Good luck to President Barack Obama. He will need it, not only because of the enormous challenges of the office he assumes today but also because of the highly unrealistic expectations of many of his supporters.

For the first time ever a blogger will be embedded with Canadian forces in Afghanistan. It's Damian Brooks of "The Torch" and if you'd like to offer him encouragement, especially of the pecuniary sort, I know it would be appreciated.

The BBC's story on Gaza today again invites readers to submit tales of suffering but, credit where credit is due, doesn't only ask residents of Gaza as it did on Dec. 27. Instead this time says:

Are you or your friends or family in the region affected by the violence? Tell us your experiences by using the form below.

It doesn't amount to "balanced" coverage of the whole issue let alone reasonable coverage (the latter, for starters, can tell an attack from a counterattack and knows who wants a truce so they can regroup and attack again and who wants one as a prelude to peace). But it's still an improvement.

So now the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee wants to boycott Israel... again. According to CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan, "In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general." And do they also want to boycott Palestinians unless they explicitly condemn terror attacks? No see when you fire rockets at Jewish kindergartens it um uh that is to say...

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who previously blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Gaza, has now changed his tune, expressing solidarity with Hamas, calling the Israeli actions "barbaric and criminal"  and threatening to break off peace talks that have so far yielded a second intifada, suicide bombings, rockets and threats of death to Jews. Oooooooooo.

Rumours swirl that Israel was considering a 48-hour humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza strip though in the end the government seems to have rejected it at least for the time being. But does anyone think if the situation were reversed Hamas would consider such a thing? Which does not settle the question whether Israel should, although those who proposed it ought to realize more clearly than they seem to that Hamas would not use a lull in fighting (or anything else) for humanitarian purposes. But Israel's willingness to entertain the notion does underline the stark moral difference between the two sides.

As another Middle Eastern "crisis" unfolds not only participants but commentators seem to be repeating themselves. Which is not really a criticism of the latter because the same old points generally retain their validity when one side (Israel) has limited new options and the other side (the Palestinian leadership and an unknown proportion of the populace) is wedded to a strategy of belligerent rejection that has now failed wretchedly for eight decades and counting. I note however Barry Rubin's point about the Hamas strategy of giving Israel "the choice between rockets and media" because I think most reasonable media, even if they stress the suffering of Palestinian civilians, also reflect an understanding that Israel doesn't really have a lot of options and it is the fault of Hamas that they don't so the suffering, which is deplorable, is also Hamas's fault. OK, so the New York Times sent out a Dec. 29 e-mail teaser (I don't know if it's possible to link to it but if you have the nytdirect@nytimes.com service you will have received it) saying:

"Israeli Troops Mass Along Border; Arab Anger Rises By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ISABEL KERSHNER With the death toll in Gaza rising to nearly 300, a furious reaction spread across the Arab world, raising fears of greater instability in the region.”

And on December 27 the BBC invited residents of Gaza, but not Israel, to submit tales and photos of suffering (that story is still online but the submit stories section and links seem to have disappeared). But for the most part my view is that the Western-media component of Hamas's strategy is as miserable in every sense as every other part of Hamas's strategy. Even in the Middle East some things do change.

The British doctors’ plot certainly helps clarify things. I am glad the operation was a failure and the patients did not die for the obvious reasons. But also because it helps me discuss the merits of this botched atrocity. First, its sheer incompetence. One of our advantages in the war on terror, albeit unearned, is that we are fighting people who have difficulty setting themselves on fire in a car full of propane. The Globe and Mail claimed Saturday that British police were “hunting for at least three other suspects and a mastermind,” but I doubt they’ll find the latter in this affair. Despite the defeatist tone of much western news coverage, our enemies are often as clueless as they are vicious.

Second, that this comically inept villainy was apparently the work of educated people with lucrative, prestigious jobs underlines that our problem here is not poverty, social exclusion or racism but an idea. Specifically, the belief that we should be blown up as promiscuous intoxicated unbelievers. “Death to infidels” is the root cause of Islamist terrorism, as more and more people realize.

That’s why the third piece of good news was the blasé public reaction. The usual suspects feigned horror that such terrorist acts should have been attempted by highly paid professionals honoured by the host society, but few others were fooled. To call terrorism a product of poverty is, as Chesterton said of crime, a slander on the poor, many of whom live decent, honourable lives. It is also a slander on all mankind, a pernicious denial of free will, for materialists to claim we can buy off our enemies with big salaries, fancy offices and high-definition TVs.

Ultimately we are accountable for our choices, not our circumstances, and deep down we all know it. Life is never easy, though tribulations vary. But adversity crushes some and strengthens others. And while poverty can contribute to despair and rage, as indeed can wealth, both are at best partial explanations, not legitimate excuses. If you believe in a merciful God, you must prepare one day to explain to Him why you chose terrorism, not why you had no choice.

In public policy, too, choices and ideas matter far more than circumstances. Islamists try to blow us up not for refusing them attractive jobs or for our foreign policy misdeeds, but because they think we should die for being happy, tolerant people who do not claim to love the Creator while despising His creation and His creatures. And unless we convert to their way of thinking, they will not relent.

Not everyone gets it. At a Wednesday press conference, NDP leader Jack Layton said we should label civilian casualties in Afghanistan “unacceptable,” distance ourselves from the Bush administration, withdraw our troops and initiate a “comprehensive peace process” because “nobody could advance the idea that there’s a military solution ultimately in Afghanistan.”

Since the Taliban see an obvious military solution, shooting their way back into power and killing everybody who taught girls, I asked him: “When you talk about your comprehensive peace process, what’s the offer to the Taliban?” Mr. Layton blithered that “Students of history will know that all major conflicts are resolved ultimately through peace-oriented discussions ...”

Unfortunately for him I am a student of history with three university degrees in the subject from two different countries, so I said: “And by the armies marching into Berlin and an atomic bomb dropped on Japan. That’s how World War II ended and students of history know that.” He responded: “Well I beg to differ that if you study the precise processes that took place most of the conflicts in the world you’ll see that there are always negotiations that take place. And that’s what needs to happen here.”

His response was insolently stupid. Of course at some point in almost any war someone staggers forward to sign an instrument of surrender, but other obvious historical examples of major conflicts that ended by crushing victory include World War I, the Napoleonic Wars and the Cold War. I didn’t have time to make this point, but it didn’t matter because most other journalists present, including from francophone media, were openly incredulous about Mr. Layton’s proposal. They might not support the Afghan war. But even the press grasp that you can’t sign useful treaties with people who dream of waving your severed head at a cheap webcam.

As students of history know, John Maynard Keynes was right that “soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good and evil.” It’s why doctors try to bomb nightclubs and airports. Clearly.

[First published in the Ottawa Citizen]