September 15, 2014 --

Mr. Secretary: You have stated that the United States is not at "war" with ISIS but, rather, is engaged in a "major counter-terrorism operation."

Does this reasoning have anything to do with President Obama's statement in the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, April 6, 2009, that the United States will never be at war with Islam? (The president reiterated this statement , two months later, in his Cairo University address, with the added qualification that the United States will "relentlessly" respond to violence threatening the security of the U.S.) That is, is the administration concerned that a statement of war against ISIS could be viewed by some as the equivalent of our going to war against Islam?

Mr. Secretary: When the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas entered into a unity pact, last April, your spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, was quoted in The New York Times, April 24, in part: "'It's hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.'" Does Ms. Psaki's statement indicate that you are aware that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel by Jihad and rules out peace negotiations as "a waste of time."

Do you agree that it is hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that refuses to negotiate peace, intent, instead, on destroying Israel by Jihad (holy war)?

Is LPR correct, however, in understanding that the administration cannot accept destruction by Israel of Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction, but it is now permissible for the administration to destroy ISIS -- by counter-terrorism, not by war?

In World War II, the United States and her allies regularly bombed civilians in the course of attacking German and Japanese targets with the aim of obtaining the unconditional surrender of those enemies. Do you now disagree with the way we fought World War II? The Arab-Israel War is now in its 68th year. Have you considered that if the limited rules of engagement you would impose on Israel were taken by President Roosevelt as the guide to fighting Germany in World War II, the Nazis would still be in power -- unless, that is, Stalin would have refused such rules, with the Soviets eventually absorbing all of Europe -- up to the English Channel.

(There may, of course, be officials in the West, today, who are convinced that that is Putin's aim -- to absorb all of Europe--up to the English Channel. An explanation for the push to "expand" NATO up against Russia, perhaps.)