Last week, the senior diplomats of Morocco, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the U.S. gathered in the Sde Boker kibbutz in the Negev—where David Ben-Gurion spent his final years—to discuss regional cooperation. Aryeh Tepper examines how this summit, which would have been unimaginable a decade ago, results not only from diplomatic and strategic shifts but also from theological ones:

A serious struggle is being waged by Islamic scholars from Morocco to the Gulf to cultivate and to advance a tolerant form of Islam that respects non-Muslims and that recognizes minority rights based upon Islamic principles. The efforts of Islamic scholars must of course be seen within larger political contexts. In the Middle East, religion and politics are rarely separable. Additionally, even if one identifies with these scholars’ aims, it’s possible to wonder about the effectiveness of scholarly-religious pronouncements and documents, in general.

But, . . . if you had been following the various forms of Islamic reform and their interaction with global Jewish communities over the past few years, meetings often spear-headed by the American Sephardi Federation, then you weren’t terribly surprised when the kingdom of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates established, and the kingdom of Morocco restored and upgraded, diplomatic relations with the Jewish state in 2020.

In 2013 and 2014, Morocco and the UAE were already working to change the Islamic discourse in the Muslim world. And in Marrakesh, in 2016, over 300 Muslim scholars, activists, and politicians came together to articulate a tolerant vision of Islam that can function as a constructive, humane force in a modern state. The result, the “Marrakesh Declaration,” is grounded in the belief that tolerance is deeply rooted in the Muslim past.

It’s clear on which side the Jewish people stands in this battle. It was on display in Sde Boker.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.