US
Elliott Abrams isn’t pleased with how the US is treating Iran like an ally:
Once upon a time, during the Clinton administration, the foreign visitor who was invited to the White House most often–13 times–was not Tony Blair or some other ally; it was Yasser Arafat. We know what Clinton got for all that courting: nothing, and the failure of his Camp David peace efforts.
Such treatment of enemies, by Clinton then or Kerry and Obama now, and such treatment of allies never ends well. When the United States appears unable to differentiate between enemies and allies, it gets fewer allies and its enemies grow stronger. Iran is an enemy of the United States, which has killed hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks over the decades since 1979 and most recently in Iraq.
Lee Smith is also unimpressed by Iran’s recent gesture:
In short, the regime with which the White House has negotiated the future of American national security is still a regime that takes Americans hostage. Unless you believe that hijacking a U.S. Navy boat, humiliating its crew, photographing them with their hands above their heads, and broadcasting their apologies on state television is a demonstration of peaceful, moderate intentions.
Israel
Mazal Mualem believes that Israel’s latest spat with Sweden shows the country’s diplomatic shortcomings:
The problem is not with this reaction, but with the fact that Israel does not have an effective foreign policy vis-a-vis the diplomatic tsunami it is facing. It has, instead, domestic policy and political interests of this or that minister or, sometimes, of the prime minister himself. Therefore, when it responds to harsh comments by the Swedish foreign minister, Israel’s reaction is emotional and wrong.
Nachum Barnea gives his take on Netanyahu’s unopposed rule:
Readers may ask: If things are so comfortable, why doesn't Netanyahu relax, why does he go from event to event, photo-op to photo-op, condemnation to embrace – why does he keep cultivating his cult of personality and encouraging anti-democratic steps? The answer is that utopia doesn't necessarily erase paranoia, not with Netanyahu and not with other politicians.
Middle East
A Syrian writer living in Raqqa describes the appeal ISIS has for the city’s locals:
Not counting bonuses, a fighter starts out earning about $200 a month — more than a family needs to live (a civilian like Saeed struggles to make $150). He gets additional money for wives, children, slaves and provisions, raising his potential monthly income to more than $500. If he applies for a house, the Islamic State will hand him the keys within two months.
These young men want to be listened to when they speak, and feared. These motives — “respect,” cash and guns — are turning ordinary young people into murderers.
Maxim Sukhov describes Moscow’s plan for the Middle East:
Moscow’s actions have managed to shift some Western elites’ perception of Assad, especially when contrasted with the rapidly growing threat of the Islamic State. While the Paris atrocities and the shootings in California helped make ISIS the primary concern, Moscow’s military operations in Syria firmly positioned the Kremlin as a leader in the anti-ISIS campaign. It has become clear that including Russia is far more profitable, both politically and operationally, than marginalizing it.
Jewish World
Jonathan Tobin writes about the plight of the Jews of France, for whom wearing a kippah is becoming increasingly dangerous:
In September, I wrote about the bad advice French Jewry got from American pollster Stanley Greenberg, who told them they should stop mentioning their support for Zionism and brand themselves as “French citizens” rather than “French Jews.” I believe such a strategy is tantamount to surrendering to the forces of anti-Semitism. Yet when faced with the question of whether members of his community should bravely assert their Judaism even if means risking injury or death, can we really blame those who decide to swap their kippahs for a more anonymous baseball cap?
Sian Gibby discusses a new film that explores the relationship between Abraham Joshua Heschel and Martin Luther King:
The prophets we have today don’t speak in King’s mellifluous rhetoric or write in Heschel’s enchanting prose. Maybe we have murdered or hounded to death those with the capacity to make our hearts soar with their words of justice and compassion; we’ve gotten pretty cynical, maybe too cynical for those kinds of voices. Our prophets now will have to be more cool (though certainly not detached), more pointed, more nimble, less grand, less moving. But given the length and resilience of our Jewish tradition, it is not too much to hope that we can still hear, and respond to, the ancient message of justice coming down through the ages, rolling, as Amos said, like a mighty river.
