“A woman may not don man’s apparel,” commands the book of Deuteronomy, “nor shall a man don woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.” As Moshe Kurtz explains, talmudic scholars have debated the reasons for, and applications of, these prohibitions—known in rabbinic scholarship by the Hebrew phrase lo yilbash (he shall not don). To an extent unusual in Jewish law, most rabbis agree that what constitutes male or female dress changes over time and should be determined by societal norms. Yet, Kurtz argues, such flexibility does not imply that the tradition views sex differences themselves as infinitely malleable:

While at one juncture it was exclusively masculine to wear pants, today it is not so. . . . Nonetheless, it is imperative, [according to the rabbinic consensus], to maintain proactively some form of gender marker.

The imperative to maintain the integrity of gender norms remains more relevant today than ever, and it should encourage us to err on the side of caution in our observance of this halakhah. While the details and applications of lo yilbash are debatable, the ethos is undeniable.

Midrash Tanḥuma, [an ancient homiletical work], relates that when [the Roman proconsul] Turnus Rufus challenged Rabbi Akiva as to why God did not create baby boys pre-circumcised, the latter replied that “God gave the mitzvot to the Jewish people in order to refine them,” meaning that God wished to partner with humankind in the endeavor of perfecting His creation. One must be careful not to uproot God’s will from our world, but rather to accept His sacred charge to . . . enhance and build upon the foundation that He has created.

A critique of Kurtz’s argument, although not of his broader conclusions, can be found here.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.