While Touro was modest and dedicated to helping others, the four Jews portrayed in David Denby’s recent Eminent Jews were anything but. Indeed one wonders what it says about Denby’s view of Jewish history—and perhaps more widespread American-Jewish self-conceptions—that he chose Mel Brooks, Norman Mailer, Betty Friedan, and Leonard Bernstein as the subjects of his biographic work. David Mikics writes:

Denby borrows his title from Lytton Strachey’s modernist classic Eminent Victorians. Looking back to his parents’ era, Strachey can be a wicked demystifier, cracking jokes at the expense of Victorian icons like Florence Nightingale. Denby, by contrast, celebrates his four Jews, without hiding their faults. None of Denby’s subjects was immune to the show-stealer’s narcissism. For these Jewish upstarts, egomania supplied a key ingredient of artistic success.

In Denby’s quartet, only Bernstein remained strongly attached to traditional Jewish texts. An ardent Zionist, he conducted the Palestine Orchestra during the War of Independence with artillery sounding in the background, and there is a famous photo of Bernstein hoisted up by Israeli soldiers in 1967. Bernstein’s first symphony, Jeremiah (1942), is based on the book of Lamentations, adapted to the destruction of European Jewry.

Yet while none of the four prioritized Jewish concerns, that other indisputable genius, Mel Brooks, may also share some of Bernstein’s Jewish pride:

For his first movie, Brooks came up with The Producers, a grand piece of slapdash hilarity that he first wanted to call Springtime for Hitler, before he was informed that no Jewish theater owner would agree to put up a sign for such a film. Like Mo of the Three Stooges, Brooks was a passionate fan of Hitler jokes, which he saw as the Jews’ revenge on their archetypal enemy.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.