Developing and implementing a durable, cohesive strategy is easier said than done in a volatile region where the worthiest goals in recent years have often been mugged by reality. Judging by the Trump administration’s first two years of Middle East policy and preliminary reports, we can expect a brittle mix of hawkish, confrontational rhetoric targeting Iran combined with unconditional support to flawed partners like Saudi Arabia. Pompeo may also try to put the best face on erratic moves by President Donald Trump in Syria—and to offer the latest version of a shifting policy that nobody can credibly pin down.

In the meantime, the likely headline item will be the speech to an Egyptian audience on “the United States’ commitment to peace, prosperity, stability and security in the Middle East.” What will it say? Will it be significant? It certainly will be important, but will it be definitive? Perhaps only until the next presidential tweet.

Syria’s Kurds will have to wait for more specifics on what role they will play in America’s broader plans for the Middle East. And they certainly have reason to be wary of U.S. intentions. For now though, they can seek a small dose of comfort from the statement of the U.S. secretary of state that America does not intend to betray them.

…with frequent shutdowns returning, and leaders seemingly more willing to bear the consequences of a shutdown than they used to be, could we soon be nearing the time for shutdown reform? [.] If the current shutdown continues much longer, the crisis could be useful, at least, to determine how long a shutdown needs to last before members decide it’s time to eliminate them.

It could do this by implementing something called an automatic-continuing-resolution provision, which legislators from both sides of the aisle have advanced numerous times over the past 30 years. Right now, when Congress cannot agree on how to spend money, it passes a continuing resolution, or CR, which continues federal agencies’ financing for a given period of time. Automatic CRs would absolve Congress from the responsibility of passing new CRs, preventing both quick financing lapses and big, painful shutdowns.

These are political leverage points, and the exploitation of them is inevitable in the U.S. political system’s current mode of procedural maximalism, and that procedural maximalism itself points to the deeper problem touching the long-term “policy framework” and “the inability to pass a budget.” To fight over whether this is a good budget or that is a good budget is one thing — the inability to pass a budget at all is something else.

As the presidential election season kicked off in earnest this month, it was obvious the media would do what it always has done: focus on personalities and electability; get distracted by gaffes and blow them way out of proportion. And pay some attention to issues of substance, but mostly as a dutiful side dish — a moderate helping of steamed broccoli that can be shoved to the side of the plate.

When you look at political coverage – coverage of campaigns – it is bad… the overall conversation is problematic. There is a question for political journalism writ large… is the goal of campaign coverage to inform voters about who the candidates are and what kind of president they would be? Or is it to service a group of very engaged political junkies who follow campaigns like sports fans follow the NBA or the NFL? If it’s the former, political journalism writ large is failing. (transcribed by the Jewish Journal)

By giving voters a window on the closed world of insider politics, horse-race stories help focus reader attention on the races. Without the work of election handicappers, coverage would come to resemble an endless series of policy white papers that nobody reads. The presidential campaign has another 22 months to run, leaving plenty of time and space to explore the contest from multiple perspectives. So let my commandment go forth and embolden the campaign press corps! Ignore the critics! Feed the horses!

I am less than eager to promote the work of Canary Mission, the organization that broke this news. Canary Mission is a shadowy organization that has repeatedly focused on finding dirt on undergraduate pro-Palestine activists. It’s anonymous, sweeping, and creepy. And, it turns out, secretly funded by Jewish Federation. Not Good. If Jews want to be crystal clear that being anti-Semitic and being anti-Israel are two completely different things, we can’t ourselves muddy the waters this way. That’s doing exactly what Kollab did.

Canary Mission merely screenshotted and codified her profile. Once Kollab realized that Canary Mission was on to her, she frantically began wiping out her public online social media history and deactivated accounts, including Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin. But Canary Mission beat her to the punch and was able to save the data. Unfortunately for Kollab, but fortunately for the rest of us, the internet doesn’t easily disappear and the stench of Kollab’s vile Jew-hatred and racism will follow her wherever she goes. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Canary Mission for exposing this rot and possibly saving lives.

Canary Mission has arguably proven itself the single most effective effort against BDS and hate speech… Ironically, at a time when Canary Mission’s monitoring seems the most needed, the organization is fighting a public relations war in the Jewish media, the anti-Israel media, and the activist media.

Of course, it’s legal to boycott anything you don’t like. Just as no one can or should be prevented from speaking out against Israel. Even the most vicious antisemitic libels are legally protected when it comes to free speech, provided they aren’t linked to violence. But organized commercial boycotts rooted in bias are illegal. BDS is a campaign of discrimination against the one Jewish state on the planet and therefore antisemitic by definition.

By all means, let’s oppose BDS. But we must do so without twisting words, conflating opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism, or supporting legislation that seeks to use the state’s economic might to suppress people’s right to non-violent protest. These things are not only self-defeating attempts to defeat BDS, they are selling out our own souls as Liberal Zionists.

Even more broadly, the fact that this bill was controversial at all reveals how the politics surrounding Israel is changing. Support for Israel, so long a bipartisan issue, is becoming polarized, with Republicans willing to back Israel virtually unconditionally while Democrats are more willing to question Israeli policy and US support for it.

The two parties’ approaches to Israel are changing, and faster than some may have anticipated. The fight over the anti-BDS bills shows how.

…as the film comes to theaters again, the world is at a critical crossroads similar to what the generation in the film faced: Globally, authoritarian governments are in ascendance — with fascist parties gaining traction in many European nations. Further, a stark rise in violence targeting Jewish communities has reflected rising antisemitism as not seen since the Second World War.

Like the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Schindler’s List” demonstrated that a Jewish story could remain deeply Jewish and yet speak to the mainstream not only of American society, but the contemporary culture as well.

In Krakow last week, I stood in line with hundreds of visitors at Schindler’s factory, where a museum has been created. It attracts visitors from throughout the world, all of whom were drawn to the place because of the story Spielberg told as only he could: of a scoundrel who over time became noble.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, “Words create worlds.” He would remind his children that the Holocaust didn’t start with the gas chambers. It began with words. With Hitler putting calculated, dehumanizing speech out into the ether.

In the United States today, words of loathing and disgust directed at fellow human beings — whether they be asylum seekers or those we disagree with across political divides… Let’s be clear. Are we in 1930s Germany? No. Are we treating one another in ways that could lead us further down an extremely perilous path? Unfortunately, yes.