The idea that man can and even should argue with the Creator—found most famously in the biblical passage where Abraham challenges God over His decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah—received much attention in 20th-century Jewish thought, especially through the work of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Elie Wiesel. In his recent book, Pious Irreverence, Dov Weiss investigates the development of this idea in ancient and early-medieval rabbinic texts. (Interview by Alan Brill.)

[T]he tannaim (the rabbis of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE) were . . . adamant that God is infallible and morally perfect. As a result, [they] declared that it would be entirely absurd—and sinful—to argue with God.

The bold notion that God is fallible and not morally perfect—and therefore that protesting God might be legitimate—surfaces in [the later talmudic] literature of the 5th century CE, and appears most starkly in post-talmudic literature of the 6th and 7th centuries. In these later texts, we read of biblical heroes teaching or counseling God to adopt a more ethical approach to governing the world. Strikingly, God accedes to these moral critiques and challenges, declaring that the contentious encounter has caused Him to adopt a new moral position. [These stories suggest the possibility of a] fundamental change in God’s attitude toward His governance of the world, rather than a one-time concessional act of divine mercy as we have in the Hebrew Bible or earlier rabbinic texts.

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.