Indigeneity asks where a people became a people – not where its descendants happened to be living centuries later. By that standard, few peoples and lands match more clearly the idea of indigeneity than the Jewish people with the Land of Israel.

Americans – and Israelis in particular – are not reacting to spin, or to partisan framing, or to media distortions. They are reacting to the text of the agreement itself, and to what has followed it.

America is not modern Israel’s creator, and Israel is not America’s dependent. The two nations have influenced one another and benefited from one another, but the deepest roots of that relationship predate them both.

Blood libels were never about evidence. They were about moral conditioning – preparing societies to see Jews as uniquely sinister, corrupting and deserving of suspicion.

Only Jews are routinely told that indigeneity comes with a statute of limitations.

Christianity and Islam make fundamentally different claims about Jesus.

Every generation decides – whether it will build something different – or become “Egypt” again

The shift in Newsom’s rhetoric tells us far more about the political winds swirling inside the Democratic Party than it does about Israel.

It is a line built for applause. It is also a line that collapses the moment it meets the moral and legal structure of modern war.

Are we moved to protect girls, or by the ease of condemning the correct villain?