Joseph Bottum probes the very wordiness of words. While I share wholeheartedly his enthusiasm for “thwart”, I wonder if he is in danger of disappearing up his own eponym.

Thwart. Yes, thwart is a good word. Thwarted. Athwart. A kind of satisfaction lives in such words--a unity, a completion. Teach them to a child, and you'll see what I mean: skirt, scalp, drab, buckle, sneaker, twist, jumble. Squeamish, for that matter. They taste good in the mouth, and they seem to resound with their own verbal truthfulness.

I’m not sure about “verbal truthfulness”, but so far so good.

Admittedly, some of this comes from onomatopoeia: words that echo the sound of what they name. Hiccup, for instance, and zip. The animal cries of quack and oink and howl. The mechanical noises of click and clack and clank. Chickadees, cuckoos, and whip-poor-wills all get their names this way. Whooping cranes, as well, and when I was little, I pictured them as sickly birds, somehow akin to whooping cough.

And yet, that word akin--that's a good word, too, though it lacks even the near-onomatopoeia of percussion and lullaby, or the ideophonic picture-drawing of clickety-clack and gobble. The words I'm thinking of are, rather, the ones that feel right when we say them: accurate expressions, somehow, for themselves. Apple, for instance, has always seemed to me the perfect name--a crisp and tanged and ruddy word.

Apply, you might say.

Grammarians may have a technical term for these words that sound true, though I've never come across quite what I'm looking for. Homological, maybe? Autological? Ipsoverific? In a logical sense, of course, some words are literally true or false when applied to themselves. Words about words, typically: Noun is a noun, though verb is not a verb. Poly- syllabic is self-true, and monosyllabic is not. And this logical notion of autology can be extended. If short seems a short word, true of itself, then the shorter long must be false of itself.

But what about jab or fluffy or sneer, each of them true in a way that goes beyond logic? Verbose has always struck me as a strangely verbose word. Peppy has that perky, energetic, spry sound it needs. And was there ever a more supercilious word than supercilious? Or one more lethargic than lethargic?

Was there ever a more whatty word that what? And you can’t get much more itty than it, or more moreish than more. What, for that matter, is andier than and? But is as butty as you get – but me a buttier but and I’ll eat my hattty hat.

 

I wonder how Bottum – that name has a ring to it – would view my list of words that sound rude but aren’t, posted here some time ago:

Masticate
Bloviate
Onomastic
Dictaphone
Bomfoggery

Conversely, there are words that don’t sound rude but are, principally “merkin”. What a merkinsome word that is.

There is an interesting contention at work here that says society has no right to discriminate (the word itself is now pejorative) between any human beings for any reason. Which is a horrifying idea if you think about it; that we should all be lumped together in one mass and the hierarchical structure which is the skeleton of society should be removed. Shakespeare put it another way, untune that string and what discord follows. More disturbing still, is that if this decision stands, it is likely a polygamy challenge will follow.

New Duranty: The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

It was denounced by religious and conservative groups that promised to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision...

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice George wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”...

“The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.” ...

Here is Maggie Gallagher's article on the subject.

The trouble is, neither Obama nor the State Department view Iran as a terror regime; they see it as a regime that has relations with terrorists which it could be reasoned out of.  That's why every time the Iranians do something nasty — like murdering American troops — via one of their instruments (the IRGC, the Qods force, the Hezbos, Sadr, the Assads ...) we get this hilarious hair-splitting about how maybe these "independent" forces were acting without the knowledge of Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, et al. 

It was the stated purpose of the Bush Doctrine, as originally articulated, to eliminate this nonsense.  Terror sponsoring regimes were (ostensibly) given a choice — with us or against us, convincingly renounce terrorism or be treated like we (intended to) treat terrorists.  No more dancing on the head of a pin to avoid acknowledging that, for example, Iran was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers attack (19 US Air Force dead) — as the Clinton administration had done because, well, when you acknowledge such a thing you then have to do something about it, and Clinton had no intention of doing anything about it.

Alas (there's that word again, which becomes like a mantra when recounting the Bush administration), it was just words.  Whether there's a Republican or a Democrat administration, the State Department is the State Department.  Dancing on the head of a pin is what it does.  While Bush talked "with us or agin' us," State (with lots of help from the commentariat, including on the Right) refurbished the Bush Doctrine into an effort to eradicate terrorism through democratization — as if the lack of democracy rather than an interpretation of Islamic doctrine were the cause of Islamic terrorism. 

What you will find is that the State Department way is something into which Obama blends seamlessly.  So, for that matter, does McCain.  We can quibble about "preconditions" — and it really is quibbling:  What "preconditions" did the Bush State Department demand before negotiating directly with Iran? — but the fact is that at the Nuance U they run at Foggy Bottom there is no contradiction between saying you won't negotiate with terrorists and saying you are prepared to negotiate with Iran.

Oftentimes when reading government reports like the one which arrived in my mailbox this morning, I am reminded of Basil Fawlty and his insistence that he spoke true, "classical" Spanish, not that "strange dialect" spoken by Manuel, the Spanish waiter. Illustrative YouTube here. The following is from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The first hearing on the homegrown threat considered the potential for radicalization in U.S. prisons, including an examination of the activities of Kevin Lamar James, an American citizen. While in prison, James adopted a variant of violent Islamist ideology [read: became a Muslim], founded an organization known as the Assembly for Authentic Islam (or JIS, the Arabic initials for the group), and began converting fellow prisoners to his cause. Upon release, James recruited members of JIS to commit at least 11 armed robberies, the proceeds from which were to be used to finance attacks against military installations and other targets in southern California. James and another member of the group eventually pled guilty to conspiring to wage war against the United States.

The James case is only one example of how the violent Islamist terrorist [read: Muslim] threat has evolved and expanded since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks and recruited the hijackers abroad before sending them to the United States to make final preparations for the operation. The 9/11 hijackers were indoctrinated into the violent Islamist [read: Islamic] mindset long before they set foot in the United States. As the James case and others illustrate, however, radicalization is no longer confined to training camps in Afghanistan or other locations far from our shores; it is also occurring right here in the United States.

During the 110th Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), the Committee continued its investigation into the threat of domestic radicalization and homegrown terrorism inspired by violent Islamist ideology [read: Islam].

etc., etc., etc.

Lebanon is being torn apart by the Sunni-Shi'a conflict that began with the succession battle following the death of Muhammad in the 7th Century. The viciousness of the conflict is put down to its being a civil war by this reporter, but this kind of viciousness is typical of Muslim conflicts across time and space. From the BBC:

...The wave of the displaced [Shi'a] washed into the Druze mountains [after the Israeli assault on Hezbollah two years ago], into non-Shia parts of Beirut, and other areas which the Israelis were not hitting. Many people from other communities dropped everything to help.

Haitham Dabbara, a 35-year-old lawyer, mobilised his friends to raise funds and buy supplies, bedding and medicines. He took them to the schools and other public buildings where the Shia refugees were sheltering.

Haitham himself was a Sunni but that did not matter to him. He was an idealist who wanted to help the innocent victims of war.

You have probably noticed by now that I am speaking about Haitham in the past tense.

Last Thursday, just minutes after the Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, had finished delivering a fiery television address, his militant Shia fighters unleashed a devastating offensive in the Sunni areas of west Beirut.

One of the worst-hit areas was Ras al-Nabaa, where Haitham's family home was. Haitham and his parents decided to escape to the mountains for safety.

As they crossed a main road controlled by Hezbollah and its allies, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at his car. It ripped off the back of his head, and that of his mother, Amal. They died instantly.

The bodies were taken to hospital. Haitham's younger brothers, Ra'id and Ayman, were somewhere else at the time. They were told their mother and brother had been hurt, so they tried to get to the hospital.

As they crossed the main road, fighters from a militia allied to Hezbollah checked their ID cards and waved them through. They then opened fire and shot them in the back.

Ra'id was hit in the spine. He may be paralysed for life. Ayman was hit in the stomach. He should recover. They are both in hospital.

There is something about civil war that brings out a viciousness rarely found in conventional combat. And it was not all one-sided.

The Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, admitted his followers had mutilated the bodies of two captured Hezbollah fighters.

And Hezbollah TV showed some bloodcurdling footage, taken on a mobile phone, of Saad Hariri's Sunni followers lynching about a dozen members of a Syrian-backed group allied to Hezbollah in the north of the country.

Not open-ended, not everywhere at the same time, but the flames of political and sectarian strife erupted in one place after another.

As tensions spread, Shias were pitted against Sunnis, Sunnis against Alawites, Druze against Shias, and so on, stirring ancient passions and vendettas, and creating new ones which will be hard to stifle.

The army commander, General Michel Suleiman, who everyone agrees should be the country's next president, circulated a message to his officers, some of whom wanted to resign.

What's happened, he said, is a real civil war that no national army in the world could confront without disintegrating. His army was under massive strain.

He only managed to hold the army together by the huge compromise of having it stand by and watch, as Hezbollah and an unruly collection of allied militias stormed the streets of west Beirut. Hezbollah, he knows, is far stronger than the army or any other faction in the land.

Had he confronted it, not only would he have lost but the army would probably have broken up on sectarian lines, as it did during the civil war of the 70s and 80s...

No mincing words here. The popularity of Hamas must have something to do with their honesty and this honesty must reflect the true feeling of the populace. From the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Wednesday that a Palestinian state will be established on all of the land of Palestine and not only on parts of it, and that it will include "Jaffa, Lod and Haifa."

Zahar also reiterated Hamas' unwillingness to recognize the State of Israel and said that the group "will continue to persecute the Zionists wherever they are, after we prove that the Zionist army can be defeated - contrary to what was believed in the past, that it is impossible to beat the Zionists."

Speaking in the Gaza Strip, he went on to affirm Palestinian right of return, claiming that the "right of return of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians is closer than ever."

"After we defeat the Zionists we will persecute them… we will persecute them to eternity, and the sun of the freedom and independence of the Palestinians will burn all of the Zionists," he continued...

Osama bin Laden, whatever else may be said about him, speaks honestly and forthrightly about the imperatives of Islam. Here is his latest message brought to us by MEMRI:

On May 16, 2008, the Islamist website Al-Ikhlas posted an audio message by Osama bin Laden titled "The Reasons for the Conflict: Commemorating 60 Years Since the Emergence of the Occupying Israeli State."
  
In the message, bin Laden accuses the West of consistently taking Israel's side in the conflict. He also blames the West, and more particularly the U.S., for what he calls its double standard, which he says is manifested in the fact that it commits crimes against Muslims around the world but at the same time speaks about moral values. 
  
Bin Laden further states that the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary indicates that "Israel did not exist 60 years ago, and only came into existence on the stolen Palestinian land, by military force... This is clear proof of the truth of our claim that Palestine is our land and that Israelis... must be fought against."
  
Bin Laden accuses the Western media of "distorting the truth," by "presenting Israelis always as the victims... while depicting the Palestinians as terrorists..." and, more generally, for creating a distorted image of Muslims which allows Western countries to wage war against Muslims. He adds that Western leaders' participation in the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary is strong proof that "the West assists the Jewish... occupation of our land, and that it has put itself in the Israeli [military] trench against us..."
  
Bin Laden concludes his message by promising that as long as one living Muslim remains in the world, "they will not relinquish even one inch of Palestinian land."

As if Muslim prayers weren't robotic enough already, this new robot rug will correct every deviation from form.

Islamonline: CAIRO — Using modern technology to serve Muslims better perform their religious rituals, a fourth-year PhD computer science student has designed a high-tech prayer rug equipped with sensors, lights and a Qur'an display screen.

"It will increase their understanding of the scriptures and the quality of the prayer," inventor Wael Aboulsaadat told the Toronto Star on Thursday, May 15.

Aboulsaadat, studying for his PhD at the University of Toronto's computer science department, has designed a prayer rug with built-in sensors that can detect the worshipper's posture.

If the user makes an error, such as missing or adding a step in the prayer sequence, the sensors will vibrate in alert...

It also features a compass – complete with a 3D model of the holy mosque in Makkah – so the worshipper can find Ka`bah direction wherever he/she may be...

The digital rug has lights that can be used in case the worshipper is in a dark place.

It is also equipped with a digital screen enabling the worshipper to follow the Quran verses recited during the prayer.

"You can customize and choose which [verses to read in the] prayers," says Aboulsaadat, 36...

Wow, you mean choosing a fixed verse to stick into a fixed verse? That seems like a dangerous amount of freedom to me.

He says the prayer eRug is just a prototype that can be further enhanced to fit all major religions.

Aboulsaadat hopes to work on the invention so that people of all faiths could use it in their religious activities.

He contends that a Catholic learning catechism, a Buddhist wanting deeper meditation, a Jew studying the Torah could benefit from a digital device that would remind, correct and allow for customization. 

Could a Torah rug contaminate a Muslim rug if they accidentally touched? Will there be adequate precautions?

Here is the speech Bush delivered at the Knesset yesterday, May 15:

2:55 P.M. (Local) THE PRESIDENT: President Peres and Mr. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, thank very much for hosting this special session. President Beinish, Leader of the Opposition Netanyahu, Ministers, members of the Knesset, distinguished guests: Shalom. Laura and I are thrilled to be back in Israel. We have been deeply moved by the celebrations of the past two days. And this afternoon, I am honored to stand before one of the world's great democratic assemblies and convey the wishes of the American people with these words: Yom Ha'atzmaut Sameach. (Applause.)

It is a rare privilege for the American President to speak to the Knesset. (Laughter.) Although the Prime Minister told me there is something even rarer -- to have just one person in this chamber speaking at a time. (Laughter.) My only regret is that one of Israel's greatest leaders is not here to share this moment. He is a warrior for the ages, a man of peace, a friend. The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon. (Applause.)

e gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.

Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.

The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.

Centuries of suffering and sacrifice would pass before the dream was fulfilled. The Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust -- what Elie Wiesel called "the kingdom of the night." Soulless men took away lives and broke apart families. Yet they could not take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God. (Applause.) When news of Israel's freedom finally arrived, Golda Meir, a fearless woman raised in Wisconsin, could summon only tears. She later said: "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words."

The joy of independence was tempered by the outbreak of battle, a struggle that has continued for six decades. Yet in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats, Israel has built a thriving democracy in the heart of the Holy Land. You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth. You have forged a free and modern society based on the love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity. You have worked tirelessly for peace. You have fought valiantly for freedom.

My country's admiration for Israel does not end there. When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution. We see world-class universities and a global leader in business and innovation and the arts. We see a resource more valuable than oil or gold: the talent and determination of a free people who refuse to let any obstacle stand in the way of their destiny.

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: "Masada shall never fall again." Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

This anniversary is a time to reflect on the past. It's also an opportunity to look to the future. As we go forward, our alliance will be guided by clear principles -- shared convictions rooted in moral clarity and unswayed by popularity polls or the shifting opinions of international elites.

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. (Applause.)

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world. (Applause.)

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. (Applause.)

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. (Applause.)

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not export violence, they will be partners in peace.

The fundamental insight, that freedom yields peace, is the great lesson of the 20th century. Now our task is to apply it to the 21st. Nowhere is this work more urgent than here in the Middle East. We must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair. We must give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society. We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.

That future will be a dramatic departure from the Middle East of today. So as we mark 60 years from Israel's founding, let us try to envision the region 60 years from now. This vision is not going to arrive easily or overnight; it will encounter violent resistance. But if we and future Presidents and future Knessets maintain our resolve and have faith in our ideals, here is the Middle East that we can see:

Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar -- the key to the Zion Gate -- and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people." City

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless.

Bush's speech to The Knesset was excellent.  Would that his policies better reflected the words he uttered, and the sentiments that those words are meant to reflect. But his policies don't, and unfortunately, he has by now become, in much of the world, both fairly (and often unfairly) a dismissable figure of fun.

So imagine someone else saying these words or rather, expressing the same support, the same admiration, but in different words, indeed expressing an even stronger support and admiration, and a dismissal, that Bush did not make, of all the false claims -- historical, legal, and moral, trumped up and repeated so  often that even some who should know better, should not have forgotten what they once knew,  no longer do, and so like the callow ignorant young will have to learn (in some cases, re-learn) the history of Israel, and of its enemies, learning the simplest demographic and cadastral facts, in order to recover attitudes that have been lost under the steady onslaught that the BBC, for example, gives evidence of every day in every way.

Take something like or much better than these words, your own variant depending on whom you are imagining standing in Bush's stead. Take Winston Churchill, or Jacques Ellul, or Eric Hoffer, or Raymond Aron, or Indro Montanelli, or Magdi Allam, or Andrey Sakharov, or Henry Jackson, Oriana Fallaci, or Malcolm Hay, or Pierre van Paassen, or, for that matter (and for this one),  Jorge Luis Borges or Vladimir Nabokov. 

That's a baker's dozen. There are plenty more at a similar level: Dmitri Likhachev. Alain Besancon. Conor Cruise O'Brien. Would you like to be inside that bakery, or would you like to remain standing outside, your mind full of misinformation, your face contorted with viciousness and hate, with Robert Fisk and George Galloway, Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchanan, Ward Churchill and David Duke, Louis Farrakhan and Jean-Marie Le Pen. If you would like inwardly to listen to that still small voice that suggests there is yet another way, a via media, an "on-the-one-hand-this-on-the-other-hand-that" way, tell that still small voice that in this case -- not always, but because of all that has happened, all that is certain to happen because of the promptings of Islam -- that still small seemingly sweet-reasonable little voice that always finds, in the end, that everyone has a point, is quite wrong. There isn't a third way. It's all, or nothing at all.