As a founding editor of the leftwing Hebrew newspaper Davar and a co-founder of the Histadrut workers’ union, Berl Katznelson (1887–1944) was one of the most influential figures in the history of Labor Zionism. Alex Harris explores Katznelson’s attitudes toward the Jewish tradition, which were very different from those of such fellow Zionist socialists as the theoretician Ber Borochov or the novelist Y.H. Brenner. The great Hebrew writer S.Y. Agnon described him thus:

I will say something akin to a paradox, but it is true. [Katznelson] was not a Torah scholar in the conventional sense. But the love of Torah and clarity of his thoughts and strong mind allowed him to understand. Out of a love of Torah, he would sit for hours and hours and look at books that were seemingly distant from the center of his operations and his face would light up like one who found a treasure.

Harris elaborates:

Rather than viewing the socialist Zionist movement as a complete rupture from the past, Katznelson saw the young men and women of the Yishuv as continuing the arc of Jewish history. Both tradition and revolution were integral parts of the unfolding of history. In [his] article “Destruction and Detachment” (1934) Katznelson wrote: “Would we be capable today of a revival movement if the Jewish people had not protected in their hardened hearts and their holy hinterland the memory of the destruction?”

He also saw the practical value of traditional events in the modern calendar. Katznelson repeatedly praised Shabbat: “We have a need for Shabbat greater than for anything else—we will uphold it as a miracle and build our lives upon it—we will turn our Shabbats and our holidays into cultural bonfires.” Elsewhere he wrote, “the Sabbath for me is a pillar of Hebrew culture and the first socialist achievement of Adam, the first worker in human history.”

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.