Today is the minor but joyous Jewish holiday of Tu b’Av, the fifteenth day of the month of Av, which according to the Talmud is significant for six reasons. Among these is that it marks the day when, in ancient times, members of the tribe of Benjamin were allowed to intermarry with the other Israelites—a reference to the story told in the concluding chapters of the book of Judges. This episode begins when a gang of Benjaminite hoodlums rape and murder a woman passing through their tribe’s territory; thereafter the tribal elders refuse to bring the perpetrators to justice. A bloody civil war follows that concludes with the other eleven tribes taking an oath not to give their daughters in marriage to the Benjaminites. After some time, the other tribes’ elders relent and concoct a scheme whereby the men of Benjamin can ambush maidens from other tribes while they dance at an annual festival in Shiloh, and then carry them off as brides. Tzvi Sinensky attempts to make sense of this episode and its relevance to Tu b’Av:

[The Talmud states that] “there were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur, as on them the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white clothes, so as not to embarrass one who did not have, . . . and perform a circle dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? ‘Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself . . . ’”.

[T]he parallels [to the story in Judges] are unmistakable: girls dancing in vineyards in the location of the Holy Ark (Shiloh or Jerusalem) during a holiday [followed by the formation of marital bonds]. Reinforcing these striking similarities, the Talmud uses turns of phrase that closely parallel those in Judges. . . .

To begin, let us analyze the elders’ decision to encourage Benjaminite men to “snatch” women from the festival at Shiloh. Does the text judge the elders positively or negatively? It is hard to know for sure. On the one hand, their motivation seems to be positive: they seek to salvage the [depopulated] tribe of Benjamin. On the other hand, the verses’ language carries numerous negative associations. The text uses such words as ambush, grab, and rob, which carry negative associations [in Hebrew as well as English]. What is more, broadly speaking, it seems clear that the story is not intended exclusively as a negative commentary on the tribe of Benjamin; Benjamin’s despicable behavior is simply indicative of a larger moral breakdown in Israelite society. . . .

As the book of Judges concludes, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.” It therefore seems highly plausible that the text means to criticize the elders’ decision to ensure a tribe’s survival at the expense of women who were kidnapped and coerced into unwanted marriages. . . . Just as the tragedy of the rape features the brutalization of a vulnerable woman, so, too, the biblical dancing festival involves the “snatching” of vulnerable women who had gathered in Shiloh. . . .

In sharp contrast to the tale of the murdered concubine, the Talmud emphasizes that on Tu b’Av . . . the women seize the initiative in soliciting the men. Moreover, as opposed to the incident in Judges, in which women were taken en masse, the Talmud explains that different women emphasized their unique qualities [in advertising themselves to their potential mates]. If the end of Judges features females who are treated as vulnerable, faceless objects, this talmudic passage, as [the 19th-century ḥasidic master] Tsadok of Lublin observes, offers a vision of self-assured young women who take initiative and distinguish themselves as individuals.

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.