The latest statistics point to a decline in the overall proportion of North American Jews who belong to or attend synagogues—a pattern especially pronounced if one excludes the Orthodox. Moreover, writes Martin Lockshin, the evidence suggests that various efforts to make synagogues more attractive and dynamic are doing little to stem the tide. These efforts include everything from incorporating musical instruments and lively tunes into services, to welcoming homosexuals and performing intermarriages, to allowing non-Jews to join congregations. At the same time, Reform and Conservative rabbis, and some Orthodox ones, have put ever-greater emphasis on progressive politics, under the rubric of tikkun olam. Lockshin argues that not only have such attempts to revitalize Judaism failed, but they may even be counterproductive:

Rabbis often avoid telling their congregants that Judaism demands anything specifically Jewish of them. . . . In many synagogues, one specific political ideology reigns, and a congregant who does not share that ideology feels uncomfortable. When synagogues do mention Jews’ “obligations,” often they are to causes that are not specifically Jewish. . . . Many rabbis report adjusting what they preach about. Some hesitate to talk about God. Twenty percent of rabbis fear “some kind of sanction or retribution from their congregants for voicing their honest opinions about Israel.”

In a culture that values autonomy, synagogues often promote Judaism as a way to reach personal fulfilment and add meaning to life. . . . It’s hard to be optimistic about the current approach of synagogues as a long-term strategy. Jews whose Judaism consists primarily of advocating for gay rights and fighting against gun violence and human trafficking are likely to discover that these causes can be more effectively promoted outside the synagogue. Even Jews who go to a synagogue because they like the music or meditation it offers are likely to discover that moving music, even spiritual music, may be more easily found outside of synagogues.

What synagogues have to offer that cannot be found anywhere else is instruction and exhortation on living a Jewish life. When they emphasize core Jewish values, they create a sense of solidarity, community, and even exclusivity that cannot be rivaled. When they discuss Jewish texts and teachings, they get people to consider their own values and behavior and maybe even try to improve their lives. Some of that still goes on in every synagogue, but perhaps it’s time to make it more front and center.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”