A Palestinian State . . . Like Canada

Dec. 12 2014

In an interview with the Jewish Press, the Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens speaks about his recent book on American foreign policy, the ongoing negotiations with Iran, his support for Israel, and the recent European wave of “recognition” of Palestinian statehood (interview by Sara Lehmann):

I happen to believe in the two-state solution with a Palestinian state that has more in common with Canada than it does with Iran or Yemen or what the Palestinian state is shaping up to be. And the tragedy of this kind of recognition is that it tells the Palestinians that they can behave the way they have with the use of terrorism, aggression, missiles, and lawfare and get away with it. That’s astounding. The Kurds have been responsibly building up an autonomous region in northern Iraq for many years and yet they don’t get recognition. . . . There are many other stateless people who have a far stronger claim morally and historically to a state and yet they don’t get recognition. . . .

The alternative [to Palestinian statehood] is a situation which is in my view akin to diabetes. It’s a disease, but it’s a disease that can be managed. And the question for Israeli statesmen in our lifetime is how well they manage the disease with a view that in the very long term some other cure will arise. The word “solution” should never be used when it comes to politics. Solution is something that happens when it comes to math. Human beings don’t operate according to equations.

Read more at Jewish Press

More about: Barack Obama, Iranian nuclear program, Israel, Palestinian statehood, U.S. Foreign policy

How Senator Schumer Put Short-Sighted Partisan Interest over Jewish Concerns

Last week, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce reported on its investigation into anti-Semitism on college campuses. Among the revelations therein is information about the role played behind the scenes by the Senatate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who often touts his own role as “protector” (in Hebrew, shomer) of his fellow Jews in the halls of power. Seth Mandel comments:

The leaders of Columbia, where the anti-Semitism was and is among the worst in the country, eventually came before Congress in April. Three months earlier, President Minouche Shafik met with Schumer, and the supposed shomer told her that Democrats had no problem with her and that only Republicans cared about the anti-Semitism crisis on campus. His office advised Shafik not to meet with Republicans on the Hill. When the Columbia Trustees co-chair David Greenwald texted the previous co-chair Jonathan Lavine about the situation, Lavine responded by saying, “Let’s hope the Dems win the house back.” Greenwald wrote back: “Absolutely.”

This is the message that Schumer had sent about anti-Semitism on campus and that message came through loud and clear: investigations into Jew-hatred would only occur under a Republican majority. Putting Democrats in charge would put a stop to the government’s efforts to help Jews on campus.

Though the Jewish vote is, as always, unlikely to cost Democrats the election, it is simply undeniable that non-Republicans and non-conservatives are fairly disgusted with the type of behavior displayed by Schumer.

Read more at Commentary

More about: Anti-Semitism, Chuck Schumer, Israel on campus, U.S. Politics