In a wide-ranging interview, Michael Harris—an influential British rabbi—discusses the differences between Modern Orthodoxy in America and in the UK, the recent history of Britain’s United Synagogue, and the implications of ancient Near Eastern texts for understanding the divinity of the Bible, among other topics. He also advocates a “moderate” and carefully defined form of religious pluralism. (Interview by Alan Brill.)

Modern Orthodoxy should resist a strong pluralism that views Judaism and other faiths as equally true, [claiming], for example, Judaism is true for Jews, Christianity for Christians, and Islam for Muslims. There is a more moderate but still valuable kind of pluralism, suggested by the medieval sage Menaḥem Me’iri, according to which we [should recognize as valid] the self-understanding of other religions as religions without accepting all their [theological] claims as on a par with our own. Believing in the truth of the core [tenets] of our own faith is also perfectly compatible with a positive attitude toward other faiths.

As a religious Jew who believes that Judaism is right and Christianity (for example) wrong on the messianism of Jesus and the relative status of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, I can and should still accept that Christianity teaches a great deal of moral truth, that it brings blessing to the lives of many individuals and communities who adhere to it, and indeed that it strengthens the moral fabric of many contemporary societies, including the Western ones in which we live. We should also be open to what other faiths and their literatures can teach us—for example, . . . by their ability to convey shared truths in a particularly powerful way.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.