As late as the 18th century, taxes in much of Europe were often paid in the form of labor, known as corvée. Ziony Zevit argues that this was the form of bondage Egypt imposed on the Israelites, as described in the opening chapter of the book of Exodus, read in synagogues tomorrow. He finds evidence, inter alia, in the statement that the Egyptians placed over the Israelites “taskmasters [literally officials of missim] to afflict them with their burdens.”

Throughout the ancient world, farmers working the lands would be taxed by representatives of central authorities (kings or deities) who were considered the actual owners. These taxes were rendered by delivering livestock, or agricultural produce, and/or through the performance of corvée labor, which could involve fieldwork, dredging canals, or work on construction projects. Hebrew mas (plural missim) is connected to this latter form of taxation. Mas refers to a unit of laborers drafted for corvée service and is a cognate of Akkadian massu.

With this in mind, Zevit proposes a novel reading of the verse that sets up the story of Egyptian bondage: “Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.”

The most common interpretations of the phrase are that the king did not have a personal relationship with Joseph, that he was not aware of what Joseph did [for his predecessor during the famine], or that he did not feel especially grateful for it. Yet, I suggest that the phrase is not about a state of knowledge. It is rather about not recognizing, i.e., honoring, Joseph’s blanket support of his brothers and their descendants as [described] toward the end of Genesis. This special recognition included the right to provisions from official food storage facilities, which Joseph first offers his family upon their reconciliation.

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.