In 1998, Tradition—America’s most prominent Orthodox journal—published a symposium on the changing face of Orthodoxy that had taken place since the 1970s. Now, another quarter-century later, two of the contributors revisit the same questions. Judith Bleich stands by her previous position that the problems within Orthodox Judaism are far less grave than those facing Jewry as a whole:

[T]he stark reality is that the Orthodox are but a relatively small fraction of the Jewish people. The major problem confronting contemporary Jewry is not tension between traditionalists and innovators; it is the absence of any form of religious identification on the part of vast numbers of Jews. In an increasingly thoroughly secular world, allegiance to religion among 21st-century youth is waning.

The dramatically soaring rate of intermarriage is certainly incontrovertible testimony to the loss of religious commitment on the part of contemporary Jews. . . . Indeed, usually, neither party to an intermarriage has a meaningful connection to any religious faith. Questioned regarding the religious group with whom they identified, the response of far too many millennials was “none.” The challenge of denominationalism pales before that of disinterest and apathy.

By contrast, Rabbi Marc Angel worries about a trend toward dogmatism and inflexibility among Orthodox Jews:

Orthodoxy needs to foster the love of truth. It must be alive to different intellectual currents, and receptive to open discussion. . . . [W]e must stand up and be counted on the side of freedom of expression. We, as a community, must give encouragement to all who have legitimate opinions to share. We must not tolerate intolerance. We must not yield to the tactics of coercion and intimidation.

Our schools and institutions must foster legitimate diversity within Orthodoxy. We must insist on intellectual openness, and resist efforts to impose conformity. . . . We must give communal support to diversity within the halakhic framework, so that people will not feel intimidated to say things publicly or to sign their names to public documents.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.