The culture of human rights was born and has flourished in those countries that have been shaped by Judeo-Christianity. Israel and the Jews are therefore central to the West’s greatest political achievements.

Point 4 of the Friends of Israel initiative says:

Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral values that first gave rise to the institutions and the values that initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values.

The same concept is also expressed in the last statement of the document, where it declares that we intend to reaffirm the value of the religious, moral, and cultural Judeo-Christian heritage as the main source of the liberal and democratic Western society.

Nobody doubts that European and Western liberal and democratic institutions have a special standing and should be safeguarded. It may be argued ― and it has been indeed even hotly argued ― whether our institutions should be promoted, some say “exported”, elsewhere.

However, the fact that liberal democracy, that is, our Western regime, is one of the best, if not the best possible arrangement of society, is a point everybody seems to agree on. Why so?

Scholars and politicians have often considered the second half of the 20th century as the outset of an “Age of Rights.” The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, together with the many following Charters, marks a break in modern history and represents a peaceful revolution. We got over totalitarianisms and World War II by recognizing that people, both individually and collectively, enjoy rights over and above political authority. These rights are taken to be prior to, and independent of, the state. The state does not grant them, it simply “recognizes” them, as if they were “out there” in an external, not man-made world.

To use old-fashioned but still familiar language, people possess natural rights and are subject to natural law. And if people have natural rights, political institutions must respect them and must be devised accordingly, that is, they should be liberal and democratic. “Liberal” means that the State is a means to promote individual and collective freedom, while “democratic” means that everybody has his share in the political institutions.

Natural rights and natural law are so important for us today that we take them as yardsticks. They are standards and criteria by which we judge political regimes. A regime violating natural rights is considered illiberal and undemocratic. A regime that does not fully recognise natural rights is thought of as not entirely liberal and democratic. Human rights are, then, the pillars of our regimes: we appreciate the latter because we hold to the former.

To avoid misunderstandings, let us note that yardsticks by themselves do not provide practical suggestions, that is to say, they do not advocate policies. Moral and political yardsticks let us see whether or not a certain regime is democratic, but they do not tell us what we should do when a regime is not. In particular, the liberal and democratic yardstick does not suggest that we should make war against illiberal and undemocratic regimes. Those intellectuals who maintain that advocating Western human rights amounts to triggering a “clash of civilizations” with Islam are quite mistaken. The situation may in fact be much worse: many intellectuals today seem so scared of a clash of civilizations with Islam that they prefer to conceal even what they profess to cherish the most, that is, our system of rights. By so doing, these intellectuals hide our identity and favour that very clash they want to avoid.

A question now emerges. Where do human or natural rights come from? And how can we justify them?

Scholars, as well as politicians, differ in their opinions. Looking back at the French Revolution and its Declaration of the Rights of Man, quite a number of them thinks that human rights are a conquest of the Enlightenment and of the process of secularization sparked off by it. Others, looking at the English Bill of Rights and the American Revolution with its Declaration of Independence, believe that human rights have a rather more religious flavour, especially in the idea that man is “endowed” by his Creator with certain inalienable liberties. Still different views are held by others, including the relativistic idea that human rights are purely contingent features of a particular system, ours, which is as good as any other. Nobody however, not even the most secularist and relativistic of intellectuals, appears willing to dispute the importance of human rights.

As our document makes clear, the signatories of the Friends of Israel initiative wish to highlight one concept. The culture of human rights was born and has flourished in those countries that have been shaped by Judeo-Christianity. The Judeo-Christian idea that men are created in God’s image and are responsible toward Him for their actions has given rise to the concept of the dignity of man. The concept of the dignity of man, of the dignity of each single individual, supports the concept of human rights. And the concept of human rights is, in its turn, at the basis of liberal and democratic regimes.

Consequently, in all respects Israel is our forefather. If its culture disappears, our regimes may disappear, too. If the forefather’s heritage is endangered, we are in jeopardy as well. Israel, for us, is both a normal and a special country. A normal country, because it is like any other democracy. A special country, because the Jewish culture, which eventually became the Judeo-Christian culture of the dignity of man, is the conceptual foundation of liberalism and democracy.

This is why attacking Israel is tantamount to attacking Europe and the West. This is also why disputing Israel’s legitimacy and its right to existence means questioning democracy. And this is why we are Friends of Israel. By defending Israel, we are defending ourselves.

David Cameron jumped into the ever-sensitive politics of the Middle East with both boots flying today, determined to call a spade a bloody shovel and Gaza a “prison camp”, that shamed all those, principally Israel, responsible for its enduring misery. Cameron's lunge was the diplomatic equivalent of Nigle de Jong’s chest-high tackle of Xabi Alonso in the World Cup final. From Israel's perspective, he too was lucky not to be sent off.

If Britain's greenhorn prime minister, new to the global diplomatic game, felt he had gone over the top in his speech in Ankara, he did not show it. Speaking with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's neo-Islamist leader, at his side, Cameron said his comments, including his condemnation of the 31 May Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla, were "warranted" by the situation there.

"I speak as someone who is a friend of Israel, who desperately wants a secure and safe and stable Israel after the two-state solution has come about," Cameron said in a press conference after his speech. But if he thought he needed to balance his remarks, no help was forthcoming from his hard-nosed host. "The fact that this blockade [of Gaza] has not been lifted is a tragedy," said Erdogan, the self-appointed hammer of the Israelis. "This attack in international waters can only be termed piracy."

Turkey used to be Israel's best friend in the Middle East. But since he first weighed into the Israelis over last year’s Gaza incursion, Erdogan's popularity ratings in the Arab world have soared and bilateral ties have shredded. To Washington's open dismay, he has also become a bit of an apologist for Iran and Syria. For Britain, this makes him a useful but risky ally.

Perhaps Cameron was geed up by Barack Obama in Washington last week. But so keen was he to cement what he called a "new partnership" and a "vital strategic relationship", anchored in Turkey's prospective membership of the EU, that he glossed over some of the more troublesome aspects of life under Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development party.

Thus he made no mention of Turkey's failure so far to bring its judicial system, its media laws, its civil protections and minority rights into line with EU norms. He ignored September's referendum on controversial government-framed constitutional changes, which critics say are authoritarian in nature, and skirted the Cyprus issue. And ignoring the upsurge in lethal violence in the south-east of the country, he suggested that Turkey's much put-upon Kurdish minority had a lot to thank Erdogan for.

Cameron's central arguments in favour of Turkish EU membership were hard to refute. Turkey does indeed have a fast-growing economy and youthful workforce that offers Britain (and Europe) potentially lucrative markets and skills. Turkey is an important Nato ally that has backed Britain in Afghanistan and in fighting terrorism. And as a secular, majority Muslim democracy, its accession would strengthen and broaden the EU while creating a bridge to the Middle East, the Caucasus and central Asia.

As with his criticism of Israel, a combative Cameron showed he would not pull his punches in backing Ankara's EU bid – or be slow to finger those who obstruct it. Without mentioning names, he effectively accused Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and lesser European powers such as Austria who also object to Turkish membership of protectionism, polarisation and prejudice.
Just to be clear, Cameron helpfully defined this latter category. The prejudiced were "those who don't differentiate between real Islam and the extremist version. They don't understand the values Islam shares with other religions like Christianity and Judaism … I will always argue that the values of real Islam are not incompatible with the values of Europe."

For good measure, he also had a pop at Charles de Gaulle, who temporarily blocked Britain's EU accession.

Cameron's implied criticism of key EU partners who have not done him any favours in the past, plus a shameless love-in with Turkey that will also dismay and annoy the Greeks and Greek Cypriots, suggests the new British government's uneven European relationships could yet grow fractious. Perhaps as he heads for India tonight, another target market for the "big society" writ large, Cameron will not worry too much what they are saying in Brussels or Jerusalem.

With its mix of energy and determination, this is Cameron-style kick-and-run diplomacy. Call it naive. Or call it radical. But it's certainly different.

Change has come to the Middle East.

Over the past several weeks, multiple press reports indicate that Turkey is collaborating militarily with Syria in a joint campaign against the Kurds of Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

Turkey is a member of NATO. It fields the Western world's top weapons systems. Syria is Iran's junior partner. It is a state sponsor of multiple terrorist organizations and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

Last September, as Turkey's Islamist government escalated its anti-Israel rhetoric, Turkey and Syria signed a slew of economic and diplomatic agreements. As Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made clear at the time, Turkey was using those agreements as a way to forge close alliances not only with Syria, but with Iran.

"We may establish similar mechanisms with Iran and other mechanisms. We want our relationship with our neighbors to turn into maximum cooperation via the principle of zero problems," Davutoglu proclaimed.
And now those agreements have reportedly paved the way to military cooperation. Syrian President Bashar Assad has visited Istanbul twice in the past month and then two weeks ago, on the Kurdish New Year, Syrian forces launched an operation against Kurdish population centers throughout Syria.

This week Al-arabiya reported that hundreds of Kurds have been killed recently. The Syrian government media claim that eleven Kurds have been killed. There are conflicting reports as well about the number of Kurds that have been arrested since the onslaught began. Kurdish sources say 630 have been arrested. The Turkish media claims four hundred Kurds have been arrested by Syrian security forces.

Al-arabiya also claimed that the Syrian campaign is being supported by the Turkish military. Turkish military advisors are reportedly using the same intelligence tool for tracking Kurds in Syria as they have used against the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq: Israeli-made Heron unmanned aerial vehicles.

Even if the Al-arabiya report is untrue, and Turkey is not currently using Israeli-manufactured weapons in the service of Syria, the very fact that Syria has military cooperation of any kind with Turkey is dangerous for Israel. Over the past twenty years, as its alliance with Turkey expanded, Israel sold Turkey some of the most sensitive intelligence gathering systems and other weapons platforms it has developed. With Turkey's rapid integration into the Iranian axis, Israel must now assume that if Turkey is not currently sharing those Israeli military and intelligence technologies and tools with its enemies, Ankara is likely to share them with Israel's enemies in the future.

Obviously, the least Israel could be expected to do in this situation is cut off all military ties to Turkey. But amazingly and distressingly, Israel's leaders seem not to have recognized this. To the contrary, Israel is scheduled to deliver four additional Heron drones to Turkey next month.

Even more discouragingly, both the statements and actions of senior officials lead to the conclusion that our leaders still embrace the delusion that all is not lost with Turkey. Speaking the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee earlier this month, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi told lawmakers, "What happens in Turkey is not always done with the agreement of the Turkish military. Relations with the Turkish army are important and they need to be preserved. I am personally in touch with the Turkish Chief of Staff."

As Turkish columnist Abdullah Bozkurt wrote last week in Today's Zaman, Ashkenazi's claim that there is a distinction between Turkish government policies and Turkish military policies is "simply wishful thinking and do[es] not correspond with the hard facts on the ground."

Bozkurt explained, "Ashkenazi may be misreading the signals based on a personal relationship he has built with outgoing Turkish military Chief of General Staff Gen. Ilker Bazbug. The force commanders are much more worried about the rise in terror in the southeastern part of the country, and pretty much occupied with the legal problems confronting them after some of their officers, including high-ranking ones, were accused of illegal activities. The last thing the top brass wants is to give an impression that they are cozying up with Israelis...."

As described by Michael Rubin in the current issue of Commentary, those "legal problems" Bozkurt referred to are part of a government campaign to crush Turkey's secular establishment. As the constitutionally appointed guarantors of Turkey's secular republic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist government targeted the military high command for destruction.

Two years ago, a state prosecutor indicted 86 senior Turkish figures including retired generals, prominent journalists, professors and other pillars of Turkey's former secular leadership for supposedly plotting a coup against the Islamist regime. By all accounts the 2,455-page indictment was frivolous. But its impact on Turkey's once all-powerful military has been dramatic.

As Rubin writes, "Bashed from the religious right and the progressive left, the Turkish military is a shadow of its former self. The current generation of generals is out of touch with Turkish society and, perhaps, their own junior officers. Like frogs who fail to jump from a pot slowly brought to a boil, the Turkish general staff lost its opportunity to exercise its constitutional duties."

And yet, rather than come to terms with this situation, and work to minimize the dangers that an Iranian- and Syrian-allied Turkey poses, Israel's government and our senior military leaders are still trying to bring the alliance with Turkey back from the dead. Last month's disastrous "top secret" meeting between Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer and Davutoglu is case in point.

Far from ameliorating the situation, these sorts of gambits only compound the damage. By denying the truth that Turkey has joined the enemy camp, Israel provides Turkey with credibility it patently does not deserve. Israel also fails to take diplomatic and other steps to minimize the threat posed by the NATO member in the Iranian axis.

Our leaders' apparent aversion to accepting that our alliance with Turkey has ended is troubling not only for what it tells us about the government's ability to craft policies relevant to the challenges now facing us from Turkey. It bespeaks a general difficulty with contending with harsh and unwanted change that plagues our top echelons.

Take Egypt for example. Over the past week, a number of reports were published about the approaching end of the Mubarak era. The Washington Times reported that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is terminally ill and likely will die within the year. The Economist featured a fifteen page retrospective on the Mubarak era in advance of its expected conclusion.

There are many differences between the situation in Egypt today and the situation that existed in Turkey before the Islamists took over in 2002. For instance, unlike Turkey, Egypt has never been Israel's strategic ally. In recent years however, Egypt's interests have converged with Israel's regarding the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies Hizbullah and Hamas -- the Palestinian branch of Mubarak's regime's nemesis, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. These shared interests have paved the way for security cooperation between the two countries on several issues.

All of this is liable to change after Mubarak exits the stage. In all likelihood the Muslim Brotherhood will have greater influence and power than it enjoys today. And this means that a successor regime in Egypt will likely have closer ties to the Iranian axis. Despite the Sunni-Shiite split, joined by a common enmity of the Mubarak regime, the Muslim Brotherhood has strengthened its ties to Iran and Hizbullah of late.

Recognizing the shifting winds, presidential hopefuls are cultivating ties with the Brotherhood. For instance, former International Atomic Energy Agency chief and current Egyptian presidential hopeful Muhammed el-Baradei has been wooing the Brotherhood for months. And in recent weeks they have been getting on his bandwagon. Apparently, elBaradei's support for Iran's nuclear program won him credibility with the jihadist group even though he is not an Islamic fanatic.

If and when the Brotherhood gains power and influence in Egypt, it is likely that Egypt will begin sponsoring the likes of Hamas, al Qaida and other terrorist organizations. And the more powerful the Brotherhood becomes in Egypt, the more likely that Egypt will abrogate its peace treaty with Israel.

It is due to that peace treaty that today Egypt fields a conventional military force armed with sophisticated US weaponry. The Egyptian military that Israel fought in four wars was armed with inferior Soviet weapons. Were Egypt to abrogate the treaty, a conventional war between Egypt and Israel would become a tangible prospect for the first time since 1973.

Despite the flood of stories indicating that the end of the Mubarak era is upon us, publicly Israel's leaders behave as though nothing is the matter. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's routine, fawning pilgrimage to Mubarak this week seemed to demonstrate that our leaders are not thinking about the storm that is brewing just under the surface in Cairo.

Turkey's transformation from friend to foe and the looming change in Egypt demonstrate important lessons that Israel's leaders must take to heart. First, Israel has only a very limited capacity to influence events in neighboring countries.

What happened in Turkey has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the fact that Erdogan and his government are Islamist revolutionaries. So too, the changes that Egypt will undergo after Mubarak dies will have everything to do with the pathologies of Egyptian society and politics and nothing to do with Israel. Our leaders must recognize this and exercise humility when they assess Israel's options for contending with our neighbors.

Developments in both Turkey and Egypt are proof that in the Middle East there is no such thing as a permanent alliance. Everything is subject to change. Turkey once looked like a stable place. Its military was constitutionally empowered — and required — to safeguard the country as a secular democracy. But seven years into the AKP revolution the army cannot even defend itself.

So too, for nearly thirty years Mubarak has ruled Egypt with an iron fist. But as Israel saw no distinction between Mubarak and Egypt, the hostile forces he repressed multiplied under his jackboot. Once he is gone, they will rise to the surface once more.

Moving forward, Israel must learn to hedge its bets. Just because a government embraces Israel one day does not mean that its military should be given open access to Israeli military technology the next day. So too, just because a regime is anti-Israel one day doesn't mean that Israel cannot develop ties with it that are based on shared interests.

Whether it is pleasant or harsh, change is a fact of our lives. The side that copes best with change will be the side that prospers from it. Our leaders must recognize this truth and shape their policies accordingly.

Israel continues to be the demon poster-child of the Left. The prime example of a repressive regime and abuser of human rights. On the Left, people became outraged and agitated over Israel more than over any other cause. Israel's supposed villainy will bring out protestors on cold, rainy days in a way no other issue can. Many of these people are earnest, but perhaps misled.

In most ways, my own politics tend to be Liberal-Left: I support single-payer, universal healthcare, I opposed the war in Iraq and the Bush-Cheney "imperial presidency," I even voted twice for Ralph Nader. However, like French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, I differ on Israel and reject the demonization of Israel, whether at the United Nations, in the world media, or among American and European Leftists.

If my fellow Leftists or even Liberals think that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement will help bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as peace to the Middle East and harmony to the community of nations, they are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between criticism and demonization, and the campaign against Israel is of the latter type. Criticism, and there is much of it within Israel's own healthy democracy, can result in positive change. But the focused attempt to demonize Israel, not undertaken against any other nation, is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and undermining its very existence, as if the problems of the world were the fault of the Israelis -- the fault of the Jews -- and if they would only go away, all would be better.

Not only is this a sorry illusion, but this concerted assault on Israel itself betrays the principles of the Left.

Here, then, are 8 reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel (or, at least, Pro-Peace rather than Anti-Israel):

1. Human Rights. The Left fights for human rights in the world. Even if one thinks Israel or its soldiers guilty of human rights violations (and I am not willing at the outset to grant this point), there is no international or historical comparison that could reasonably rank Israel among the worst criminals of the world or of history. Whether we look at the scale of the conflict, the numbers of lives lost, or the treatment of the press or of dissidents, there are far too many examples of bloodshed and persecution dwarfing anything done by Israel against the Palestinians over the last four decades since the Six Day War, when Israel was attacked by its neighbors. Even Arab treatment of Palestinians, such as in Jordan's Black September massacre, caused thousands of deaths, possibly more in 10 days than in four decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And how can we compare Israel to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or the Chinese crackdown on Tibet and Tianneman? Or the disappearances and death squads of Latin America Square or the killing fields of Pol Pot? Let alone the genocide pursued by Hitler or Stalin's murderous reign? Let us be clear: genocide is the attempt to exterminate an entire people and culture; this is not what has happened to the Palestinians, and it is not the goal of Israeli policy. By contrast, the explicit aim of Hamas is to eliminate Israel. So, if we support human rights and oppose persecution, ought we not first to focus our efforts on the places where we find the worst situations? Can anyone rationally claim that among these places, let alone the most horrendous of all, is a small nation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?

2. Internationalism. Leftists tend to support internationalism. One would think that the United Nations would be the world body most dedicated to furthering this aim. But how is it that Israel, this small nation, has become such a central concern? From 2003-2010, there have been more than 900 human rights actions against Israel at the UNO; the next closest is Sudan at just under 400. Israel is the only member of the UNO to be excluded from any of the five regional groups. And should not all on the Left oppose the absurdity of the so-called Human Rights Council, whose members include such paragons of humanitarianism as China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan? How can Leftists stand silent when the Turkish Prime Minister denounces Israel for human rights crimes while then promising that the Kurds will "drown in their own blood," in a conflict with human rights abuses on both sides and tens of thousands individuals killed? If Gaza is not the ideal place to live, if the Gazans are suffering, nevertheless the photos in the New York Times and elsewhere and the testimony of reporters clearly demonstrate that Gazans are not starving, their store shelves are not empty, whether for food or consumer goods; as difficult as the situation may be, it is simply not the pinnacle of human rights disasters, and Israel is thus not deserving of international condemnation above all other nations in the world.

3. Peace. Leftists want peace. In the Middle East and elsewhere. The polls make clear that, overwhelmingly, Israelis desire peace with their neighbors; the difficult sacrifices, including the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza make this evident. Israelis are prepared for a secure, two-state solution, to live side-by-side in peace. Meanwhile, the stated goal of its enemies is to end its existence. A simple thought-experiment should make the matter starkly clear: If tomorrow Hamas and other Palestinian groups unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Peace. If Israelis unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Millions of dead or exiled Jews. Anyone on the Left who does not recognize this is living in denial. Leftists should support peace and not live in denial.

4. Anti-Authoritarianism. Leftists oppose authoritarianism and dictatorship and instead support popular, democratic rule. Israel maintains a vibrant, parliamentary democracy, with a broad range of views represented, much more so than in the United States, for example. Indeed, Arabs parties and Communists have long had representatives voted into the Israeli Knesset. Can we imagine such representation, as well as the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in Israel's Arab neighbors? In the Gaza ruled by Hamas? In Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia? By opposing Israel and supporting groups like Hamas, the Left is not supporting a liberation struggle but rather the effort to replace the Middle East's only democracy with yet another repressive dictatorship. Do Leftists really desire such an outcome? How can the one major effort to boycott, divest, and sanction be aimed at a democratic nation like this? As Bernard Henri-Levy has written at the Huffington Post of the "Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as though they were dictatorships or fascist States. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last thirty years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled."

5. Human Dignity and Equality. The Left fights for the values of dignity and equality. Are these traits exemplified more by Israel or its neighbours? Look at how much Israelis value the life of a single soldier, in the willingness to trade hundreds of prisoners for one soldier, and even to trade prisoners to recover their dead for proper burial. Look at the rules of engagement of the Israeli Defense Forces, at how the IDF calls and leaflets civilians to warn them; does any other military do such a thing? In terms of equality and human rights, compare the state of women's and gay and lesbian rights in Israel with that in the rest of the Middle East. And in terms of human dignity, do people on the Left think so little of Palestinian dignity that they are willing to claim Palestinians have "no choice" but to turn themselves into homicidal-suicidal bombers to kill Israeli children? Can we not expect more of people? Treating Palestinians like helpless victims does less than recognize their human dignity.

6. Anti-Discrimination. Leftists oppose sexism, racism, and any similar sort of discrimination. And so, Leftists do or ought to oppose anti-Semitism in the same way. And yet, Leftists too often give a pass to anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism or anti-Israel sentiment. The playwright David Mamet has written in the Huffington Post as follows: "Yet most of the Western Press, European and American, pictures Israel as, somehow the aggressor, and the Israelis as somehow inhuman, and delighting in blood." As Mamet has elaborated in his book The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, this is nothing less than a reworking of the old Blood Libel against the Jews--except this time, instead of being accused of using non-Jewish blood to bake matzah, the Jews are accused of spilling blood for no reason other than gratuitous pleasure. Leftists ought to be vigilant in distinguishing between constructive criticism of Israel and dehumanizing caricatures of Jews.

7. Self-Defence. Only the most uncompromising pacifists oppose the right to self-defense, and certainly most Leftists uphold this right. At least when Palestinians are doing the defending. Why are Israelis exempt from this right? How many Leftists would sit idly by while rockets rained down on their towns and families, with their children traumatized? And if we said, oh, but people are only killed occasionally, would that minimize your commitment to protect your family? Only Jews are expected to lay down their weapons and offer their throats. How dare the Jews have the chutzpah to fight back?!

8. Progress. We want movement on Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Yet, demonizing Israel, singling it out, as is done at the UN and on college campuses will do little to advance peace. We all know, have all known for decades the basic outlines of a peace settlement. The Israelis have been prepared for this and have prepared their citizens. The Left should be pressuring Palestinians to accept peace and to stop teaching their children that Jews are monsters after their blood. This sort of pressure might bring some progress.

It was long ago time for Leftists to tear down the poster that features Israel as the demon-child of human rights abuse and repression. It is time for Leftists to become outraged not over Israel, but over the distortions and demonization of Israel on college campuses and at the United Nations and throughout the media and politics. It is time for Leftists to reject the treatment of Israel as a pariah, or Jews as bloodthirsty murderers, and time instead to welcome Israel into the community of nations as a full member, subject to the same criticism and praise as any other nation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke the truth: One reason for the Palestinians' refusal to begin direct talks is the meddling by various Israeli players ("and not from the right"). But even without waiting for leaks from the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee subcommittee to which Netanyahu has promised to reveal the spoilers' names, one can easily identify individuals and organizations engaged in persuading the Palestinians to refuse the move to direct talks.

The world is with you, they tell the Palestinians, and the Israelis are worn out. Netanyahu has given you, gratis, the ultimate recognition that no previous Likud leader ever dared to grant: a declaration of your right to an independent state in the Land of Israel. Yet even the minuscule price the Americans asked of you - direct talks - you refused to pay.

When you continued to refuse, Netanyahu froze construction in the settlements. But even then you did not return to the negotiating table. And if you reaped two strategic achievements such as these while giving nothing in return, why should you hurry? This lemon can be squeezed again and again.

In contrast to the intentional spoilers, there are quite a few Israeli organizations that strive, with the best of intentions, to further an agreement with the Palestinians. Yet even though their intentions are good their actions only impede such an agreement. They toil, for instance, over drafting peace agreements, and the Palestinians reject every one of them. For experience has taught them that for every proposal they reject a new one will be put forth, offering even more concessions than the last.

Such proposals, such as receiving sovereign Israeli territory in exchange for the settlement blocs, have sunk roots into the Israeli consciousness. As a result, a return to the 1967 lines is no longer the end point of Israeli offers, but the starting point. And having obtained so much within so short a time, historically speaking, the Palestinians are convinced that they can wait another few decades.

But Netanyahu will not talk about this in the subcommittee session. Nor will he mention another reason for the Palestinians' refusal: the meddling of their brothers in Israel. They, being well aware of Israeli society's weakness, consistently demand - as they did on the eve of the Annapolis summit in 2007 - that their countrymen not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

On the eve of that summit, George Bush announced that his speech would include a presidential declaration that Israel is a Jewish state and the national homeland of the Jewish people. His administration invested great effort in trying to persuade Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accept this declaration. In response, representatives of various bodies that represent Israeli Arabs met in Nazareth and demanded that Abbas not consent to the declaration. A delegation headed by MK Ahmed Tibi even met with him to drive home the point.

Netanyahu will also not bare his heart to the committee regarding the problematic conduct of a certain very senior Israeli figure who frequently visits Washington. Initially these visits were for the purpose of strategic coordination, primarily on Iran. But in time the Americans took up this official (though Netanyahu could note that the dynamic was actually the reverse) in order to boost their own policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians. This official's goal, in full coordination with the Americans, is to force the prime minister to follow the road laid out by the White House.

Netanyahu spoke the truth when he said he is willing to begin direct talks tomorrow. Granted, his stomach must churn when he repeats his commitment to two states for two peoples, and perhaps he is wagering on the Arabs' continued refusal. But if the Palestinians are sincere when they say their goal is a state alongside Israel and not Israel's destruction, Netanyahu, who psychologically has already crossed the ideological Rubicon, will meet them halfway. And he will bring most of Likud with him - an unprecedented strategic achievement for the Palestinians.

But they will continue to reject direct talks, and influential Israelis, Jews and Arabs alike, will continue to support them. And they know why.

Imra.org.il, 27 July: Israel welcomed the decision by EU Foreign Ministers to impose additional and significant sanctions on Iran, targeting energy, banking, trade and transportation, as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This measure by the EU sends a clear message to Iran, that it should abide by the demands of the international community. It indicates the price that Iran has to pay for continuing its current conduct, and signals that the international community will not acquiesce to Teheran's systematic disregard of international norms.

ICEJ News, 28 July: IDF recovery teams found the remains of six Israeli Air Force crewman and their Romanian comrade killed when their CH-53 transport helicopter crashed during a training mission in Romania Monday night. The team, which included troops from the elite search-and-rescue unit 669, Oketz elite canine unit which includes dogs specially trained to locate body parts, Rabbinical Corps, Medical Corps and Spokesperson's Unit landed in Romania early Wednesday morning and were immediately taken to the crash site in the Carpathian mountains by their Romanian hosts, who had rushed to secure the site early Tuesday morning.

ICEJ News, 28 July: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held an unannounced meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II on Tuesday, just two days before a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo which will give a recommendation on whether or not the PA should move to direct talks with Israel over the future of the West Bank and other issues. Netanyahu was apparently hoping to secure Abdullah’s support for such talks after the King met with PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday.