US
Robin Wright talks to former Ambassador Robert Ford about the State Department’s mutiny on Syria:
Frustration at the State Department has come to a boil. People don’t write in the Dissent Channel every day. The cessation of hostilities in Syria has broken down completely. The bombings of hospitals in Aleppo and Idlib are a violation of every human norm—and that’s not including the barrel bombs and the chemical weapons. The effort to get a political deal is going nowhere. The Assad government has refused to make any serious concessions. It won’t let in food aid, in violation of U.N. resolutions. And the Americans are watching it all happen. So the Dissent Channel message is a reflection of frustration by the people who are responsible for conducting policy on the ground. I felt that way when I left—and that was after Geneva II, in January-February, 2014.
Robert Kagan asks whether checks and balances would stop Trump if he’s President:
As Benjamin Franklin said, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Today, Americans can’t simply rely on the system to save them from the possibility of a fascist president. And they certainly can’t count on the Republicans who produced this threat in the first place. They will have to shoulder that responsibility themselves, in the voting booth.
Israel
Martin Kramer explains why maintaining the Status quo actually is an option for Israel:
A new U.S. administration will offer an opportunity to revisit U.S. policy, or at least U.S. rhetoric. One of the candidates, Hillary Clinton, made a statement as secretary of state in Jerusalem in 2010 that came closer to reality and practicality. “The status quo is unsustainable,” she said, echoing the usual line. But she added this: “Now, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be sustained for a year or a decade, or two or three, but fundamentally, the status quo is unsustainable.” Translation: the status quo may not be optimal, but it is sustainable, for as long as it takes.
As the United States steps back from the Middle East, this is the message Washington should send if it wants to assist Israel and other U.S. allies in filling the vacuum it will leave behind.
Nahum Barnea writes about the scathing attacks on Netanyahu from Barak, Yaalon, and others:
They're frustrated, they're contradicting their own past statements, they're bored, and they’re desperately seeking attention or a political comeback. That is the gist of Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to the speeches made by two of his former defense ministers, Moshe Ya'alon and Ehud Barak, at the Herzliya Conference on Thursday. I haven't heard a single sentence from him that would explain to the citizens of Israel why the two are wrong.
Middle East
Paul Salem discusses the international importance of Egypt in times of trouble:
Egypt remains an important actor in regional affairs. President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi breathed new life last month into the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, drawing a positive response from Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Egypt is currently hosting long overdue reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas and has also hosted Syrian opposition talks while maintaining links to Syrian President Bashar Assad. And Cairo will always be an important player in Libya. As U.S. diplomacy has faltered in all of these difficult crises, enlisting more regional leadership is a necessity.
David Pollock takes a look at how Arab governments and media outlets responded to the Orlando shooting:
The June 12 massacre at an Orlando nightclub, perpetrated by a self-described adherent of the Islamic State, evoked immediate and unequivocal condemnation among a wide range of Arab governments, along with expressions of sympathy for the victims and the United States. But Arab media coverage and commentary has been relatively limited, especially compared with previous media treatment of terrorist attacks in Europe over the past eighteen months. By June 14, after just one day of prominent coverage, the attack had almost disappeared from the headlines of most Arab mainstream print and broadcast media.
Jewish World
Bible scholar Yorm Hazony discusses Leo Strauss’ idea that the bible stands in opposition to philosophy:
The Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss held that the Hebrew Bible should be regarded as being in “radical opposition” to philosophy and as its “antagonist.” This is an influential view, which has contributed much to the ongoing omission of the Bible from most accounts of the history of political philosophy. In this essay, I examine Strauss’s arguments for this exclusion of the Bible from the Western tradition of political philosophy and conclude that his views cannot be accepted without amendment. I propose a revised approach to the history of political philosophy that preserves Strauss’s most important insights, while recognizing the Hebrew Bible as a foundational text in the Western tradition of political philosophy.
Diana Darke writes about how modern disputes have reshaped the ancient city of Banias:
In the complex world of Middle Eastern boundary disputes, spare a thought for Banias, the ancient City of Pan. Straddling a strategic crossroads, it has for centuries seen masters come and go. Today’s tug-of-war is between Syria and Israel, for Banias is located in the Golan Heights. The settlement was based on a beautiful spring at the foot of Mount Hermon on whose summit, according to an Arab proverb, it is winter, on whose shoulders it is autumn, on whose flanks spring blossoms, and at whose feet eternal summer reigns. The waters from the spring eventually lead into the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s largest reservoir.
