After receiving much bad publicity over an employee’s eviction of two black men from one of its stores, the Starbucks coffee chain decided to subject its employees to “bias training.” To this end it consulted with various organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL’s presence in turn provoked the ire of the leaders of the Women’s March—still, more than a year after its anti-Trump demonstration in Washington, an influential organization on the left. Jonathan Tobin comments:

[T]o its credit, the ADL has been willing to take on leaders of the march regarding their soft spot for anti-Semitism. . . . Earlier this year, many people who took part in [the march’s] events were shocked to learn that Tamika Mallory, the group’s president, was a supporter of the Nation of Islam’s leader Louis Farrakhan. . . . Others were concerned over the comments of Linda Sarsour, another leader [of the march], in which she demonized the state of Israel and its supporters, and claimed Zionists could not be true feminists. Along with many other people of good will on both the left and the right, the ADL criticized the pair.

So when Starbucks announced that the ADL would be part of its race-education program, Mallory and Sarsour pounced. Mallory denounced the ADL on Twitter for “CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people.” Sarsour echoed that smear and chimed in with her own indictment of ADL for supporting programs in which U.S. law-enforcement personnel are given training in Israel, as well as for the ADL’s criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement’s attacks on Israel. . . .

No one with even a cursory understanding of the role that the ADL has played in the civil-rights movement and in promoting bias education in recent decades can possibly take the statements from Mallory and Sarsour seriously. . . . However, in a leftist mindset in which intersectional theories that link worries about lingering racism in the United States with the war to destroy the Jewish state, even a liberal-[leaning] group like the ADL must be considered beyond the pale because of its willingness to stand up against anti-Semitism. . . .

At this point, anyone who chooses to work with Mallory and Sarsour is sanctioning Jew-hatred.

On June 3, an Egyptian policeman crossed the border into Israel and killed three soldiers. Jonathan Schanzer and Natalie Ecanow urge President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to respond by visiting the Jewish state as a show of goodwill:

Such a dramatic gesture is not without precedent: in 1997, a Jordanian soldier opened fire on a group of Israeli schoolgirls visiting the “Isle of Peace,” a parcel of farmland previously under Israeli jurisdiction that Jordan leased back to Israel as part of the Oslo peace process. In a remarkable display of humanity, King Hussein of Jordan, who had only three years earlier signed a peace agreement with Israel, traveled to the Jewish state to mourn with the families of the seven girls who died in the massacre.

That massacre unfolded as a diplomatic cold front descended on Jerusalem and Amman. . . . Yet a week later, Hussein flipped the script. “I feel as if I have lost a child of my own,” Hussein lamented. He told the parents of one of the victims that the tragedy “affects us all as members of one family.”

While security cooperation [between Cairo and Jerusalem] remains strong, the bilateral relationship is still rather frosty outside the military domain. True normalization between the two nations is elusive. A survey in 2021 found that only 8 percent of Egyptians support “business or sports contacts” with Israel. With a visit to Israel, Sisi can move beyond the cold pragmatism that largely defines Egyptian-Israeli relations and recast himself as a world figure ready to embrace his diplomatic partners as human beings. At a personal level, the Egyptian leader can win international acclaim for such a move rather than criticism for his country’s poor human-rights record.