In February I enrolled in a six-week “Decoding the Talmud” course taught by Chabad Rabbi Yosef Landa. I learned about the Gemara and the centuries-old debates it is based on. Although the latter debates for the most part have been resolved and have culminated in halacha (Jewish law), the debate process continues in yeshivas all over the world.
Debates also continue today in the secular realm outside yeshivas on a host of issues, many of which are not close to resolution. Most notably, there is great disagreement regarding the current state of world order and the role the United States might, or should, play under President Donald Trump’s administration.
It is worth noting that such uncertainty is nothing new. In 2001, I wrote “Between Two Epochs: What’s Ahead for America, the World and Global Politics in the 21st Century.” I stated at the time:
“It is a special moment. … This moment comes as we are all still attempting to make sense of the ‘new world order’ or, as some would say, ‘disorder’ in the post-Cold War era that we now live in. The Cold War … ran roughly from 1945 to 1990. It is hard to know how long the post-Cold War period will last, and by what label it will come to be known. If the truth be known … there is considerable uncertainty even among the most veteran observers as to how this still newborn system will evolve. … Like the passengers on a large ship, humanity currently seems to be undergoing passage through unfamiliar and somewhat treacherous straits. We have left one international system behind and are seeking to establish our bearings in a new system.”
Indeed, I failed to anticipate what was to happen within months of publication of my book: the shock of Sept. 11, 2001. My book became instantly dated in failing to mention as seemingly seismic an event as 9/11, even though it turned out to be less existential than thought at the time as few major terrorist incidents have occurred on U.S. soil in the years since.
We continue to struggle to make sense of the contemporary world order a quarter century into the new millennium. Clearly, Francis Fukuyama prematurely declared “the end of history” in the 1990s, when he claimed we had witnessed the final triumph of liberal democracy over all competing ideologies with the victory over communism in the Cold War. It remains uncertain what the future holds in terms of peace, prosperity, and freedom in the U.S. and elsewhere, particularly with the ascendancy of as mercurial a figure as Donald Trump to the White House.
My guess is we will see an end to the Ukraine conflict and the maintenance of an uneasy peace with Russia and China and will manage to avoid potential catastrophes associated with nuclear war, climate change, infectious disease, asteroids and other planetary threats. Is this wishful thinking? I dunno.
What about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This remains perhaps the most intractable problem. I just finished reading “Make Peace: A Strategic Guide for Achieving Lasting Peace in Israel,” based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson. The Rebbe was a brilliant man — he spoke eight languages and had a doctorate in electrical engineering — and his writings and oratory are very thoughtful.
However, his commentaries about the Middle East seem, at least to me, surprisingly extreme. As an international relations scholar, I find his words the most hawkish of anything I have read.
First, he argues against any Israeli compromise of any sort, not even “one inch of land” for peace. Second, he supports what amounts to the controversial Bush Doctrine; that is, if Israel merely thinks the enemy is about to attack, even if they have not yet committed any aggression, the Israel Defense Forces is obligated to engage in a preemptive strike. Third, the goal must always be not only the defeat of the enemy, but its total annihilation.
As compelling as this advice might be to some observers, and I respect the Rebbe immensely, it is hard for me to envision any long-term security for Israel without the Palestinians being given a state of their own. We can debate what form and how long this might take. This debate, along with much of the world order/disorder discourse, would be worthy of the process of argument and counterargument one finds in the Talmud.
