One subject of the above-linked conversation between Reynolds and Novick is the Christian discomfort with the particularism of Jewish self-understanding, and the different ways Christian theologians have responded to its presence in the Old Testament. Perhaps the impulse of some Christians to erase Jewish distinctiveness in favor of universal messages is behind the phenomenon Dave Rich notices in the film Lee. Opening in American cinemas tomorrow, the movie tells the story of Elizabeth “Lee” Miller, a photojournalist who covered World War II for Vogue. Rich writes:

Lee is a good film, or at least it’s a film with a very good central performance by the main star (Kate Winslet playing Lee Miller), but it’s also the latest Holocaust film to downplay the fact that Jews were the main victims of Nazi genocide.

Thousands of people disappeared from Paris under Nazi occupation, we are told in one scene—“not only Jews” but also socialists, “homosexuals,” and lots of other categories of people. That’s the only explicit mention of Jews in a film that climaxes with the liberation of Buchenwald and Miller’s photographs of wagonloads of corpses and skeletal figures in striped uniforms.

Oh yes, there’s also the moment where Miller’s photographer buddy David E. Scherman sobs “these are my people”—but we haven’t been told he’s Jewish, so it’s a line that you could easily struggle to understand. The Nazis hated photographers?

This is becoming a pattern, after the biopic of Sir Nicholas Winton, One Life, did something similar. It’s as if for a Holocaust movie to fit with today’s Zeitgeist it has to be inclusive and can’t privilege one group above others as victims of Nazi terror. That Nazis hated everyone equally because they hated diversity and multiculturalism is the underlying message. Except that isn’t true: the Nazis persecuted many groups, but their ideological and practical commitment to eradicating Jews from the face of the earth outweighed all others.

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.