By the beginning of the 21st century, Bible scholars had become divided into rival interpretive schools, each locked into its own rigid orthodoxies, writes Mark McEntire. Postmodernists, archaeologists, and practitioners of literary or historical-critical analysis grew accustomed to writing solely for their ideological brethren. A new study by Jacob L. Wright, focusing on the story of King David, has attempted to combine the best of these varying approaches, with much success. Wright also draws on comparisons between modern commemorations of war and the Book of Samuel’s desire to tell the story of the civil war between Saul and David. McEntire writes:

[Wright’s] methodological alacrity finds its greatest payoff in the conclusions about a “War-Torn David.” The biblical authors use the past to address their own present, which we can understand in light of our own present. According to Wright, “The same activity that produced the monuments dotting our [American] national landscapes propelled the Bible’s formation. Using representative individuals, the biblical writers appealed to memories of wartime contributions and sacrifice as they addressed issues of belonging—both within the community of Israel and between Israel and other peoples.” People of all eras struggle to make their version of a great story the dominant one and to decide who is allowed to attach themselves to the tradition surrounding the story. . . .

To understand what set off the latest round of sectarian conflict in southern Syria, I suggest reading this very brief and useful summary by Carmit Valensi and Amal Hayek. The two note that, as in previous rounds of fighting, “internal pressure from the Druze community in Israel spurred Israeli military involvement.” But Amit Segal argues that this incident was different from its predecessors:

[T]he Druze area acts as a buffer for Israel. It’s like a shield against Syria, which is essentially [part of] a Turkish empire, something that deeply disturbs Israel. But there’s one more thing that’s changed in recent months. Israel is acting as a regional power for the first time, and only history will judge if this was wise or a mistake.

When Israel sees situations such as what’s happening in Syria, it intervenes. This has never happened before. Israel says it’s not just about immediate interests, but also about allies.

There is also here a moral element, that goes beyond what some see as Jerusalem caving to domestic pressure from its Druze citizens. After all, no other country has lifted a finger to protect Middle Eastern minorities from slaughter. Seth Mandel writes:

It has not gone unnoticed that Israel is striking the government forces of a country with which it is also negotiating mutual recognition. But there is no contradiction there: peace is the goal, and recognition is worthless without it. Israel wants recognition because it wants coexistence, not the other way around. And the Jewish state is unwilling to sell out its values to get it: “Israel is committed to preventing harm being inflicted on the Druze in Syria, owing to the deep covenant of blood with our Druze citizens in Israel and their historical and familial link to the Druze in Syria,” Prime Minister Netanyahu explained.