However inadvertently, the father of San Bernardino jihadist Syed Rizwan Farook has demonstrated an inconvenient truth to which Washington, in its bipartisan infatuation with “moderate Islamists,” is willfully blind: All Islamists, regardless of whether they are violent jihadists or non-violent “moderates,” have the same goals, which are driven by dictates of sharia.As reported in the Times of Israel, the father, whose name is also Syed Farook, told the Italian daily La Stampa, that Farook the younger subscribed to the Islamic supremacist ideology of Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, including the creation of a caliphate, the sharia governing system. While Washington would have you believe that the goal of creating a caliphate is an “extremist” position not shared by “moderates,” the fact is that sharia makes the caliphate and the designation of someone from the Islamic community to be the governing caliph obligatory. See, e.g., my column on the sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller in connection with the Charlie Hebdo massacre (sec. o25 explains “The Caliphate”). The controversy in Islamist circles is whether Baghdadi is a suitable caliph and whether he has established a caliphate in accordance with sharia strictures; but there is no denying that Islamists support the establishment of a caliphate … except in the Beltway haven of fantasy Islam. The jihadist’s father also said Farook the younger was “obsessed with Israel” – meaning with its destruction, of course. The father tried to get his son to “stay calm” on this subject, but not because the non-terrorist father accepts Israel. Significantly, Farook the elder explains that he told his son, “Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics.” Farook says he elaborated, “Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there [in Israel] any more.” He expected that Jews would be expelled and dispatched to Ukraine. The point, though, is that while he disagreed with his son’s insistence on waging violent jihad as the method of eliminating the Jewish state, Dad the Moderate is in agreement on the goal: the Jewish state should be eliminated – just by political means. So here again we have the “One-State Solution.” As I’ve been trying to demonstrate for years, all Islamists want Israel eliminated, very much including those who pretend to be “moderates” (and are accepted as such in Washington). About five years ago, I outlined the one-state solution strategy – in which terrorism and political pressure complement each other, as they do in all aspects of sharia encroachment – in a post about Feisal Rauf. You may recall Imam Rauf as the chief Islamist advocate of the “Ground Zero Mosque” – a man whom the State Department contracted as a consultant and one of its American Muslim emissaries to Islamic countries notwithstanding that he rejected both the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization (which is U.S. law) and the two-state solution of Israel and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace (which is U.S. policy). The one-state solution, I observed in this connection, is “preferred by the Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Israel Left.” My post continued: For the Islamists, the terror campaign of Hamas (which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch) is a method of keeping up the pressure. It is not something they believe will, by itself, destroy Israel. Terrorism is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The end in question here is the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas is pledged to use violent jihad, but the important thing is accomplishing the mission, not how it is accomplished. As I’ve pointed out before (I’ve even written a book about it), the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are after the same bottom line: Islamist rule. The Brotherhood, however, distinguishes itself by being willing to work through available political and legal processes. Al-Qaeda, by contrast, rejects this, reasoning that this approach legitimizes non-sharia processes and, in any event, takes too long. The terrorism and non-terrorism methods of advancing the sharia agenda are far from mutually exclusive; in fact, they reinforce one another. And the non-terrorism approach has, for practitioners, the added advantage that Western opinion elites will laud them as “moderates” even though their agenda is the very opposite of moderate. For the Brotherhood, Hamas’s jihad (and Fatah’s terrorism, and Israel’s responses) create international pressure for a political solution. In that political solution, the idea is to turn the West’s democracy infatuation and rhetoric against Israel, so that Israel is browbeaten into putting its character as a Jewish state up for a democratic vote. In the interim, the Arab population in Israel (now over a million) is swelling, and Palestinians insist on the “right of return” as part of any political settlement. Between this push for ever-higher Palestinian numbers in Israel and support from secular Israeli Jews who would be willing to trade Israel’s Jewish identity for “peace,” the Brotherhood is moving toward what it expects will be an electoral majority. The idea is that once Israel’s status as a Jewish state is delegitimized and democratically overturned, the Palestinian territories can be formally joined to Israel, and it will soon become a Palestinian Islamic state — at which point there will be no further need for democracy. That’s the one-state political solution. It just happens to be the same as Hamas’s terrorist solution: No more Israel. Apparently, the Farooks discussed a new variation on the political one-state solution: The great powers intervening to transfer Jews from their historic homeland to a new homeland. But the result is the same: no more Israel through a “political process” that has been pushed along by violent jihad. Loretta Lynch may indict me for saying this, but the endorsement of this method of eliminating the Jewish state is mainstream in Islam. Eliminating Israel as a Jewish state is the goal of both “moderate Islamists” and violent jihadists. As the reported dialogue between Farook father and son illustrates, the dispute is just about methodology – and, in fact, the terror campaign bolsters the political campaign.