Yehuda Amital (1924-2010), a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor, spent most of his career as the head of the Har Etzion yeshiva and became a leading figure in the Religious Zionist movement. In an analysis of Amital’s life, work, and thought, Reuven Ziegler and Yehudah Mirsky explain the notion of “humanity” (enoshiyut) that formed one of the “fundamental principles” of his theology. (Free registration required.)

[According to Amital, the] “worship of God, in whatever form, cannot wipe out simple human feeling.” As an example, he cites the obligation of a kohen [priest] to defile himself [ritually by attending a funeral] and mourn for close relatives despite his calling to serve in the Temple. Even Aaron, the high priest, who was not permitted to desist from his service, received Moses’ approval when he asserted that he still mourned his sons in his heart (Lev. 10:16–20).

Humanity further entails the recognition of fundamental human traits—human weakness and frailty prominently among them. This applies even to great individuals and extends to revered canonical figures, as we find them depicted both by the Tanakh and by the sages. . . .

This set of ideas is connected to another . . . : the importance of “naturalness” in the life of mitzvot. . . . On the one hand, the human ideal according to Judaism is not, as in some Eastern teachings, the attainment of tranquility, but rather perpetual aspiration, activity, and growth. Yet, on the other hand, excessive tension and anxiety in the worship of God is abnormal and counterproductive, often leading to paralysis. Fear of God should be natural, like fear of one’s parents. Similarly, prayer should be natural, a “conversation” with God. What is natural is not necessarily holy, but what is holy should be natural.

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.”