Will Christendom Fall?

Will Christendom Fall?

I've studied and written about the outright war between Christendom and Muslim.  I've advocated that Christendom (all religions that follow the Abrahamic God and Jesus Christ) cannot coexist with the Muslim belief system.  Further Muhammad's God is not our God.  The laws of Muhammad and memorialized in the Koran are antithetical to our Bible.

The gist of my study and writings is a bold and harsh reality: the followers of these two religions will not and cannot coexist.  That fact has been obscured by the followers of the false notion of "multiculturalism".  I won't go into again why it is a false idealism in this writing.

The answer the question in the title is "yes".  But it does not have to be.  The followers of Christ have become meek and silent.  The pulpits have gone quiet.  This is not Biblical nor is it what the Bible teaches. There are many scriptures to use in fighting an enemy, be it the Devil, a demon, or anything else. Here are but a few:

Old Testament

If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them … you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. I will give you peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; I will rid the land of evil beasts, and the sword will not go through your land. You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.” Leviticus 26:3

“For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and give your enemies over to you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that He may see no unclean thing among you, and turn away from you.” Deuteronomy 23:14

“… For we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You … Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel … thus says the Lord to you: ‘Do not be afraid nor dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours, but God’s … You will not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, who is with you, O Judah and Jerusalem!” Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, for the Lord is with you.” 2 Chronicles 20:12-17

New Testament

“Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.”Luke 10:19

“Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” James 4:7

“And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom.” 2 Timothy 4:18

“If God is for us, who can be against us?” Romans 8:31

Being right and just is not enough.  Satan has is at war with Christ no differently than he was 2000 years ago.  We cannot go quietly. We cannot be sheep lead to slaughter. Evil is alive and well and Christendom must come together, segregate ourselves from evil and prevail in the name of God and Jesus Christ.

Why do I write this impassioned plea? I get and see many articles and meme's circulating the internet. The intent is obviously heart felt.  However, they fall short. God has commanded us into action.  None of these are a call to action.  We must become Christian activist and persevere against evil in all its forms.

I would go further, to say that all of Christendom around the world should rise up for the Kingdom of God and slay the enemy and at least segregate ourselves from them.  They can live in peace, but not in our land and not in the land ordained by God to be free.

No peace in our time - Understanding Netanyahu

No peace in our time

by Charles Krauthammer

Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister, either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state – with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted – only to be rudely rejected.

This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 – three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership – from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas – has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.

That authoritarian order is gone. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.

In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the U.S. had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gadhafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”

From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?

There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gadhafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the last five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas.

With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland – just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas.

Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.

Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places.

Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the U.S., Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”? Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous U.N. resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium – now effectively rendered null?

Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail.

I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said in explaining – and softening – on Thursday his no-Palestinian-state statement.

In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Netanyahu victory is a message to Republicans

Yesterday’s election in Israel is a healthy reminder that the vote of the people matters. It is also a useful reminder that campaigns can make a big difference.

Prime Minister Netanyahu focused his campaign on national security. He argued that Israel’s very survival is at stake. His opponents wanted to emphasize the economy.

Forced to choose between their pocketbook and their lives, a large number of Israelis chose national security.

The bias of the media in this campaign was obvious and deeply anti-Netanyahu. Before Election Day, there were predictions that Netanyahu’s party, Likud, would only win 21 seats. Then the media decided based on exit polls that the race would be a tie with 24 seats for Likud and 24 for the left.

My guess is that media hostility to Netanyahu caused a significant number of those polled to refuse to admit they voted for him.

In the real results, it seems Likud won 30 seats for a surprisingly big gain in the complex world of Israeli politics. As the New York Post reported, “Not only was that shockingly good for Likud, it was a far stronger showing than in the last election.”

If Netanyahu was the biggest winner of the day, Speaker John Boehner may have been the second biggest winner. His decision to invite the Israeli Prime Minister to address a joint meeting of Congress created a close tie with the newly reelected Israeli leader.

President Obama publicly expressed disdain for Netanyahu and sent political operatives (not to mention, according to some allegations, taxpayer money) to defeat Likud. He lost.

This outcome is a good reminder that elections matter. The real vote was very different from the pre-election analysis which was off by 45% in the number of seats won. It was also “a far cry from the virtual dead heat that television exit polls had reported Tuesday evening,” as the Jerusalem Post put it.

Sometimes leaders have to make powerful, clear, emotional arguments buttressed by compelling and understandable facts. Something that Obama and the Democrats cannot do.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say, "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."

This outcome has to worry Hillary Clinton, who saw Barack Obama win the 2007-2008 primary campaign even though she was far-and-away the frontrunner, in part because she had no argument to make. She seems to have the same problem today.

Republicans should take heart that a campaign that focuses on making an important fact based argument can lead to a good election outcome. 

Hebrew - The Holy Tongue

Holy Tongue

By Mordechai Schiller

Not all languages are created equal. There is one language apart from all others.

Hebrew is called "Lashon Hakodesh" — the Holy Tongue. There are some who might dismiss this as just pious Heb-perbole. But you don't have to be pious — or Jewish — to know that Hebrew is special.

Personally, I have no problem with axiomatically quoting the Torah. We hold its Truth to be self-evident. As an old bumper sticker put it: "G-d said it. I believe it. That settles it!" But, for the cynics, skeptics, and others absolutely sure of their uncertainty, rather than beg the question by jumping right into quoting the Torah to prove its own specialness, let me start with a venerated secular source: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

The word "Ivri — Hebrew," means otherness. According to the OED, the etymology of the English word Hebrew is:

"Middle English Ebreu, from Old French Ebreu, Ebrieu (nominative Ebreus, 12th cent. in Hatzfeld & Darmesteter), from medieval Latin Ebrus for classical Latin Hebræus, from Greek Hebraios,from Aramaic 'ebrai, corresponding to Hebrew ibr? 'a Hebrew,' lit. 'one from the other side (of the river)'; from '?ber the region on the other or opposite side; from '?bar to cross or pass over.)"

Eons before Oxford, the Midrash explained why the Torah calls Abraham "ha'Ivri — the Hebrew." The word Ivri is related to the word eiver, meaning "on the other side." The Midrash explains that Abraham was unfazed by standing alone in his beliefs. "The whole world stood on one side and he stood on the other."

Could Thoreau have known this Midrash? In his essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, Thoreau wrote that Abolitionists should withdraw support for the government of Massachusetts and

 "not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have G-d on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."

Shortly after my brother Rabbi Nota Schiller (dean of Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem) got married, he moved to Israel. Before he left, he went to take leave of, Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner, zt"l, the late dean of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin.

Rabbi Hutner told my brother, "When we make a l'chaim toast for a yahrtzeit, we say, 'May the neshamah have an Aliyah [May the soul rise to a higher level in Heaven].' Now, I say to you, may your Aliyah [ascension to live in Israel] have a neshamah [soul]!"

In the course of the conversation, my brother mentioned that he was concerned about adapting to a new language. Given his lifelong involvement in writing and communication, he was afraid he wouldn't be able to fully express himself, writing in Hebrew.

Rabbi Hutner told him that people can readily learn to write in a new language. "But nobody," he said, "writes poetry in an adopted language."

Poetry, he explained, is too profoundly connected to our primal emotions. "There is one exception, though," the sage said, "A Jew from any country can learn to write poetry in Lashon Hakodesh; because Lashon Hakodesh is every Jew's first language."

Still pondering Rabbi Hutner's premise that no one writes poetry in an adopted language, my brother asked, "But what about Joseph Conrad?" (Conrad was a Polish immigrant, and one of England's greatest lyrical novelists.) Rabbi Hutner countered, "That is not poetry; that is prose." Apparently, Rabbi Hutner felt that — no matter how poetic — prose couldn't be verse.

A horse of a different color

Hebrew is the language of Creation: The Mishnah in Ethics of the Fathers tells us "that "the world was created with 10 utterances." The Divine created the universe using one set of tools: Hebrew words.

The Torah says Adam called his wife ishah (woman) because "she was taken from ish [man]." The foremost commentator, Rashi, explains, based on the Midrash, that this derivation teaches us that "The world was created with Lashon Hakodesh — the Holy Tongue — Hebrew."

Adam later "called his wife 'Chavah' [Eve] because she was to be mother of all chai [life]." The name Adam itself comes from the Hebrew word adamah [earth], because G-d created Adam from the earth.

A Horse is a horse, of course. But is it, really? The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says the etymology of horse is: "hors = Old Frisianhors, hars, hers (Frisian hoars), Old Saxon hros (Middle Low German ros, ors, Middle Dutch ors, Low German and Dutch ros), Old High German hros, ros, Middle High German ros, ors, German rosz, all neuter, Old Norse hross masculine; not recorded in Gothic. The affinities of the word outside Germanic are uncertain. …"

In other words, nobody knows for sure. So, "You pays your money and you takes your choice." Or, as Mark Twain said, "It is difference of opinion that makes horse-races."

On the other hoof, the Hebrew word sus is a horse of a different color. The Torah says that the Divine brought all the animals before Adam, "…and whatever the man would call each living creature — that was its name."

Adam didn't "give" the animals names. He prophetically connected with the spiritual essence of each animal and called it by its name. Thus, the Hebrew word sus isn't a mere label. It definitively identifies the creature we call a horse.

More to the point, all other languages are nothing more than collections of arbitrary sounds that enough people got together and agreed on to refer to a specific object.

In our case, that object is a mammal that has hooves, pulls loads, runs races and helped win the West. All things being equine, there is no intrinsic meaning to the juxtaposition of phonemes riding on horse. Since Hebrew is the language of Creation, by corollary, it is the language of prophecy.

As my brother said, "In prophecy, there is an absoluteness to diction and syntax. We scramble to catch the bobbing and weaving sparks of holiness hidden elsewhere. Yet the phrase 'V'romamtanu mikol ha'leshonos — He lifted us above all other tongues' — means just that." And so, only Hebrew is "Lashon Hakodesh — the Holy Tongue."

When I was a rabbinical student at the Beth Medrash Gevoha in Lakewood, NJ., I would sometimes spend lunchtime in the yeshivah library, reading Sefer HaCarmel — a dictionary/thesaurus based on the commentary of the Malbim (d. 1879).

The Malbim wrote in the introduction to his commentary on the book of Isaiah that the Jewish prophets never used two different words to mean the same thing.

There are no "synonyms" in Hebrew. That is, there are no interchangeable words. Each word is precise and essential. In his commentary, he defines seeming synonyms explaining the fine differences in meaning.

Yehuda Leib Gordon, the poet (d. 1892), and Pinhas Rutenberg (founder of the Israel Electric Corporation) were both irreverent enough to name electricity for an angel in Ezekiel's vision: "Chashmal."

It is ironic that the fathers of Modern Hebrew couldn't come up with a more creative word in Ivrit for Alexander Graham Bell's "harmonic telegraph" than telefon.

Lamentably, Modern Hebrew continues to deteriorate. How sad that the glut of Western media led to Israelis giving up "Shalom" for "Bye." But there is still hope. The OED says the etymology of "goodbye" is "A contraction of the phrase G-d be with you"!

America, Do Not Be Fooled!

How Islamic State's defeat will happen --- and what becomes of the Middle East if it doesn't

How Islamic State's defeat will happen --- and what becomes of the Middle East if it doesn't

By Caroline B. Glick

Hamas' war with Israel is not a stand-alone event. It is happening in the context of the vast changes that are casting asunder old patterns of behavior and strategic understandings as actors in the region begin to reassess the threats they face.

Hamas was once funded by Saudi Arabia and enabled by Egypt. Now the regimes of these countries view it as part of a larger axis of Sunni jihad that threatens not only Israel, but them.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its state sponsors Qatar and Turkey, are the key members of this alliance structure. Without their support Hamas would have gone down with the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt last summer. As it stands, all view Hamas' war with Israel as a means of reinstating the Brotherhood to power in that country.

To achieve a Hamas victory, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood are using Western support for Hamas against Israel. If the US and the EU are able to coerce Egypt and Israel to open their borders with Gaza, then the Western powers will hand the jihadist axis a strategic victory.

The implications of such a victory would be dire.

Hamas is ideologically indistinguishable from Islamic State. Like Islamic State, Hamas has developed mass slaughter and psychological terrorization as the primary tools in its military doctrine. If the US and the EU force Israel and Egypt to open Gaza's borders, they will enable Hamas to achieve strategic and political stability in Gaza. As a consequence, a post-war Gaza will quickly become a local version of Islamic State-controlled Mosul.

In the first instance, such a development will render life in southern Israel too imperiled to sustain. The Western Negev, and perhaps Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, will become uninhabitable.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. If, as the US demands, Israel allows Gaza to reconnect with Judea and Samaria, in short order Hamas will dominate the areas. Militarily, the transfer of even a few of the thousands of rocket-propelled grenades Hamas has in Gaza will imperil military forces and civilians alike.

IDF armored vehicles and armored civilian buses will be blown to smithereens. Whereas operating from Gaza, Hamas needed the assistance of the Obama administration and the Federal Aviation Administration to shut down Ben-Gurion Airport, from Judea and Samaria, all Hamas would require are a couple of hand-held mortars.

Jordan will also be directly threatened.

From Egypt's perspective, a Hamas victory in the war with Israel that connects Gaza to Sinai will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamic State and other allies. Such a development represents a critical threat to the regime.

And this brings us to Islamic State itself. It couldn't have grown to its current monstrous proportions without the support of Qatar and Turkey.

Islamic State is obviously interested in expanding its conquests. Since it views itself as a state, its next move must be one that enables it to take over a national economy. The raid on Mosul's central bank will not suffice to finance its operations for very long.

At this point, Islamic State wishes to avoid an all-out confrontation with Iran, so moving into southern Iraq is probably not in the cards.

US forces in Kuwait, and the strength and unity of purpose of the Jordanian military, probably take both kingdoms off Islamic State's chopping block for now.

This leaves Saudi Arabia, or parts of it, as a likely next target for Islamic State expansion.

Islamic State's current operations in Lebanon, which threaten the Saudi-supported regime there, indicate that Lebanon, at a minimum, is also at grave risk.

Then there is Iran. Iran is not a member of the Sunni jihadist axis. But when it comes to Israel and the non-jihadist regimes, it has cooperated with it.

Iran has funded, trained and armed Hamas for the past decade. It views Hamas's war with Israel in the same light as it viewed its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah's war with Israel eight years ago.

Both in Iraq and Syria, Iran and Islamic State have shown little interest in making one another their primary target. Turkey and Qatar have often served as Iran's supporters in the Sunni world. This is the context in which Israel is fighting its war with Hamas. And due to this context, two interrelated strategically significant events have occurred since the war began.

The first relates to the US.

The Obama administration's decision to side with the members of the jihadist axis against Israel by adopting their demand to open Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt has served as the final nail in the coffin of America's strategic credibility among its traditional regional allies.

As the US has stood with Hamas, it has also maintained its pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. The US's position in these talks is to enable the mullocracy to follow North Korea's path to a nuclear arsenal.

The non-jihadist Sunni states share Israel's conviction that they cannot survive a nuclear armed Iran.

Finally, President Barack Obama's refusal to date to take offensive action to destroy Islamic State in Iraq and Syria demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states that under Obama, the US would rather allow Islamic State to expand into their territory and destroy them than return US military forces to Iraq.

In other words, Obama's pro-Hamas-, pro-Iran- and pro-Muslim Brotherhood-axis policies, along with his refusal to date to take effective action in Iraq and Syria to obliterate Islamic State, have convinced the US's traditional allies that for the next two-and-a-half years, not only can they not rely on the US, they cannot discount the possibility of the US taking actions that harm them.

It is in the face of the US's shift of allegiances under Obama that the non-jihadist Sunni regimes have begun to reevaluate their ties to Israel. Until the Obama presidency, the Saudis and Egyptians felt secure in their alliance with the US. Consequently, they never felt it necessary or even desirable to consider Israel as a strategic partner.

Under the US's strategic protection, the traditional Sunni regimes had the luxury of maintaining their support for Palestinian terrorists and rejecting the notion of strategic cooperation with Israel, whether against Iran, al-Qaida or any other common foe.

So sequestered by the US, Israel became convinced that the only way it could enjoy any benefit from its shared strategic interests with its neighbors was by first bowing to the US's long-held obsession with strengthening the PLO. This has involved surrendering land, political legitimacy and money to the terror group still committed to Israel's destruction.

The war with Hamas has changed all of this.

The partnership that has emerged in this war between Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia is a direct consequence of Obama's abandonment of the US's traditional allies. Recognizing the threat that Hamas, as a component part of the Sunni jihadist alliance, constitutes for their own regimes, and in the absence of American support for Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have worked with Israel to defeat Hamas and keep Gaza's borders sealed.

Most Israelis have yet to grasp the strategic significance of this emerging alliance. This owes in large part to the Left's domination of the public discourse.

The Israeli Left sees this new partnership. But it fails to understand its basis or significance. For the Left, all developments lead to the same conclusion: Whatever happens, Israel must strengthen the PLO by strengthening Palestinian Authority Chairman and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas.

WAKE UP: Things We Infidels Don’t–But Must–Know

WAKE UP: Things We Infidels Don’t–But Must–Know

by Jeff Mullen 

Things we, the infidels, don’t understand – or chose not to.

1. Islam is NOT a peaceful religion.
The prophet Mohamed requires the conquering of the world in the name of Allah.  For the infidel (especially Jews and Christians) there are three options; Convert, Become a Slave or Die. That is the unfortunate truth according to the Holy books of Islam.

2. The word Sharia means “law”.
You can identify a true infidel (idiot) if they say the words Sharia Law in a sentence.  In effect, in their ignorance they are saying “law law”.

3. There is NO Islam without Sharia.
Thus Islam (Sharia) cannot coexist with our Constitution. To be a “true follower” of Islam a Muslim must follow the Koran, thus they must exist under Sharia.

4. “Radical Islam” and “Radical Christianity” are the same.
Now that I have your attention please allow me to explain. The word “radical” simply means “all in”.  There are marginal “Christians” who don’t know jack about the Bible and live their lives unto themselves giving God’s directives little thought as they enjoy their self-absorbed lives.  Yes, they are good folks.  Many are generous, friends, helpful, benevolent.  They go to church occasionally and especially on Christian holidays. But you certainly wouldn’t call them “radical for Jesus”.

There are also marginal “Muslims”.  They learned their prayers as a small child in a language that is no longer used – thus very few have any idea what they are repeating, they simply learned it from their parents. They also go about their lives with family, friends, working, vacationing and celebrating the occasional Muslim holidays.

It all sounds pretty much the same doesn’t it? Yes, it does – until the “radical” part kicks in. You see the “radical” part is when a person really reads their Holy Book, IE, Bible or Koran. When a person radicalizes to Bible and Jesus they begin living differently. They begin giving their lives away, serving, loving unconditionally, giving, sacrificing for the needs of others, helping to heal the broken all in the name of Jesus.

When a person radicalizes to Koran and Hadith they also begin living differently. They do what Allah says to do in fear of spending eternity in hell. However to do what Allah says is to literally “kill the infidel”. Eliminate all people and cultures who go against the teachings of Allah, especially the Jews and Christians:

5. A long term game plan
In North America we have (in general) a very temporal view of our lives. Since our Nation is still in the 200′s we are the new kids on the block. We are a fast food, quick results, get what you can while you can kind of society. 

Islam? Not so much. They literally have all the time in the world – and they will take it. Generations will come and go, but their goal is to conquer the world in the name of Allah.

With these simply understandings you’ll better understand the exceptional reporting of this Australian journalist.

Kerry clueless on Mideast situation

Kerry clueless on Mideast situation

by Charles Krauthammer

John Kerry is upset by heavy criticism from Israelis – left, right and center – of his recent cease-fire diplomacy. But that’s only half the story. More significant is the consternation of America’s Arab partners, starting with the president of the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas was stunned that Kerry would fly off to Paris to negotiate with Hamas allies Qatar and Turkey in talks that excluded the PA and Egypt.

The talks also undermined Egypt’s cease-fire proposal, which Israel had accepted and Hamas rejected. “Kerry tried through his latest plan to destroy the Egyptian bid,” charged a senior Palestinian official quoted in the Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat – a peace plan that the PA itself had supported.

It gets worse. Kerry did not just trample an Egyptian initiative. It was backed by the entire Arab League and specifically praised by Saudi Arabia. With the exception of Qatar – more a bank than a country – the Arabs are unanimous in wanting to see Hamas weakened, if not overthrown. The cease-fire-in-place they backed would have denied Hamas any reward for starting this war, while what Kerry brought back from Paris granted practically all of its demands.

Which is what provoked the severe criticism Kerry received at home, including from (among others) the scrupulously independent columnist David Ignatius, who called Kerry’s intervention a blunder.

Kerry seems oblivious to the strategic reality that Hamas launched its rockets in the hope not of defeating Israel but ending its intra-Arab isolation (which it brilliantly achieves in the Qatar-Turkey peace proposal).

Hamas’ radicalism has alienated nearly all of its Arab neighbors.

» Egypt cut it off – indeed blockaded Gaza – because of Hamas’ support for the Muslim Brotherhood and terror attacks on Egyptian soldiers in Sinai.

» Fatah, the main element of the Palestinian Authority, is a bitter enemy, particularly since its Gaza members were terrorized, kneecapped, expelled and/or killed when Hamas seized Gaza in a 2007 coup.

» Hamas is non grata in Syria, where it had been previously headquartered, for supporting the antigovernment rebels.

» Hamas is deeply opposed by Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states who see it, correctly, as yet another branch of the Islamist movement that threatens relatively moderate pro-Western Arab states.

Kerry seems not to understand that the Arab League backed the Egyptian cease-fire-in-place, which would have left Hamas weak and isolated, to ensure that Hamas didn’t emerge from this war strengthened and enhanced.

Why didn’t Kerry just stay home and declare unequivocal U.S. support for the Egyptian/Arab League plan? Instead, he flies off to Paris and sends Jerusalem a package of victories for Hamas: lifting the blockade from Egypt, opening the border with Israel, showering millions of foreign cash to pay the salaries of the 43,000 (!) government workers that the near-insolvent Hamas cannot.

Forget about Israeli interests. Forget about Arab interests. The American interest is to endorse and solidify this emerging axis of moderate pro-American partners (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states, and the Palestinian Authority) intent on seeing Islamist radicalism blunted and ultimately defanged.

Yet America’s own secretary of state doesn’t see it. Speaking of Hamas- run Gaza, Kerry actually said in Paris: “The Palestinians can’t have a cease-fire in which they think the status quo is going to stay.” What must change? Gazans need “goods that can come in and out ... a life that is free from the current restraints.”

But the only reason for those “restraints,” for goods unable to come in and out, is that for a decade Hamas has used this commerce to import and develop weapons for making war on Israel.

Remember the complaints that the heartless Israelis were not allowing enough imports of concrete for schools and hospitals? Well, now we know where the concrete went – into an astonishingly vast array of tunnels for infiltrating neighboring Israeli villages and killing civilians.

Lifting the blockade would mean a flood of arms, rockets, missile parts and other implements of terror for Hamas. What is an American secretary of state doing asserting that Hamas cannot cease fire unless it gets that?

Moreover, the fire from which Hamas will not cease consists of deliberate rocket attacks on Israeli cities – by definition, a war crime.

Whatever his intent, Kerry legitimized Hamas’ war criminality. Which makes his advocacy of Hamas’ terms not just a strategic blunder – enhancing an American-designated terror group just when a wall-to-wall Arab front wants to see it gone – but a moral disgrace.