I hope you will start at the beginning, by putting these words in a frame on your desk:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

You, of course, recognize these words as Article I, Paragraph I of the UN Charter. It powerfully captures how the UN is supposed to maintain peace. Its key tactic is to take "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

In short, organize the good guys to gang up against the bad guys. And how are we to tell the difference between the good and the bad guys? To the drafters of the Charter, this was obvious -- peace-loving states must collectively defend themselves against aggressor states.

It has become fashionable to claim that "aggression," presumably like the terms "terrorist" and "freedom-fighter," is in the eye of the beholder. But that sort of attempt to rob critical concepts of their meaning is exactly what has transformed the UN into such an Orwellian place, where Israel is the most condemned country in the world and the worst dictatorships and even genocide are ignored or paid lip service.

There is an easy way to tell the difference between aggression and self-defense: if the victim stops defending himself, war continues and even escalates; if the aggressor is defeated or stops attacking, there is peace.

Someday, the UN will rush to condemn those attacking Israel more quickly than it leaps to stop Israel from defending itself. When that day comes, peace will have arrived as well, or will not be far off.

Sincerely,

Saul Singer
Jerusalem, Israel