Answering John Kerry Unfortunately, the Secretary of State’s presented options are fantasies. Caroline Glick

On Saturday, US Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech before the Brookings Institute’s Saban Forum.

Kerry focused on the Palestinian conflict with Israel and sought to draw a distinction between the two-state policy model, which he supports, and the one-state policy model, which he rejects.

To justify his rejection of a policy based on Israeli sovereignty over areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines, Kerry raised a series of questions about what a one-state policy would look like.

I answered all of his questions, as well as many others, in great detail in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. I will do so again here, albeit with the requisite brevity.

But before discussing the specific questions Kerry raised with regard to the one-state model, it is important to discuss the nature of the policies Kerry described in his speech.

Kerry argued Israel should deny civil and property rights to Jews beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and ignore the building and planning laws of both Israel and the military government in Judea and Samaria in order to allow unrestricted Arab construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Such steps, he argued, will advance the cause of peace because they will pave the way for an Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of these areas. Such a withdrawal in turn will bring about the desired two-state solution.

Putin has checkmated himself into a lose-lose Syrian debacle Mark Langfan

There is no way Putin can come out a winner in the situation he has created for himself.

When Putin first teamed up with Iran and Assad, the two greatest state sponsors of terror in the world, to commit unabashed genocide against the Sunnis of Syria, there was breathless talk that “Putin Checkmated Obama.” It was as if Putin was playing against Obama. Then, after Turkey shot down Putin’s Mig and the Saudis openly declared that they would continue arming their Syrian proxies, the Syrian ground war got even uglier. For all Putin’s bluster, the very ugly reality of Syria has begun to set in.
Putin has never been fighting Obama; he’s been fighting and will have to come to fight hundreds of millions of Sunni Muslims who are coming to see Putin and Russia as the ultimate evil. What’s worse, whether Putin loses, or Putin “wins,” Putin will ultimately lose, lose big, and lose everything.

Let’s look at Putin’s problem objectively. On the one hand, if Putin “loses,” it will be clear he will have militarily lost, and it will be a truly ugly military loss like Afghanistan. If Afghanistan brought down the great and mighty USSR, Syria will bring down little Putin. For, despite Russia’s virtually infinite raids on the Syrian rebels with no limiting rules of engagement, Russian-Iran ground progress has been, at best, severely challenged. Additionally, with Iran’s soon-in-coming introduction of its own fighter jet squadrons into the Syrian theater to genocidally massacre even more Sunnis, the Saudis and Turks will be forced to deliver shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to take down the Assad barrel-bombs, and the Iranian fighter jets. With those anti-aircraft missiles in Rebels’ hands, Russia will start to suffer catastrophic losses.

Paradigms Lost: The U.S. How utopian fantasies destroy. Bruce Thornton

In Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide, a 2007 book about the dysfunctions of the EU, I often emphasized the problems of Europe by contrasting it to the US. Our economy was more open and dynamic, with GDP growth higher, regulatory regime less onerous, unemployment lower, and ease of doing business greater. We had problems with entitlement spending and high taxes, but nothing like the EU drunken-sailor governments, or the regressive VAT tax that helps subsidize social welfare transfers. We had problems with immigration, but nothing like those caused by the dangerous mix of unassimilated Muslims with jihadist proselytizing. We still had a vigorous presence of faith in the public square. And despite the costs, mistakes, and setbacks in the Middle Eastern wars, our military and its prowess were feared, and respected; the US was the dominant and indispensible power in the region and beyond.

Yes, there were ominous signs––expanding entitlements, excessive deficit spending, internal opposition to vigorously waging the war against militant Islam; a culture, media, and schools dominated by an ideology of national self-loathing and guilt; and the incessant assault on public faith. But despite all that, in the 2004 election, at the height of the bloody insurgency in Iraq, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry–– a “European at heart,” as French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy called the French-speaking Senator––who like his party looked longingly at the EU model of distrust for national identity and penchant for technocratic rule. America clearly was not interested in following the EU paradigm.

And then came Barack Obama.

Meet the Farooks: The Modern Jihad Family How did this anything-but-moderate family not attract any law enforcement attention? Robert Spencer

When Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people and wounded twenty-one at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, Farook’s family, having lawyered up, instructed its legal representatives to tell the world how shocked – shocked! – they were by the massacre. However, just as Captain Renault is handed his winnings immediately after telling Rick Blaine of his shock that gambling was going on in Rick’s Café Americain, so also in this case did the family’s shock seem increasingly less genuine the more that became known about them.

Initially, however, the lie was fed easily to a credulous mainstream media. One of the Farook family lawyers, David Chesley, immediately found the nearest microphone and declared: “None of the family members had any idea that this was going to take place. They were totally shocked.”

Even in stories that reported this, however, the story started to unravel. No sooner had the Associated Press quoted Chesley that it noted that he and another Farook family lawyer, Mohammad Abuershaid, said that “Farook’s mother lived with the couple but she stayed upstairs and didn’t notice they had stockpiled 12 pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition.”

Turkey Murders Greatest Kurdish Lawyer by Uzay Bulut

For decades, it was impossible to bring Turkish military personnel or other state authorities to Turkish courts. Before the negotiation process between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) began around 2009, Turkish military personnel had full immunity for the crimes they committed against the Kurds. No one could bring them to account. Those who even sought help from the police or gendarmerie could also be exposed to torture, rape or even murder.

It was for that reason so many violations of human rights in Kurdistan could be brought to court only decades after they were committed. To this day, no one has ever been punished. The immunity of state authorities, including “security” officials in Turkey, continues. Human rights cases are dismissed by the courts, one by one.

“We told the court that they did not have the intention of restoring justice, that we had lost our trust in them, and that they were not impartial. And we demanded they change the judge.” — Human rights lawyer Tahir Elci, who was killed by police.

Germany: Salafist “Aid Workers” Recruiting Refugees by Soeren Kern

Salafists disguised as aid workers are canvassing German refugee shelters in search of new recruits from among the nearly one million asylum seekers who have arrived this year from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Some Salafists are offering gifts of money and clothing. Others are offering translation services and inviting migrants to their homes for tea.

“The absolutist nature of Salafism contradicts significant parts of the German constitutional order. Specifically, Salafism rejects the democratic principles of separation of state and religion, popular sovereignty, religious and sexual self-determination, gender equality and the fundamental right to physical integrity… The movement also has an affinity for violence.” — Germany’s domestic intelligence agency.

“Come to us. We will show you Paradise.” — Salafist literature distributed in Schleswig-Holstein.

Michael Warren Davis Nasty, Brutish and Short-Fused

If Islamist attacks continue, as they will, the fabled Islamophobia of which we hear so much will take flesh and make innocent Muslims its victims. When the Grand Mufti and fellow rationalisers take comfort in victimology they do their flock a tragic disservice.

San Francisco, 8 December 1941. Following the Pearl Harbor attacks, the Chairman of the American National Shinto Council issues a response to the horrific assault on the American naval base by Imperial Japanese forces:

“These recent incidents highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of Japanese ultra-nationalism are not working. It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, anti-Japanese sentiment, curtailing freedoms through militarization, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”[1]

Imagine the backlash that Japanese-Americans would have faced in the mid-1940s if a prominent member of that community laid the blame on Pearl Harbor at the feet of the American people. Now imagine if the Attorney-General announced shortly thereafter that her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Japanese rhetoric.”[2]

Horrific as was the internment of Japanese-Americans, we cannot conceive of how viciously elements of the greater American public might have struck out against countrymen of Japanese origin or extraction. If the Japanese-American community’s leaders had issued statements along the lines of the Grand Mufti’s response to the Paris massacre, the model for the panel-beaten quote above, ordinary Americans would have felt that neither Japanese-Americans nor their own government was doing anything to keep the country safe.

ISIS NOT Contained: Foreign Fighters Have Doubled in Syria, Iraq This Year By Michael van der Galien

Although President Obama claimed last week that ISIS has been “contained,” the inconvenient truth is this:

The number of foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria has more than doubled since last year to at least 27,000, a report by an intelligence consultancy said on Dec. 8, highlighting the global dimension of the conflict. The figures, compiled by the Soufan Group, indicate that efforts by countries around the world to stem the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria and blunt the appeal of violent organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) appear to have made little impact.

In its report, the New York-based security consultancy says:

The foreign fighter phenomenon in Iraq and Syria is truly global. The Islamic State has seen success beyond the dreams of other terrorist groups that now appear conventional and even old-fashioned, such as Al-Qaeda. It has energized tens of thousands of people to join it, and inspired many more to support it.

Spoiled Crybullies Claim a Scalp at Yale By Michael Walsh

Remember the lecturer at Yale — formerly, a distinguished institution of higher learning and now a playpen for demented children — who warned students not to take Halloween costumes too seriously? Right. She’s gone:

A Yale lecturer who came under attack for challenging students to stand up for their right to decide what Halloween costumes to wear, even to the point of being offensive, has resigned from teaching at the college, the university said Monday.

The lecturer, Erika Christakis, an expert in early childhood education, wrote an email in October suggesting that there could be negative consequences to students ceding “implied control” over Halloween costumes to institutional forces. “I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious,” she wrote, “a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?”

Forget Trump — What Really Should Be Done about Muslim Immigration By Roger L Simon

As half the world knows by now, Donald Trump has gone “Full Monty” on Muslim immigration, calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

That’s our Donald — never a master of understatement! (But he certainly knows how to make monkeys out of the media — kudos for that.)

Like most commentators, however, I don’t agree with him — I support the Constitution and its freedoms — but to deny we have a gigantic Muslim problem in this country and in the world is to be a troglodyte of epic proportions. Something has to be done, domestically and internationally, even if it’s not Donald’s “Full Monty.”

But since this is about immigration, let’s deal with the domestic side for a moment.

The source of the conundrum is not just Syrian refugees; it’s the entire Middle East. Almost all people visiting or immigrating from the area are potential jihadists, not to mention other Muslims across the world from Western Europe to Indonesia. This isn’t racial profiling — it’s reality. The husband and wife fanatics who wreaked havoc in San Bernardino did time in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both of which masquerade as allies. Despite what might seem like red flags in their backgrounds, the couple passed blithely into this country without incident.