In 2013, Susan Abeles, an observant Jew working for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), stayed home from work on the last days of Passover—as she had done during the previous 26 years she was employed there. She returned to her office after the holiday to find that she had been suspended, based on a technicality in the way she had filed her request for leave. Abeles then sued. On January 26, a federal appellate court ruled against her, in a decision Michael A. Helfand calls “disturbing.”

[W]hy is this case so disturbing? First of all, there’s good reason to wonder whether there was any real violation of the leave policy, whether Abeles had ever previously been required to abide [so strictly] by a leave policy, or whether the MWAA informed Abeles that she was now expected to abide by that leave policy. The court’s decision seeks to end the litigation before these factual questions can be evaluated through a trial. It sounds like Abeles did what she needed to do to secure her leave. . . . [I]nstead of simply accommodating Abeles, the MWAA seized the opportunity to suspend her, which eventually led to her retiring.

But there’s a bigger problem at work here. For all those who have ever asked to schedule vacation on Jewish holidays, you know how delicate these conversations [with an employer] can be. It may be true that there is an obligation [on employers] to accommodate [you] reasonably, but you don’t win these interactions by invoking the law while talking to the person signing your paycheck. . . . [T]he reality of Abeles’s case is that if someone wants to catch you, they will all too often be successful. In too many instances, there is some rulebook or policy collecting dust somewhere that, in the hands of someone seeking to cause a problem, can undermine the law’s objective of ensuring that the religious observances of religious employees are accommodated.

The legal requirement that employers reasonably accommodate their employees’ religious observances is [impossible to ignore]. But the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Abeles v. MWAA—unless overturned—will serve as a reminder for how precarious those accommodations often can be in the real world.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”