In 1982, Rabbi Yosef Qafiḥ (sometimes pronounced “Kapaḥ”) was asked to address the Knesset to mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the aliyah, or collective migration to the Land of Israel, of Jews from Yemen. Elli Fischer, prefaces his 2015 translation of the speech with a note about Qafiḥ’s life:

Rabbi Qafiḥ (1917-2000) was a Yemenite-born rabbinical judge and scholar of Jewish theology who made aliyah in 1943. Once in Israel, Rabbi Qafiḥ served on the country’s supreme rabbinic court and translated the classics of the Jewish theological tradition—Rabbi Saadya Gaon’s Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, Rabbi Yehudah Halevi’s Kuzari, Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, and more—from Arabic to modern Hebrew. In addition to being an expert in both the Jewish legal and theological traditions, Rabbi Qafiḥ was a daring thinker who didn’t hesitate to attack conventional pieties. This [speech] is a good example of his iconoclasm.

In his address, Qafiḥ challenges the very assumption that the Yemenite aliyah began in 1882:

The concept of “Zionism” has been invoked here several times. In Yemen, this concept did not exist as the name of a movement or a distinct internal group. The Diaspora throughout Yemen was there on a temporary basis. They saw themselves as hotel guests, even though their stay lasted for 2,000 years. Therefore, those individuals and groups who made aliyah to the Land of Israel over time did not deviate from the mainstream. For that reason, these aliyot [i.e., waves of migration] were not noted, in contrast to aliyot from elsewhere. . . . Since the latter [immigrants] went against the pervading spirit of their environments, their aliyah was an extraordinary, wondrous, inspirational thing. . . . In Yemen there was no need for this. Aliyah naturally continued in a normal, organic fashion, because everyone was a candidate; everyone waited for the right moment, for the removal of his particular barriers.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”