Nine days after Hamas’s invasion of Israel, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, publicly offered to trade himself for hostages being held by Hamas. This noble, if perhaps empty, gesture suggests something that distinguishes the attitude of the Catholic Church’s chief cleric in Israel from his predecessors, as does the fact that Pizzaballa called Hamas’s deeds “barbaric.” Cole Aronson provides a history of the Latin patriarchate and a profile of the “big, quick-witted, businesslike Italian, fluent in English and Hebrew, with a doctorate from Hebrew University” (on the subject of Jewish texts), who is now patriarch:

Pizzaballa does not admire Hamas. . . . But his patriarchate has also called for a ceasefire since October 7 of last year, when it published a statement condemning the “violence” of unnamed perpetrators against unnamed victims.

Pizzaballa knows the risks to Catholics of public sympathy for Israel. Criticizing Israel, by contrast, wins sympathy from Arab Muslims without eliciting much antipathy from Israeli Jews, who are otherwise engaged. Nor are the Holy Land’s Catholics the only Christians on the patriarch’s mind. According to a Palestinian source inside the patriarchate, the patriarchate did not want Gaza’s Catholics to comply with the Israeli army’s evacuation order from Gaza City early in the war. Apparent Catholic complicity in an Israeli campaign to depopulate Gaza risked setting Mideast Muslims against their Christian neighbors.

Alas, Pizzaballa’s judgment makes a certain brutal, survivalist sense. He gains nothing by saying nothing and might lose everything by blaming Hamas. But he gains something by blaming Israel: extra protection by the only military in the conflict zone that cares about the safety of Christians.

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.