…from the Arab world. Our challenge in this war is to make them majority (and vast majority) views.

Only two days until Iran’s promised response (like we can trust their promises?) to the UN ultimatum, here’s a roundup of relevant and interesting links. Here’s one:

Americans are now most aware of the Iranian role in promoting fascism: 58 percent in the poll think Iran is now the “main promoter of Islamic fascism in the Middle East,” and 76 percent believe Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons “at any cost.”

A (brave) British Muslim MP says that those British Muslims who pine for sharia law should move to Saudi Arabia.

Michael Widlanski isn’t very impressed with PM Olmert, either:

As the combat has trailed off in Lebanon, it can now be said that whatever Israel

Caroline Glick has a depressing, and entirely plausible (and in fact likely) analysis of the inevitability of war in the Middle East, and Israel’s need to prepare for it now (which probably includes forming a new, competent government).

Just one disagreement. Israel will not have to go to war with Iran. Israel has been at war with Iran (and Syria) for years, only via proxie.

We’re already starting to see dire consequences of Israel’s disastrous war. Al Aqsa thinks that it now knows how to defeat Israel:

“Hizbullah proved what we have already known and felt here in a number of opportunities. The Israelis are lying when they paint their military as unbeatable. A few hundred Hizbullah fighters showed them what an army is, and how to conduct a battle.”

According to Abu Nasser, Nasrallah’s organization still hasn’t had its last word.

“From our acquaintance with them, there is no way they are going to disarm. The organization has strategic objectives and the current battle proves that if it will decide to initiate another battle

Andy McCarthy points out the cognitive dissonance of the ACLU and New York Times:

…which is it? Is the TSP leak a big nothing that changed no one’s behavior, or a bombshell that changed everyone’s behavior? Evidently, it depends on which scenario the Left believes will damage the Bush administration more on any given day.

Here’s an interesting article on the history of Israeli military conflicts, and why they lost (or at least didn’t win, making another inevitable soon) this one.

I’m too busy to post much on this right now, but this leads to a much bigger theme. One of the damaging things that the UN has done over the decades is to short-circuit many conflicts, causing them to actually go on unabated for years, albeit at a lower level with flareups, because its emphasis and urgency is always on band-aid ceasefires and halting fighting, rather than achieving true peace or justice.

Victor Davis Hanson writes that there is some hope amid the current gloom in the Middle East:

…all is not lost, since lunacy cuts both ways. Iran and Syria unleashed Hezbollah because they were both facing global scrutiny, one over nuclear acquisition and the other over the assassination of Lebanese reformer Rafik Hariri. Those problems won

The New York Times thinks that the administration is “rewriting the Geneva Convention,” when in fact it’s the New York Times that is engaging in revisionism.

Mark Danziger explains the historical foolishness of the argument that it’s important for us to abide by Geneva so that our enemies will. In fact, when we grant Geneva rights to people who have no rules at all, we weaken the Conventions, and strip them of meaning. There are good reasons to treat Jihadi prisoners humanely, in general, but Geneva is a very misguided and in fact counterproductive one. And as a commenter points out, it’s only possible to make the argument that the Times does if one has never actually read the Conventions.