptable for health, nationalist, and religious reasons.

On the national level, observance of shmitah is not just a personal matter of technical-halakhic right and wrong, or a question of getting by as a religious consumer. It’s also a question of public policy. That means caring for all Jews in Israel, not just for the faultless kashrut of your own dishes and the impeccable purity of the vegetables you put in your own mouth.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.