Christmas 2021, Day 2, Feast of the Holy Family

Nativity Mosaic, by Malaysian artist Hanna-Cheriyan Varghese

Shamelessly pinched from Global Christian Worship

 

If it weren't a Sunday, this would be the feast of St. Stephen, so perhaps an apt day to post this. 

 

Zemmour is a French politician who's only just come to my attention. The press denounces him as Far Right, and I don't know enough about him to say he's been fully vetted (if he later turns out to be a weirdo I'll be sorry), but I like what I see so far. He offers a full-throated defense of Western Civilization and particularly its Christian roots -- and he talks about the massive Christian martyrdom taking place largely unremarked.  I can't think of a Church leader in the West who is as confident in saying these necessary things.  (You can get the gist in a very rough translation if you turn on auto-translate in settings at the bottom of the screen.) 

Obama At the U.N.

You know, this is a pretty good speech. It would be more effective if there were a single policy which actually backed any of the rhetoric up, but the talk show hosts during the afternoon commute I heard denouncing it as dhimmi-ism failing to protect free speech or defending only Islam, not Christianity were full of it: they revealed only that they themselves didn't read or listen to the entire thing.

It was a serious call to the entire world to quit letting Islamist extremists get away with scapegoating the West and Israel for everything -- and it started with a nice tribute to the late Ambassador Stevens.

Some sample passages:

the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said: “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.
In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.

The right wing has been denouncing Obama for a week for lines like this:

a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

But to that I ask, isn't he right? Have you seen that video? I find it offensive -- and a less than credible argument for the superiority of Western culture. If you have something serious to say in criticism of Islam, say it. But that ugly film ain't no Fitna.

Moreover, the President goes on to make the point the Right isn't crediting him with making:

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Good on 'im! He goes on to say that in the era of the smart phone it's wicked and absurd to think speech can be controlled, even if you don't share the Western commitment to free speech.

Then this:

it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.
That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

This next passage seems to suggest tying our Aid to the way Americans are treated:

Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change. But such efforts depend upon a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company; no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnership to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

Then he returns to the theme of civilized people repudiating jihadis.

A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.
The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

 I know, I know. There's much I could say about his failure to follow his own advice in our domestic politics and about his fundamental unseriousness (see this NYT piece about how he thinks speeches solve everything). Still this is a lovely passage, and true:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

 And so is this (please to note it, those who say Obama doesn't stand up for Christians or claim he didn't denounce Abombnjihad):

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

A little more about Abomb:

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.
Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

 A decent speech in both senses.

Peace In Our Time!

Perhaps the President is on to something. How about Israel negotiates starting with its pre-6 Day War borders.....but so does "Palestine"?

Errm....No.

Here's a snippet of conversation transcribed from video of Chris Wallace interviewing Tom Donilon, our National Security Adviser. FOX calls this "hammering" the guy as if they're proud of it. Wallace asks:

We'll all stipulate that bin Laden was a monster. But why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits, why is that over the line?

Donilon offers a defense of shooting bin Laden, to which Wallace responds:

I'm not asking you why it was OK to shoot Usama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I'm not second-guessing the SEALs.

The conversation continues:

WALLACE: What I am second guessing is, if that's OK, why can't you do waterboarding? What can't you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Usama bin Laden?
DONILON: Because, well, our judgment is that it's not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.
WALLACE: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?
DONILON: We are at war with Usama bin Laden.
WALLACE: We're at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

And so forth.

Just to be clear, that line of questioning appears morally bankrupt. Its premise is that because it's ok to kill OBL, it's okay to do ANYTHING to him, including, in a vivid example provided by Mr. W., slow-roast him over a fire and draw out his intestines, as the Brits used to do to the martyrs. The Framers wanted to prevent us from being infected with such practices as were carried out by the French Revolution.*

Waterboarding, if it is permissible, is permissible only because it can reasonably be understood not to be torture. The primary reason we don't torture is not out of concern for the likes of OBL or KSM, but because the torturer degrades himself in the process. We mustn't make monsters out of our own interrogators, degrading their human dignity and ours in the supposed defense of human dignity. We put limits on what may be done to even our most brutish enemies as much out of concern for our own humanity as theirs.

I think the administration's efforts to prosecute Bush-era people for policies they don't like is obscene and I think its incoherent approach to enemy interrogation encourages "shoot to kill" where capture and question would be preferable (speaking in general, not second-guessing what was done with OBL.) But I defend Donilon in this exchange. I don't want to see the Right taking the line suggested by Wallace's question.

*Mr. W. thinks I haven't made it clear I understand the Constitution pre-dates the FR. Yes, I know. The Framers wanted to prevent us from being infected by the kinds of behavior subsequently seen in .....

War Is Not Peace, Grey Lady Finds

This line on the unrest in Syria is so much like the old joke about how the NYT would cover the apocalypse I burst out laughing.

Deepening chaos in Syria, in particular, could dash any remaining hopes for a Middle East peace agreement, several analysts said.

Yes, dears.

Curtsy: HughHewitt

Obama Beclowns Us

Gaddafi's got his air force bombing his own people and what's the U.S. got to say about it?
/crickets

This on the heels of the U.S. almost voting to condemn Israel at the UN this week; and then when we finally vetoed that course of action, Ambassador Rice rolled her eyes and in every way signaled she didn't believe a thing she said.

And our DIA hasn't a clue what's going on in the world.

This ain't good, kids. The smart sophomores used to getting "A's" after cramming for the exam are running things.The world is learning the US is weak and untrustworthy. Not a way to keep friends; not a way to dissuade enemies.

Jubilation, She Hopes?

Michael Ramirez, shamelessly pinched from here.

Praying for your success, Egypt. Here's why I'm hopeful.

"We Need To Answer The Questions Americans Are Asking"

CAIR & the Muslim Public Affairs Council are protesting Rep. King's terrorism hearings. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community argues otherwise.

“We think it’s an issue that needs to be discussed openly. We need to answer the questions Americans are asking and we need to do it repeatedly,” the Ahmadiyya national spokesman Waseed Sayed told me today.
“Wherever they may be asked, we will go, unapologetically, and we will answer the questions.”
Sayed also added that simply complaining about media perceptions of Islam is unhelpful. He called on American Muslims to take responsibility for changing negative views of the religion by actively promoting peace and opposing extremism. “We try to focus on what the Muslims living in America need to do to improve their own situation. We don’t want to focus on us complaining,” he said.

The group has also launched a campaign against extremist rhetoric. It's called "Muslims for Loyalty."

Music Versus Al-Qaida

Here's a story that reminds me of the Hungarians preserving their national songs to keep their identity against the crush of the Soviet leviathan, or Karol Wojtyla and the Polish underground theater. Director Karim Wasfi reports on the trials and tribulations of the Iraqi National Symphony Orchestra. Things are looking up. Director Karim Wasfi reports that three years ago:
he had itemized a menu of adversities: out of 70 orchestra members, only 50 remained in Baghdad and even fewer made it to rehearsals. Underfunded and under siege from violent incidents, electricity cuts, cracking instruments, pitiful wages, stolen sheet music, and decaying buildings and sound systems, the orchestra had kept going with no stable venue in which to rehearse or perform. Mr. Wasfi had run the show since 2004 and survived several random attacks. Then, as now, he was conscious that, for Iraqis, the symphony symbolized an elevated alternative to the "barbarism everywhere."
Now he can worry about artistic quality and gets packed houses for concerts.

This is partly because I still insist on free admissions for now, but also because so many Baghdadis want this for their city. We get funded primarily by the Ministry of Culture, but other ministries like to help in various ways too. Everybody understands that we illustrate a kind of collective achievement for the country."

Not that there aren't still problems.

I had to move my wife and two little girls abroad because our apartment complex was partly demolished when the nearby Foreign Ministry got bombed last winter. I thought, why should they be facing shrapnel to support my convictions?

And the security effort to make a concert happen is astonishing. But...

"We have every sect in the orchestra, Christians, Shiites, Sunnis, women, Kurds. I've also launched a youth orchestra and an after-school youth academy where we teach music, civics, manners and the like to almost 300 kids. We pay poor kids to attend. Some even come all the way across town from Sadr City. Yes, I'm sure there are fanatics who disapprove of the symphony, but we've generated such goodwill that they're afraid to oppose us publicly. The Institute of Fine Arts lay disused for two years until we made it our home. We brought new life to the area so the entire neighborhood helps keep us safe."

Gosh This Is Refreshing

The redoubtable Melanie Philips on Israel's failure to engage the battleground of the mind. The astonishment of the Israeli interviewer is humorous. It's not the side she's taking that's so refreshing; it's just hearing someone say what she thinks forcefully, forthrightly, courageously and with civility. I love her indignation at interest in the facts being dubbed "right-wing." 
Curtsy: Powerline

On The Other Hand...

Egptian Muslims to act as human shields for Coptic Christmas.

Fatima Mostafa, a 40 year old house wife, will join Copts tomorrow to show that Muslims feel their sorrow. “I want to show the world that Islam is a religion of peace and that such attacks are nothing more than a result of poverty, ignorance and oppression.”

While the reasons they cite for doing so may vary, many Egyptian Muslims are rallying around the idea of acting to protect their fellow citizens.

“I know it might not be safe, yet it’s either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians,” Cherine Mohamed, a 50 year old house wife said.

For Youssef, Egyptians should attend regardless of their faith as “we all have Christians as part of our family. I am a Muslim but I’m sure my great grandfather was a Christian.”

An engineer who wanted to remain anonymous stated that he was looking forward to tomorrow: “I was a Christian and I’m a Muslim now, I want my kids to go to church to realize that both religions are similar; we have one God, and both holy books stress peace and the welfare of the society at large.”

The goodwill has been well received by the Coptic Church, and Coptic priests have been expressing their pleasure  that Muslims intend to join them at tomorrow’s mass. Some churches have already put up banners welcoming Muslims to their celebration of the birth of Jesus.

Ominous Yet Beautiful

Hani Shukrallah, editorializing in an Egyptian new service on the attacks on Coptic Christians this Christmas.

We are to join in a chorus of condemnation. Jointly, Muslims and Christians, government and opposition, Church and Mosque, clerics and laypeople – all of us are going to stand up and with a single voice declare unequivocal denunciation of al-Qaeda, Islamist militants, and Muslim fanatics of every shade, hue and color; some of us will even go the extra mile to denounce salafi Islam, Islamic fundamentalism as a whole, and the Wahabi Islam which, presumably, is a Saudi import wholly alien to our Egyptian national culture.
And once again we’re going to declare the eternal unity of “the twin elements of the nation”, and hearken back the Revolution of 1919, with its hoisted banner showing the crescent embracing the cross, and giving symbolic expression to that unbreakable bond.

But...

All of it will be to no avail. We’ve been here before; we’ve done exactly that, yet the massacres continue, each more horrible than the one before it, and the bigotry and intolerance spread deeper and wider into every nook and cranny of our society. It is not easy to empty Egypt of its Christians; they’ve been here for as long as there has been Christianity in the world. Close to a millennium and half of Muslim rule did not eradicate the nation’s Christian community, rather it maintained it sufficiently strong and sufficiently vigorous so as to play a crucial role in shaping the national, political and cultural identity of modern Egypt.
Yet now, two centuries after the birth of the modern Egyptian nation state, and as we embark on the second decade of the 21^stcentury, the previously unheard of seems no longer beyond imagining: a Christian-free Egypt, one where the cross will have slipped out of the crescent’s embrace, and off the flag symbolizing our modern national identity. I hope that if and when that day comes I will have been long dead, but dead or alive, this will be an Egypt which I do not recognize and to which I have no desire to belong.

And the blame is not solely al-Qaeda's:

I accuse a government that seems to think that by outbidding the Islamists it will also outflank them.
I accuse the host of MPs and government officials who cannot help but take their own personal bigotries along to the parliament, or to the multitude of government bodies, national and local, from which they exercise unchecked, brutal yet at the same time hopelessly inept authority.
I accuse those state bodies who believe that by bolstering the Salafi trend they are undermining the Muslim Brotherhood, and who like to occasionally play to bigoted anti-Coptic sentiments, presumably as an excellent distraction from other more serious issues of government.
But most of all, I accuse the millions of supposedly moderate Muslims among us; those who’ve been growing more and more prejudiced, inclusive and narrow minded with every passing year.

A distressing message, but the fact that such an editorial is written and printed is heartening, no?

Competing Visions

Look at the kids' faces!

The Pope's address to kids today was fabulous. As Ruefuel Red said in comments somewhere, he had kids of all ages (every Catholic school in the UK and one in Gambia) live and via internet, and it was pitch-perfect. He called them to be holy and happy:

I hope that among those of you listening to me today there are some of the future saints of the twenty-first century. What God wants most of all for each one of you is that you should become holy. He loves you much more than you could ever begin to imagine, and he wants the very best for you. And by far the best thing for you is to grow in holiness.

Perhaps some of you have never thought about this before. Perhaps some of you think being a saint is not for you. Let me explain what I mean. When we are young, we can usually think of people that we look up to, people we admire, people we want to be like. It could be someone we meet in our daily lives that we hold in great esteem. Or it could be someone famous. We live in a celebrity culture, and young people are often encouraged to model themselves on figures from the world of sport or entertainment. My question for you is this: what are the qualities you see in others that you would most like to have yourselves? What kind of person would you really like to be?

When I invite you to become saints, I am asking you not to be content with second best. I am asking you not to pursue one limited goal and ignore all the others. Having money makes it possible to be generous and to do good in the world, but on its own, it is not enough to make us happy. Being highly skilled in some activity or profession is good, but it will not satisfy us unless we aim for something greater still. It might make us famous, but it will not make us happy. Happiness is something we all want, but one of the great tragedies in this world is that so many people never find it, because they look for it in the wrong places. The key to it is very simple – true happiness is to be found in God. We need to have the courage to place our deepest hopes in God alone, not in money, in a career, in worldly success, or in our relationships with others, but in God. Only he can satisfy the deepest needs of our hearts.

And also to be liberal in the classical sense:

In your Catholic schools, there is always a bigger picture over and above the individual subjects you study, the different skills you learn. All the work you do is placed in the context of growing in friendship with God, and all that flows from that friendship. So you learn not just to be good students, but good citizens, good people. As you move higher up the school, you have to make choices regarding the subjects you study, you begin to specialize with a view to what you are going to do later on in life. That is right and proper. But always remember that every subject you study is part of a bigger picture. Never allow yourselves to become narrow. The world needs good scientists, but a scientific outlook becomes dangerously narrow if it ignores the religious or ethical dimension of life, just as religion becomes narrow if it rejects the legitimate contribution of science to our understanding of the world. We need good historians and philosophers and economists, but if the account they give of human life within their particular field is too narrowly focused, they can lead us seriously astray.

A good school provides a rounded education for the whole person. And a good Catholic school, over and above this, should help all its students to become saints. I know that there are many non-Catholics studying in the Catholic schools in Great Britain, and I wish to include all of you in my words today. I pray that you too will feel encouraged to practise virtue and to grow in knowledge and friendship with God alongside your Catholic classmates. You are a reminder to them of the bigger picture that exists outside the school, and indeed, it is only right that respect and friendship for members of other religious traditions should be among the virtues learned in a Catholic school. I hope too that you will want to share with everyone you meet the values and insights you have learned through the Christian education you have received.

 OK. So we can follow his vision. Or this one (eye-bleeding picture, you are warned), also exemplified here. Or this one.

Sister Olga From Iraq

You have to read this interview with Sr. Olga of the Eucharist Yaqob. She's an Iraqi, raised in the Assyrian Church, and the story of her conversion --and what it cost her-- is extraordinary. During a long nebulous period between being disowned by her family and not receiving permission to become Catholic, she created her own apostolate ministering to prisoners in Abu Ghraib.
Between 1993 and 2000 I ministered to the homeless and the 12,000 prisoners of Abu Ghraib, including the political prisoners.

I was given permission to enter Abu Ghraib to provide food and medicine. The prisoners didn’t have running water, slept on the cement floor, and a large number of people were crowded together in each cell. In the heat, these poor conditions caused people to get sick with skin diseases and emphysema.
The most painful experience was to accompany those sent to death and to be with them during their last months. I felt like Mary standing at the foot of the cross, watching the death of her son.
I couldn’t save them. I wasn’t there as a lawyer; I was only there to bring food and medication. I wasn’t there in a religious capacity, though I was allowed to bring the Eucharist at Christmas, Easter and on solemnities. Throughout the years of my service in the prison, Jesus’ question to the sons of Zebedee, James and John — “Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” — pierced my heart. During that time, I felt called to declare my personal answer to Jesus’ question. This answer has radically changed my life. Serving the homeless, prisoners and the poorest of the poor in my homeland, war has been my way of “drinking the cup” of sorrow with and for my people in Iraq.

RTWT --it's an amazing, circuitous story. I had the opportunity to meet her over the summer, just briefly. She's a tiny little thing, no taller than my 11-yr-old daughter-- but a powerhouse. She absolutely radiates a joy and peace you cannot imagine --and in a million years you would never guess what she has seen.

Nine Years On

Wanna have yourself a good cry? Watch Bush's speech to Congress September 20, 2001. Or even his speech at National Cathedral, September 14, 2001.

Lileks with a lovely rambling essay on the ensuing wars, from which I snatch this longish excerpt:

Two years later I take a certain grim comfort in some people’s disinterest in the war; if you’d told me two years ago that people would be piling on the President and bitching about slow progress in Iraq, I would have known in a second that the nation hadn’t suffered another attack. When the precise location of Madonna’s tongue is big news, you can bet the hospitals aren’t full of smallpox victims. Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers - and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:

But.

And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.

I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who's giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.

Which is why this war will be long.

Ours Is The 61st Largest Army In The World

Military size and spending, adjusting for population and GDP, with handy graphics. Save this in your files for repudiating stuff people know that isn't so.

Gaza, Seat Of Intellectual Freedom

Muslim youth glued to the computer screen. 60 percent Internet penetration. The literacy rate (not computer, but what’s on the page) is over 90 percent. Where is this outpost of modernity and intellectual freedom? Gaza. Yes, the supposed ”hell hole” of the Middle East — the alleged virtual prison — is doing quite a bit better than its Arab neighbors. And the oppressors whom the people must outwit are not the Israelis but Hamas

That's Jennifer Rubin, riffing on this (subs only).

Losing Religious Liberty

Religion & Liberty interviews Nina Shea   (one of the true heroines of DC by the way --a tireless and mostly thankless champion of persecuted Christians and other believers for 30 years) the U.S. Commission in International Religious Freedom. From an interview preview:

Q: in what areas has the Obama Administration done commendable work? Are there areas where they could do more, especially in the Middle East?

A: I’m trying hard to think of any area where the Obama Administration has done commendable work on religious freedom or human rights. As I answer this over a year into the administration, it still has not appointed an Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, though it has appointed dozens of other envoys. This week it appointed one to an organization that advocates religious persecution — the Organization of Islamic Conference, a religious organization dedicated to opposing Israel and spreading a law to criminally punish apostasy from Islam. Regarding the Religious Freedom Commission, there’s been a seat vacant for a year now, too; it’s a presidential appointment. I see that there has been a tradeoff of human rights for other issues – security, trade or global warming. The Christian groups and Muslim liberals in the Middle East have been abandoned. Iranian dissidents have been abandoned by him. Egyptian, Iraqi and Sudanese Christians feel abandoned by him. 

All of which we sort of know, but I hadn't really focused on the degree to which we've abandoned decent Muslims by refusing to shine sunlight on their plight, lest their persecutors be offended.

There has especially been an abandonment of the Muslims of Darfur in western Sudan. Darfur was a major issue before President Obama came into office. There was a strong movement to save Darfur with bi-weekly, full-page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post and with George Clooney and other Hollywood stars going to Darfur. Those voices have fallen silent and I really don’t understand it. I think that people like Samantha Power who went into the administration on a Sudan platform and who had a Harvard career built on stopping genocide, should see that policies are adopted that immediately end the genocide in Darfur and ensure free and fair elections take place throughout Sudan this spring, or resign. I recently met with her and she told me that the administration has sent its special envoy to Sudan many times, trying to negotiate with Khartoum and offer Gen. Omar-al Bashir incentives or “cookies and smiley faces,” as our envoy called them.
When he was a presidential candidate, Barak Obama wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post, stating: “[W]hen the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll.” Well, hundreds of thousands of people of Darfur are still suffering in refugee camps where women are raped, where there’s terrible abuse and the spread of deadly diseases, where people can’t lead their lives and flourish.

This picture really did say it all.

Update: on the heels of this interview comes a report from Der Spiegel saying Christians are now the most persecuted group in the world.

Iran Succeeds Where The US Fails

Arabs in the Middle East no longer think of Israel as public enemy #1.

[A] poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people in 18 Arab countries last month, found that most see Iran as a bigger threat to security than Israel, with a third believing Iran is just as likely as Israel to target Arab countries.

Apparently "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not Hadith.

Will The Norwegians Think Twice?

A couple of days ago people reported seeing eerie lights over Norway.

Turns out it was the Russkies, testing a new nuclear-capable missile. I love it that the President was in Norway today promoting disarmament at practically the same moment the Russians were signaling how seriously they are likely to take such measures.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting speech, and while I disagree with much of it (notably the criticism of the Iraq war), this was not a bad speech to give to the Norwegians. After praising the non-violence of Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr., he said:

as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

The rest of the speech is more or less a guilt trip aimed at getting more European help in Afghanistan.

I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.

His desire for more UN & regional peacekeepers strikes me as dubious, but his insistence that the UN and other international organizations should do more than talk could have come from George Bush.

if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price.Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
[snip]
it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

Well: the problem is that at a certain point war is the only increase in pressure possible. Obama can't really deal with that, because it would force him to see Bush's point on Iraq. But to the extent he's on record being against -say- Oil For Spoils and the bored, routine use of sanctions as an opportunity for UN diplomats to enrich themselves by opening black markets, that's good.

And perhaps he learned something from criticism of his refusal to say anything about human rights abuses when he travels. He finally stands up for the Iranian protesters, eg:

I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

That much is pretty good. Then he gets silly.

The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.

/snort!

His examples reveal once again how little he understands history:

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Pressure and incentives, yes. But Reagan didn't embrace Perestroika, he forced it. He pressured the Soviets by outspending them militarily; funding their opponents in Afghanistan, Angola & throughout Latin America; fighting and defeating their proxies in Grenada; standing up for their dissidents; being a tough negotiator; calling them the "Evil Empire," etc, etc. The open door came when they moved and not until.

The John Paul II example is nonsense. He didn't engage the Communists, he engaged the people of his flock in defiance of the government.

And Nixon was triangulating the Chinese against the Soviets, whatever salutary side-effects there may have been (are the Chinese free?). If I were the President who had just been tricked into giving a joint press conference at which no questions were permitted, I don't think I'd be citing the Chinese example.

Then comes the obligatory peace through climate change blah de blah and other boilerplate.

Next comes the most controversial assertion he makes. I do appreciate the fact that he continues to insist that al-Qaeda is filled with blasphemers whose religion we don't have to pretend to respect, for they have none. But dig this stunning piece of moral equivalence:

they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Without denying the ugly history of war and the sins of Christians and Jews, I think that's a problem only for a certain particular religion qua religion (every people sins). The other two major peoples of the book would consider it dishonorable to do such things deliberately. And I don't think history provides any evidence at all that godless soldiers are more kind than religious ones to pregnant women and Red Cross workers. Has the President never heard of Nazis, the Red Army, the Viet Cong?

And then he conflates faith in the better angels of our nature with faith in human progress:

we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Oy. That's very confused and is in tension with the end:

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

I have to note, continuing my thesis that high school sophomores write these things, that I can't recall a presidential text that had so many problems with subject/verb agreement.

I think this speech more than any other of his I've read probably is Obama, for better and for worse. The biggest problem with it --and with anything this President says-- is that it has nothing whatever to do with the way he governs.