Even before being appointed the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Palestine in 1919, Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) had become the foremost theorist of religious Zionism. Employing an innovative reading of Jewish mystical texts blended with various ideas from European thought, Kook developed a theological interpretation of history that he employed to show why his era was the appropriate time for a return to Zion. Yehudah Mirsky explains (free registration required):

In the kabbalistic doctrine of the [ten] s’firot [divine emanations], the tenth s’firah is the meeting place of divinity and the world; it is thus at one and the same time the Oral Torah (created by human interpretation [of the written text]), . . . the land of Israel, the [religious community] of Israel, and the immanent divine presence or Sh’khinah. This cluster of related mystical concepts was the lens through which [Kook] viewed nationalism and Zionism, and those developments shaped his new readings of Kabbalah. . . . [J]ust as the tenth s’firah is the repository for the spiritual energies of all the rest, the Jewish people are the repository for the spiritual energies of humanity, the “idealized distillation” of the history, beliefs, and ideals of the nation.

Contemporary nationalism was for Kook the vessel of the internally diverse spiritual life of mankind. “In our time, after the differentiation into nations, nobody can receive his spiritual influences outside of the garment of the specific channel of his nation.” But in keeping with his dialectical perspective, universal love must feature alongside national feeling in a God-saturated world. “Love of all creatures must live in the heart and soul, love for every individual, for all the nations.” Indeed, the existence of nations is only a waystation until the joining of all humanity in a single family.

Before exploding electronics in Lebanon seized the attention of the Israeli public, debate there had focused on the Philadelphi Corridor—the strip of land between Gaza and Egypt—and whether the IDF can afford to withdraw from it. Egypt has opposed Israeli control of the corridor, which is crucial to Hamas’s supply lines, and Egyptian objections likely prevented Israel from seizing it earlier in the war. Yet, argues Mariam Wahba, Egypt in the long run only stands to lose by letting Hamas use the corridor, and has proved incapable of effectively sealing it off:

Ultimately, this moment presents an opportunity for the United States to hold Egypt’s feet to the fire.

To press Cairo, the United States should consider conditioning future aid on Cairo’s willingness to cooperate. This should include a demand for greater transparency and independent oversight to verify Egyptian claims about the tunnels. Congress ought to hold hearings to understand better Egypt’s role and its compliance as a U.S. ally. Despite Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s nine trips to the Middle East since the start of the war, there has been little clarity on how Egypt intends to fulfill its role as a mediator.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s legitimate security concerns, Egypt is undermining its own interests, prolonging the war in Gaza, and further destabilizing its relationship with Jerusalem. It is time for Egyptian leaders either to admit their inability to secure the border and seek help from Israel and America, or to risk being perceived as enablers of Hamas and its terrorist campaign.