Damascus is looking to score a few propaganda points over the ongoing fighting in Lebanon and northern Israel.

Syria’s new UN ambassador, Dr. Jafar Ja’afari, told reporters in New York Friday that prior to US-backed efforts to end Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, the presence of the Syrian army resulted in far fewer attacks on northern Israel.

Lebanon’s own military, by comparison, has no chance of reining in Hizb’allah.

“They have no army. It is small, it has little control and everyone knows this.”

Washington is well aware of this fact, insisted Ja’afari, and therefore bears a certain degree of responsibility for the current crisis.

Of course, that is all a load of crap. Northern Israel suffered far fewer attacks during those years because the IDF had military control over southern Lebanon. Not because the Assad regime, which is still technically at war with Israel, was calling the shots in Beirut.

The ongoing flare-up with Hizb’allah could not have come at a better time for Israel.

Israel has a unique opportunity to deal decisively with both Hizb’allah and the Assad regime in Syria with little or no threat of military intervention by other regional powers.

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak is highly unlikely to lead his nation into battle against Israel on behalf of Syria, as he is old, weak, and heavily beholden to American financial and military aid.

Of course, we all know that thanks to the Americans, Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat.

And with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan sandwiching Iran, even madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unlikely to attack Israel and give Washington the excuse it has sought to abruptly end his quest to pave the way for the 12th Imam.

This may be just the opportunity Israel and the US have been waiting for to eliminate two of the biggest threats to regional stability. It should not be wasted.

Driving around in Southern California today I noticed a bumper sticker that read “War is not the answer.” I assume it was a liberal jab at President George W. Bush’s going to war against those who attacked this nation a short five years ago.

It got me thinking about the kind of ignorant “happy-in-the-bubble” mindset that would lead to the proud display of such a statement. Continue reading »

Previously classified documents released in the US last week show that Yasser Arafat’s direct involvement in the 1973 murder of senior American diplomats in Khartoum was no secret. Continue reading »

Do Israel’s leaders - and for that matter, American and European officials - really believe that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is an opponent of anti-Jewish terrorism? Continue reading »

It is amazing to me how just a few short years after 9/11 so many Americans can have already “moved on” from that event and abandoned their nation’s efforts to defeat the enemy that perpetrated that evil. Continue reading »

Many have expressed surprise over the fact that while Israel is preparing to surrender nearly all the lands demanded by the Arabs, Washington - the primary driver of the land-for-peace process - maintains a cool and distant approach to the Israeli initiative. Continue reading »

Can someone please convince the Bush Administration that these truths also hold true in Israel:

In Iraq and around the world, we will never peacefully dissuade those dedicated to violence against us. They must be captured or killed.

Nor are the actual terrorist murderers the only problem:

sympathetic local populations…sustain the insurgency with cash, weapons, and intelligence.

And, in the case of the Palestinian Arabs’ overwhelming elecion of Hamas, with international legitimacy.

The article also provides logic that perfectly explains how and why Hamas managed to score its electoral coup:

Hamas is an “enemy who thrives by delivering empowerment and vengeance to [a population] drowning in poverty, social humiliation, and political marginalization. These masses in return sustain the enemy — passively with cover and actively with fighters.

Where I disagree with the authors is in their view that overwhelming firepower is not part of the answer, but rather greater involvement of local law inforcement.

If the Israeli-Arab conflict has taught anything, it is that in the Muslim world the perception of strength carries much weight.

When the enemy is perceived as strong, the terrorists are deterred. When the enemy is perceived as weak due to its failure to respond strongly to the terrorists’ threat, those terrorists are better able to convince local populations of their own strength, and so gain greater support.

The authors get back on track with their assessment of the need for a re-education of the local population.

The overall strategy, however, should be closer to that implemented again Japan in World War II - a strategy that worked perhaps better than any expected.

The Japanese were a people unquestionably dedicated to war on behalf of their deified emperor. It was overwhelming American firepower that convinced them of their own weakness and the need to lay down their arms, leading to the ability to carry out a true re-education of the general population.

Israel’s approach should be no different - the outright defeat of its enemies, followed by a concerted Israeli-controlled campaign to win the hearts and minds of the local Arabs through education.

This, of course, is unlikely to happen in the current liberal atmosphere of appeasement.

Fortunately, all hope is not lost. One day the overwhelming firepower of the Messiah will defeat Israel’s enemies, and a divine program of re-education will transform not only the Arabs’ hearts and minds, but their very souls.