Ostensibly the resolution puts the church on record for peace in war torn Afghanistan. But actually it demonizes the United States, itself a 50 year tradition in United Methodism, while ignoring the evils of the Taliban and al Qaeda. And it materialistically assumes that peace can be purchased with ever more U.S. dollars. It never cites radical Islam, a chief cause for strife in Afghanistan, perhaps because liberal United Methodist elites cannot conceive of anyone taking traditional religion any more seriously than they do.

The resolution calls the U.S. presence in Afghanistan the “latest in a long history of foreigners trying to impose by military might their own agenda in Afghanistan.” So presumably the American led 2001-2002 overthrow of the Taliban Islamist dictatorship in response to 9-11 is morally on par with the murderous Soviet invasion of 1979, which created 30 years of war and strife. Oddly, but predictably, the resolution never mentions 9-11 or the Taliban, which might distract from its targeting the U.S. It also never mentions that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is scheduled to end in 2014.

Afghanistan is ever degenerating, thanks to the U.S. presence, the resolution claims. And it asserts that U.S. resources spent on war distract from “health care, education, and community development,” without acknowledging tens of billions already spent by the U.S. on these goods, or admitting that almost no spending or progress on health care, education, and community development would be possible under the Taliban. The resolution also condemns U.S./NATO unmanned drone attacks on insurgent/terrorist targets, likening them to “extrajudicial killings.”

Self-importantly, the resolution chides the U.S. for spending on “weapons and soldiers” (again without citing billions spent on civilian aid) while boasting, “By contrast, for more than 45 years United Methodists and other humanitarian organizations, in partnership with local Afghans, have supported health care and community development work in Afghanistan.” Of course, such church programs are impossible without some level of security.

Embarrassingly, the resolution recalls that in the immediate wake of 9-11, the United Methodist Women’s Division urged “diplomatic means to bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice and to end the bombing of Afghanistan.” Even more laughably, it recalls the ostensibly prophetic words of California Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee who, after 9-11, was the “lone voice at that time in the U.S. government to question military action against Afghanistan.”

Abbas goes on to threaten, albeit obliquely, that because Israel has not played the game according to Abbas’ demands, he might just go ahead and dissolve the PA, throwing back upon Israel all of the responsibilities for administration in the West Bank: “For the Palestinian Authority—now stripped of all meaningful authority—cannot continue to honor agreements while Israel refuses to even acknowledge its commitments. The P.A. is no longer as was agreed and this situation cannot continue.”  So in addition to tattling to the teacher, he will also take his ball and go home.

Hopefully, Netanyahu will not be moved by such puerile posturing.

None of this is new.  After being rebuffed at the UN last year, Abbas floated informal threats about dismantling the PA, and even took the idea to the Fatah Central Committee (FCC). The FCC supported the idea but no decision was taken. When questioned while in Japan about Yossi Beilin’s open letter in Foreign Policy magazine on April 4, in which Beilin urged Abbas to carry out his threat to dissolve the PA as a way to express his exasperation with Netanyahu’s “intransigence,” Abbas quickly back-tracked and told journalists that “The PA is an achievement and we must not dissolve it but strengthen it.” But if that were true, why would the FCC support the idea? Perhaps because they know that Abbas has no intention of dissolving the PA.

In order to understand what is going on here, we must recognize the perils to Israel that are implied in both of Abbas’ threats.

Abbas knows that unlike former U.S. Presidents, Obama has already threatened to withhold a US veto in the UN if a Security Council resolution could create an existential threat to Israel.  Abbas’ second try at the UN might work, especially if this timethe PA demand is pared down to recognition with the status of a non-member state (a big step above the “observer status” that the PA now has, but below full membership), and especially if Obama wins a second term and no longer needs to worry about losing some of his Jewish vote.  Moreover, although the PA’s attempt to bring war-crime accusations against Israel at the International Criminal Court ended in failure with the decision that the court had no jurisdiction, as the present writer noted earlier, the chief prosecutor outlined for the PA the directions it could take if it wanted to appeal at a later date.  By requesting that the UN petition the court to hear the PA case, or by convincing state members of the court to agree to bring the case to the docket, Abbas could do an end-run around the jurisdiction issue.  If the PA’s attorneys have the brains that God gave a napkin, they are working on both of these issues now.

So the peril to Israel in Abbas’ first threat is that Israel may be pilloried in the ICC with a re-run of the Goldstone report, especially if Obama wins a second term.

The news rocked Norway – well, rocked a good portion of the Norwegian elite, anyhow.  The Swedish Nobel Foundation, reported the newsweekly Ny Tid on February 1, was investigating the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  The question: was the committee awarding the Peace Prize in accordance with Alfred Nobel’s intentions?

For at least one influential person in Sweden, Fredrik Heffermehl, author of a recent book, Nobel’s Peace Prize: The Vision that Disappeared, the answer was a resounding no.  Why did this matter?  Because even though Nobel, who died in 1896, had instructed in his will that the Peace Prize be awarded by a committee chosen by the Norwegian Parliament (the other Nobels are all awarded by Swedish institutions), it turns out that under Swedish law, the committee’s authority can be revoked if it can be demonstrated that the testator’s intentions are not being carried out.  What alarmed official Norway, in short, was the possibility that, if the Swedish Nobel Foundation bought Heffermehl’s argument, it would wrench away from the Kingdom of Norway its single biggest claim to international fame.

Fortunately for Norway, it dodged that bullet: on March 8, the Swedish Nobel Foundation cleared the committee of any wrongdoing.  Was it correct to do so?  What kind of a job have the Norwegians done in selecting Peace Prize winners?  That’s the question posed by Jay Nordlinger in his new book Peace, They Say, a critical history of the prizes that is at once highly judicious and deliciously readable.

What should a peace prize be?  Does the idea even make sense?  In 1901, many people thought it did.  One way to understand the prize, indeed, is as the relic of a time when pacifism seemed, to many reasonable people, a realistic proposition – a time before World War I exposed the terrifying depths of brutal irrationality to which even “modern” and “advanced” people could sink, and before the rise of Communism and Nazism showed the susceptibility of “modern” and “advanced” people to totalitarian ideologies which simply had to be resisted military.  All of which would make it clear, at least to people of a non-utopian bent, that “making peace” is a far more complicated business than simply holding peace conferences and signing peace accords.

To be sure, even back then not everyone was naïve – not even all Peace Prize laureates.  Take Teddy Roosevelt, for instance, who won in 1906 for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War.  “Peace is generally good in itself,” he said in his Nobel speech, “but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaid of righteousness…No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong.”  Wise words.  “Very, very seldom has a Nobel peace lecture sounded this way,” Nordlinger underscores, noting that TR’s speech “has stuck in the craws of many peace-prize devotees.”  Indeed, many people who take the prize seriously can still get down in the dumps about the thumbs-up to TR, whom they consider the very archetype of the American imperialist warmonger.

Of course, in the annals of the Nobel Peace Prize the Teddy Roosevelts are far outnumbered by idealistic naifs like German diplomat Gustav Stresemann (1926), who won for his role in securing the Locarno Treaty, which, he asserted, meant “lasting peace on the Rhine, guaranteed by the formal renunciation of force by the two great neighboring nations.”  And how about Frank Kellogg (1929), who won for the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a multilateral peace treaty that promised to outlaw war?  (“Maybe illegalization would not stop war,” says Nordlinger, by way of explaining the treaty’s logic.  “But it would make it…well, illegal.”)

Yes, the Nobel committee has made some admirable choices.  As Nordlinger rightly observes, Albert Schweitzer (1952) was “[o]ne of the golden men of the 20^th century” and Andrei Sakharov (1975) “one of the noblest human beings of his age.”  The selection of the “heroic and defiant” Carl von Ossietzky (1936), a German pacifist who was a Nazi prisoner at the time of the award, was gutsy – a deliberate affront to Hitler.  Then there was General George C. Marshall (1953), who won for the Marshall Plan, and who, echoing TR, warned in his Nobel lecture of the danger of demilitarization, describing the military as a “vast power for maintaining the peace.”   (Nordlinger suggests, persuasively, that Marshall is perhaps “something like the ideal peacemaker” – a man who, after winning the war, went on to strengthen the peace.)  Nordlinger esteems anti-apartheid activist Albert John Lutuli (1960), saying that “[i]f freedom champions are to have peace prizes, the Nobel prize for 1960 is one of the best the committee has ever bestowed.”   And Nordlinger tells a story about Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964) that I hadn’t heard: Coretta King wanted to save some of the prize money for the kids’ college fund, but King insisted it all “be poured into the cause.”

Reading about the winners of the Peace Prize, one is struck by the alternation between terrible choices and terrific ones – and by how the egomania of so many of the fools, knaves, and mediocrities contrasts with the humility of so many of the greats.  Marshall is a prime example of the latter.  Nordlinger tells how, not long before winning the prize, Marshall attended Queen Elizabeth’s coronation.  As he walked into Westminster Abbey, he noticed that the whole congregation was rising to its feet.  The modest general “looked around to see who had entered.  It was he.”  Nice story.

In Norway and elsewhere, one of the most controversial prizes remains the one awarded for the Vietnam peace accords to Henry Kissinger (1973), who was honored jointly with Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam.  “The critics,” as Nordlinger pungently notes, “thought it outrageous that the American secretary of state had won the Nobel prize, not so much that the representative of a totalitarian and mass-murdering dictatorship had done so.”  Here’s an admirable detail about Kissinger: when the peace agreement failed and the North Vietnamese overran the South, he shipped his gold medal, diploma, and prize money back to Oslo, saying he felt “honor bound” to return them.  But the Norwegians wouldn’t take their stuff back.  Kissinger has expressed embarrassment about his prize ever since, writing to Elie Wiesel (1986): “I  was not proud of my Nobel, but I am of yours.”

Kissinger’s chagrin over winning his prize contrasts estimably with the conduct of many other winners (including some of the most famous) who have campaigned shamelessly for it.  Then there are the “professional…laureates,” whose prizes made them famous and have milked them for all they’re worth, jet-setting from one lucrative speaking gig to another.  “Often,” notes Nordlinger, “Nobel peace laureates come to be seen as all-purpose, global gurus.”   And then there are the winners whose post-prize behavior has hardly done the Nobel name proud.  Betty Williams (1976) has said more than once that she’d like to kill George W. Bush.  Argentinian human-rights Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (1980) gave a Nobel speech that was “beautiful, balanced, pointed, and wise” – then devolved into “an activist of the hard Left” who “is the type to be invited to Castro’s birthday parties.”  (Nordlinger wonders: “What would Perez Esquivel say to Cuban prisoners of conscience, if he ever faced them?”)  Desmond Tutu’s (1984) Nobel lecture was “eloquent,” but he has since become a “harsh critic of Israel” and equated Bush with bin Laden.  Rigoberto Menchú (1992), a purported human-rights activist, is another one who “has been staunchly supportive of Castro and his dictatorship.”  Mandela, likewise, has “heaped praise” on Castro and Qaddafi, “strengthening them with his moral authority.,” even though “[o]ne word from him, in behalf of Libya’s political prisoners, or Cuba’s, could have done a world of good.”

On cue the Pravda press rushed to their iPads to begin tapping out the appropriate denunciations of Republican candidates, Netanyahu and American Jews for their warmongering. However, at that same press conference, Obama was careful to draw a distinction between Syria and Iran.

When asked whether his “window of diplomatic opportunity” and serious-face remarks about the “costs of war” applied to Syria as well as Iran, the peacemonger suddenly became the warmonger, asserting, “What’s happening in Syria is heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you’ve seen is the international community mobilize against the Assad regime.  And it’s not a question of when Assad leaves — or if Assad leaves — it’s a question of when.”

In Iran, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei get an endless window to repress their own people and build their nukes, while in Syria, Assad is told that it’s only a question of when he leaves. That’s not the kind of talk you use unless you mean to make him leave, one way or another, using the fig leaf of the international community, which can’t get a war vote through the UN, but can organize yet another Coalition of the Willing.

To the untrained ear this may sound a lot like the beating of war drums, but sophisticated types know that it’s actually the cowbell of peace jangling with the groovy beat of humanitarian vibes. Sure it may all end in bombs falling on Damascus, but they’ll be peace bombs painted rainbow colors by marines who have married each other in a special commitment ceremony.

Republicans make war, while Democrats make explosive peace, just like they did in Kosovo where there are still more American troops than there are in Iraq, a legacy of the Clinton Administration’s humanitarian bombmaking peace.

Now after years of sneering at Republicans, the Democrats have their own Axis of Evil list, they just  refuse to admit that they have it. Bombing countries on the list is a friendly act, which is why the current name for the Coalition of the Willing in Syria, is “Friends of Syria,” a name that would have given Orwell a fit. Bombing countries that aren’t on the list is irresponsible warmongering.

It’s a matter of transparent hypocrisy that the same voices who keep denouncing warmongering in Iran, want us to go into Syria. The difference between warmongering and a righteous humanitarian effort is a matter of political orientation, much like the difference between Iraq and Libya where we bombed a country to rid it of its dictator only to leave behind chaos and feuding factions. Or between Kony 2012 and drone strikes in Somalia.

Democrats don’t like the military, but they like their wars. Until the Gulf War, every significant war in the previous century had been initiated by Democratic presidents. They just didn’t like calling them wars. Korea was a “police action” and in Vietnam we were just there as advisers. No wars to see here. Libya officially wasn’t a war, it was just one of those things where we bombed a country for several months until we tracked down and helped kill its leader. If we go into Syria, it certainly won’t be as a war, we’ll be keeping the peace through a war, bombing the village to save the village.

In the 20th century, there has hardly been a single Democratic president who didn’t bring America into a war. Woodrow Wilson had WW1, Franklin Roosevelt had WW2, Truman had Korea, JFK and LBJ had Vietnam, Bill Clinton had Yugoslavia and Obama has Libya. Only Carter was the odd man out, though he did begin supplying the Afghan Mujahideen with weapons which helped bring us into the current conflict.

With a record like that you would think that the Democrats would at least leave the peace signs and flowers at home. Some of their wars were necessary and some weren’t, but they are responsible for the lion’s share of the wars that we have been in.

Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) tries to organize American religious opinion against Israel with relatively measured tones.  Its participants predictably include officials from the left-dominated Mainline Protestant denominations, liberal Catholic orders, and the Greek Archdiocese of North America, as well as the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the U.S.  Its official “friends” include more overtly anti-Israel diehards like Friends of Sabeel – North America, which essentially wants to dissolve Jewish Israel in favor of a multi-ethnic “Palestine.”   Various advocates of anti-Israel divestment, an otherwise largely defeated cause, are also “friends” to CEMP, including the Episcopal Peace Fellowship, the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, and the Methodist Federation for Social Action.

The star of CMEP’s annual “advocacy” conference in Washington, D.C. starting June 13 will be Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Comfortably liberal Episcopal refinement is exactly the sort of tone that CMEP often prefers to mask its more provocative agenda.  Bishop Schori is enmeshed in the melt-down of her own denomination, including lawsuits against departing local congregations, and its schism with the more theologically orthodox global Anglican Communion.  But denouncing Israel still merits her attention.

Last week, she wrote President Obama a relatively long, substantive and, by Religious left standards, temperate denunciation of Israel’s interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla. But the bias and preoccupation with Israeli sins, perceived or real, are still obvious, even if cloaked in Episcopalian politesse.  Admitting all the details of the flotilla event are still unclear, she still insisted:   “It is clear, however, that the deaths of civilians working to deliver humanitarian aid could not have happened absent the counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza.”  Ostensibly there are “far better ways to protect Israel’s security and promote moderate political leadership in Gaza than a blockade that intensifies human suffering and perpetuates regional insecurity.”

What are the alternatives to counteracting Hamas rule in Gaza short of a partial blockade against it?  Like most Israel critics, Bishop Schori does not say.  And as with other professions of supposed concern about Israel’s “security,” Bishop Schori and other clerics who publicly pontificate about the Middle East almost never offer substitute proposals for whatever Israeli defenses they reject.  The security wall is supposedly an outrage, but what else will impede suicide bombers?  Israel’s continued security oversight of the West Bank is purportedly oppresses the Palestinians.  But since most Palestinians still seem to reject a Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside a Jewish Israel, what are the other options?  Religious and secular complainants insist that removal of Jewish settlements from the West Bank is prerequisite for peace.  But the abrupt closure of all Jewish settlements in Gaza hardly generated good will and instead seemed only to stimulate appetite for more Israeli concessions.  Browbeating Israel into endless accommodations that only feed an inexhaustible expectation by Palestinians for further Israeli retreat and eventual Arab/Islamist triumph seems to be the Religious Left’s main strategy for Middle East “peace.”

“Instead of enhancing Israel’s security, the blockade has harmed its international standing and imposed an inexcusable humanitarian toll on the people of Gaza,” Bishop Schori insisted in her letter to Obama.  ”While Israel has allowed a very limited amount of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, the restriction on basic goods for agriculture, fishing, and infrastructure construction has caused poverty and joblessness to soar.”  This may be true, but why is Israel exclusively at fault for Gaza’s suffering?  How was Gaza faring before to the blockade, and under the rule of the Palestinian Authority?  What evidence is there for Palestinian leadership genuinely interested in responsible governance rather than indefinite conflict?

Bishop Schori provided details about the number of trucks with supplies entering Gaza per day. The concern is partly admirable, if sincere.  But why is a U.S. Episcopal Bishop obsessed with living standards for Gaza, or the Palestinians, when hundreds of millions globally live in far greater poverty?  Would Palestinian GNP, in Gaza or the West Bank, interest liberal U.S. bishops at all, absent Israel as the targeted culprit?  How many anti-Western dictators have blockaded or literally starved hostile populations much larger than Gaza, without a murmur from Bishop Schori or the Religious Left?

Rather than tacitly backing an ill-advised blockade, the U.S. should work with its ally, Israel, to promote constructive new policies toward Gaza that serve the aims of peace and security,” Bishop Schori lectured.  The former oceanographer and teacher wants “continued efforts to halt violence, and credible long-term strategies to support Palestinian leaders who are actively working for peace,” while also drawing “support and legitimacy from across Palestinian society.”  She suggests “political reconciliation so that a future Palestinian government can draw strength both from its internal support and from its external actions on behalf of peace.”  How does the Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop, unable to reconcile the divisions within her own denomination of tea sippers and Volvo drivers, propose to reconcile Hamas with other Palestinians, much less Israel?

For Schori, the goals for the Middle East are simple.  The Episcopal Church has “repeatedly” supported a “secure Israel with defined borders, whose right to exist is universally recognized; a sovereign, independent and secure state for the Palestinian people; and shared custody and protection of the holy sites in Jerusalem held sacred by the three great Abrahamic faiths.”  This rhetoric appeals to Episcopalians snugly secure in their New England hamlets.  But how many Palestinians, even outside Hamas, share this vision?

Schori instructed Obama to shift our nation’s posture” towards “lifting the blockade,” while also “robustly” encouraging “long-term peace.”  She also expects “direct negotiation between the parties,” i.e. apparent recognition for Hamas.  How will abandoning the Gaza blockade and recognizing Hamas, which would surely inflate that Islamist group’s prestige and ambitions, advance peace?   In the rarified and often beautiful world of Episcopal liturgy, noblesse oblige, gothic spires, and ancient endowments, simply demanding “long-term peace’ may seem quite attainable over a lunch at the country club.  In the real world of guns, power, and even more ancient hatreds, appeasement often only breeds greater conflict.

Bishop Schori’s pleas to appease Hamas were relatively more thoughtful than other Religious Left voices.  United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler histrionically bewailed Israel’s “high-seas piracy” against the “Freedom Flotilla.”  But her appeal to Obama, and her likely commentary to Churches for Middle East Peace later this week, are just as feckless, and, if heeded, just as dangerous.

Jihad violence all over the country? What jihad violence? We hate violence, dude! We are pacifists! Hold my rife and I will make the peace symbol for you! "Most Pakistanis are pacifist, says survey," by Amir Wasim for Dawn, June 9 (thanks to Sanjay):

ISLAMABAD: A majority of Pakistanis don't approve of Islamabad's decision to join the US-led war on terror but, at the same time, they don't believe that the Taliban are fighting for Islam, according to a survey carried out by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies (Pips).

Findings of the "Radicalisation in Pakistan" survey released on Tuesday show that 63.6 per cent of the respondents were against joining the war on terror, and 46.3pc were of the opinion that the Taliban were not fighting for Islam.

Even among those who sounded sympathetic to the militant organisation, 39.7pc condemned its acts of violence, such as attacks on girls' schools, cinemas and CD shops. But about 22pc of them did not know how to respond to such acts.

According to the survey report, Taliban has sympathisers mostly in Balochistan (49.4pc) and Punjab (30.1pc) who believe that they are fighting for Islam.

Surprisingly, there are not many Taliban sympathisers in Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Only 22pc respondents in Fata and 25.3pc in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa believe the Taliban are fighting for Islam.

However, 45.7pc of the respondents in Fata did not respond to the question.

The report reveals that Taliban do not enjoy much support in Sindh, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan.

The respondents appeared concerned about the condition of Muslims and 77.7pc thought that they lagged behind other nations. Most of them (31.2pc) were of the opinion that this is because they had deviated from Islam. Only 18.1pc maintained that it was due to their backwardness in the fields of science and technology.

This is a recurring theme throughout Islamic history: failures are blamed on lack of Islam, and a period of bloody fanaticism ensues, until the people begin trying to find ways to soften Sharia's hard edges.

Another significant finding is that a large number of people (46.8pc) want religio-political parties given a chance to rule the country, despite the fact that the electoral performance of these parties were not "impressive' in October 2002 when analysts attributed whatever success they achieved to the strong anti-American sentiments in the country.

The respondents also expressed interesting views on Jihad.

Very few (2.7pc) were of the view that Muslims had failed to progress in the world because they had lost their passion to fight against their enemies. About 28pc people believed that Jihad should be waged against cruelty and not to spread Islam to every corner of the world as five per cent of the respondents believed.

A large number of the respondents (20.4pc) were concerned about religious differences in the country. They blamed these disagreements for sectarianism and religious extremism.

However, a large number of people (21.6pc) did not take the disagreements seriously and said that these had been preordained and prophesied. The survey clearly captures growing religiosity among the masses.

Not surprisingly, 65pc of the respondents said a person who did not pray five times a day could not become a better Muslim. Nearly 59pc of them said the struggle for implementation of Sharia was also Jihad.

However, about 81pc of the respondents considered female education as "extremely necessary" and only a small percentage (12.5) thought it was "not very important".

Nearly 23pc of the people surveyed said they did not listen to music, and (15.8pc) of them said it was because of religious reasons.

Interestingly, 51pc of the total sample endorsed Junaid Jamshaid's decision to quit singing....

As one would expect, this campaign is focused on external appearances, and not toward challenging allegedly "extremist" views among fellow Muslims. And it's predictably deceptive. Glowing generalities like the one on the car pictured above require readers to project their own cultural understanding of ideas like "women's rights" onto the propaganda presented to them.

Muhammad favored "women's rights," did he? But what was the extent of what he thought the rights of women were? Qur'an 4:34 allows men to hit their wives. Qur'an 2:23 says "our women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will." Qur'an 2:282 says a woman's testimony is worth half a man's. And Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460 says "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

"U.K. ad campaign launched to improve image of Muslims," by Scott Maniquet for the National Post, June 7 (thanks to Nicolei):

Let's face it, some religions do a good job getting their feel good message across, while for whatever reason, some others have a much harder time.

But probably no religion is in more need of a good public relations overhaul than Islam.

This became apparent in Britain when a recent poll found that 58% associated Islam with extremism and 50% associated it with terrorism. The poll also found that only 13% of respondents believed that Islam - called the "religion of peace' by its adherents - was based on peace.

And we all just pulled that idea out of our hats one day -- no particular reason at all.

In response, the Exploring Islam Foundation has launched a U.K. ad campaign to bolster public perception of the religion.

The Inspired by Muhammad campaign features photos of Muslim professionals next to catchy phrases like:

"I believe in social justice. So did Muhammad."

Again, that depends on your idea of justice. Subjugation of unbelievers? Cutting the hands off of thieves and stoning adulterers? Executing apostates?

"I believe in women's rights. So did Muhammad."

"I believe in protecting the environment. So did Muhammad."

A spokesman for Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank which seeks to promote a "British Islam. . . free from the bitter politics of the Arab and Muslim world, told London's Independent:

"This campaign is important because it can help non-Muslims to better understand the faith that inspires and guides their Muslim friends, neighbours and colleagues.

"This initiative also helps British Muslims reclaim the Prophet Mohamed as a time-honoured guide for peace, compassion and social justice from those who seek to twist his teachings."

Right, vague generalities will let all the air out of "chapter and verse."

With 80% of Canadians agreeing with Quebec's proposed niqab ban, perhaps we will be seeing a similar campaign here in the future.

It is predominately understood that Israel was in the right in her actions during the latest operation against the Gaza flotilla. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on the mark when he unequivocally stated that Israel “will never apologize for defending itself.”  The problem is not always being right but also being strategic which is Israel’s biggest challenge.

Consequently, the world was “outraged” the UN was “shocked” and once again we can see how Israel is held to a double standard that no other country in the world is held to. Israel is expected to always behave morally and treat the Palestinians with silk gloves in order not to hurt or offend them in any shape or form. The Palestinians, meanwhile, can do no wrong even when they openly engage in acts of terrorism.

Moreover, it is the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets that draws attention to every flaw Israel has. Israel by no means is perfect but it is the only democratic country in the region which actually abides by a rule of law. The same freedoms we hold dear as Americans can only be found in Israel. Yet it is Israel that brings the U.N. Security Council together for more commissions and inquires than any other nation and holds anti-Israel kangaroo courts on a regular basis.  The stark contrast relates of course to the real threat – a nuclear Iran, which just a few days ago announced that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs. And yet, somehow it is much easier for the world to focus on the “peace activists” of the flotilla.

The halo effect generated by Israel’s actions against Palestinians spawns the sympathy Palestinians want and yearn for as it depicts them “helpless” and illustrates how Israel is the true obstacle for peace. In fact, this is why the Palestinians and the Arab world at large love to quote UN resolution 242 whenever they have an opportunity. 242 has become the foundation for the land for peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places Palestinian/Arab brokers of peace in a position of strength. For Arabs, this “legal” prerequisite emphasizes the give and take aspect: if Israel valued peace, it would return land; if Arabs wanted land, they would give peace.

The reason Arabs love to quote 242 is that it is a deceptively simple equation; on the one hand it talks about the exchange of land-for-peace with Israel, meaning that there is room to negotiate peace. On the other hand, although we naively believe that it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that is not the case.

In theory they can say they really want peace but in practice it is very far from the truth. The resolution calls for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” It deliberately does not call for withdrawal from “all” or “any” because the resolution’s authors knew that such demands were unreasonable. As far as “peace” goes the resolution lays on the bureaucratic boilerplate and calls for “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

The UN Resolution demands that Israel gives up some land in exchange for some, still unspecified, peace. Israel is still waiting. In the context of when the resolution was passed (November 1967) the Arab response was clear. 242 remains the best smokescreen for Palestinians and Arabs, since they say they want peace based on 242 but in the same breath, usually in Arabic, they reassure one another that they are committed to the “3 no’s of Khartum.” And indeed this position has not changed much over the past forty plus years: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel is still what motivates many Palestinians in their yearning for Israel’s death.

Today, under the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, “land-for-peace” automatically translates into “land-for-talk” because to most generous Americans and Europeans, talk – not peace – is all that Israel should expect, and possibly deserve, in exchange for territorial concessions. This is the motivation which drove Hizbullah to attack Israel in 2006 and Israel to act against Hamas in Gaza in 2009.

Talk is cheap. Land and lives are expensive. If the Palestinians really want to talk about Resolution 242 as the basis for anything, they should first get their own territories under control, stop firing rockets at Israeli towns, and start creating a decent civil society. Until then Israelis have learned a hard lesson that until the other side stops wanting to wipe Israel off the map, resolutions like 242 really aren’t worth the paper they’re written on and Israel will need to continue combating “peace activists” who work towards violence rather than true peace.

Asaf Romirowsky is a Senior Fellow at EMET and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Iran has warned that it could send Revolutionary Guard naval units to escort humanitarian aid convoys seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza - a move that would certainly be challenged by Israel....

"Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces are prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys that carry humanitarian assistance for the defenceless and oppressed people of Gaza with all their strength," pledged Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's personal representative to the guards corps.

The threat came as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week's commando assault on aid ships, in which nine people died. Another aid ship, the Rachel Corrie, carrying Irish and other peace activists, was boarded peacefully by Israeli forces on Saturday, escorted to the port of Ashdod, and its passengers deported.

Netanyahu has defended Israel's right to maintain the blockade by arguing that without it Gaza would become an "Iranian port" and Hamas missiles would strike Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israel's undeclared aim is to weaken or bring down the Hamas government.

Iran continued to exploit the "freedom flotilla" affair to lambast Israel. Its foreign minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, told the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah on Sunday that Israel's crime was "another instance of the Zionist regime's brazen and merciless treatment of Muslims, especially the oppressed Palestinian people."...

Now there's a fine example of projection.

Shirazi said Iran should encourage international efforts to break the blockade. "We should expose our enemies to spontaneous global action and not let them achieve their heinous goals," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which have a command structure separate from the regular armed forces, are fiercely loyal to the supreme leader. Khamenei has attacked the raid as a "mistake" that "showed how barbaric the Zionists are"....

Two weeks after delivering a blow to the U.S.-led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran by mediating a uranium exchange agreement involving the Islamic Republic and Brazil, Turkey once again has seized the international spotlight in the wake of the deadly clash between Israeli commandos and armed Turkish activists aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla. Turkey’s central role in both developments is no coincidence. It is a reflection of the current Turkish government’s determined efforts to shed the secular legacy of its predecessors, to consolidate power at home, and to align the country with the Islamic world – which means a collision course with America and, especially, with Israel.

The flotilla ship, the Mavi Marmara, originated from the Turkish port, Antalya and the majority of those killed and wounded in the confrontation with Israeli commandos were Turkish citizens. While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warns Israel “not to test its patience,” Turkey is leading the international chorus of denunciations against the Jewish state. While it may appear as if the latest controversy is one more bloody chapter in the long saga of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the deadly confrontation in the Mediterranean is in reality more about Turkey’s destiny and its upcoming and planned confrontation with Israel.

The ruling party in Turkey, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), seems to be driven by two main factors. On the eve of the upcoming national elections, the AKP is desperate to stave off defeat at the hands of the surging opposition. Under such circumstances, the AKP seeks to exploit people’s sense of patriotism and religious solidarity with Muslim Palestinians by forcing a confrontation with Israel. However, it would be wrong to attribute the behavior of the AKP government to Machiavellian instincts alone. The religious and political forces behind the AKP, long suppressed and dormant in republican and secular Turkey, believe in the idea of a transcendent Islamic identity and reject the concept of a secular nation state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The objective of AKP Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is to do away with Turkey’s republican system. The actions of his administration have eroded Turkey’s standing with the West and now, with the flotilla incident, a fundamental shift has transpired in Turkish foreign policy. This shift did not occur overnight. In retrospect, the AKP’s refusal to grant passage to U.S. troops on the eve of the Iraq War in 2003 was the opening act of the distancing between Ankara and Washington. The result of the Turkish denial of invasion routes from the north, and hence, the forced concentration of U.S. military operations in the Shia-populated south, no doubt contributed to the rise of the insurgency in the Sunni Triangle and increased casualties. In 2005, Turkey itself became the victim of the anarchy in Iraq as the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) expanded its base in Iraqi Kurdistan and launched deadly attacks on Turkish targets. Ankara threatened Washington with the invasion of northern Iraq. Loath to wreck its relations with the long-standing ally, the U.S. accommodated the Turkish demand by supplying it with satellite intelligence and leaning heavily on the Kurdish authorities in the region to crack down on PKK. US-Turkish relations now seemed cordial on the surface. But the goodwill between the two nations evaporated rather quickly. A public survey in 2007 showed, for instance, that only nine percent of the Turks had favorable views toward the United States.

There is a proverb in Turkish: When you cannot beat the donkey, punch the saddle. It would be tempting to surmise that since Erdogan lacks the resources and capacity to pick a fight with the United States, Israel became the next obvious target. But the situation is more complicated. Unlike Islamic Iran, where Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini distinguished America and Israel as, respectively, the Great and Little Satan for decades, Turkey maintained a solid military alliance with Israel. Turning the “Little Satan” into an enemy in the Turkish public eye was no small feat. For years, the Israelis had been actively involved in the upgrading of Turkish fighter planes and weaponry. The two countries did not just share military technology; they had also shared common enemies. Just as Syria posed a threat to Israeli national security, the government of Hafez Assad laid claims to Turkish territories and harbored PKK leaders in its territories. Oriented toward the West, Turkey’s relations with other Arab countries were lukewarm at best. After all, most Turks never forgot what they regarded as the Arab betrayal of Ottoman Turkey during the First World War when many Arabs sided against the Turks and their German patrons and fought for the British in what they saw as a war of independence against Turkish domination.

The Erdogan government viewed repairing relations with the Arab world as essential to its domestic as well as global agenda. The key figure in the tectonic shift was the architect of the new Turkish foreign policy, Ahmet Davutoglu, who inaugurated a policy called “zero problems with neighbors.” On the surface, it looked as if Davutoglu was the faithful follower of Ataturk’s dictum – “Peace at Home, Peace in the World.” But having been brought up in a religious household and having been a product of the Islamic education system, Davutoglu’s intentions widely differed from those of the founder of the secular state. By establishing warm relations with their country’s autocratic neighbors to the East, the new Turkish government had, in fact, begun quietly steering Turkey away from the West. All along, the AKP leadership insisted on its strong desire to enter the European Union. But behind the scenes, both the European political elite and the Turkish leadership shared a similar objective: to keep Turkey away from Europe and, as the AKP hoped, to integrate Turkey with the rest of the Islamic community of nations. This way, the Europeans would be free, despite their public statements, from a secret fear – an EU with millions of Turks. In its turn, the AKP would get an eastward looking Turkey with autocratic tendencies and Islamist orientation. Bashing and isolating Israel was an integral part of the strategy that accompanied epic changes in Turkish politics.

To accomplish its objectives with regard to Israel, the Erdogan government took an unusual route. Abandoning the long-standing tradition of non-interference in the Mideast conflict, in 2006, Ankara took the initiative to mediate peace between Israel and Syria. As the negotiations went forward, the Israelis began to realize that the so-called mediation was in fact a cover by the Turkish Islamists to engage in deeper contact with Israeli enemies without provoking concern in the mass Turkish domestic public or in the West. How else could the leader of a secular republic and NATO ally justify shaking hands with the representative of Hamas? With the eruption of war in Gaza in 2008, the Erdogan government openly sided with Israel’s enemies by issuing severe criticism of Israel.

During this period, anti-Israel hysteria began to grip Turkish society. The Turks began boycotting Israeli goods en masse. In Ankara, the Israeli basketball team was run off the court by mobs shouting “Allah Akbar.” Israeli-Turkish hostility escalated further after the shocking confrontation between Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Shimon Peres at Davos where the Turkish leader called the Nobel Peace Prize winner a “murderer.”  In the ensuing months, a Turkish soap-opera TV series portrayed Israelis as bloodthirsty child-killers and lionized a fictional film secret agent who shoots and kills a treacherous-looking Israeli ambassador who is engaged in trading body-parts – classic anti-Semitic themes.

The recent incident in the Mediterranean has now greatly escalated tensions between Turkey and Israel. But the progression of events suggests something far more sinister and disturbing with regard to Turkey’s trajectory as a nation. In 1923, when Ataturk established the republic, he repudiated the expansionist ambitions of the Ottoman Empire in favor a peaceful, inward-looking nation state. Having seen his share of dreadful fighting, Ataturk did not wish his nation to become embroiled in territorial conflicts with its neighbors. To accomplish that task, he enacted reforms in politics and society that sought to make Turkey more like France rather than Egypt.

Ataturk’s philosophy of governance turned out to be a spectacular success. Since 1923, with the exception of the Cyprus invasion in 1974, Turkey has successfully managed to avoid being drawn into conflicts and thus saved the lives of millions of its citizens from the murderous currents of the 20th century. Turkey’s success in foreign policy did not just emanate from its peace-loving Kemalist philosophy, but was owed to the wise investment of its republican leadership in the alliance with the West, specifically with the United States. Without the support of Washington and its alliance with NATO, it is doubtful that Turkey would have succeeded in fending off pressures from the USSR to the north and Syria to the southeast. Moreover, its strong ties with the West also enabled Turkey to build a modern military that served as a potent deterrent against aggression. The Erdogan government clearly views this policy as the reduction of Turkey’s status as a global player and has decided to do away with it and replace it with a more aggressive, externally focused policy.

Even the Ottoman Empire, which the AKP government is clearly seeking to emulate, had turned westward after its defeats in the 18^th century — long before Ataturk’s radical push for cultural reformation. It should be noted that much of the Tanzimat reforms that brought changes to the Ottoman socio-political infrastructure were inspired by the imperial envoys’ observations in the capitals of Europe. During the Crimean War of 1853-56, the Turks fought side by side with the British and French soldiers against the Russian armies. Moreover, the goodwill between the Turks and the Jews dates back to 1492 when Sultan Bayezid II welcomed the Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of King Ferdinand of Spain. According to renowned historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, “the Jews were not just permitted to settle in the Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled.” The Ottoman leadership viewed the Jews as an industrious group whose economic success would bring generous revenues to the state treasury, and treated them with courtesy.

Erdogan’s brand of Islamism and anti-Semitism is not entirely new or original. It was always there within certain elements of the population. But coupled with an ideological zeal and thirst for power, it now threatens to undo most of the accomplishments of the Turkish republic. Erdogan and those around him do not wear turbans or mullah-style robes, but the illusion of a golden Islamic past under the first four caliphs in the 8th century has been drilled into them at the madrases they attended when they were young. Even more powerful than the ideological sympathy for Islamic solidarity is Erdogan’s desire to retain internal political power at all cost. He is an Islamist, but the most important feature distinguishing Erdogan from all previous heads of the Turkish republic is his drive to dismantle all checks and balances to his power. Erdogan’s increasing assault on the top leaders of the military that have long been viewed as the guardians of the Kemalist democracy, together with his “reforms” of the court system and of the constitution, has served the aim of keeping the AKP in power long enough to change the character of the Turkish state. In that sense, Erdogan’s struggle is mostly a domestic one – at this moment, at least.

In recent weeks, Erdogan has been especially alarmed by the rise of an opposition leader in the person of Kemal Kilicdaroglu. In the aftermath of the resignation of the disgraced leader of the Republican People’s Party, Deniz Baykal, who was videotaped having sex with one of his political aides, Kilicdaroglu has emerged as a promising leader and the new face of the Kemalist opposition. Affectionately called “The Turkish Gandhi” by the Turkish people, Kilicdaroglu inspires them with qualities rare for a Turkish politician. He is competent, humble and not corrupt. In the last congress of the party, just prior to the flotilla incident, Kilicdaroglu vowed to defeat the AKP in the upcoming national elections and form the next government. In the face of a serious internal political challenge, Erdogan believes he has found an easy formula of drumming up popularity at home by provoking Israel.

There is, however, a price to be paid for the sinister methods by which Erdogan has sought to manipulate pubic opinion. As the Islamist leader stokes the fires of hatred against the Jewish state, he is dragging Turkey further out of its safety zone and toward uncharted territory. Erdogan may reap personal dividends from throwing stones at Israel, but for a country with a substantial Kurdish minority that grows increasingly restless in its aspirations for independence, expressing outrage at the alleged oppression of the Palestinians may spell disaster. The segment of Turkish society that supports Erdogan’s policies vis-à-vis Israel might also start to recognize its own share of responsibility for the reckless actions of its government.

Perhaps some of the AKP’s ambitions emanate from the fact that for nearly a century, Turkey has not fought a major war. Not a single living Turk has a memory of the calamities that ripped the Turkish society apart in the beginning of the 20th century. Following the loss of millions of Turkish lives, leaders such as Ataturk developed a strong distaste for the type of adventurism that now characterizes the behavior of the Erdogan government on the international stage. Thanks to the wisdom of its traditional experience, the Turkish homeland has not come under an attack during its entire existence as a republic. The Turks will only keep the peace if they can keep the republic.

Askar Askarov received his Ph.D. in History from the University of Maryland in 2007. He is as an instructor at the Elliott School of International Affairs.

[Author's introductory note: The following is a letter I wrote to the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin, a pro-Palestinian supporter and vocal critic of Israel.  I did not initially intend to submit this letter for publication. However, I felt that publishing it might encourage others to do the same where their representatives or government ministers are taking an unreasonable stance in relation to the Gaza Flotilla incident. Since I wrote the letter, Minister Martin published an extreme article in a prominent Irish newspaper which indicates he will try to influence the EU to break the blockade on Gaza.  But he seems to think nothing of courting communist China. It should be obvious that Israel is facing an existential crisis. The extraordinary hysteria in the media internationally and on the streets is a timely reminder of this fact. Israel needs more sensible vocal support from those who truly care about its future.]

Dear Minister,

As an Irish citizen living in Ireland I feel it is my duty to provide some observations on the stance taken by yourself and An Taoiseach [the Prime Minister] Mr. Brian Cowen with regard to the Gaza flotilla. Although I am not really a political campaigner I still decided to write to you because I feel your approach to this issue has been deeply unbalanced and damaging.

I have listened to your comments on the Irish media since the Gaza flotilla crisis erupted on Monday the 31^st of May 2010. On that day, I listened to your interview on the RTE Radio 1 “News at One” show. You objected to the way Israel had characterised the members of the flotilla as extremists. You stated that they were legitimately protesting. Firstly, there is the issue of the legality in attempting to break a military blockade which I understand you believe is in itself illegal – I will return to this point later. Secondly, your assertion failed to address the accusations that Israel made regarding the violent conduct of certain activists. You had previously stated in an interview on the RTE1 TV “News at Noon” that the military action was completely unnecessary. I found that a remarkable thing to say since you would not have been in possession of many facts at that stage and as a result unable to ascertain with certainty that there had not been a violent response to the boarding of the ship. You claimed in the “News at One” interview that other strategies by the Israeli’s could have been adopted. Subsequently, on TV interviews you stated they could have shadowed the vessels to Gaza. I do not understand what good this would have done in terms of allowing Israel to ensure that the cargo was legitimate humanitarian aid rather then a source of harm to its citizens. You also stated that such violence did not occur before when ships went to Gaza. That is true, but your assertion ignores the obvious point that unlike before, there may well have been a very violent response as the Israeli State has repeatedly alleged.

The flotilla was led by a group called Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). IHH is a radical Islamic Turkish NGO. Sources going back to the 90’s state they are connected with Al-Qaeda and other jihad networks. One example is a 2006 report by terrorism consultant Evan F. Kohlmann. Moreover evidence indicates IHH is directly involved with terrorist activities. The greater potential for violence was a concern by some before the incident occurred. TV footage attests to the jihadist intent on the flotilla.

Violence with the boarding of the Israeli troops only occurred on one ship – coincidentally the Turkish ship. This seems to indicate that the Israeli troops did not set out with violent intent. The violent reaction of the passengers can be fairly characterised as extreme as this YouTube video attests.

You stated that Israel has options for dealing with the flotilla. However, you failed to address the options open to the organisers of the flotilla itself. They could have landed at an Egyptian port or Ashdod Port. When Gilad Shalit’s father asked them to deliver letters and parcels to Gilad, they refused. The humanitarian aspect of the flotilla was simply a mask for a more hostile intent. If aid was the true aim of these people it could have been supplied through border crossings. There have been numerous attempts to break the embargo, e.g. in 2008 one ship just carried 5,000 balloons. It was of course known that these ships would be detained. Pro-Palestinian groups milk the events for propaganda. When those on the “Spirit of Humanity” were released they wasted no time peddling lies that were at times truly shocking. A British activist compared the low security prisons where activists like himself were detained with a Nazi concentration camp. The purpose is solely to cause diplomatic incidents to embarrass Israel and it is no coincidence commentators are claiming the present incident is a victory for Hamas. They and pro-Palestinians are the ones that benefited. Here is an article that discusses it.

The Taoiseach Mr. Brian Cowen has been quite unhelpful with regard to his own comments as well. In the Dáil [the Irish House of Parliament] he stated there would be “serious consequences” if any Irish citizen was harmed. Similarly, you stated later on Monday that the Irish citizens on board these ships were kidnapped and demanded that Israel treat the Irish ship the MV Rachel Corrie with respect. A very large number of Irish citizens are involved in this charade of attacking Israel supposedly for humanitarian reasons. None have been harmed in the past to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, while it is of course important to speak out about any concerns regarding Irish citizens, such strong language was unnecessary as it is unlikely any Irish citizens were harmed unless some happened to be on the Turkish vessel.

The alternative of breaking the embargo which you and many others endorse, will of course let shipments into Gaza without weapon import controls. This is a remarkable thing for any right-thinking individual to seek. Need I remind you that Hamas controls Gaza? They are funded and supplied with weapons by Iran. They will inevitably rearm themselves without the previous limitations imposed by using tunnels. The ensuing result will be another war with Israel which could be a good deal worse as Hamas will be much better equipped. How can anyone in good conscience claim that this is a viable alternative unless they regard the destruction of the State of Israel as a worthy goal?

To the best of my knowledge you are the loudest critic of Israel in the Irish Government and have been involved in quite a number of proposals and initiatives harmful to the State of Israel. Only in recent weeks you were involved with the UN conference limiting weapons of mass destruction in the Middle-East which resulted in a declaration which astonishingly singled out Israel rather than Iran, the state that threatened the Jewish Nation with extinction.

At the ICTU conference in April you asserted to your credit that you did not believe in boycotting Israel. However, at the same time you spoke of the need for Israel (rather than the Palestinians) to move toward a position where peace was possible and strongly advocated a two-state solution. I sometimes wonder when I hear the views of pro-Palestinians if they are referring to the same conflict. People like yourself act as if Israel alone prevents a Palestinian state. The Palestinian’s rejected every opportunity from the 1947 UN Partition resolution to the offer in 2008 by Ehud Olmert who agreed to virtually all the territory they demanded. As history has shown repeatedly, all parties require some level of good faith before there is any chance of achieving peace. In the past, the Israeli electorate has often backed peace-makers while the Palestinians often choose the opposite, such as with the 2006 Gaza election of the Islamist group Hamas. At best, “peace” talks are an exercise to appease the unrealistic expectations of the international community and at worst, a game of strategy to gain a propaganda victory. See a 2003 survey where only 20% of Palestinians state they will peacefully co-exist with Israel.

Israel will not be secure even if it achieves peace with the Palestinians. Besides the obvious threats of extinction, Iran is funding Hamas’ and Hizbullah’s assaults on Israel. Peace negotiations with Egypt and Jordan succeeded in preventing further military conflict but relations were never truly normalised at state level decades after peace was made. Syria’s leaders have indicated that normalised relations are not an option. Turkey, with its present Islamist government became hostile long before the current controversy. This conflict is an intermittent Islamic/pan-Arab war. Despite the precarious situation, Western politicians that luxuriate in peace aggressively encourage this state to take “risks for peace.” Yet when peace efforts go wrong they typically ignore the common Palestinian intransigence.

In your op-ed article for the New York Times “Gaza a Year Later” (published 4^th March 2010) you wrote: “The tragedy of Gaza is that it is fast in danger of becoming a tolerated humanitarian crisis, a situation that most right-thinking people recognize as utterly unacceptable in this day and age but which is proving extremely difficult to remedy or ameliorate due to the blockade and the wider ramifications of efforts to try and achieve political progress in the Middle East.” In no way has it become or is becoming a “tolerated humanitarian crisis.” It is a crisis but certainly not one of the most serious in humanitarian terms. The population is not starving. Yes, rebuilding infrastructure and improving living conditions is problematic. You clearly blame Israel, but as soon as Hamas in essence committed a military coup it had little option but to isolate this terrorist organisation which has repeatedly stated in recent years that it will use terrorist acts to destroy Israel. When it greatly increased its attacks on Israel, it became, in effect, in a state of war. I am no expert on international law, but it is clear Israel has a legal right to defend its citizens. More importantly, it has a moral right.

You wrote:

“What I witnessed in Gaza, amidst all the rubble and devastation still so evident from last year’s conflict, was a population traumatized and reduced to poverty by an unjust and completely counterproductive blockade. All that is being achieved through the imposition of the blockade is to enrich Hamas and marginalize even further the voices of moderation. I view the current conditions prevailing for the ordinary population as inhumane and utterly unacceptable, in terms of accepted international standards of human rights.”

In actual fact, what “is being achieved” is a legitimate defence of Israeli citizens. The voices of moderation were thrown off rooftops. I refer to Fatah/PLO which aren’t exactly voices of moderation but are not quite so implacably opposed to Israel’s existence. Whether we like it or not the citizens of Gaza chose their fate when they elected Hamas because, in effect, they chose war. This is not a justification for collective punishment but neither can we simply excuse the election as some sort of expression of democratic will which shouldn’t have any consequences one way or another. All adults bear the brunt of moral choices so why exactly should Gazan’s be exempt? To suggest that the moral actions of the citizens of Gaza and the corresponding consequences should not be connected is to equate them with children. This is not a justification for their suffering but an assertion that they themselves are at least partially morally responsible for their present unfortunate circumstances. They chose war and they will chose it again. This clearly does not fit in with your view of peace loving Palestinians but that in itself does not make it incorrect. To ignore war mongering will not bring peace. Simply ignoring it will worsen the situation and harm the forces that legitimately oppose it.

Quite frankly I realise it is unlikely this letter will hold any sway with you or your department. However, I hope the points raised will encourage some reflection on the issue and, despite your feelings of support for the Palestinians, bring about a greater impartiality in dealing with this and future matters relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

KANDAHAR (AIP): Taliban on Friday rejected consultative peace jirga's demand that the Taliban should lay down weapons and join the peace process, stressing that they would continue their resistance till the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. Talking to Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) after President Hamid Karzai's address to the concluding session of the advisory peace jirga, Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yousaf Ahmadi said, "Neither the offers of the jirga are acceptable to us nor the invitation of Karzai. All these efforts are aimed at prolonging the stay of foreigners." "The jirga is indeed a gathering of government supporters and agents of foreigners. Neither Taliban accept these jirgas nor justify their demands. If the jirga is really concerned about the welfare of Afghanistan, then it should first extend steps for withdrawal of the foreign forces," he stated.

War is deceit, and side effects may include short-term memory loss:

He added that "First the real cause of the Afghanistan war should be found. Everyone knows that war was started by the incumbent administration and with arrival of foreigners. The fighting would continue unless the foreigners leave Afghanistan." The Taliban spokesman repeatedly said if the incumbent government and the jirgas want an end to fighting in the country then foreign forces should leave Afghanistan, adding the withdrawal of foreign forces would remove the cause of war. "Taliban would continue their resistance and Jihad as long as the foreign forces stay in Afghanistan," he concluded. A consultative peace jirga was started in capital Kabul on June 02 which concluded today (June 04) after discussing mechanism for talks with Taliban for three days. The jirga urged both Taliban and Afghan government to hold talks for brining [sic] peace to Afghanistan. It also urged United States to make long term policies for Afghanistan.

Vice President Joe Biden, wrong on virtually every major foreign policy issue since his election to the Senate in 1972, nailed this one: He warned that actors on the international stage would test the new, inexperienced President.

He knew that President Barack Obama’s enemies would perceive his strength-through-peace (versus peace-through-strength) approach as weakness. They do and are acting accordingly.

Candidate Obama vowed to hold high-level talks with Iran and North Korea without “preconditions.” Obama promised a “reset” of all things President George W. Bush, with no more talk of “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reneged on the promised missile shield defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. He waits for countries like China and Russia, both of which have business interests in Iran, to agree to “tough, crippling” sanctions.

The President dropped the term “war on terror” and refuses to call Islamofascists “Islamofascists.” He apologetically says America is vital in maintaining world peace “whether we like it or not.” He sent a videotaped message to Iran telling of our willingness to re-engage the country — if only it would unclench its fist. It unclenched more time for Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb. The administration was painfully slow to acknowledge that the Times Square truck bomb attempt involved foreign Islamic terrorists.

The administration chastised Israel for settlement construction in an area of east Jerusalem that President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush and even Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat assumed would be part of Israel in any peace agreement. During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s state visit, Obama treated him worse than a White House dinner gate-crasher.

How’s the hope and change working out?

North Korea, in an act of war, sank a South Korean ship. Iran may now have sufficient materiel and technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb. The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah — under the nose of United Nations “peacekeepers” — continues to stock southern Lebanon with weapons that threaten Israel.

Now comes the anti-Israel “humanitarian” flotilla.

After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the terror group Hamas seized power. Israel and Egypt began a naval blockade of ships in and out of Gaza. Though Israel had uprooted every Israeli settler from Gaza, Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, a bombardment that continues today.

Israel already sends humanitarian aid into Gaza and allows others to do so.

Israel even agreed to allow the supposed humanitarian flotilla cargo to enter, provided Israeli security could check it for weapons. And never mind that some of the flotilla’s “humanitarian activists” appear to have ties to terror organizations.

The flotilla’s attempt to run the blockade resulted in nine deaths when the Israeli military boarded ships to inspect the cargo. As Israel’s enemies hoped, Israel stands accused of a “disproportionate” response.

But why the flotilla now?

The most significant intervening event is the election of President Obama. Now Israel’s most important ally considers Israeli intransigence the principal obstacle to peace with the Palestinians in particular and in the Middle East in general. The activists got the message: Israel is on the defensive.

Israel, with good reason, feels alone.

Obama, like Bush in his second term, seems willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran — even as Iran threatens Israel with annihilation. Obama apparently considers a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, even if it ignites a regional nuclear arms race — since Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan fear Iran more than they do Israel.

Give Obama credit for continuing many of Bush’s policies. Gitmo remains open, the administration finally understanding that the prison exists for a reason. He continued rendition, the terror surveillance program and the increased use of drone predators in Pakistan. He used the same “state secrets” argument to fight courtroom disclosure of sources and methods. He increased troop strength in Afghanistan and continues the Bush “clear and hold” strategy for that country and Iraq.

But Jimmy Carter governed as a strength-through-peace president. He pressured the Shah of Iran to release “political prisoners.” The shah was toppled, only to be followed by the repressive and threatening Islamic Republic of Iran. Carter urged Americans to abandon their “inordinate fear of communism.” Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev considered Carter weak and rewarded him by invading Afghanistan. This triggered a chain reaction from which the world continues to suffer. The Arabs and Muslims who fought to expel the Soviet Union then turned on the United States and the West in a grand plan for an Islamic world.

Israel’s response to the flotilla was an act of self-defense. The Western world’s reaction has been shameful. Western countries once again fail to distinguish the arsonist from the firefighter.

In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade — a “quarantine” — on Cuba. What would we have done to a “humanitarian” flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?

Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” is available now. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his Web page at www.WeveGotACountryToSave.com.

As the world continues to demonize Israel for her role in defending her citizens in the Gaza flotilla debacle, pro-Israel demonstrators pushed back against the onslaught of invectives being hurled at the Jewish state in a rally that was staged on Tuesday evening, June 1st in front of the Turkish Consulate on E 46th Street and 1st Avenue, outside of the United Nations. Organized by the organization called RAJE, the Russian American Jewish Experience, over 300 rally attendees took to the streets in defense of Israel. Holding aloft such signs that read “Israel: We Stand With You,” “Gaza Peace Activists Don’t Use Clubs or Knives” and “Peace Activists Should Not Support Hamas,” the demonstrators held both Israeli and American flags and called for an end to Hamas terrorism.

Dovid Ha’Ivri of the Shromron Liaison office and a resident of the Israeli settlement of Tapuach said, “Any country in the world has a right to defend themselves and Israel is no different. Clearly, this purportedly ‘Free Gaza’ flotilla was filled with Hamas supporters who refused to cooperate with the Israeli military. They had their own nefarious agenda and it’s just too bad that the lives of our commandos were put in jeopardy. Orders should have been given that the Mavi Marmara be sunk. Israel has nothing to apologize to the world for and certainly Turkey has no right to pass judgment on Israel after the Holocaust that they inflicted on the Armenian population.”

Just several blocks away in front of the Israeli Consulate, several thousand pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas apologists gathered for their own raucous demonstration in which they spewed forth their own inimitable brand of vitriol against Israel. “The Israelis are murderers and pirates and they should be tried for war crimes and genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza,” said Ahmed Wahad of the organization Al-Awda. Insisting that the mission of the flotilla activists was purely a humanitarian one, he denied allegations that the people on the Mavi Marmara brutally assaulted Israeli commandos as they descended on to the ship. “Look, the people in Gaza are suffering due to the inhumane Israeli blockade of food, medicine and other essential supplies and these people on the boat were victimized by the savage Israeli occupiers,” he continued.

Members of the anti-Israel contingent began marching down East 42nd Street towards Times Square shouting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “No more US tax dollars for Israel” as they called for the end of the ‘occupation’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

Video evidence of the incident reveals quite clearly that the Israeli commandos came aboard the boat peacefully, without the intention to inflict harm, when they were set upon by passengers wielding metal pipes, clubs, and knives. Several pistols were stolen from the commandos and shots were fired as one commando was thrown overboard into to side boat.

“It’s really pretty simple. At one time such terrorist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah believed that the best way to destroy Israel was to murder our citizens either through conventional warfare and through suicidal terrorist attacks. They woke up and came to the conclusion that such actions only garner sympathy for Israel. Now, they are keenly cognizant of the fact that the war they are fighting is through the media and world opinion, so the best way to destroy us is to force us into a position to kill them,” said Meir Epstein, 52, of Monsey, NY who traveled down to attend the pro-Israel rally.

Across the street from the Turkish consulate stood Turkish nationals and members of the vehemently anti-Israel Neturei Karta movement who continued to berate Israel while leveling epithets laced with hatred at members of the pro-Israel contingent. “Murderers, occupiers and pirates” they shouted while calling for the annihilation of Israel. “Israel should not exist because it is a racist state and we oppose the Jewish character of the state. Why should the Jews have their own country, when the land that they live on was stolen from the Palestinians. A country composed of Jews cannot be a true democracy,” said Fagria Behar, a Turkish national.

The defiant pro-Israel faction continued to shout, “Am Yisroel Chai,” (the people of Israel live) and “We have the right to self-defense” while police kept both sides separated behind barricades. “The fact that the UN saw fit to hold an emergency security council session to condemn Israel is nothing new,” said Ronn Torrosian, a renowned New York publicist and a board member of RAJE. “It is cesspool of Jew hatred and what these so called peace activists on the Turkish vessel pulled off was nothing short of a cleverly devised anti-Semitic lynching,” he added.

What best summed up the collective thoughts of the pro-Israel rally goers was a sign featuring an Israeli flag and the words under it: “It’s better to have a Jewish State that’s hated by the whole world than an Auschwitz that’s loved by it.”

This could very well be the best, and most important, video of the Freedom Flotilla farce. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “peace activists” of the IHH, not the IDF were the cause of the violence.

As the IDF explain on their YouTube channel, in the “footage captured on the Mavi Marmara, activists are seen attacking the soldiers with a stun grenade, a box of plates, and water hoses as the soldiers attempt to board the ship. the activists are also waiving around metal rods and chains later used to attack the soldiers with. The IDF soldiers were armed with paint ball guns (used for riot dispersal) and pistols which they were ordered to use only as a last resort.

“In the early hours of the 31st of May 2010, IDF soldiers boarded the ships of the “Free Gaza” Flotilla, after the ships refused to redirect their course. Aboard the Mavi Marmara the soldiers encountered serious violence when, in a preplanned attack, the activists on board lynched the soldiers with knives, metal rods and stole two of their guns. As a result 7 soldiers were injured and 9 activists were killed.” It is, frankly, unbelievable that most members of the mainstream media continue to defend these so-called peace activists. As you can see in the video, they were anything but. They attacked soldiers who didn’t come to fight but only to check their cargo. They had no reason to throw a stun grenade at the soldiers, nor to attack them with knives and metal bars, let alone with rifles.

Watch it:

KABUL, Afghanistan - Taliban suicide attackers struck at the national peace conference as it opened Wednesday in the Afghan capital, waging gunbattles near the venue. At least two attackers were killed but no delegates were hurt, officials said.

The attack, including rocket fire, started minutes after President Hamid Karzai began his opening address to some 1,600 dignitaries gathered for the conference, in which he appealed for rank-and-file Taliban members to stop fighting for the sake of the country.

The Taliban, which had earlier threatened to kill anyone who took part, claimed responsibility for the attack in a phone call to The Associated Press, saying they intended to sabotage the three-day conference.

The conference, known as a peace jirga, continued despite the attack....

Karzai's remarks were interesting:

"There are thousands of Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami, they are not the enemies of this soil," Karzai said.

He said continuing fighting would only prevent the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan.

"Make peace with me and there will be no need for foreigners here. As long as you are not talking to us, not making peace with us, we will not let the foreigners leave," Karzai said.

About 10 minutes into his speech, Karzai was briefly interrupted by an explosion outside, which police said was a rocket. Karzai heard the thud, but dismissed it, telling delegates, "Don't worry. We've heard this kind of thing before."

Soon afterward, an AP reporter nearby heard a loud explosion and saw smoke rising from a second apparent rocket attack that struck about 100 meters (yards) from the venue, a huge tent pitched on a university compound.

Bursts of gunfire could be heard to the south of the venue, and security forces rushed to the area. Helicopters flew overhead....

Right now, the anti-Israel Left is desperately wishing Sarah Palin wasn’t much of a reader. Not only does Palin read, she has some pretty good recommendations on where to get the “straight scoop” on the carefully orchestrated provocation of Israel by flotilla “peace activists”:

Palin explains further in a Facebook note:

The media, as usual, seems to be reporting only one side of the Israeli Flotilla incident. Don’t trust the mainstream media to give you both sides of a story fairly… you must seek out fair reporting to ensure you have all the information.

As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mischaracterization of who these enemies are.

Hey, Governor Palin: if you’d like to show your appreciation for David Horowitz in your next Facebook note, feel free to link to NewsRealBlog.com. We promise it won’t go to our heads.

If anyone had any lingering doubts as to this administration’s position towards Israel — and it would take a narcoleptic not to have figured it out at this point — it was made painfully obvious a few days ago in, of all places, the UN.

On Friday the United Nations adopted a resolution for a nuclear free Middle East, specifically singling out Israel but curiously making no mention of nuclear powers-in-waiting such as Iran.

From Marius Schattner (AFP):

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

[…]

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as “deeply flawed and hypocritical.”

(Full article here.)

That last quote is a masterpiece of understatement. It doesn’t take Count Metternich to read beyond the language and figure out the true intent, which is to further weaken Israel, seriously compromise its greatest and possibly final deterrent, and generally make it more pliable to acceptance of “peace plans” which amount to capitulation and a  slow path to extinction.

The resolution itself is unremarkable. The UN is basically a Third World kleptocracy long since hijacked by a loose coalition of mullahs, commissars and tin pot dictators. There are no surprises when they trash Israel — that’s what they do. Israel for its part is giving the resolution the weight it deserves and has already indicated it won’t participate in the 2012 conference laid out in the resolution.

What is remarkable is the United States supported this resolution.

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as “a resounding slap around the face” which has dealt a very public blow to Israel’s long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

[…]

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing… and for choosing to support it.”

[…]

“In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama’s men… Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against.”

Short of publicly kicking Benjamin Netanyahu in the groin I can’t think of any clearer signal the Obama White House could have sent regarding their attitude towards, and plans for, Israel. In the alternate universe of Obama’s mind Israel is the problem, its national interests nothing more than one more impediment on the road to “peace in the Middle East,” which ultimately equates to Arab hegemony.

Others have stated that for the first time the United States is on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, as this administration continues to embrace its enemies and vilify friends, it’s becoming a habit.

Everybody understands that if the Palestinians were disarmed today, there would be peace in the Middle East. Everybody understands that if the Jews in Israel disarm, they will be massacred. These are simple facts that every rational person can see provided their vision isn’t impaired by religious hatred.

It was even worse than these bare facts would suggest. A philanthropic Jew in America, Mortimer Zuckerman, the publisher of U.S. News and World Report, fully aware that the Jews of Gaza were going to be removed forcibly to save their lives because the Palestinians are so bloodthirsty and genocidal that Israel couldn’t guarantee their safety, collected $14 million from American Jews to buy the 3,000 greenhouses and all the plumbing that went into this horticulture industry. They then gave it to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace. And on the day that Hamas took control of Gaza, the Palestinians destroyed all the greenhouses, all the plumbing, and started firing thousands of rockets into unarmed towns and schoolyards in Israel.

Every Palestinian rocket is an anti-civilian rocket because they are rockets that can’t be aimed. The Palestinians fire their rockets at random in the hopes that they will kill Jews. Israel’s rockets, by contrast, are precision weapons that are aimed solely at military targets in an effort save civilian lives.

The lesson of the Gaza Strip is that the Palestinian jihadists are so full of hate that they are willing to destroy 10% of their own gross national product because it was created and donated by Jews. Israel, the on the other hand, was forced to evacuate the people who created this wealth to save them from being massacred because they were Jews. That tells you everything you need to know about the conflict in the Middle East.

– The War Against Jews at UC San Diego

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please submit it here. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)