The recent coverage of the Iran-Israel war, and the possibility that the U.S. might intervene to destroy Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, has raised the broader question of why the American alliance with Israel is so important—and even the question, sometimes raised in good faith as well as bad, of why the tiny Jewish state generates so much attention. Jonah Goldberg considers many good reasons Americans should care about Israel, among them:

a really basic argument of good versus evil. The stated view of many of Israel’s most implacable enemies is that Jews just need to be destroyed (the Houthi motto is “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse Be Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam!”). A lot of Americans just don’t like that.

But, Goldberg argues, there is a more fundamental reason still why people should be concerned about Israel’s fate:

In foreign policy, attention follows action or the threat of action. . . . Israel is an ally that has been under threat for a very long time, basically since its founding. In other words, the reason it seems like Israel’s friends are “obsessed with defending Israel” has more to do with the fact that Israel’s enemies are obsessed with destroying it.

It’s a bit like the argument one often hears about how concern for Israel is so misplaced because it’s the most militarily powerful nation in the region. This, too, gets the causality backward. It’s the most militarily powerful nation in the region because, historically, much of the region has sought to destroy it. . . . The effort to destroy Israel has been such a constant fixture of geopolitics for nearly 80 years that it’s considered normal. And what is normal often becomes invisible.

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of will. Are we willing to stand by friends with shared values and shared interests, even when it is hard? Are we willing, as a question of national honor and national interest, to stand by our commitments? My answer is yes. Not necessarily at any cost, but certainly when the costs are worth the benefits.

But my real desire is for this to no longer be a controversial question. I want to get to a place where asking “Should we support Israel?” sounds as weird as saying “Should we support Switzerland or Belgium?” And that can only happen when Israel is no longer in danger of no longer existing.

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.