Today, writes Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, few Conservative Jews see Jewish law as a set of divinely ordained obligations, while few Reform Jews see Jewish ritual practice as entirely antiquated—both in contradistinction to the formal theology of these denomination’s founders. Moreover, he argues, their attitudes reflect those of the overwhelming majority of American Jews. These facts, to Cosgrove, suggest a positive way forward for Judaism in the U.S. and elsewhere:

Mitzvot and the aspiration to perform them abound in the souls of American Jews. The decision to order from one side of the menu but not the other, the decision to purchase t’filin for their children as they reach b’nei mitzvah age, the decision to study Torah or to participate in communal prayer—the subset of American Jewry I serve, in their own inchoate way, often perform and continue to aspire to perform mitzvot. For many (but not all) of the Jews I serve, the non-performance of mitzvot is not so much a “no,” as it is a “not yet.” Even if they are not observing mitzvot, they feel they should, they could, and might one day do so. Moreover, nearly 25 years into my rabbinate, I believe that my congregants hold the expectation that as their rabbi, I will urge them to do so.

There is more than enough work to go around, and while our ideologies, practices, and tactics may differ, [rabbis and lay leaders of all denominations] would do well to remember that we stand united in our unyielding mission to secure the future of Judaism. The task of religious leadership must be to facilitate the modern individual’s retrieval of the Divine by way of a life of mitzvot. God’s presence may have receded, but it has not been utterly eclipsed.

We must show Jews that the riches of Jewish practice are compelling to the spiritually searching and God-thirsting soul and can more than compete with the marketplace of secular alternatives.

In 2003, the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, spooked by the American display of might in Iraq, decided to destroy or surrender his entire nuclear program. Informed observers have suggested that the deal he made with the U.S. should serve as a model for any agreement with Iran. Robert Joseph provides some useful background:

Gaddafi had convinced himself that Libya would be next on the U.S. target list after Iraq. There was no reason or need to threaten Libya with bombing as Gaddafi was quick to tell almost every visitor that he did not want to be Saddam Hussein. The images of Saddam being pulled from his spider hole . . . played on his mind.

President Bush’s goal was to have Libya serve as an alternative model to Iraq. Instead of war, proliferators would give up their nuclear programs in exchange for relief from economic and political sanctions.

Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that President Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Limiting enrichment even to low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says.

Iran is not a normal government that observes the rules of international behavior or fair “dealmaking.” This is a regime that relies on regional terror and brutal repression of its citizens to stay in power. It has a long history of using negotiations to expand its nuclear program. Its negotiating tactics are clear: extend the negotiations as long as possible and meet any concession with more demands.