Jordan looked like a decent partner: a fearful monarch whose only friend was Israel. Leaning toward Jordan didn’t work, either: Jordan drifted toward the Muslims bloc, and in any case will eventually be taken over by its Palestinian majority.

Israel aligned herself with Arab dictators: Gemayel in Lebanon, Mubarak in Egypt, and the Saudis. They need Israel to vent the radical feelings of their mobs, to help them fight the Islamists who challenge their regimes, and to establish a rapport with America. From a vent, Israel became a source of inspiration for Arab mobs. America, ever-wavering with presidential mood, proved an unreliable partner. Politically correct Israel does not fight Islamists as well as the Arab dictators had hoped, and in fact does not do so as well as they do themselves. Islamists are poised to take over the inner circles of the Arab countries that border Israel.

Artificial alliances require Bismarck’s flexibility and reliability.

The Shalit issue brings a stark moral dilemma: is it better for one innocent soldier to suffer than for a thousand guilty terrorists to remain insufficiently punished? Even hard-core Christian forgivers would agree that a 1:1,000 ratio is probably too much. In fact, it’s much more than that: a prisoner exchange sends tens of thousands of terrorists an explicit message that they too might be exchanged. Besides leaving those already guilty insufficiently punished, the exchange actually invites others to incur the same guilt. So it’s not really a question of exchanging one live Jew for the memory of hundreds of murdered ones; it is rendering one live Jew now at the cost of increasing the chances for many other Jews to be murdered in the future.

You may not like it, but Hamas was acting within international law when it kidnapped Shalit. Even among Jewish liberals, Professor Walzer, an eminent scholar of the moral theory of war, concedes that soldiers are not innocents. Once they take up arms, they become legal targets for their opponents. Israel was at war with Hamas at the time of the kidnapping. Since the West Bank is “occupied,” and not liberated or annexed, the war goes on. A country would be mad to consider exchanging one non-innocent person for a thousand guilty ones.

Israel never takes so many measures to protect her soldiers as to return the kidnapped ones. Dead soldiers constitute no political problem, but media cries over kidnapped Jews are ongoing. So we want to bring Shalit back, fine. What’s the problem with that? Israel has plenty of such experience. In the days of Wild West Zionism, Jews kidnapped Jordanians and Syrians to exchange for Israeli POWs. Now would therefore be the time to drive into the West Bank, enter any Hamas charity and round up its officials. Repeat this operation fifty times, then offer to exchange them for Shalit. If that doesn’t help, raze every Palestinian Authority building in Gaza to the ground. If that doesn’t do the trick, assassinate a few of the well-known Hamas donors in Egypt—a good thing, in any case. And go on with such commonsense measures.

Just what is Olmert accused of in the current criminal investigation? One, accepting cash campaign contributions. Every political group in Israel acts similarly. Ever wondered how much it cost to have Russian-Israeli journalists become excited about Lieberman during his election campaign? About $40,000 a head.

Two, asking Jewish billionaire Adelson to hear out Talansky’s business proposal. Adelson didn’t heed Olmert’s request, and at any rate such a promotion is common business for politicians and official rabbis alike. Olmert’s request to Adelson was unrelated to his duties in the government. Olmert possibly made a similar request on Talansky’s behalf to an Israeli diplomat in Latin America, again to no avail and to harm to Israel. In a country with rampant nepotism, political appointments, and kickback payments, Olmert’s behavior is even morally innocent.

Three, accepting and possibly soliciting money for personal travel expenses. Every politician and rabbi does likewise. Months ago, Netanyahu was accused of the same “crime” while in London during the 2006 Lebanon war. If anything, it is good that Olmert needed a bizarre Jewish philanthropist like Talansky to pay his hotel expenses. Barak, Netanyahu, and Lieberman “earned” enough to pay for their air tickets and hotels themselves. Unlike Olmert’s innocent calls on Talansky’s behalf, they truly made money off the Jewish state. They used their connections in the Israeli government and foreign connections acquired while in the government’s service to enrich themselves.

Yes, Olmert traveled first-class and stayed at expensive hotels. Do you really expect an Israeli minister to travel economy class? Any country’s minister? Tzipi Livni is flying by private plane. Gone are the days when Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Menahem Begin lived in simple apartments. Even in their days most officials enjoyed relative luxury. If you want a saintly figure at the helm I can suggest a few, but they are not electable.

What’s so bad about Olmert? Don’t forget that as a young MK he voted against Begin and Sharon’s giveaway of the Sinai. As prime minister, Olmert launched the second Lebanon war upon the first pretext, which greatly damaged Hezbollah. The war has been mishandled? If so, then it was by the IDF Staff, not by Olmert. He authorized continuous strikes at Gaza. Would a full-scale invasion with pitched urban battles have been better? Should the IDF re-occupy Gaza and police that hostile territory, with Jewish soldiers open to ambushes and suicide bombers day and night?

Everyone screams of forcing Olmert to step down and replacing him… with whom? Even the venerable Shamir and Begin were forced to make sweeping concessions, such as the Madrid Conference and the Camp David giveaway of Sinai. Who can succeed Olmert? Mofaz and Livni have professed their desire for a two-state solution and their intent to pursue the suicidal peace process. Tzipi’s only electoral advantage is that common Israelis know nothing about her—and therefore she is the only candidate of whom nothing bad is known.

Barak had already campaigned as Mr. Tough, and indeed he refused talks with Arafat initially, but changed his mind once the Intifada weakened his domestic support. Desperately needing Arab and ultra-left support, he agreed to abandon even Jerusalem to the PLO. Unless, of course, we believe that he cheated the ultra-left and only agreed to concessions after secretly arranging for Arafat’s eventual refusal.

Netanyahu reneged on his promise to denounce the Oslo Accords, though he currently claims to have fulfilled his electoral guarantees by not implementing the accords due to Palestinian non-cooperation. But is it okay to abandon Judea to cooperative Palestinians? He abandoned Hebron, and there is no doubt he will similarly abandon Jerusalem. If Shamir and Begin were unable to withstand the combined American-leftist pressure, Netanyahu would surely give way.

There are a handful of honest non-electables, including Ariel Eldad, Baruch Marzel, and Moshe Feiglin. They can get a few seats, but never form a coalition government. Of course we should vote for them; we need them in the Knesset as gadflies. Netanyahu doesn’t need your vote to win the elections, but your vote may be critical for Eldad and Marzel. As long as Netanyahu follows through on his promises not to give up Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (what about Judea?), Eldad and Marzel will support him—so your votes will work.

No electable politician has the guts to flatly renounce Israel’s capitulation to the Palestinian enemy. Short of such a great leader, Olmert’s tactic of pulling wool over the leftists’ eyes is the next-best approach. Promise all that they want to hear, give them nothing, drag out the negotiations. Politics is the art of the realistic.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathered all the usual culprits whose models and predictions universally failed. Time and again accused of scientific fraud, these pundits keep resurfacing. Apocalyptic ecologic scenarios call for government intervention, and everyone in power, from leftists to imperial hawks loves ecologists. Ecological scares were common throughout the history. They gained popularity since Malthus. Who cares that he repudiated his earlier conclusions about the overpopulation threat? Ecologists (what kind of education is that?) warned of global cooling, global warming, ozone hole, asbestos threat, extinction of some rare butterfly and the fish you have never seen in supermarkets, anyway. European forests and American buffalos are extinguished – so what? Europeans live far better than their ancestors; Americans, too. Alpine and Alaskan glaciers are intensely melting since nineteenth century, well before the first electric bulb, gas heater, or car appeared. The Ice Age ended only 10,000 years ago, and the Little Ice Age – just a century ago. The temperatures are rising now because they were historically low 150 years ago. Ice caps are melting because they hugely increased since sixteenth century. Ice ages come and go in cycles, apparently related to solar activity. Mechanisms are entirely unclear: for example, periods of low sunspots often surprisingly correlate with volcanic activity on Earth.

Current temperatures are historically low, and their increase is normal. What is the increase, anyway? The ecologists debated it at the conference. That’s right, the conclusions are based on debate; estimates ranged several times. Good for leftists, bad for scholars. Theories are expected to be proven with something more sound than vociferousness. So perhaps global temperatures will increase a few degrees over the century. I love warm weather. People in cold countries would enjoy the change. Africans, they are technologically unable sustain the exploding population whatever the climate. Jews, we developed Gaza and Negev, and would bear a few more degrees. Rising sea levels? Dutch people built dams for centuries. It’s better to be warm than to suffer the energy consumption levels of Neanderthals.

Carbon dioxide increase coincided with industrialization. Cause-and-effect relationship is dubious. In warmer periods, carbon dioxide increases about 50% from the glacial levels. Current concentration is slightly above that norm, but the norm is average. Most likely, in some periods the average increase was greatly exceeded. On the geological time scale, the current carbon dioxide levels are very low. Humans contribute hardly 3% to the natural output of carbon dioxide, at least half of which gets regenerated in plants and dissolved in oceans. To claim that a system so well balanced and adaptive as Earth could be destabilized by 1% change is preposterous.

It is unlikely that the ecological hype would cause significant reduction in oil purchases from Muslim countries, but worth trying.

(Face it: with no good lake around, where to drown a Jew?)

Interestingly, the US supported the Ethiopian preemption of the Somalian guerrillas. Technically, Ethiopia cooperated with the Somalian government to provide a shred of legitimacy to the invasion, but in reality Somalia is governed by Islamists. Israel, in a similar situation, continuously worries about US reaction to its invasions of Lebanon and Gaza. The lesson is there: America, a country of reasonable people and a not stupid government, supports necessary defensive measures so long as they are effective, not widely seen as atrocities, and kept short.

The conflict in Somalia came from the colonial powers drawing arbitrary borders (ethnic Somalians live also in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti). Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq also have arbitrary, unsustainable borders.

In 1993, Clinton refused to retaliate for the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia. Since, in his opinion, the world knows that the US could flatten Mogadishu, there was no need to enact the already credible threat. Events proved him wrong.

The First Battle of Mogadishu was a great encouragement for Muslims worldwide; it also changed the regional balance of power.

Ethiopia, a country friendly to Israel, was locked in a struggle with Somalian Islamic militants. Given money and weapons, Ethiopia could have dealt them a lasting blow. When the US decided to run from Somalia, it covered the evacuation with the UN-sponsored “peace process” (America similarly pushes Israel to acquiesce to the hostile Palestinian state to divert attention from the Iraqi fiasco). The peace saved the core of the Islamic militia which mushroomed in the extensive system of Islamic courts. Eventually, Somalia became a fundamentalist Islamic state and stepped up the subversion of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti, its neighbors. For a decade, Ethiopia tolerated Somalia according to UN policies instead of thrashing the Islamic state.

Somalia is less dangerous than Afghanistan, and many Arab mujahedeen choose it for jihad (against Christian Ethiopia). Eritrea, a long-time rival of Ethiopia, provides the Islamic guerrillas with funds, plenty of light weapons, and logistical support. Tribal war in Somalia, which America chose to overlook rather than brutally extinguish with Ethiopian help, grew into a full-blown jihad. Some problems go away when forgotten; radical Islam doesn’t.

The Battle of Mogadishu was not even a setback but an overwhelming success with a kill-to-loss ratio of more than 100. Whatever minor losses the US troops suffered could have been avoided by involving Pakistanis and Ethiopians.

Niyazov annihilated the opposition, disregarded liberalism, democracy, and the rule of law. He appropriated much, perhaps most, of the country’s oil and gas revenues. On the positive side, Turkmenistan was safe.

Now America will push for democratization. Turkmeni progressives will achieve quasi-free elections and eventually lose to Islamists. Alternatively, Moscow could install another tribal despot, and the US would lure him with more money.

Turkmenistan is a test case for leftists. According to their views, international corporations will now bankroll this or that clan to obtain huge oil and gas concessions. That won’t happen. The least princeling exercises more power in his country than does the largest foreign corporation. Commercial wars were common in the past and might reappeare in the future, but now corporate military influence is limited to small-time financing of rival factions and lobbying for army contracts. For all the profits Turkmenistan offers, Western corporations won’t try to prevent it from slipping into democracy.

Vietnam did not discredit the US army, and Afghanistan won’t discredit NATO. Both were created for large-scale total wars. The best sledgehammer cannot be used to make even the worst furniture.

NATO is a thing of the past, and would better be honorably discharged.

Haggard never posed as a saint. So, yes, he tried methamphetamine, perhaps took it several times. Millions of responsible adults do the same. It’s not a mind-boggling drug that causes strong addiction but merely a social drug, no worse that alcohol.

Perhaps Ted Haggard had sex with a man. That’s not prohibited in the Christian canon. In Matthew 8, Jesus healed the centurion’s male lover. Paul criticized homosexuality only to the Roman Jews, and his homophobic pronouncement in 1 Corinthians 6 is similar to the one in the forged Timothy, thus likely interpolated.

All of us have sinful inclinations. Suppressing them to zero is a feat for saints. The rest of us should keep sins to a minimum. The stronger a sinful desire, the greater the courage and strength required to keep it at bay. If Haggard indeed enjoyed social drugs and male sex, the rarity of the alleged sins—a few times a year—testifies in his favor.

Haggard showed himself a man of honor when he stepped down amid unsubstantial allegations. In a similar situation, neither Clinton nor Katsav resigned (nor should they). What is Haggard being chastised for, being less than a saint? Private hypocrisy? Homosexuality? Rather, leftists strike at Haggard because he opposes gay marriage, and conservative idealists join. Haggard, even if a hypocrite, a drug addict, and a homosexual, is an efficient political leader who fights for the right thing. If the devil fought gay marriage, I would shake his hand.

Occasional using drugs is qualitatively different from being a drug addict. Occasional male sex is poles apart from gay marriage which Haggard vehemently opposes. Haggard’s flock would be silly not to reinstate him.