For the past several weeks, the Tikvah Fund—the Jewish non-profit educational institution that publishes Mosaic—had been planning to hold its annual conference at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Manhattan. When the conference’s organizers informed the venue that the keynote speaker would be Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, the museum then decided that the conference could no longer be he held on its premises because DeSantis does not “align with the museum’s values and its message of inclusivity.” Jonathan Tobin examines the implications of a mainstream Jewish organization’s decision to ban a major American political figure:

[F]or this sort of behavior to find a foothold in a leading Jewish institution—much less one dedicated as a “living memorial to the Holocaust”—is a sign of the abandonment of its Jewish responsibilities in favor of a partisan cause.

You can agree or disagree with everything the governor does or stands for. But the notion that a Holocaust museum should be off-limits for any leading voice in mainstream American politics, let alone a figure who has been as closely aligned with the Jewish community on many important issues as DeSantis, isn’t so much ill-advised as it is absurd.

Subsequently, the museum claimed that it opposed DeSantis because it didn’t host political events. But . . . the same museum welcomed Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez —the leading voice of the leftist “Squad” that is deeply hostile to Israel—in 2018. Equally controversial politicians like the former New York governor Andrew Cuomo . . . have also appeared there.

The museum’s hypocrisy in canceling DeSantis while welcoming controversial liberal or left-wing Democrats demonstrates its shameless embrace of partisanship. But it also shows that for those involved in this institution, remembering the Holocaust isn’t a sacred Jewish duty but just another way . . . to back up the political agendas of its staff and funders.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.