>>>I get it that your comment is meant to be facetious, though surely, I think you'd agree that Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc are not obligated to subscribe to American or even western values, so they'd probably care very little about any protests outside of their borders.
>
>Hang on. The Koran and Hadith contain numerous references to succoring your brother, where brother is defined to mean any fellow Muslim. There's no obligation to assist we infidels (quite the opposite in fact) but surely rich Muslim nations have just as much if not *more* moral obligation to help their Syrian brothers? Surely you are not saying that doing to others as you would have them do unto you, is not a purely Western morality? I suppose I could scream "bigot" for proposing otherwise. Meanwhile Japanese have highly developed morality totally consistent with Western values and in many ways superior if you look at crime rates and thrift. The Japanese are highly reliable and generous when it comes to assisting others and it's simply unfair (racist?) to suggest otherwise.
>

I agree with mostly everything you said, but if we're still talking about protesting their immigration policies, Saudi Arabia is not exactly a champion of free speech, quite the opposite. Any such protest in that country may have dire consequences for the protesters. Japan, even though thorough in its support, throughout history has been very protective of their culture, and cultural diversity is not something they advertise as their strength, so I'm guessing that any protest about their immigration policies may be at most met with a shrug.
However, it is the EU that which has been confronted with the mass migration, and with very little choice since it has been impacted directly and suddenly by the humanitarian crisis developing on their doorstep. Saudi Arabia, or others, were not destinations sought by these migrants. These countries could be part of the solution, but protesting the fact that they don't accept any quota of immigrants is not really a practical issue. From my POV, I do find it immoral that there are Arab countries that reject the idea of accepting immigrants with a similar culture, language, religion, moral values. But again, we're talking about a humanitarian crisis and if others are not willing to help, then some must.
If you put the above in contrast with the moral foundation of the US then one could see that Americans would be justified to protest anything that may compromise it.

>>>The failure of the world to deal with the complexities of the conflict in Syria where - Assad and the Russians supporting him, the anti-Assad rebels, ISIS with Iran fighting them and supporting Assad - have all been competing forces... in which the US hesitated to intervene, is really something that Trump is very unlikely to fix by himself. He'd need all the allies he can get, and possibly many of them in the Muslim world.
>
>Muslim nations that themselves have total bans on Israelis and Syrians refugees, cannot hold American feet to the fire or use Trump's edict an excuse not to cooperate. Unless hypocrisy also only applies to Westerners? And we don't yet know whether Trump can cooperate with the Russians. Under Obama the relationship was decidedly frosty and HRC would have been worse, so it's no wonder the 2 nations with ability to discipline just about anybody else except China, haven't cooperated to get Syria sorted years ago. Of course the Obama administration would say that the Russians are devious and unreliable (which would cause violent protest if Trump said something like that) but BF has been telling us that NY property moguls are just as bad, so maybe Putin and Trump will recognize a kindred spirit and cut to the chase. Who knows. I hope so - the best places for the Syrians is at home rebuilding their lives with good will and support from decent first-world nations of every colour and creed. The alternative that hundreds of thousands of refugees can be deposited in quaint Norwegian villages or Mid-West towns while factions are allowed to fight back and forward in Syria, doesn't make a lot of sense IMHO if we sit down and think it through.

It has been obvious since the beginning that a solution to Syria should involve Russia. As of now, it would be inconceivable otherwise. Syria has been virtually a Russian protectorate for decades; the Russian only naval base in the Mediterranean has been in Tartus (Syria). Not something the Russians were so easily ready to compromise. Given the high stakes, any interference in the Syrian conflict would have been very costly for the US, to say the least. Sure, it would be very nice if Trump and Putin would be able to come to an agreement... though I am not so sure that Putin needs Trump in this matter. Apparently, the Syrian conflict is a foregone conclusion. Russia, Turkey and Iran have met recently to negotiate a cease-fire (US has not been invited). The meeting has already been qualified as a "serious diplomatic success" by the Turkish PM. Russia doesn't seem to need any additional support there, so I wonder what kind of leverage Trump would have in a possible deal with Putin on Syria, and to what avail.
*