While this week’s Torah reading of Emor, like most of the book of Leviticus, is concerned primarily with law and ritual, it includes an odd narrative passage in which a man with an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father gets into a fight with an Israelite, and then “blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed.” He is immediately arrested, after which Moses inquires of God about the appropriate punishment. God responds by commanding that “all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”

As Mark Glass points out, the crime committed by the unnamed son of an Israelite mother (whom Glass dubs Ben Shelomit) isn’t so much blasphemy in the usual sense but uttering the ineffable name of God in order to curse another person. Glass examines various anomalies in the story, including the strange biographical detail about the blasphemer’s parentage, and observes:

The onlookers, those who witnessed Ben Shelomit’s fight with a Jew, must lay their hands upon him―in recognition of their guilt, as though he is an offering on their behalf. Because the only reason Ben Shelomit resorted to his act was the onlookers’ failure to help him or break up the fight. The crowd stood around watching―perhaps simply unwilling to intervene, or perhaps with a more vindictive mentality: enjoying an Egyptian being attacked by a Jew for a change.

Had anyone from the crowd stepped in, Ben Shelomit would never have uttered God’s Name and called on Him to strike his opponent. Thus, his sin is―in part―their blame. Ben Shelomit must suffer the ultimate consequence of his actions, but the onlookers must accept their role in his sin. Indeed, the entire people must lay their hands on him and take part in his execution to reinforce their collective responsibility for one another.

In a momentous meeting with the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, President Trump announced that he is lifting sanctions on the beleaguered and war-torn country. On the one hand, Sharaa is an alumnus of Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who came to power as commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which itself began life as al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot; he also seems to enjoy the support of Qatar. On the other hand, he overthrew the Assad regime—a feat made possible by the battering Israel delivered to Hizballah—greatly improving Jerusalem’s strategic position, and ending one of the world’s most atrocious and brutal tyrannies. President Trump also announced that he hopes Syria will join the Abraham Accords.

This analysis by Eran Lerman was published a few days ago, and in some respects is already out of date, but more than anything else I’ve read it helps to make sense of Israel’s strategic position vis-à-vis Syria.

Israel’s primary security interest lies in defending against worst-case scenarios, particularly the potential collapse of the Syrian state or its transformation into an actively hostile force backed by a significant Turkish presence (considering that the Turkish military is the second largest in NATO) with all that this would imply. Hence the need to bolster the new buffer zone—not for territorial gain, but as a vital shield and guarantee against dangerous developments. Continued airstrikes aimed at diminishing the residual components of strategic military capabilities inherited from the Assad regime are essential.

At the same time, there is a need to create conditions that would enable those in Damascus who wish to reject the reduction of their once-proud country into a Turkish satrapy. Sharaa’s efforts to establish his legitimacy, including his visit to Paris and outreach to the U.S., other European nations, and key Gulf countries, may generate positive leverage in this regard. Israel’s role is to demonstrate through daily actions the severe costs of acceding to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions and accepting Turkish hegemony.

Israel should also assist those in Syria (and beyond: this may have an effect in Lebanon as well) who look to it as a strategic anchor in the region. The Druze in Syria—backed by their brethren in Israel—have openly expressed this expectation, breaking decades of loyalty to the central power in Damascus over their obligation to their kith and kin.