Breaking News

Author of Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel

April 18, 2025 

President Donald Trump’s recent proposal for the United States to assume control over Gaza, initially perceived as a bold negotiation tactic, has evolved into a serious policy proposition. His vision of transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” involving the displacement of its Palestinian population, has drawn widespread condemnation from Arab nations and the international community.

The Arab League responded swiftly, endorsing a $53 billion reconstruction plan for Gaza that emphasizes rebuilding the territory while maintaining its population. This initiative aims to establish a technocratic committee to oversee reconstruction efforts, sidelining Hamas and restoring governance to the Palestinian Authority.

Complicating matters further, an AI-generated video circulated on social media, depicting Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu lounging on Gaza’s beaches amidst luxury developments. Intended to showcase a vision of prosperity, the video was widely criticized as insensitive and offensive, exacerbating tensions in the region.

The subsequent hostage negotiations did not yield the anticipated results. Instead of capitulating under pressure, Hamas utilized the situation to garner global attention, publicly parading hostages and undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Underlying these geopolitical maneuvers is the significant influence of financial interests. Reports indicate that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are preparing to invest substantial sums into the U.S. economy, leveraging their economic power to influence foreign policy decisions. Notably, key figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have financial ties to these Gulf nations, raising questions about the intersection of business interests and diplomatic strategies.

As the author of Eye to Eye: Facing the Consequences of Dividing Israel, I have documented the historical consequences of pressuring Israel to cede land. The pattern is repeating. When financial interests override strategic clarity and biblical conviction, the outcome is not peace—it is instability.

Israel’s security must not become a bargaining tool in larger economic negotiations. The Abrahamic covenant, as understood by millions around the world, views the land of Israel as non-negotiable. Any attempt to compromise that, even in pursuit of business or political advantage, carries significant consequences.

As the region continues to shift, the United States faces a critical question: Is it pursuing stability and security in the Middle East—or merely chasing influence and investment?

Postscript: A Word of Watchfulness

As this article goes to publication, my spirit remains unsettled—not out of fear, but out of discernment.

What is unfolding in the Middle East is not just geopolitical repositioning. It is a convergence of interests—economic, military, religious, and strategic—unlike anything we have seen in recent memory. Nations are moving quickly, deals are being made quietly, and voices that once carried clarity have grown complex or silent.

But in the midst of this, we must not lose sight of the spiritual dimension.

There is a pattern that has repeated itself throughout modern history: when leaders of nations—especially those with influence over Israel’s future—begin to prioritize political gain or financial interest above biblical truth, the consequences have not been merely diplomatic. They have been historic.

This is not a moment for casual analysis. It is a time for watchfulness, for humility, and for those who believe in the covenant promises of God to stand in the gap.

I offer this not as a political critique, but as a call to alertness—for intercessors, for policymakers, for the Church, and for all who carry responsibility in this hour.

May we not be found aligning with what is expedient, but with what is true.

And may we indeed pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

April 18, 2025 

Saudi Arabia’s Silent Leverage

Saudi Arabia has been negotiating quietly behind the scenes, seeking to stabilize the region while positioning itself as a peace broker. If Riyadh succeeds in helping to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, it would significantly enhance its global image and open new economic and political channels—especially with Western allies. The Kingdom aims to reframe itself not just as an oil superpower, but as a regional stabilizer and global partner for peace.

For President Trump, this is both a political and diplomatic golden ticket. A ceasefire, backed by Saudi influence and revitalized U.S. diplomacy, could restore his foreign policy credentials, reaffirm America’s strength in the Middle East, and reignite the Abraham Accords—the cornerstone of his regional legacy.

But this visit carries a distinctly unusual undertone.

Riyadh’s Risky Reset

In a highly calculated move that could recalibrate power balances across the Middle East, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman met with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivering a personal message from King Salman himself. The meeting—extraordinary in both timing and protocol—signals that Riyadh is not only re-engaging Tehran, but doing so at the highest diplomatic level.

This encounter took place on April 17, 2025, just days before the next round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations in Rome. The timing underscores a deepening regional complexity, as Saudi Arabia asserts itself as an independent diplomatic force in a rapidly shifting geopolitical environment.

Meanwhile, Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s special envoy, has been actively involved in nuclear negotiations with Iran. Following initial discussions in Oman, Witkoff is now preparing to resume talks in Rome. His messaging has been firm: Iran must fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program—a sharp break from previous administrations’ incremental diplomacy.

Simultaneously, Israel is making its position unmistakably clear. In response to a New York Times report that President Trump halted an Israeli military strike on Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a pointed statement reaffirming Israel’s commitment to confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“Netanyahu has led countless secret and open actions in the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program that only thanks to them Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal today,” the statement read. “These actions delayed Iran’s nuclear program by about a decade, thanks to the prime minister’s insistence on standing up to domestic and foreign opposition to his assertive policy against Iran.”

The message was unambiguous: Israel will act—regardless of shifting alliances. As Riyadh opens channels to Tehran and Washington signals diplomatic restraint, Jerusalem remains committed to preemption over persuasion.

“As the prime minister has said many times: Israel will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Together, these developments highlight the complex interplay of diplomacy, strategic interests, and evolving alignments across Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United States, and Israel. As Prince Khalid meets with Khamenei and Witkoff prepares for Rome, the next phase of regional strategy is being drawn—deliberately, and in tension.

What Is Saudi Arabia Trying to Achieve?

Some analysts view Riyadh’s overtures as a defensive maneuver. With the Gaza war intensifying regional instability and Iran-backed proxies expanding their reach, the Kingdom may be hedging—seeking to de-escalate tensions directly rather than depending on U.S. guarantees.

Others interpret this as strategic repositioning. If Saudi Arabia can position itself as a bridge between adversaries—between Hamas and Israel, Iran and the West, or Sunni rivals—it evolves from energy heavyweight to regional power broker.

Still, the risks are real. Engaging Iran at this level could embolden Tehran, strain U.S.-Saudi defense relations, and complicate Israeli normalization. It also risks reinforcing the illusion that Iran can be persuaded solely through diplomacy, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

Whether this is a pivot away from the West or a calculated leverage play ahead of Abraham Accord realignments will depend heavily on how Washington and Jerusalem respond.

The Role of the “Trade Chip”: Israel and the U.S.

While the immediate objective is a Gaza ceasefire, Israel’s position in these negotiations remains central. As Ambassador David Friedman writes in Sledgehammer: How Breaking the Rules of Engagement Led to the Death of the Global Order, Israel has evolved into both a strategic partner and a “trade chip” in U.S.-Saudi relations.

President Trump’s original push for normalization through the Abraham Accords underscored how deeply U.S. regional interests are tied to Israeli security. A broader deal encompassing Gaza and Saudi-Israel normalization wouldn’t just be symbolic—it would mark a high-stakes geopolitical transaction, with Israel as both anchor and leverage.

What President Trump Gets in Return

Despite all the shifting dynamics, President Trump’s upcoming visit to Riyadh could yield pivotal outcomes: a Gaza ceasefire, fresh momentum toward Saudi-Israel normalization, and a reassertion of American influence on the global stage.

But this time, the regional landscape is markedly more complex. Saudi Arabia now maintains independent channels to Iran. Qatar’s regional influence remains. And Riyadh, no longer waiting for Washington’s script, is writing its own.

This is not diplomacy as usual—it’s fluid, multi-layered, and deeply consequential. President Trump is stepping into a Saudi Arabia that just held talks with Khamenei, engaged discreetly with Doha, and could yet extend an olive branch to Jerusalem.

It’s a diplomatic triangle with unprecedented stakes—and it will test whether the American president can still shape the region on his terms, or whether this new Middle East will reshape America’s role instead.

The Timing of Trump’s Visit

With U.S. elections on the horizon, President Trump’s visit to Riyadh is more than symbolic—it is strategic. The trip comes at a moment of global instability, particularly over Gaza. Both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have vested interests in de-escalating the conflict—albeit for different reasons.

For Riyadh, a ceasefire bolsters its image as a global power broker and aligns with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 agenda. For Trump, the trip offers an opportunity to display decisive international leadership—a direct contrast to perceived inertia from prior administrations.

The Missing Piece: What’s Really Driving Trump’s Enthusiasm?

Amid diplomatic overtures, ceasefire negotiations, and nuclear backchanneling, one question remains: why is President Trump so invested in visiting Saudi Arabia now?

The answer may lie less in regional conflict and more in economic opportunity.

Saudi Arabia is poised to unleash trillions in sovereign investment—from defense and energy deals to AI development, rare earth ventures, and critical U.S. infrastructure. For President Trump, whose economic platform is central to his 2024 strategy, this visit represents a golden opportunity to cement an American-Saudi economic axis.

But that investment may come with a price.

Saudi Arabia seeks normalization with Israel—but on its terms. Its recent engagement with Khamenei, deepening ties with China, and hesitance toward the Abraham Accords all suggest that Israel may now be part of a larger strategic trade-off.

In this evolving equation, Israel becomes both a diplomatic bridge—and a bargaining chip.

The Irony and the Cost

The irony is stunning: President Trump, who championed the Abraham Accords, moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has arguably done more for Israel than any American president in modern history, may now find himself presiding over a new regional framework where Israel is no longer the centerpiece—but the price of the deal.

And as Netanyahu doubles down on security red lines, and Saudi Arabia’s own Defense Minister meets face-to-face with Khamenei, the puzzle takes shape:

The excitement in Washington is economic.

The calculations in Riyadh are strategic.

And the cost of both may fall on Jerusalem.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.— Psalm 122:6

March 15, 2025 

MidEast & Beyond

In one of the most consequential diplomatic contradictions of our time, a dangerous gap is emerging between what Israel is demanding and what the United States is delivering. At the center of this divide are two key figures: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.

At a time when Iran continues to openly threaten Israel with destruction, the voices shaping nuclear negotiations must speak with unity, not contradiction. But recent statements from both Netanyahu and Witkoff show a troubling disparity—one that not only undermines Israel’s security but raises critical questions about the motivations behind U.S. diplomacy.

⸻

Netanyahu’s Unyielding Standard: The Libya Model

On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu made an uncompromising demand: any agreement with Iran must mirror the Libya model—total dismantlement of nuclear infrastructure, supervised and executed by the United States.

“We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. “This can be done by agreement, but only if this agreement is Libya-style: They go in, blow up the installations, dismantle all of the equipment under American supervision and carried out by America—this would be good.” (JNS)

He then added a stark warning: “The second possibility—that will not be—is that they drag out the talks, and then there is the military option. Everyone understands this.”

These are not rhetorical flourishes—they are red lines drawn from experience. Netanyahu is sounding an alarm forged from decades of intelligence briefings, broken promises, and the hard-earned reality that Iran’s regime thrives on delay and deception.

⸻

Witkoff’s Reversal: Words Without Weight?

Just days earlier, Witkoff had raised red flags in Israel with comments on Fox News suggesting Iran could enrich uranium up to 3.67% under strict verification. This position resembled the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the Trump Administration famously abandoned due to its inability to prevent Iran’s long-term nuclear breakout.

But as Israeli outrage mounted and the Iranian Supreme Leader doubled down on threats, Witkoff reversed course.

“Any future agreement with Iran must include the complete dismantlement of its nuclear program,” he now says. (Israel National News)

The problem? The damage was done. The shift appeared reactive, not strategic—raising doubts about whether Witkoff’s diplomacy is being guided by principle or by pressure.

⸻

Khamenei’s Clarity: “Israel Will Be Wiped Out”

While U.S. officials juggle talking points, Iran’s Supreme Leader remains chillingly consistent. On April 13th, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared:

“The oppression of the Zionists will be answered with a severe divine response, and there’s no doubt about that.” (Jerusalem Post)

Just days after U.S.–Iran talks in Oman, this is the regime’s true face. No ambiguity. No change. Only a reinforced commitment to the destruction of Israel.

And yet, even after this public threat, the U.S. continues its diplomatic engagement.

⸻

Money, Motives, and the Shadow of Compromise

The contradictions extend beyond rhetoric. They touch matters of influence, wealth, and legacy.
    •    Steve Witkoff sold a troubled hotel to a Qatari buyer—a country that funds Hamas, shelters its leaders, and has mediated U.S.–Iran talks.
    •    Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, received $2 billion in Saudi investment for his post-White House fund—after negotiating the Abraham Accords.
    •    The Trump team is preparing for a high-stakes visit to Saudi Arabia, where investment, defense deals, and normalization efforts are on the table.

Are America’s diplomatic calculations being shaped by financial entanglements? Is U.S. resolve being softened to preserve economic ties with Saudi Arabia and Qatar—even at the cost of Israel’s security?

⸻

A Prophetic Warning: Do Not Compromise the Covenant

This is not simply about political inconsistency. It is spiritual misalignment.

God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not up for negotiation. Any strategy that places Israel’s survival on the bargaining table—whether through silence, soft power, or shallow deals—will bring consequences. The Church must discern this moment and pray with urgency.

Netanyahu is not just defending a nation—he is upholding a prophetic mandate. The Libya model he demands is not just smart diplomacy. It is the only path that honors the covenant and neutralizes Iran’s genocidal ambitions.

⸻

Conclusion: Who Will Speak with One Voice?

The time for contradictions is over. Either the United States will align itself with truth and act accordingly—or it will empower its enemies through delay, distraction, and double-speak.

Steve Witkoff may have reversed his words. But unless his actions—and those of the Trump Administration—fully align with Israel’s demands, the threat remains.

Now is the time to stand with Israel—not in sentiment, but in substance. Because blurred lines in diplomacy become broken lines in history.

We must pray. We must speak. We must not compromise.

No, Mr. President, Gaza’s genocidal terrorists don’t wink at their hostages or show any ‘sign of love,’ and Iran’s nuclear ambitions can’t be ‘easily’ solved in talks led by an overextended non-expert

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Wednesday that Iran’s uranium enrichment as part of its nuclear program was “non-negotiable,” after US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff said the processing program must be dismantled as part of any deal between the sides.

“Iran’s enrichment is a real, accepted matter. We are ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the issue of enrichment is non-negotiable,” Araghchi told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Witkoff’s comments Tuesday were themselves a reversal of those he made a day earlier, contrary to Israel’s position, that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities.

Middle East & Beyond 

April 15, 2025 

Steve Witkoff, the United States Special Envoy to the Middle East, made a startling announcement on Fox News Monday night—one that flies in the face of Israel’s uncompromising stance on nuclear issues. According to Witkoff, the Trump Administration is prepared to allow Iran to enrich uranium at 3.67 percent, shifting away from its previous demand for total denuclearization. Israeli officials have vehemently rejected this position, insisting that no nuclear industry should be allowed to develop on Iranian soil under any circumstances.

Witkoff, the highest-ranking American official currently engaged in negotiations with Tehran, claims that his approach will secure an improved nuclear agreement compared to the deal signed under the Obama administration—a deal that Trump famously abandoned during his first term. Yet instead of pursuing the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, he emphasized an agreement based on robust supervision and limited enrichment. This is essentially a repackaged version of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, repurposed as a “better deal” for the current moment.

Critics argue that this pivot is not merely a change in strategy—it is a dangerous retreat from key principles. While Witkoff has identified weapons proliferation as a problem that requires addressing, he notably omits any mention of combating the global spread of terrorism—a demand that was vocal among Trump administration officials just last week.

This dangerous shift is compounded by the fact that such a policy of “limited enrichment” plays directly into the hands of Tehran, a regime that is renowned for its negotiation prowess and its mastery over the art of strategic delay. Iranian leadership, inheritors of an empire that once reigned with the cunning of Cyrus the Great, is not interested in short-term concessions. They have the strategic know-how to transform any such agreement into a stepping stone for greater nuclear capability and regional influence.a

By retreating from total denuclearization, Witkoff’s approach not only weakens the longstanding U.S.-Israeli consensus but may also embolden Iran and its proxies. This softening of demands under the guise of “verification” could have serious long-term implications for regional security and global nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

In short, by endorsing a model that resembles the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, Witkoff reveals himself as the wrong person to negotiate with a regime that thrives on playing the long game. His approach undermines the hardline posture that has historically kept Iran in check, while simultaneously disregarding the unyielding security concerns of Israel. This isn’t strategic diplomacy—it’s a dangerous capitulation that risks fueling further instability.

As the world watches these negotiations unfold, the message is clear: if America is to maintain its credibility and protect its allies, it must return to uncompromising principles. The stakes are too high for half-measures. 

----

Witkoff reverses stance 

Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, has recently reversed his stance on Iran’s nuclear program. After initially suggesting that Iran could maintain low-level uranium enrichment under strict verification, Witkoff now asserts that Iran must completely dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. This shift aligns more closely with Israel’s position and has been seen as a response to concerns raised by Israeli officials.  

This reversal follows indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran in Oman, where Witkoff’s earlier comments had sparked apprehension in Israel. His latest statements aim to reassure allies that the U.S. remains committed to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

The situation remains fluid, with further negotiations anticipated. Observers will be watching closely to see how these developments influence the broader dynamics of Middle East diplomacy.

Middle East & Beyond 

April 14, 2025

The world is increasingly waking up to the dangerous consequences of a diplomatic approach that softens on the Middle East’s most intransigent regimes. Steve Witkoff—Trump’s appointed White House Special Envoy to the Middle East—has repeatedly revealed his unsuitability for the job. His recent Fox News appearance confirmed that the Trump Administration is no longer demanding the total denuclearization of Iran or the complete dismantling of its nuclear program. Instead, Witkoff has signaled that the U.S. is prepared to impose limits on Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the weaponization of its nuclear program—essentially echoing the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal that Trump once vehemently rejected.

This policy pivot is not just a minor adjustment—it is a dangerous departure from the uncompromising stance that has kept Tehran in check for years. The Iranians are no amateurs; they are strategic titans. Iran’s leadership, inheriting the legacy of empires past, understands power in ways that the West, and especially someone like Witkoff, cannot grasp. They have mastered the arts of negotiation, manipulation, and psychological warfare. To settle for limits on enrichment rather than total denuclearization is to concede to a regime that has, time and again, used its nuclear program as both bargaining chip and tool of regional intimidation.

A Proponent of Controversial Alliances

Witkoff’s statements regarding Hamas are equally alarming. In his public remarks, he downplayed the threat posed by Hamas—describing it as “an ideological idea” rather than unequivocally identifying it as the terrorist organization it is. Hamas is responsible for mass killings, brutal attacks on Israeli civilians, and unspeakable acts of violence. To suggest that Hamas could ever have a political future if it merely disarmed is not only naive, it is dangerous. Equally troubling is his praise of Qatar, a nation that actively funds and shelters Hamas leadership. By ignoring these fundamental realities, Witkoff is signaling a policy of appeasement that will endanger Israel’s security and destabilize the region.

A Repeat of Failed Diplomacy

History has shown us that diplomacy based on appeasement and compromise with enemies—especially those like Hamas and Iran—never leads to lasting peace. Previous attempts, such as the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, have demonstrated that temporary fixes only embed deeper risks and encourage further intransigence. Witkoff’s approach is a tragic echo of those failed policies. Instead of understanding the deep-rooted ideologies, the strategic calculations of key regional players, and the brutal realities on the ground, he chooses empty promises and half-measures.

While Israel stands as a stalwart ally with uncompromising security needs, the U.S. is treating it as a mere bargaining chip. As former Ambassador David Friedman explains in his book Sledgehammer: How Breaking the Rules of Engagement Led to the Death of the Global Order, Israel has become integral to U.S.-Saudi relations—both as a strategic partner and as a trade chip. Trump’s earlier push for normalization through the Abraham Accords demonstrated just how deeply U.S. interests are intertwined with Israeli security. Now, with Witkoff’s softening stance, Israel risks being sidelined at a moment when it is needed most.

The Bigger Picture: Danger on Multiple Fronts

Witkoff’s dangerous shift is compounded by his reported closeness to Putin’s regime—a regime whose influence over Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah has repeatedly destabilized the Middle East. His rhetoric and actions increasingly align with Moscow’s interests rather than those of America’s enduring allies. This is not merely a diplomatic miscalculation; it represents a profound departure from American values and the principles of freedom and democracy.

While the U.S. should stand firm against Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is now considering a deal that dangerously mimics past concessions. As Iran continues to fund and arm terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, it must be held fully accountable—not given room to enrich and rearm under the pretense of “limits.”

The Urgent Call to Correct the Course

For months, I warned that Steve Witkoff is the wrong man for the job—a sentiment echoed by many who understand that Iran’s leaders are far more sophisticated and ruthless than any Western diplomat can comprehend. His inability to recognize the fundamental threat posed by Hamas, his admiring nod to Qatar, and his cozy rapport with Putin betray a policy of appeasement that will only invite further chaos.

I have pleaded with the Church, written extensively, and even called for prayer to see him removed from this crucial role. His very presence, his misguided approach, risks not just diplomatic fallout but also the prophetic consequences of breaking the eternal covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The time for compromise with terror and deception is long past. We must stand for strong, uncompromising leadership that aligns with truth and divine mandate.

Conclusion: A Call for Resolute Action

The dangerous diplomacy of Steve Witkoff is a clear signal that the current course is unsustainable. If the U.S. is to maintain its leadership in the Middle East, if Israel is to remain secure, and if regional stability is to be restored, a drastic course correction is needed—one that involves removing those whose policies compromise the nation’s core values.

The stakes could not be higher. As I write this article, I am reminded of the deep spiritual cost of weakness on the world stage. We must not allow one misguided envoy to undermine our legacy or endanger the covenant promises that have sustained nations for millennia. It’s time to demand the leadership our world needs.

Sources for Further Reading:

                  •               U.S. Softens Position on Iranian Uranium Enrichment – Wall Street Journal

                  •               Reuters: Trump Says Iran Must Give Up Its Nuclear Ambitions

                  •               The Arabian Post: $1 Trillion Investment Deal for U.S.-Saudi Relations

                  •               The Guardian: Iran’s Nuclear Stockpile Debate

                  •               Newsweek: Trump Official Lays Down the Red Line Ahead of Iran Nuclear Talks

                  •               Thomas Friedman, “Thank You for Being Late” (NYT Columns on Israel-Palestine)]

                  •               David Friedman, Sledgehammer: How Breaking the Rules of Engagement Led to the Death of the Global Order]

As I write this article, I’m leaving Mexico, flying back to Dallas-Fort Worth. Looking through the window at the deep blue ocean, I find myself praying for this nation to experience revival. My spirit is agonizing for the souls of men. My heart is in pain—as it was while writing these very lines. A familiar feeling returns: the eternal déjà vu of what happens when nations break covenant with the Eternal and violate His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Passover is celebrated by Jews every year, commemorating the anniversary of our miraculous Exodus from Egyptian slavery, as told in the Bible.

On the first two nights of Passover (just the first night in Israel), we hold a Seder. After candles have been lit, we enjoy a ritual-rich 15-step feast, which centers around telling the story of the Exodus. Some highlights include: Drinking four cups of wine, dipping veggies into saltwater, children kicking off the storytelling by asking the Four Questions (Mah Nishtanah), eating matzah (a cracker-like food, which reminds us that when our ancestors left Egypt they had no time to allow their bread to rise) and bitter herbs, and singing late into the night.