Edmund Burke, the founder of modern political conservatism, wrote that the social contract binds not only citizens to their government and to one another, but also to the generations that came before them and those that will come after them. It is in this sense that Isaac is, as David Wolpe puts it, the most conservative of the biblical patriarchs:

[This] week’s Torah readings begins with “This is the legacy of Isaac,” and goes on to say “Abraham begot Isaac,” suggesting that his legacy is his father.

What are we intended to learn from Isaac’s life? Isaac had a critical contribution to make, which threads together several aspects of his life. Isaac is the conservative principle, the preserver, the paradigm of continuity. Abraham has created something new. The question is whether the innovation of Abraham will endure. In ways both overt and subtle, Isaac consolidates what has been created. As we are living in an age when everyone is preoccupied with disruption and innovation, it is easy to lose sight of the importance of preserving what previous generations have forged.

Isaac instantiates the idea of creating a legacy of unbroken coherence. In Genesis 26 are contained two of the features of Isaac’s life that highlight his character. Isaac re-opened the wells that were first dug by his father Abraham (26:18). This is a powerful symbol of the importance of continuity. The wells had been stopped up by the Philistines, but rather than dig new ones, Isaac restores the old. A few verses earlier God instructs Isaac not to go down to Egypt. Isaac is the only patriarch who does not leave the land of Israel. Abraham has been led to a new land. His son proves that his father’s choice can nourish a life.

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.