With Newsweek running a cover story on “The Post American World” and Democrats complaining that President Bush destroyed our influence abroad, it’s instructive to consider a recent string of election successes for foreign candidates who support our values and our policies.  

In Canada , Mexico , Germany , Denmark , Greece , Ukraine and France the parties identified as “pro-American” swept to important victories. Most recently, the conservative candidate in Italy , Silvio Burlesconi, won a smashing triumph to return to power and Rome elected its first right-wing mayor in 50 years. Then in local elections throughout Britain , the Conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party, 44% to 24%, and turned out the anti-American mayor of London , “Red Ken” Livingstone. The global trend favors politicians who back free markets and welcome U.S. leadership—hardly a sign of a “Post American World.” 

Islamo-Nazis have continued their world-wide attacks in the midst of U.S. elections, forcing Americans to choose one of three approaches toward our deadly enemies: negotiation, isolation, or confrontation. Obama stresses the negotiation option – suggesting we can reach understandings with anyone. But how can we compromise with stateless killers who seek our society’s total destruction, and won’t come out of hiding? Ron Paul supports the isolation option – arguing that pullback from international engagement and Muslim lands will force Islamists to leave us alone. But when the West attempted this strategy in Lebanon and Gaza, it produced more violence, not less, and withdrawal inevitably resembles retreat and surrender. Finally, there’s the McCain strategy – maintaining the offensive against terrorist cells and jihadist ideas. As with the Cold War against Communism, victories won’t be quick or easy, but stalwart commitment against Islamist fanatics is not only the right course but by far the safest alternative of the options before us.

In covering Palestinian terror attacks against Israel, leading media outlets often employ the hateful, misleading phrase “cycle of violence.” After a Jerusalem gunman entered the library at a religious seminary and murdered eight students, the Wall Street Journal, for instance, noted the incident as part of “the region’s cycle of violence and retaliation.”

This designation, however, implies a moral equivalence between those who attempt to end terrorism against unarmed innocents, and those who seek to keep it going.

The “cycle of violence” also implies that either party could break the vicious pattern, but they’re both too stubborn and vengeful to do so. Actually, the Israelis have tried on countless occasions to end the cycle by giving Palestinians what they said they wanted –  support for statehood in the Oslo accords, and even removal of all Jewish soldiers and settlements from Gaza, along with a policy to stay out of this Palestinian territory as long as its residents left Israel alone. The result was actually a sharp increase in terrorist rocket attacks, with nearly 1,000 in 2008 alone. Does anyone honestly believe that if Israel stopped all strikes against Hamas, that the Gaza terrorists would give up their attacks?

The mirror-image question shows the asymmetrical nature of this struggle: if Gaza, through some miracle, suddenly stopped the daily barrage against Israel, would anyone expect Israel to continue its strikes against Gaza? The Israelis repeatedly emphasize their desire to leave Gaza entirely alone, and even to support its peaceful progress, if the terrorists only halted their shelling of schools, homes, hospitals and factories

In other words, in the midst of the current agony two conclusions should seem obvious about the so-called “cycle of violence” ---

1-     the Palestinians could end it instantly by ending their daily attacks

2-     the Israelis remain powerless to stop it, because the Palestinians promise and demonstrate that they’ll continue their ceaseless assault regardless of what Israelis do

In other words, only one party to this conflict can put an end to the “cycle” of killing. Kindness and concessions have never stopped terrorists from behaving like terrorists. The only strategy that seems to work involves imposing consequences, and changing the calculus through which bloody outrages too often produce favorable publicity and political gains. Instead, the forces of civilization need to making the results of terror attacks vastly more terrible for the perpetrators than for their victims.

Is America’s “war on terror” in reality a war on Islam itself?

Most Muslim radicals insist that it is – as do many patriotic conservatives in this country who believe that any attempts to woo Islamic moderates, or to whitewash the violent and menacing essence of the Koran, distort the true nature of the current conflict.

Some of those who see Islam in all of its manifestations as our ultimate, implacable foe took me to task (in e-mail and phone calls to my radio show) for my recent support for U.S. recognition of the newly independent Muslim-majority state of Kosovo.

To these zealots, it hardly matters that the leading European powers (Britain, France, Germany) strongly support Kosovo’s separation from Serbia, or that the most outspoken opposition to Kosovar independence comes from the increasingly anti-American Putin regime in Russia. To some observers, it’s also irrelevant that ethnic Albanians (mostly non-religious, secularized Muslims) comprise more than 90% of Kosovo’s population and this overwhelming majority ardently desires its own democratic nation state. Though Orthodox Christian Serbs make up only 5% of the populace in Kosovo, critics of Bush administration Balkan policy insist that this embattled minority deserves U.S. protection and support. They discount fervent Kosovar promises that the new nation will guarantee the rights and security of its Christian residents; skeptics believe that such assurances mean nothing when provided by Muslim leaders, no matter how secular or pro-American.

“You of all people should recognize that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate Muslim,’” one correspondent scolded me. “Moderation and Islam contradict one another. Anyone who denies that contradiction is either a fool or a dupe. The tragedy in Kosovo represents just the latest example of state department mistakes based on the consistent denial that Islam, wherever it exists, is the eternal enemy of democratic values and Western Civilization.”

This increasingly popular absolutist position – whatever its historical, theological or anthropological basis – represents a threat to our short-term security and our long-term success in the very real battle against Islamism. If we accept, let alone embrace, the proposition that Islam itself is our enemy, then all of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims become enemies of the United States, and doom us to unending and un-winnable conflict.

It’s true that some serious scholars both inside and outside the Muslim world (or “Umma”) have pointed to Koranic passages and interpretations that seem to command perpetual jihad against non-believers, but other authorities (again, including Muslims and outsiders alike) emphasize more tolerant, less bloodthirsty strains in the teachings of Mohammed. The defenders of Islam point to a few peaceful and surprisingly diverse Muslim societies (Medieval Spain, or al-Andaluz, represents perhaps the most celebrated example) that contrast with the aggressive, convert-or-die approach that appears repeatedly in Islamic history. Islamic apologists point to similar contradictions in Christian history, with literally millions of heathens forcibly converted, enslaved or put to death, not to mention the appalling blood-letting between Catholics and Protestants who slaughtered one another for centuries despite their similar proclamations of loyalty to Jesus.

For Christianity, however, the worst excesses of violent fanaticism in the name of faith occurred four hundred years ago while for Islam they took place yesterday – with suicide bombings, riots, mutilations and tyrannical theocracies in every corner of the globe. No fair-minded person can look at the role played by Muslim faith in contemporary politics, economics, culture, or human rights without questioning the frequently dysfunctional nature of Islamic ideas.

Nevertheless, any public proclamation of overall enmity toward Islam would harm America’s cause in the world at large and undermine our security at home. This approach damages our interest in five ways--

1)      It confirms the anti-American propaganda of terrorist leaders. Osama bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and their associates have argued for years that the United States, “the Great Satan,” is the leader of a global conspiracy to destroy Islam and oppress Muslims. Any statement of hostility to Muslim faith would confirm the claims of our most dangerous enemies, enhancing their prestige and credibility. We also harm ourselves greatly if we declare that the idea of a “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms: this echoes the al-Qaeda line almost precisely, as we agree with our deadliest enemies that anyone who chooses to help us or to oppose terrorism is somehow inauthentic in his Koranic commitment.

2)      It alienates our allies. Most Islamic societies fall far short of democratic norms or even civilized standards, but several of them provide crucial assistance in the war against radicalism. Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations may be far from perfect as allies, but they would each be profoundly dangerous as adversaries. Our economic and military interests around the world depend to a great extent on some cooperation with Muslim nations and official condemnation of the faith they cherish would make such cooperation vastly more difficult if not altogether impossible. No one’s entirely comfortable with the idea of more than sixty nuclear warheads in the hands of President Musharraf of Pakistan, but imagine those nukes controlled by Islamist leaders of the future with reason to believe that the U.S. wanted to wipe out Muslim belief.

3)      It puts the societies of Western Europe at profound risk.  With growing and powerful Muslim populations in France, the United Kingdom, Germany and most other European powers, an American declaration of hostility to Islam would force those societies into an impossible choice: either disassociate yourself completely from your necessary American ally, or prepare to suppress the well-established Islamic communities in your midst. Of course, it would be better for our European friends if their Muslim millions simply packed up and went home, but since there’s no chance they will do so any attempt to officially disparage Islam, or even to force instantaneous assimilation and secularization, becomes dangerous and destabilizing.

4)      It destroys our tradition of religious pluralism. If we proclaim Islam (or any other religion) as an “enemy of the state,” then we’ve clearly abandoned our cherished First Amendment tradition of neutrality among religious faiths. Constitutional scholars may argue as to whether government may encourage a generalized sense of religiosity or reverence, but no student of the First Amendment suggests that government may select one specific faith for either promotion or persecution. Studies suggest that American Muslims represent a mostly prosperous and assimilated segment of the population, but public hostility to Islam would encourage a disturbing tend toward radicalization already apparent among some young Muslims. If Islam is our enemy, should Homeland Security start closing down mosques? The very idea represents an obvious violation of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.

5)      It pushes us toward a never-ending war with no exit strategy. Even those of us who have always supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wish that the government had learned one of the key lessons of Vietnam which once comprised a key element of the “Powell Doctrine”: never go to war without a clear, practical plan for victory and a reliable exit strategy. If we define Islam as our enemy, then what, exactly, is our feasible strategy for wiping out a resilient religious faith that’s proven disturbingly durable for more than 1,400 years? Even if we succeed in reducing the numbers and influence of the world’s Muslims we’ll still face at the very least, say, ten-percent of the current population: or more than 130 million believers. If that formidable Islamic remnant sees America as responsible for the elimination (either physically or spiritually) of most of their brothers and sisters in faith, the terrorist threat we face may actually intensify, rather than recede.

In all areas of human conflict or competition, the divide-and-conquer strategy works. In warfare, politics, international relations, business or all other contests, you win by uniting those on your side of the battle lines and dividing your adversaries.

Pushing the idea that Islam is our enemy does exactly the opposite: dividing the United States from allied states, and dividing those states at home, while instantly uniting our enemies.

Recognizing that we simply can’t succeed in “a war against Islam” isn’t to say that the followers of Mohammed have built “a religion of peace,” or even that Islam deserves identical respect to other great religions. In truth, even fair-minded Muslims must recognize that Islam today inspires unique concern with its well-documented propensity toward violence, radicalism and authoritarianism. We should encourage any and all Muslim voices against such extremism, rather than insisting that they don’t exist or can’t exist.

The statement that “Islam itself is the enemy” may deliver thrills and satisfaction with its tough, uncompromising, provocative ring, but the advance of that that idea among American conservatives and others constitutes a far more dire threat to U.S. interests than to the power or influence of the terrorists.  

The explosive controversy surrounding the newly proclaimed independence of Kosovo ought to alert the world to the dangerous delusion that a similar declaration of Palestinian statehood could advance the cause of peace. 

The striking similarities and glaring differences in the two situations can provide much-needed perspective on the seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East.  

First, the dramatic parallels between the Kosovars and the Palestinians: both represent a population of impoverished Muslims who’ve dreamed for decades of establishing an independent state. In both cases, the aggrieved nationalists want to separate from a more powerful neighbor that’s granted only limited autonomy. In both situations, the new state will have no economy capable of feeding its more than two million inhabitants (some 60% of whom –in both Kosovo and the Palestinian territories -- are unemployed) but leaders assume that the nations of the west and the UN will continue to provide needed aid to keep them alive. Both peoples also wink at the obvious fact that their new nations will be indistinguishable in language, religion, ethnicity, culture, history or political outlook from much larger neighboring states: in the case of Kosovo, that neighbor is Albania, and for the Palestinians there’s no clear difference between their national identity and that of most other Arab states in the region, such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt.  

The differences between the two aspiring nations, however, suggest that Palestinian dreams of statehood count as even more far-fetched than those of the Kosovars. In the case of Kosovo (4,300 square miles with 2.1 million people) the population is almost entirely Albanian—93%, according to internationally accepted figures, and only 5% who are hostile Serbs.. In the case of the Palestinians, however, a prospective state on the West Bank (the only area ruled by the Palestinian Authority since Hamas holds exclusive sway in Gaza) would comprise only 2,300 square miles and 2.5 million people – with less than 82% Palestinian, and fully 17% Jewish residents who have no desire to leave their homes. 

In return for the support of European powers (including Germany, France and Britain) and the United States, the Kosovar leaders have promised to respect the rights and security of their 5% Serb minority. The Palestinians have never made similar offers to their 17% Jewish minority on the West Bank and have, rather, insisted that these residents must be expelled or slaughtered as part of any new Palestinian state. The refusal to accept any presence of a non-Muslim population in their midst shows the Palestinians lagging far behind even the Kosovars. 

Moreover, in Kosovo, international human rights organizations agree that the Serbs massacred at least 10,000 ethnic Albanians in the brief, brutal conflict of ten years ago. Among Palestinians, 1,162 died in the first “Intifada” of 1987-to-91, and in the second Intifada (from 2000 to the present) 4,944 have died – with more than 10% butchered by their fellow Palestinians. In other words, despite their prominent and persistent claims of victim status, the Palestinians suffered far fewer casualties, and a much lower casualty rate in light of their larger population. 

Finally, the Kosovar declaration of statehood occurred nearly nine years after their militant arm (The Kosovo Liberation Army, or KLA) renounced violence and local political institutions demonstrated their determination to live in peace with their Serb neighbors. Ibrahim Rugova, the late, non-violent nationalist leader who helped steer his people toward independence, has no counterpart whatever among the Palestinians. 

In fact, imagine if this weekend’s declaration of Kosovo independence occurred at a time when the Kosovars were launching daily rocket and mortar attacks into Serbia. Would any nation on earth support statehood for a nationality totally unable to control the terrorist crazies in its own midst? In Israel, more than 700 rocket and mortar attacks have been launched from Gaza since January 1^st – a total of more than 15 a day. 

To much of the world, the current bid to establish a new state of Kosovo (with Albanian language, culture and national symbols) looks shaky, questionable, and potentially misguided. 

But if Kosovar independence represents a destabilizing development, how much more so would the creation of a Palestinian state provoke more violence and political chaos? At least the Kosovars have expressed respect for the rule of law, and committed themselves to respecting the rights of their local minorities. 

And what, exactly, have the Palestinians done? 

The latest outrage, aimed at the tiny Christian minority in Gaza, involved the total destruction over the weekend of the 8,000 volume library in the beleaguered YMCA. 

If the Kosovars behaved as the Palestinians do, or identified with the same ferociously intolerant Islamic radicalism, the whole world would treat their bid for independence as a sick joke. 

The different approach to the two embattled Muslim populations highlights the double standard that always seems to apply to any conflict involving Israel and the Jews.

Hamas, the Islamic terrorist faction that rules the Gaza Strip, “claimed credit” for the recent suicide bombing in southern Israel – the first such incident on Israeli territory in more than a year. Hamas proudly identified the bombers as two twenty-year-olds who went to a shopping center in the town of Dimona. One of them blew himself up, wounding 38 innocent bystanders and killing one 73 year old woman. The victim and her husband—also critically injured—were both theoretical physicists at Ben Gurion University and looking forward to celebrating their 50^th wedding anniversary with their two sons, also physics professors.The second bomber was shot by  heroic police officer Kobi Mor before he could explode his bomb-filled vest. While still wounded, the would-be-killer tried to reach for the detonator, but the cop saved countless lives –including his own- by shooting the terrorist four times in the head, without exploding his bombs. Hamas argued with another terror group, Al Aksa Martyr’s Brigade, over “credit” for the bloody and utterly pointless incident—an illustration of their sick and twisted notions of praise-worthy Palestinian accomplishment.

The President of the United States may be the only human being on the planet who actually believes that Israel and the Palestinians will sign a comprehensive peace agreement by the end of the year. Yes, it’s true that no President in history has been a better friend of Israel, and Mr. Bush is certainly right that the Israelis want peace and will make major concessions to get it. He might even be right – despite abundant evidence to the contrary -- that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also wants an end to the violence and now seeks progress and prosperity for his people.

 

But any agreement requires that the two sides give something to one another, and Abbas and his Fatah faction have absolutely nothing – nothing! -- to give to the Israelis. The Jewish state can offer territorial concessions, financial assistance for refugees, support for setting up a new Palestinian state, released prisoners, and access to the most productive economy in the region. But what can the Palestinian authority deliver-- aside from an utterly meaningless scrap of paper?

 

 Certainly, Abbas and Company can do nothing to guarantee the security that has always represented Israel’s top priority.  The current Palestinian government can’t even subdue the West Bank terrorist cells (affiliated with Islamic Jihad or Fatah’s own Al Aksa Martyr’s Brigade), let alone control the implacable and suicidal Hamas fighters who hold sway over more than a million Palestinians in Gaza. The heavily-armed and implacable Gazans launch rocket attacks on Israel literally every day, and butcher their factional enemies from Fatah with the same enthusiasm with which they seek to slaughter Israelis. Most painfully, Abbas can’t even arrange the release of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped before the recent Lebanon war and held by Hamas and Hezbollah, respectively.

 

In this context, the substance of the ongoing negotiations hardly matters.  Secretary of State Rice and Prime Minister Olmert can craft a treaty as exquisitely balanced as the statements by President Bush in Jerusalem, but it will hardly guarantee peace. Promises mean nothing without the ability to keep them. If the Palestinian Authority can’t arrange to stop the daily rocket fire before it gets what it wants, why should anyone expect them to end the violence after they’ve gotten Israel to agree to their major demands?

 

Israelis continue to love President Bush, and to admire his good intentions, but they understand that there’s only one way to cope with terrorism: crush the terrorists when possible, resist them when necessary, and avoid the mistakes of the past that rewarded Islamo-Nazi killers with unilateral concessions. President Bush will earn his place in the history books for his resolute leadership on Iraq and for persisting in a difficult, transformational war in the heart of the Arab world. His chances for success on brokering peace with powerless Palestinians posers remain, however, somewhere between remote and non-existent.

 

In the controversy regarding the President’s difficult and ill-considered peace mission to the Middle East, few Americans became aware of the moving words from the President of Israel. Shimon Peres, Nobel Peace Prize winner and widely admired statesman, greeted Mr. Bush at the President’s residence in Jerusalem with this statement: 

“Mr. President, distinguished guests, as the President of the state I am delighted to speak on behalf of our people. I want to tell you, in simple language – you came to a land and a people that loves deeply the United States of America, and without any reservation. 

“And also may I say that I have the highest respect for you, Mr. President, and the highest regard, because speaking as a politician, you introduced character in politics It’s a great contribution to politics – character, courage, vision.”  

In a world too often scarred by anti-U.S. riots, at a time when the domestic critics of President Bush love to demonize him as Hitler or dismiss him as a simpleton, every American should feel stirred by the sentiments of President Peres. Whatever the disagreements over policy, no matter the uncertain  fate of the new peace process, President Bush still deserves credit for his decency, determination and courage. As Shimon Peres and other true statesmen understand, character counts.  

The  Mid-East Peace Conference in Annapolis stands little chance of success due to obviously contradictory demands by the Palestinians.

They insist, for instance, on a so-called “Right of Return”—authorizing millions of grandchildren and great-grandchildren of one-time refugees to claim homes they’ve never seen in Israel. At the same time, they demand that Israel dismantle long-established Jewish communities in the future state of Palestine.  

They expect Israel to accommodate unlimited numbers of Palestinians in its territory while simultaneously refusing to accept any Jewish residents in the potential Palestine. In effect, they’re pushing for two homelands, not just one: claiming both Israel and the future Palestine as refuges for their dispersed people. Israelis will accept the right of unlimited numbers of Palestinians to settle in a Palestinian state—that’s the whole idea of establishing the new nation. But they’ll never agree to the simultaneous right of millions of hostile Arabs to swamp the state of Israel.

Most commentary about the recent Democratic debate focused on Hillary Clinton and her stronger, more self-assured performance. But the truly alarming aspect of that exchange involved the unanimous position of all candidates in preemptively opposing military action against Iran. They say they want to use the power of diplomacy to stop Iran from going nuclear, but their strident denunciation of any sort of American strike gives the Iranians much less reason to negotiate. The Democrats seem to worry less about Ahmadinejad getting nuclear weapons, than they do about President Bush taking decisive action to stop the development of those weapons. Senator Joe Biden even said he’d push for impeachment if the president launched a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities without a prior vote from Congress. Before the Iraq war, Bush sought such a vote and Biden, Clinton, and Edwards all voted for it. For partisan reasons, Democrats now undermine our Iran policy at a delicate and dangerous time.

On November 12^th, America’s most prestigious newspaper offered an alarming indication of its priorities in covering the ongoing struggle in Iraq. A front-page article in the New York Times announced: “SECURITY GUARD KILLS IRAQI DRIVER: Eyewitnesses Say Taxi Posed No Threat.” Readers had to dig deep inside the paper, however, before they found an account (on Page A8) of announcements by the Iraqi government and US military officials about dramatically reduced violence. Suicide attacks, car bombings and other terrorist attacks fell 77 percent in Baghdad since this time last year, and thousands of displaced families have begun to return. Moreover, Major General Rick Lynch, commander of US forces south of the capital, told the press that he believes the decrease in violence will hold—but the New York Times altogether ignored his words. General Lynch cited the 26,000 Iraqis recruited in his own area of command to help target militants. “If we didn’t have so many people coming forward to help, I’d think this is a flash in the pan. But that’s just not the case,” he declared. The Times not only failed to report this aspect of the story, or to feature any of the good news on the front page, but also chose to highlight the case of a single taxi driver allegedly shot by an American contractor. No wonder that the courageous Joe Lieberman commented last week about those who “have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving.” The newspaper that exists to publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print” might consider a revised slogan: “All the Bad News that Fits, We Print.”

      Does Pakistan have a right to exist?

      Though a Newsweek cover story recently labeled the turbulent South Asian state “the most dangerous nation in the world” no one dares to ask this obvious question.

       In fact, Pakistan represents an arbitrarily constructed, chronically unstable, perpetually embattled, deeply dysfunctional and undeniably shaky creation of the retreating British Empire. Before 1947, the territories eventually designated as “Pakistan” (the name means “Pure Land” in Urdu) comprised an integral part of British India. The hastily and sloppily drawn borders corresponded to no historic nation state, and represented only a desperate concession to Muslim agitators who wanted no part of a newly independent, Hindu majority India. The creation of Pakistan led to an explosion of unspeakable barbarity and bloodshed, with “Independence Riots” claiming a total of at least 500,000 lives (some sources say more than a million). Meanwhile, Pakistan’s creation created the greatest refugee crisis in recent history; UN figures indicate that more than 14 million human beings fled their homes in desperation, with Hindus and Sikhs trying to escape the hostile new Muslim state and find safe haven in India, and Muslims moving from India to Pakistan.

      During most of its 60 year history, Pakistan has suffered from dictatorial military rule – in contrast to the surprisingly durable democracy in its gigantic neighbor, India. The majority of the nation remains both illiterate and impoverished—with little of the spectacular economic progress that his made India into a high tech and commercial powerhouse. In 1971, the eastern portion of Pakistan engaged in a bloody struggle against federal forces to separate itself into the new country of Bangladesh. Border wars with India over the disputed province of Kashmir have flared up on two major occasions, with the issue still unsettled at a time that both combatants possess nuclear weapons. Now a new crisis looms as General Musharraf tries to hold onto power in the face of twin challenges from rabid Islamist fanatics and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, recently returned from exile.

      In light of this history, it’s shocking that few Americans or Europeans question the troubled and divided nation’s existence.

      Instead, agitators on the international left love to challenge the “right to exist” of Israel – a far more stable, prosperous, democratic and, yes, peaceful nation than Pakistan. Though formally recognized as a modern state at almost exactly the same time as Pakistan (1948 rather than 1947), Israel occupies similar borders to the ancient Jewish commonwealth that flourished for more than a thousand years. Moreover the transfer of refugee populations – with 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fleeing the territory of the new state of Israel, and more than 800,000 Jews fleeing Arab states and finding new homes in Israel --- represents scarcely 10% of the massive population shift (involving more than 14 million people) attendant to the birth of Pakistan.

     This doesn’t stop the President of Iran, or the terrorist organizations he openly supports (Hamas and Hezbollah), or twenty states in the Arab League (except for Jordan, Egypt and Morocco), from regularly denying Israel’s very existence – excluding it from maps, referring to the Jewish State as “Occupied Palestine” or “The Zionist Enemy.”

     This Islamist intransigence raises the obvious question: on what basis does Pakistan constitute an “authentic,” “well-established,” “respect-worthy” nation, but Israel does not?

      On every conceivable basis—history, international recognition, authorization by world bodies (The League of Nations supported a Jewish homeland on the site of Israel in 1923, a decade before anyone even proposed the idea of Pakistan), stability, functioning economy, democratic institutions, rule of law, enforceable borders, successful self-defense on multiple occasions, desire of peace with neighbors, support by a majority of its own citizens, respect for religious and ethnic pluralism --- Israel contrasts favorably with “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

      No, the nightmarish, basket-case nation on India’s northwestern border won’t disappear or dissolve. But its persistence (despite horrendous civic unrest, Islamist fanaticism, rampant militarism, and nuclear threats to its neighbors and the rest of the world) should help persuade antagonists and skeptics that Israel will remain at least as permanent a feature on the world stage.

      

The whining and self-pity so prevalent in today’s America now face a formidable new foe: the United Nations.  The world body released a report called “State of the Future” showing that global conditions have dramatically improved by every significant measure.

The world’s increasingly capitalist economy has developed at an unprecedented rate, and people nearly everywhere do better in terms of personal income, food availability, life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, access to health care, access to safe water and much more. At current rates of growth, the report suggests “world poverty will be cut in half between 2000 and 2015.”  

In the past, grim reports about the state of the world drew screaming headlines by predicting mass starvation or environmental catastrophe. But as Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal notes, the shockingly good news in the new UN study has been “mostly ignored” by the media, reflecting a sick, destructive addiction to gloom and doom.

The appalling results of a recent government health survey in Egypt indicate that many Islamic nations need profound cultural change before they can make progress with Democratic principles. According to the investigators an amazing 96% of all married, divorced and widowed Egyptian women had been subjected to the brutal practice of genital cutting. Performed mostly on helpless girls between the ages of 7 and 13, this cruel tradition eliminates the possibility of normal sexual satisfaction and produces a long list of lifelong risks and painful, permanent consequences. To its credit, the authoritarian Egyptian government has launched a major national campaign to halt this nightmarish abuse, despite the fact that most citizens – particularly outside Cairo – want to continue mutilating their daughters. When the populace chooses to sustain barbaric medieval practices -- as it does in Egypt and in many other Islamic and African states-- it’s obvious that free elections alone won’t bring such nations into the 21^st century.

Myths and lies about the Vietnam War help to distort the current debate about the War in Iraq. Advocates of immediate US withdrawal tout the idea that our departure from Vietnam brought peace to that war-ravaged country but in truth the battles raged on for at least eight full years after US troops departed in 1973, along with genocide, concentration camps and desperate refugees in Vietnam and Cambodia. Moreover, the much heralded US “Peace Movement” didn’t end the war—and may have prolonged it by encouraging our enemies to keep fighting and actually building support for President Nixon’s war policies. Ordinary Americans felt hostility and resentment toward angry demonstrators and other radicals. The biggest demonstration of them all – the Mobilization Against the War on November 15, 1969 – brought 500,000 protestors to Washington, but pushed Nixon’s approval rating to an all-time high of 68 per cent. The President denounced the anti-war hordes in a memorable and effective televised speech, insisting that they didn’t speak for the nation’s “silent majority.” The surge of public support for that address, along with the widespread distaste for the demonstrators, actually encouraged a heavy majority of Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress, to vote for resolutions backing the President. One can only hope that the excesses of Move On and other shrill anti-war militants will provoke a similar backlash in today’s debates.