RUTHFULLY YOURS

To the colossal compost heap of anti-Israel screeds churned out by the United Nations, we can now add the so-called Schabas Report on the 2014 summer war between Gaza and Israel.

Not that the eponymous William Schabas saw the production of this report right through to the end. Appointed last summer as chair of this UN inquiry, Schabas was forced to resign this past February when news emerged that he had served as a paid adviser to the Palestinian Authority. (This UN report notes that he resigned – but does not say why.)

Officially, this document is titled: “Report of the independent commission of inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-21/1.”

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) has released the results of a poll showing alarmingly high levels of support for shariah law and violence among the American Muslim community.

According to the nationwide survey, “significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.”

A majority (51 percent) of Muslims surveyed said they “should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

Almost 30 percent of American Muslims believe it is legitimate to use violence “against those that insult the prophet Muhammad, the Qur’an, or Islamic faith.”

One-quarter of Muslims said that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

Seven years of purposeful race-baiting, deliberate legal bias against white people, and executive decisions that engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations of black people create the very brew that would lead to the horrific events in South Carolina–an occurrence that feeds right into the self-fulfilling prophecies of Obama.

Early on, Michelle Obama demonstrated her animus toward America and injected race into the conversation notwithstanding that white America twice voted her husband into office. Yet, as Allen West has asserted, white America needs to understand that Obama “abjectly despises” whites. Economist Ben Stein has called “President Barack Obama the most racist president in U.S. history.”

Journalism from places like North Korea and Iran should be prefaced with a disclaimer: Big Brother Is Reading This, Too.

The New York Times recently featured a photo and video essay by the celebrated photojournalist David Guttenfelder titled “Illuminating North Korea.” It’s a potent reminder that nothing is so blinding as the illusion of seeing.

I don’t mean to disparage Mr. Guttenfelder’s photographic skills or his sincerity. But what are we to make of a photo essay heavy on pictures of modern-looking factories and well-fed children being fussed over in a physical rehabilitation center? Or—from his Instagram account (“Everyday DPRK”)—of theme-park water slides, Christian church interiors, well-stocked clothing stores and rollerblading Pyongyang teens—all suggesting an ordinariness to North Korean life that, as we know from so many sources, is a travesty of the terrifying truth?

Mr. Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney from 1975 to 2009, is of counsel with the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

A nuclear deal will mean billions for Iran, but no means for curtailing its support for terrorism.

As the deadline for a nuclear agreement with Iran approaches, it is vital to recognize what the agreement doesn’t address: the Islamic Republic’s continuing support of terrorism.

By no means do I minimize the importance of nuclear weapons. An agreement to curtail the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions would serve U.S. interests, if we have assured verification and the ability to punish noncompliance. Still, any deal that fails to hold Iran accountable for its criminal and terrorist conduct, past and present, will fail to curtail such conduct in the future.

President Obama on Wednesday announced a new U.S. government policy for dealing with Americans who are kidnapped abroad, and as always he stressed compassion for the hostages and their families. The danger of Mr. Obama’s good intentions is that he is giving terrorists even more incentive to snatch more Americans.

Mr. Obama made the announcement after a government-wide review of U.S. hostage policy, which has drawn criticism for inconsistency and lack of coordination. “The families of hostages have told us—and they’ve told me directly—about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government: How different departments and agencies aren’t always coordinated,” Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House.

U.N. reports on Israel sometimes remind us of the classic Monty Python sketch “Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!” with its screwball combination of comic ineptitude and malignant predictability. So it is with Monday’s inquisi—er, “Inquiry”—by the U.N. Human Rights Council on last summer’s war between Israel and its terrorist enemies in Gaza.

The 183-page report, from former New York state Justice Mary McGowan Davis and Senegalese lawyer Doudou Diene, purports to be even-handed by citing both Israel and Hamas for possible war crimes and violations of international law. That’s something of an achievement for the Council, which has a lopsided record of condemning Israel and whose current members include Qatar, Russia and Venezuela.

Foreign-policy strategists say they would oppose agreement if certain tough terms weren’t included

WASHINGTON—A group of influential U.S. foreign-policy strategists, including five former confidants of President Barack Obama, warned the White House Wednesday they would oppose a nuclear agreement with Iran if tough terms weren’t included in a final agreement.

Among the requirements identified by the former diplomats, military officers and lawmakers were intrusive snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear and military sites, a resolution of questions surrounding secretly developed nuclear-weapons technologies and a phased reduction of international sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

When it comes to national security, perception matters. Ultimately, American adversaries assess two things: America’s stated policies, and how those policies are pursued. From these assessments, our adversaries shape their perceptions of U.S. resolve and develop strategies to overcome it.

That’s why President Obama’s abandonment of longstanding U.S. hostage-negotiation policy is so problematic. The president says that the U.S. government will only communicate and facilitate hostage negotiations but not directly pay ransoms. But that’s a qualification without meaning. Again, perception is key. And the perception here, joined to reality, is that America is now willing to negotiate with terrorists. It’s another red line breached and another sign that intimidation finds reward. Whatever the administration might claim, today’s decision to allow U.S. officials to facilitate communications between terrorists and the families of hostages eviscerates America’s “no-negotiation” red line.

Jonah’s post quoting from The Hill on American rules of engagement against ISIS is deeply disturbing. If it is true that we’re refraining from air strikes if there’s a risk “of even one civilian casualty” (and I say “if” because rules of engagement are supposed to be classified), then the administration is imposing a deeply immoral standard on American forces.

Jonah’s exactly right that this standard — especially now that it’s announced — drives ISIS much deeper into the civilian population, incentivizing the use of human shields and creating — as he says — “safe zones” for ISIS operations. All of this, of course, means that more civilians will die — not from the American pilots who are forbidden to drop their ordinance — but from ISIS. Every month that it endures and grows, it kills more innocents, often in the most horrible ways imaginable.