Edited by Max J. Rosenthal and Ruby Mellen BY ISHAAN THAROOR   Trump's real Syria policy is hypocrisy After a week of signaling an imminent exit from the Syrian conflict, President Trump mixed his messages once more with a furious set of tweets Sunday. Responding to reports of another potential chemical weapons strike carried out by the Syrian regime, Trump decried the “mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria” and pinned the blame on President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian patrons. “Big price to pay,” Trump warned. But it was unclear what that price is and who might pay it — other than Syria's brutalized civilian population, that is. According to my colleagues, at least 40 people, including children, were killed Saturday evening in East Ghouta, a rebel-held enclave enduring a protracted government siege. First responders noted a “chlorine-like odor” after the attack, and patients showed symptoms such as respiratory ailments and foaming at the mouth. The Syrian government rejected the allegations and, as usual, blamed Islamist rebels. Russian authorities also rebuffed international criticism of the Assad regime and warned against military intervention into Syria on “fabricated pretexts.” A Foreign Ministry statement suggested the reports were rebel inventions “designed to shield the terrorists and the implacable radical opposition, who reject a political settlement.” That's not a view shared in Washington or European capitals. “It’s a quite serious problem. We’ve seen the photos of that attack,” Thomas Bossert, Trump's homeland security adviser, said to ABC News. “This is one of those issues on which every nation, all peoples, have all agreed and have agreed since World War II this is an unacceptable practice.” Monday happens to mark the first day on the job for Trump's new national security adviser, John Bolton, an outspoken proponent of unilateral American action around the world. Bolton was scheduled to chair a meeting on Syria, and Bossert suggested that all options “were on the table.” In the late hours of Sunday, reports on Syrian state television claimed that an airbase near the city of Homs was targeted by a series of missiles, but it was unclear who was behind the bombardment and the Pentagon denied that it was involved in any airstrikes. Such an attack would be a repeat of what Trump did last year after an alleged Syrian regime chemical-weapons strike in Idlib province. He ordered U.S. Navy ships to pound a Syrian government airfield with 59 Tomahawk missiles, then memorably shared the news over dessert with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was visiting Trump at his Florida resort. But if that punishment was meant to send a message to Assad, its effect has long since worn off — and Washington hawks are clamoring for more. They urged Trump over the weekend to reconsider his desire to withdraw American ground forces from Syria, a move they argue surrenders American leverage as the Assad regime looks to consolidate its position. The latest regime attack, Frederic Hof of the Atlantic Council said in an emailed statement, was a “challenge” to Trump's “credibility.” On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a frequent cheerleader of military interventions abroad, said that the Syrian regime and its allies “see us and our resolve breaking, they see our determination to stay in Syria waning . . . but President Trump can reset the table here.” Graham urged Trump to “follow through” on his bellicose tweets. Trump, though, has shown little interest in owning the end game in Syria. He balks at the cost of the American war effort in the Middle East and Central Asia and cares chiefly about fighting the Islamic State. He also shares his predecessor's wariness of getting too entangled in a push toward regime change. Soon after Trump's Sunday-morning Twitter salvo, many commentators pointed to his criticism from four years ago, when the Obama administration contemplated how to punish Assad for a chemical-weapons attack. The use of the illicit weapons crossed Obama's declared “red line,” but Trump was doggedly opposed to any U.S. airstrikes on the regime. He also expressed concern for civilians they could put at risk. Of course, Trump is entitled to change his opinion over time. But on Sunday, he again tried to focus the blame on his predecessor, whom he now accused of not being tough enough on the Assad regime — in other words, for following Trump's own advice at the time. “Only Trump can criticize Obama for giving Assad a green light to commit atrocities in Syria while giving Assad a green light to commit atrocities in Syria,” tweeted Post columnist Josh Rogin. “The height of hypocrisy.” There's another important dimension to Trump's hypocrisy. Trump may fret over the horrors unleashed by Assad, but he has been unable to muster much compassion for thousands of Syrian refugees his administration moved to block from entering the United States. While he feared for innocent civilians getting “hurt and killed” four years ago, he has presided over an escalating air war around the world. The resulting civilian death toll is unconfirmed, but it likely runs in the hundreds, if not thousands. Trump is not so bothered by this sort of suffering anymore. My colleague Greg Jaffe reported over the weekend on a CIA briefing Trump attended on his first full day in office, during which the new president watched footage of a drone strike on a suspected Islamist militant target. U.S. authorities had chosen to wait for the fighter to walk away from a building that housed his family; Trump was confused that the CIA chose to spare the lives of the Islamist militant's family. This apparent cruelty now seems coupled with indifference. Targeted airstrikes may briefly chasten the Assad regime, but they can’t change the broader facts on the ground. Russia, Iran and Turkey have seized the initiative and are haggling over Syria’s political future while Trump seeks to pummel the Islamist militants and then disengage as quickly as possible. Experts on counterterrorism stress that building economic growth and political inclusion in these war-torn societies is the real solution toward preventing future destabilizing — and miserable — insurgencies. Trump’s disinterest, they say, may have real costs. “If we remain in Syria, that will at least indicate that we are interested in what is happening in the country,” Emile Nakhleh, a former senior CIA officer, wrote for the Cipher Brief. “But our military involvement is not sufficient. We can continue to kill ISIS fighters and reduce their territory, but if we are not engaged diplomatically, then it is unlikely there will be any sort of breakthrough regardless of our military involvement.”

• My colleagues Louisa Loveluck and Erin Cunningham report on the grisly scene in Douma, the town in East Ghouta hit by an alleged chemical-weapons strike: “Syrian doctors and rescue workers on Sunday shared with journalists graphic images of men, women and children who they said had been killed or wounded in the attack. "‘We tried to send people to the area to rescue the injured, but even the rescue workers began suffocating,’ said Mohamed Samer, a medical worker in Douma. "Some of the footage showed piles of bodies inside homes or slumped in concrete stairwells, foam visible on their noses and mouths. In other videos, civilians are shown streaming onto a chaotic field clinic where workers were attempting to treat those affected. In one, doctors held an inhaler to the mouth of an infant whose body shuddered through ragged breaths. Another showed an ashen-faced man convulsing... "More than 1,700 people have been killed in Eastern Ghouta, of which Douma is the largest city, since the Syrian army and allied Russian forces began a punishing assault in February to rout rebels from the area. "A U.N. Security Council resolution failed to quell the fighting, and over the past month, more than 130,000 Syrians have left Eastern Ghouta as part of evacuation deals between rebels and government forces, the United Nations said.” • Meanwhile, The Post's Missy Ryan and Paul Sonne provide an update on the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State: “For now, military leaders are centering their efforts on the remaining military mission, which presents a sharp contrast to the one they faced in 2014, when militants controlled a vast swath across central and eastern Syria.  "After more than four years of intensive airstrikes and U.S.-supported ground operations, only a tiny fraction of that militant domain remains. Estimates of how many Islamic State fighters are currently in Syria and Iraq range from roughly 1,000 to 3,000, but the message from U.S. commanders is clear: A tactical victory is within reach.  "Today, about 2,000 U.S. troops arrayed across northern and eastern Syria conduct a variety of missions. Chief among those is dealing with a small militant force dug in along the Euphrates River near the city of Bukamal, on Syria’s border with Iraq… "U.S. troops are also supporting internal security forces in areas along Syria’s porous borders. Militants control another pocket of territory in the Euphrates River valley southeast of Deir al-Zour approaching the Iraqi border. "Late last month, Marine Corps Col. Seth Folsom described the Islamic State groups remaining in Syria as ‘small, disorganized, fractured groups of ISIS fighters’ that local forces are seeking to hunt down one by one.  "Even if the Islamic State loses every inch of territory it still holds, American military commanders warn that the extremist group will transform into an insurgency.”  • Hungarians voted in a national election on Sunday that gave Prime Minister Viktor Orban a third consecutive term in power as his Fidesz party claimed a supermajority in Hungary’s parliament, giving the controversial prime minister a decisive mandate. As we discussed on Friday, Orban is a polarizing ultra-nationalist whose rule, critics say, threatens the future of Hungarian democracy and even the European Union itself. My colleague James McAuley has more on the election. • On Friday, there was another Palestinian march on the Israeli fence that encloses the Gaza Strip. Israeli soldiers once again used live ammunition to push back the protesters, this time killing at least nine people. One of those killed was Yasser Murtaja, a 31-year-old journalist who was wearing a blue vest that clearly identified him as a member of the press. My colleague Loveday Morris has more:  “Murtaja, who was married and had a 2-year-old son, died Saturday after being shot the day before while covering protests at the edge of the Gaza Strip. "His work had appeared on networks such as Al Jazeera, and in 2016 he worked as a cameraman for Ai Weiwei’s documentary, “Human Flow,” which covered the global refu­gee crisis, including Palestinians in Gaza. The Chinese visual artist posted photos of Murtaja on his Instagram account on Saturday. "Murtaja had tried tirelessly to see beyond blockaded Gaza, including to travel for a training course with Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar, but he never managed to leave, friends and family said. "Only a tiny proportion of the 2 million Palestinians in Gaza are ever able to get out due to tight travel restriction by Israel — which says such limitations are necessary for security reasons due to the militant group Hamas controlling the area — and only sporadic opening of the Egyptian border. For many young people, the 140-square-mile strip of territory on the Mediterranean is the only world they know.” "And, once again, Israeli authorities showed little remorse, saying they fired live rounds in a 'precise, measured way.' Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman summed up his government’s hardline mentality, arguing that every Palestinian in Gaza was an accomplice of the militant group Hamas. "'There are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip,' Lieberman told Israel’s public radio. 'Everyone’s connected to Hamas, everyone gets a salary from Hamas, and all the activists trying to challenge us and breach the border are Hamas military wing activists.'"

Congolese refugees exit a boat after landing in Sebagoro, Uganda, on March 23. (Andrew Renneisen for The Washington Post) Old demons When Congo plunged into a vicious war two decades ago, the northeastern province of Ituri was one of the country’s bloodiest corners. But by the mid-2000s, a tenuous peace prevailed. Most who had fled made a cautious return. There were interethnic marriages between members of Ituri’s two main ethnic groups, whose animosity had spiraled into tit-for-tat massacres. Two warlords from the province were the first people in the world to be convicted by the International Criminal Court. Now a sudden return to violence in February and March has shattered any illusion of stability. Relations between the Hema and Lendu, thought to be on the mend, are plainly still raw. And the brutality displayed over the past two months is on par with some of the worst from the crisis years ago: widespread rape, dismemberment of victims, the kidnapping of small children. Nearly 400,000 people, almost all of them Hema, have been displaced by renewed violence, according to the United Nations. More than 40,000 of them have fled Congo, crossing Lake Albert in rickety boats to Uganda to shelter in an ever-expanding refu­gee camp. Ituri is only the latest of Congo’s provinces to veer toward humanitarian catastrophe. More than 13 million Congolese need emergency aid and 4.5 million have been displaced from their homes — more than anywhere else in Africa. But even by Congo’s standards, the speed and scale at which the crisis in Ituri has unfolded is extraordinary. The growing instability is taking place under an increasingly intransigent president. Joseph Kabila, who had already served through a two-term limit, refused to step down in 2016. Strife in other provinces has benefited Kabila, who has used it as grounds for putting off elections, effectively keeping himself in power long after his tenure should have ended. Three independent observers working in the province, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their ability to work there, said there was no direct evidence linking Kabila’s government to instability in Ituri, but they said there were reasons to believe the fighting was not purely ethnic in nature. And many of the refugees have little faith that they can return home any time soon. “You can’t live a settled life there, not now, maybe never,” said Vomulia Yeruse, who fled her home in Ituri in mid-March. “Maybe I will die in Uganda.” — Max Bearak