Who Do We Fear, Trump Or The Almighty?

JERUSALEM — The Bible tells of two midwives who stood between a tyrant’s order and the future of a people. Pharaoh commanded that Jewish newborn boys be killed. The midwives refused. They feared God more than a human ruler. Their defiance preserved Jewish life and helped sustain the nation.

That lesson is not merely an ancient allegory. It is a lesson for our hour. Today, we are told to reject the annexation of Judea and Samaria. We are warned that doing so would be provocative, dangerous, and unnecessary. We are told that powerful friends will punish us if we proceed. We are told that peace depends on obedience to outside dictates.

This counsel echoes Pharaoh’s edict: obey the powerful and accept measures that diminish our people. It is bad counsel then. It is bad counsel now.

Some say the United States is indispensable. That is true. America is a vital ally and friend. But friendship is not the same as vassalage. Israel has often been a better friend to the United States than America has been to some of its allies. We have shared intelligence. We have stood in the line against common enemies. We have done more than our share to keep the region stable.

Ask yourselves a simple question. When President Trump urged Egypt and Jordan to take the Gazans, did those governments comply? They did not. Cairo and Amman both stood up to pressure and acted according to their own interests. They were hardly mighty powers. Yet they retained the courage to say no. If two nations of modest means could resist, why should Israel, whose history and security stakes are uniquely profound, be expected to bow?

The Palestinian Authority is no neutral partner. It pays stipends to convicted terrorists and, in many instances, promotes curricula that do not prepare future generations for peaceful coexistence. Public opinion in parts of the Palestinian territories has shown strong support for armed groups, not their disarmament. To recognise statehood unconditionally now is to reward a system that, in critical respects, sustains violence rather than rejects it.

There is a moral argument here as well as a strategic one. Israel’s primary obligation is to protect its citizens. That duty precedes the desires of distant capitals. Sovereignty over land that is central to Jewish history and to the country’s security cannot be treated as a bargaining chip to be handed away on the promise of distant reassurances.

Let us be clear about what standing firm does not mean. It does not mean closing the door on negotiated peace for its own sake. It does not mean rejecting genuine partners who renounce terror, embrace democracy, and seek coexistence. It does mean refusing to validate systems and leaders that have, repeatedly and publicly, rewarded murder and incitement.

Finally, there is a question of moral example. If two midwives in bondage could defy a tyrant to preserve their people, surely a sovereign Jewish state can find the courage to choose life and security over capitulation. If modest regional actors could defy the threats of a superpower, Israel can and must act with clarity and independence.

Who do we fear? A foreign leader’s threats or the judgment of history and conscience? The answer ought to be plain. Israel must act in the interest of its citizens and its future. That is not arrogance. That is a duty.