Sunday Reads: Who’s responsible for helping Syria’s refugees?, What shuls could learn from Best Buy

US

Leon Wieseltier sees the horrors of ISIS as emblematic of America's indecisiveness on foreign affairs:

In sum, it is springtime for ISIS. We present no serious obstacles and offer no significant impediments. We deplore and we respond trivially. We act, but not decisively. This is what the world looks like when the United States has abandoned its faith in its power and its duty to do good. For whom are we any longer a source of hope? The rubble of Palmyra is a melancholy emblem of the rubble of American foreign policy.

Lee Smith believes that Obama’s recent victory is Iran’s victory:

The Obama administration is celebrating the Iran deal as a political victory over its opponents—namely, the majority of the American people. But this “victory” comes at a high price. It has provided the Iranians with a window of opportunity. Contrary to the White House’s rhetoric arguing that the only alternative to the deal is war, the deal, in strengthening Iran, has made conflict more likely.

Israel

Elliott Abrams writes about some of the positive aspects of Netanyahu and AIPAC's fight on Iran:

So the arguments that Netanyahu’s fight against the agreement with Iran will harm Israel are not persuasive. In fact, his actions may well help Israel now, because there is a broad sense in Washington that Israel must be further assisted to counter the advantages Iran has gained. Aid may increase; more sophisticated weapons may be sold to Israel; in Congress, non-nuclear sanctions against Iran may be increased and extended in time; demands for tougher IAEA inspections may grow. Moreover, Netanyahu has taught a lesson that’s valuable for the future: an Israeli prime minister who is convinced of his position may take on such a fight even if everyone predicts he will lose it. He or she will not shy away due to political calculations and vote-counting predictions, a very good precedent when matters of national security are at risk.

Michael Oren asks American legislators to consider his grandchildren before approving the Iran deal:

Israel will, of course, do its utmost to protect my grandchildren, but its ability to do so will be hindered by the Iranian deal. As the arms embargo on Iran wanes, the Islamic Republic will equip its allies — not only Hezbollah in Lebanon, but also Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza — with the world’s most advanced weaponry. Shielded by its newly-purchased Chinese jet fighters and Russian anti-aircraft system, Iran can also attack Israel with hundreds of Shehab missiles, each packing a ton of TNT. To defeat the terrorists and defend its home front, Israel can mobilize tens of thousands of reservists, including Romi and Ariel’s fathers. But the nuclear deal may reduce the chances of their safe return.

Middle East

Ross Douthat muses on the difficult question of who’s responsible for helping Syria’s refugees:

So prudence has to temper idealism on these issues. There may be a moral obligation to accept refugees in wealthy countries, but there cannot be a moral obligation to accept refugees at a pace one’s own society cannot reasonably bear. Which means that every country’s obligations may be different. It seems reasonable to beieve that by accepting so very, very few refugees — only 1,500 so far — from a conflict our Middle Eastern misadventures worsened, the United States is failing in its obligations to the Syrian people. But it’s also reasonable to worry that by accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees on a continent already struggling with assimilation, and making itself a magnet for still more, Germany is failing in its obligations to its own.

Anne Applebaum writes on what she sees as Europe’s muti-layered hypocrisy on refugees:

Here is what no one wants to say: This is, in essence, a security crisis. For years now, Europeans have chosen to pretend that wars taking place in Syria and Libya were somebody else’s problem. It’s also a foreign policy crisis: At different times and for different reasons, all of the large European states — Britain, France, Italy, Germany — have blocked attempts to create a common foreign and defense policy, and as a result they have no diplomatic or political clout.

Jewish World

Liel Leibovitz thinks that shuls should learn from Best Buy and focus on their true competitive advantage:

Rather than abandon the traditional mantle for other, lighter ones that feel more colorful and cool and contemporary, synagogues should reiterate that their predominant commitment is, as it has always been, to the collective practice of religious ritual. Instead of expecting their staff to look and sound like that cool RA you secretly crushed on in college, they should invest in training members of the clergy to speak confidently and knowledgeably about the words we recite when we pray and the intricate theology these prayers form and the subtle but meaningful ways in which this theology differs from other belief systems. Instead, the closest you’re likely to get to theology in shul these days is some well-meaning muttering about tikkun olam, as if professing our commitment to repairing the world was something more than spiritual smooth jazz, all feelgood and no real depth.

James Ponet, Harold Berman and Mychal Copeland offer their different perspectives on the question of whether intermarried Jews should be allowed into the clergy:

An ideal rabbi is one who models Jewish living, in every sense. A true spiritual leader challenges people out of their comfort zones rather than simply making them comfortable with their choices. Intermarriage would cripple a rabbi’s ability to do that. There are myriad ways, short of the rabbinate, that an intermarried Jew can serve the Jewish community, which I would encourage you to explore.