The goal of the first generations of Zionists, and their precursors, was not just to return Jews to their ancestral homeland, but also to embody and disseminate a particular set of ideals. Benjamin Kerstein argues that American Jews—the majority of whom are unlikely to make aliyah—have much to gain by reacquainting themselves with this line of thinking:

The early Zionists . . . urged the Diaspora to adopt a veritable encyclopedia of principles and values, all based around the unthinkably radical idea that the Jews are a people with the same rights as any other people. These included pan-Jewish solidarity; political and social empowerment; active self-defense; the revival of the Hebrew language; secular knowledge of Jewish history, culture, and thought; the creation of new and uniquely Jewish works of art; and the integrity of the Jewish body itself.

They believed that, as Vladimir Jabotinsky put it, “We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody’s examination, and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are; we are good for ourselves; we will not change and we do not want to.”

It seems to me that these are the principles and values that the American Jewish community now requires, perhaps more than ever. And they can be fostered through a “Zionism of the spirit,” in which the basic tenets of Zionism are given a Diaspora context. . . . After all, the Jews are one people, and have the same rights wherever we are.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.