Love and Politics in Ruth

In Rising Moon, Moshe Miller explores the biblical book of Ruth, traditionally read on the upcoming holiday of Shavuot. Ruth begins with the words “It was when the judges judged,” and ends with the title character giving birth to a son who will be the grandfather of David. As Sarah Rindner writes in her review, Miller thus situates Ruth as the bridge between two biblical books: Judges and Samuel.

For Miller, the difference between the period of the Judges, and even the first biblical king, Saul, and his successor David, comes down to something like grace. True kingship, or malkhut, cannot be imposed on a nation—it cannot even be requested by that nation. In Hebrew, the name Saul . . . literally means “asked for,” and Saul’s coronation is rooted in the people “asking” for a king. Kingship, on the other hand, must emerge organically as a kind of “center around which the nation could coalesce”—as exemplified by the more enduring kingship of David and his progeny.

Malkhut [therefore] is a natural outgrowth of a development that has reached a stage demanding integration. It must grow out of a vast complex of interrelationships that insists upon it. Asking for kingship guarantees its failure. . . .

According to Miller, kingship emerges from a web of personal relationships among members of the nation. It is therefore fitting that some of the greatest love stories of the Bible all emerge alongside the first major instantiation of malkhut: the stories of Ruth and [her mother-in-law] Naomi, Ruth and [her eventual husband] Boaz, Saul and [his protégé] David, Jonathan and [his best friend] David, and David and [his lover-turned-wife] Bathsheba. Even the name David derives from the Hebrew word dod, meaning beloved. Love, of course, cannot be forced, but emerges naturally and organically to ultimately produce a union that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Read more at Book of Books

More about: Biblical Politics, Book of Ruth, Hebrew Bible, King David, King Saul, Love, Religion & Holidays

Expand Gaza into Sinai

Feb. 11 2025

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Donald Trump, Egypt, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula