When people, especially children, suffer, it is our duty to help relieve that suffering in any way we can. People of all religious traditions or none can agree on this.
The International Rescue Committee is one of the most respected and responsible organizations in the world working on this:
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) helps people affected by humanitarian crises—including the climate crisis—to survive, recover and rebuild their lives.
Founded at the call of Albert Einstein in 1933, the IRC is now at work in over 50 crisis-affected countries as well as communities throughout Europe and the Americas.
As Jews, on Passover we recall how our storied ancestors suffered—under the hand of a wicked ruler, wandering in a desolate desert. As we have suffered and suffer still, how can we deny the suffering of others and fail to relieve it?
When the Israelites were starving in the desert, we are told that God provided manna:
In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.” Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. (Exodus 16:2-4)
Q: Based on leadership across nations, strategies, distribution of national power and resources, ideologies and politics, how do we end the current war on Iran by the U.S. and Israel?
Claude:
This is a very serious, rapidly evolving conflict with enormous humanitarian stakes. Let me lay out the current situation honestly and then walk through what a realistic pathway to ending it looks like — across diplomacy, power dynamics, ideology, and leadership.
The War as It Stands Today (Day 32 — March 31, 2026)
The 2026 Iran war was initiated by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026. The opening strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggered hundreds of retaliatory missiles and thousands of drones from Iran across the region, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced.
The war came despite a near-breakthrough: just before strikes began, Oman’s foreign minister reported that Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium and to full IAEA verification. Peace was described as “within reach.” The US and Israel attacked anyway.
As of today, Secretary of State Rubio says US objectives will be achieved “in weeks, not months,” while Netanyahu says the war has achieved “more than half its aims.” Simultaneously, Trump has threatened to destroy Iran’s oil infrastructure if no deal is reached.
What Each Party Actually Wants
Understanding the war’s end requires understanding each actor’s real goals — which are not always stated honestly.
The United States (Trump administration): Stated objectives have shifted repeatedly — from pre-empting Iranian retaliation, to destroying missile capabilities, to preventing nuclear weapons, to securing oil resources, to regime change. The multiplicity of goals is itself a diplomatic obstacle; it’s hard to negotiate an end when the goalposts keep moving.
Israel: Israel’s UN Ambassador has said military operations will continue until Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities are eliminated — a goal that goes well beyond what’s achievable by air power alone, and one that Israel explicitly says is separate from any US-Iran talks.
Iran: Analysts say Tehran wants to end the war on its own terms and establish enough deterrence to ensure the conflict does not resume once it ends. Many Iranians feel they are being “bombed toward a negotiation table” and are relying on missiles, drones, and military resolve rather than promises from Washington.
The Key Pathways to Ending It
Diplomacy Through Neutral Intermediaries — The Most Viable Track The Oman channel that nearly produced a deal in February remains the most credible model. Foreign ministers from Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have now held talks in Islamabad aimed at ending the war, with Pakistan offering to host meaningful negotiations in the coming days.
China’s top diplomat urged Iran that “talking is always better than fighting,” while French President Macron has urged Tehran to engage in good-faith negotiations.
For this to succeed: • The US must present consistent, achievable terms — the current shifting of goalposts is the biggest structural obstacle to a deal. • Iran needs a face-saving exit — any deal where Iran appears to have simply surrendered will be politically unsustainable for Tehran’s new leadership. • Pakistan and Oman are the most trusted intermediaries and should be the primary conduit, not direct US-Iran talks, given the deep mutual distrust.
The Leadership Variable — Iran’s New Supreme Leader Khamenei’s death has created a leadership vacuum that is both a risk and an opportunity. Iran’s new supreme leader is reportedly Khamenei’s son. A new leader, not personally invested in decades of confrontation, could be more pragmatic — but only if the US gives him political space to negotiate without looking like he’s capitulating to the country that killed his father.
Reza Pahlavi (the exiled former crown prince) has publicly called for sparing civilian infrastructure, but his political legitimacy inside Iran is minimal. Backing him openly, as some US officials favor, would almost certainly unite Iranians against the US rather than fracture them.
Economic and Energy Leverage — A Double-Edged Sword The war has halted flights in and out of the Middle East, led to massive shipping reroutes, and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz. Gas prices in the US have eclipsed $4 a gallon, the highest since 2022.
This creates domestic US pressure on Trump to end the war quickly — which is actually one of the strongest levers for peace. The longer the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the harder the economic pain becomes globally, including for US allies whose cooperation Washington needs.
Trump’s stated desire to “take the oil in Iran” is not a peace strategy — it is an escalation trigger that would require a full ground invasion and occupation with no historical precedent for success.
Decoupling the US and Israeli Tracks One of the most important structural fixes: Israel has explicitly said it is not part of US-Iran talks and will continue strikes until nuclear and missile capabilities are eliminated — essentially an unlimited war aim. As long as Israel can veto any ceasefire by continuing to bomb independently, no US-Iran deal can hold.
A durable ceasefire requires the US to condition its own military support to Israel on Israeli participation in ceasefire terms. This is politically difficult for the Trump administration but is the most decisive lever Washington actually holds.
The Lebanon/Hezbollah Dimension Iran has asserted that Lebanon must be included as part of a ceasefire deal, making any ceasefire conditional on an end to the 2026 Lebanon war against Hezbollah. This linkage is strategically significant — Iran is trying to prevent Israel from ending the Iran war while continuing a separate war against Hezbollah. Any comprehensive peace framework must address Lebanon simultaneously, not sequentially.
The Role of China and Russia Russia is not a neutral party — Iran is reportedly receiving satellite intelligence from Russia’s spy satellite system to track US military assets. But Russia and China together represent the one coalition that could put serious pressure on both Iran (to accept terms) and the US (through economic and diplomatic costs). Neither country wants a destabilized Middle East that collapses oil markets or draws them into a wider conflict.
China in particular has enormous leverage: it is Iran’s largest oil customer, has deep Gulf Arab relationships, and has strong trade interests in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. A Chinese-brokered framework — perhaps alongside Oman and Pakistan — is probably the most realistic path to a multilateral ceasefire architecture.
What a Realistic End Looks Like
A negotiated ceasefire — not a decisive military victory for either side — is the only realistic outcome. Here’s what it would likely need to include: • Nuclear framework: A return to something like the IAEA verification deal Iran had agreed to in February, with robust inspections and enrichment caps. Iran gets sanctions relief in exchange. • Missile limits: Some verifiable caps on long-range ballistic missile development — Iran’s biggest concession. • Ceasefire in Lebanon: A simultaneous halt to Israel-Hezbollah fighting with international monitors. • No regime change as a condition: Any deal that requires Iran to overthrow its own government is a non-starter and will prolong the war indefinitely. • Iran’s sovereignty and reconstruction: International reconstruction support for Iran’s civilian infrastructure would be a necessary inducement and would also counter the narrative that the West only destroys. • US forces posture: A credible US commitment not to pursue a ground invasion, which Iran fears even more than airstrikes.
The Hardest Truth
The war began after a near-deal was in hand. The Omani foreign minister had stated significant progress, with Iran willing to make concessions, but President Trump said he was “not thrilled” with the talks. That suggests the obstacle to peace is not Iranian intransigence — it is the gap between stated US war aims (nuclear deal) and unstated ones (regime change, oil access, political signaling).
Until the US clarifies and limits its own war objectives, no intermediary, no matter how skilled, can broker an end. The diplomatic machinery — Pakistan, Oman, China, France — is ready and willing. The political will in Washington is the missing variable.
…The lights going out, he [Julius Caesar] lost his way, and wandered about a long time, until at length, by the help of a guide, whom he found towards daybreak, he proceeded on foot through some narrow paths, and again reached the road. Coming up with his troops on the banks of the Rubicon, which was the boundary of his province, he halted for a while, and, revolving in his mind the importance of the step he was on the point of taking, he turned to those about him, and said: “We may still retreat; but if we pass this little bridge, nothing is left for us but to fight it out in arms.”
XXXII.
While he was thus hesitating, the following incident occurred. A person remarkable for his noble mien and graceful aspect, appeared close at hand, sitting and playing upon a pipe. When, not only the shepherds, but a number of soldiers also flocked from their posts to listen to him, and some trumpeters among them, he snatched a trumpet from one of them, ran to the river with it, and sounding the advance with a piercing blast, crossed to the other side. Upon this, Caesar exclaimed, “Let us go whither the omens of the Gods and the iniquity of our enemies call us. The die is now cast.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is taking on Pope Leo regarding a matter of biblical interpretation. Johnson says that government oppressing strangers is the biblical thing to do. Pope Leo disagrees.
One line from the Book of Exodus crystallizes the issue.
As with all biblical Hebrew, the translation is challenging and varied.
Exodus 23:9: You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt. (NJPS) You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. (NRSV) No sojourner shall you oppress, for you know the sojourner’s heart, since you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Robert Alter)
Robert Alter addresses one of the translation challenges, the Hebrew word nefesh/נֶ֣פֶשׁ: “The Hebrew is nefesh, “heart”, “life,” “inner nature,” “essential being,” “breath.””
Another word needing expansion is the Hebrew ger/גֵּ֔ר. Scholars Mark Allen Powell and Dennis R. Bratcher explain in the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:
alien (ger): In the Bible, one who is not a member of a particular social group. Accordingly, Abraham was an alien (NRSV: “stranger”) among the Hittites at Hebron (Gen. 23:4), as were Moses in Midian (Exod. 2:22) and the Israelites in Egypt (Deut. 23:7; cf. Ruth 1:1). The Hebrew word is ger, and it has often been translated “sojourner” in English Bibles. The NRSV is inconsistent, translating it “alien” in some instances and “stranger” in others. After the settlement in Canaan, the term not only designated a temporary guest but also acquired the more specialized meaning of “resident alien,” one who lived permanently within Israel (Exod. 22:21; 23:9). No doubt because the Israelites were keenly aware of their own heritage as aliens without rights in a foreign land, they developed specific laws governing the treatment of aliens. Strangers or aliens were to be treated with kindness and generosity (Lev. 19:10, 33–34; 23:22; Deut. 14:29). The basic principle was, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). And, again, “You shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:34)….
“Alien” or “stranger” also appears in a figurative sense, usually in appealing to the generosity and mercy of God in dealing with undeserving people (Pss. 39:12; 119:19; 1 Chron. 29:15). The idea of dwelling in a land owned by someone else is also applied theologically to the relationship of the Israelites to the land; it belonged to God and they were the strangers in it (Lev. 25:23). (emphasis added)
Pope Leo has given lots of thought to the nefesh—heart, life, inner nature, essential being, breath—of the ger—stranger, sojourner, resident alien.
Has Mike Johnson given much thought to the nefesh of the ger? Have we?
Along with the Book of Exodus, we can sing along with Randy Newman in his song have You Seen My Baby?:
I say, “Please don’t talk to strangers, baby” But she always do She say, “I’ll talk to strangers if I want to ‘Cause I’m a stranger, too”
America and the world are paying a high price for attempted distraction from three outsized issues: the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israeli decimation of Gaza, and the relationship of Trump to sexual predators Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
It may be hard to tell whether Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Minneapolis, etc. are primary evils, with distraction just a bonus, or whether those unprecedented global and national disasters are intended to distract attention.
In some ways it doesn’t matter. Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Minneapolis, etc. are just going to be made worse and will not go away.
We need to make sure that we do not forget Ukraine, Gaza and Epstein-Trump, which should not and with our attention will not go away.
Greenland. Venezuela. Minneapolis. It is easy to forget any particular crisis. Or put another way, it is impossible to pay attention to all the crises. Not to mention all the non-critical items that crop up in our lives and our vision, some pleasant, some not.
So when one crisis gets mentioned or covered, there may be a tendency to say “well, what about…?”
So here I am saying, “What about Gaza?” That is, despite all the other headlines, don’t forget Gaza.
As I’ve implied before, in posts and conversations, Israel, including the Gaza situation, is all about theology, particularly Old Testament theology.
Walter Brueggemann (1933-2025) was one of the most prolific and influential theologians of the 20th and 21st centuries. Much of his work focused on the Old Testament, in which he found radical guidance for modern people of faith—a Bible that does not demand, justify or accept damaging political ideologies and nationalism.
In 2015 Brueggemann published Chosen?: Reading the Bible Amid the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. He wrote:
INTRODUCTION
The seemingly insolvable conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people requires our best thinking, our steadfast courage, and a deep honesty about the politically possible. The conflict is only “seemingly” beyond solution, because all historical-political problems have solutions if there is enough courage, honesty, and steadfastness.
The conflict is not a fixed, unchanging situation; rather, it is a dynamic historical reality that is dramatically changing and being redefined over time. As a result, it is imperative that our thinking not be settled in a fixed position but that it be regularly reevaluated in response to the changed and changing realities on the ground. If we should settle for a fixed solution, then we will have arrived at an ideology, which is quite unhelpful for real problems on the ground.
In my own thinking, which is much influenced by my work as a Scripture scholar, I begin with a focus on the claim of Israel as God’s chosen people. That conviction is not in doubt in the Bible. It is a theological claim, moreover, that fits with compelling persuasiveness with the reality of Jews in the wake of World War II and the Shoah. Jews were indeed a vulnerable people whose requirement of a homeland was an overriding urgency. Like many Christians, progressive and evangelical, I was grateful (and continue to be so) for the founding and prospering of the state of Israel as an embodiment of God’s chosen people. That much is expressed in my earlier book entitled The Land. I took “the holy land” to be the appropriate place for the chosen people of the Bible which anticipates the well-being of Israel that takes land and people together.
Of course, much has changed since then in the linkage between the state of Israel and the destiny of the chosen people of God.
–The state of Israel has evolved into an immense military power, presumably with a nuclear capacity. There is no doubt that such an insistence on military power has been in part evoked by a hostile environment in which the state of Israel lives, including periodic attacks by neighboring states.
–The state of Israel has escalated (and continues to escalate) its occupation of the West Bank by an aggressive development of new settlements.
–The state of Israel has exhibited a massive indifference to the human rights of Palestinians.
Thus, it seems to me that the state of Israel, in its present inclination and strategy, cannot expect much “positive play” from its identity as “God’s chosen people.” As a consequence, my own judgment is that important initiatives must be taken to secure the human rights of Palestinians. This changed stance on my part is reflected in the new edition of my book on the land. It is a change, moreover, that is featured in the thinking of many critics who have been and continue to be fully committed to the security of the state of Israel, as am I.
This rethinking is important both for political reasons and for more fundamental interpretive issues. A change in attitude and policy is important to help resolve the conflict. It is clear enough that the state of Israel will continue to show little restraint in its actions toward Palestinians as long as U.S. policy gives it a “blank check” along with commensurate financial backing. Such one-sided and unconditional support for the state of Israel is not finally in the interest of any party, for peace will come only with the legitimation of the political reality of both Israelis and Palestinians. As long as this issue remains unaddressed, destabilization will continue to be a threat to the larger region.
It will not do for Christian readers of the Bible to reduce the Bible to an ideological prop for the state of Israel, as though support for Israel were a final outcome of biblical testimony. The dynamism of the Bible, with its complex interactions of the chosen people and other peoples, is fully attested, and we do well to see what is going on in the Bible itself that is complex and cannot be reduced to a simplistic defense of chosenness. The Bible itself knows better than that!
It is my hope that the Christian community in the United States will cease to appeal to the Bible as a direct support for the state of Israel and will have the courage to deal with the political realities without being cowed by accusations of anti-Semitism.
It is my further hope that U.S. Christians will become more vigorous advocates for human rights and will urge the U.S. government to back away from a one-dimensional ideology for the sake of political realism. It seems to many of us that the so-called two-state solution is a dead possibility, as Israel in its present stance will never permit a viable Palestinian state. We are required to do fresh thinking about human rights in the face of the capacity for power coupled with indifference and cynicism in the policies of the state of Israel, which is regularly immune to any concern for human rights.
I have not changed my mind an iota about the status of Israel as God’s chosen people or about urgency for the security and well-being of the state of Israel. Certainly the Christian West continues to have much to answer for with its history of anti-Semitic attitudes and policies. None of that legacy, however, ought to cause blindness or indifference to political reality and the way in which uncriticized ideology does enormous damage to prospects for peace and for the hopes and historical possibilities of the vulnerable. The attempt to frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of anti-Semitism is unpersuasive. More courage and honesty are required amid the realities of human domination and human suffering. As the hymn writer James Russell Lowell wrote in reference to the U.S. Civil War, “New occasions teach new duties.” The current conflict, with its escalation of cynical violence, is a new occasion. New duties are now required.
It has been six months since my last post about Gaza.
I think I am weary of watching the situation daily devolve and yet seeing little change in the attitudes of many in the Jewish communities or of many Americans, including those in power. Among other things, we still hear those labeling this a humanitarian tragedy being called antisemitic, even if Jewish.
The following article in the Guardian moves me to post again.
Ehud Olmert says forcing people into camp would be ethnic cleansing, and anger at Israel over Gaza war is not all down to antisemitism
“When they build a camp where they [plan to] ‘clean’ more than half of Gaza, then the inevitable understanding of the strategy of this [is that] it is not to save [Palestinians]. It is to deport them, to push them and to throw them away. There is no other understanding that I have, at least.”…
“It is a concentration camp. I am sorry,” he said, when asked about the plans laid out by Israel Katz last week. Once inside, Palestinians would not be allowed to leave, except to go to other countries, Katz said.
Katz has ordered the military to start drawing up operational plans for construction of the “humanitarian city” on the ruins of southern Gaza, to house initially 600,000 people and eventually the entire Palestinian population.
“If they [Palestinians] will be deported into the new ‘humanitarian city’, then you can say that this is part of an ethnic cleansing. It hasn’t yet happened,” Olmert said. That would be “the inevitable interpretation” of any attempt to create a camp for hundreds of thousands of people, he said.
Whoever you are and whatever communities you are in, please consider what is going on and what is planned in Gaza, please consider Olmert’s thoughts, and please consider a donation to the International Rescue Committee.
There is a notable lack of compassion in some of the public initiatives in America and in other nations. These are nations that officially or unofficially identify as Judaeo-Christian.
For some time I’ve focused on that lack of compassion and considered how it might be improved.
But here I move to a predicate question. Why do those traditions or society value and promote compassion at all?
The question particularly arises for students of Buddhism. It may be an overbroad characterization, but it is not imprecise to say that compassion is at the center of Buddhism.
Which leads to the question of whether and how much compassion is at the center of other traditions.
So why compassion at all?
Here a few of the possible answers.
It is the right thing to do.
God wants it and expects it.
The Golden Rule advises it, because we will be treated as we treat others.
It will get us into heaven or keep us out of hell.
It makes us feel good.
Unlike those and other explanations, Buddhism reaches compassion not as an assigned transactional value but as an unavoidable conclusion. To simplify in my own substandard understanding, if there is absolute equality among us, there can be nothing but compassion. If we don’t recognize that absolute equality—and we so often don’t, instead putting ourselves in an unequal position—how can we be genuinely compassionate?
With that, back to the events of the day, and the open question of how, once we have advanced our own compassion, we can find ways to advance it in our traditions and in our nations.
For a one-volume comprehensive overview of the McCarthy era in America, see the Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications from the House Committee on Un-American Activities, published in 1957, revised in 1961. (Available as PDF) According to the Committee:
“This Guide is basically a compilation of organizations and publications which have been declared to be Communist-front or outright Communist enterprises in official statements by Federal legislative and executive authorities, and by various State and Territorial investigating committees.”
What this means is that any person, organization or publication reported by somebody as being controlled by communists, promoting communist ideas, or sympathetic to communists is included. The level of proof is that if the suspicion appeared in some federal or state hearing or even in a letter, they were “cited” as subversive.
In many cases, the indicator that a person, organization or publication was subversive was that it supported what can be called progressive causes, which might include labor unions, racial equality, or constitutional rights. Among those cited, in this Guide and in hearings, were progressive Jews. Some were blacklisted and lost their careers. Some were imprisoned and lost their lives.
Here are a few examples from the Guide:
AMERICAN JEWISH LABOR COUNCIL
Cited as Communist.
“With an eye to religious groups, the Communists have formed religious fronts such as the American Jewish Labor Council.”
JEWISH PEOPLE’S COMMITTEE
Cited as subversive and Communist.
JEWISH PEOPLES FRATERNAL ORDER
Cited as Communist and among the “national group societies of International Workers Order.”
SCHOOL OF JEWISH STUDIES (Los Angeles, Calif.)
It is established that in January 1950 respondent [the California Labor School, Inc.] set up a branch called the School of Jewish Studies in Los Angeles. As shown in brochures of this branch ‘History and Traditions of the Jewish People’ comprised half the curriculum outside of Yiddish and Hebrew language courses. in Los Angeles.”
CHELSEA JEWISH CHILDREN’S SCHOOL (MASS.)
“A place where Marxism is combined with instruction in the racial tongue.” (Presumably “racial tongue” means Yiddish.)
JEWISH BLACKBOOK COMMITTEE OF LOS ANGELES
Cited as a Communist front located at Room 1021, 458 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles.
America has been a haven for Jews. In some instances, such as turning away Jews from Nazi Europe or condemning Jews during the era of Red Scares, not all Jews were equally safe. Jews who now believe that the official show of support for Israel and Zionism makes them immune to repression are mistaken. The “right kind of Jews” may be safe, but support of human rights, economic rights, constitutional rights, may put some Jews on the “wrong side”. As we learned in America decades ago, as we learned throughout history, when the government cracks down on “wrong thinking” Jews have no more protection than any other people. Sometimes, far less.
An aerial photograph taken by a drone shows displaced Palestinians returning to Rafah, a day after the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas came into effect, Gaza Strip, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Mohammad Abu Samra)Palestinians walk through the rubble caused by the Israeli air and ground offensive in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Mariam Dagga)Displaced Palestinians return to Rafah, Gaza Strip, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025 a day after the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas went into effect. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)Hussein Barakat sits on a couch with two others, atop the rubble of his destroyed home a day after the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas came into effect, in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025,(AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)An aerial photograph taken by a drone shows displaced Palestinians returning to Rafah, a day after the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas came into effect, Gaza Strip, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Mohammad Abu Samra)Palestinians walk through the destruction caused by the Israeli air and ground offensive in Jabaliya, a day after the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas came into effect, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Abed Hajjar)
Bob Schwartz 