The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder.Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.

Unity, Sekhel Tov, & Love

Rav Chama bar Chanina said, ‘the son of David will not come until the petty government has ceased from Israel, as it is stated, ‘He will cut off the shoots with shears.’ After that it is written, ‘at that time a gift will be brought to Hashem of Hosts, a people pulled and torn.’ And Rav Yehoshua said, upon the cessation of the power of the holy people”…when you see a generation upon whom disasters surge like a river” [1]

When will redemption come to the Jewish people especially in the Land of Israel, made for each other as the Eternal terms each of them His morasha (“heritage”)? Commenting on the discussion cited above, Rashi and HaRav Shlomo Eidels state that as redemption proceeds along its bumpy track, “riding on a donkey” [2] “the Jewish people will not have “even the most petty vestige of autonomy.” Eidels (1560-1630) interpreted “the petty kingdom” as a reference to “the corrupt and debased” dominion of Rome - Edom who have lorded it over Israel for two millennia as it does now through surrogates. His further comment that “He will cut off the debased ones [Rome] with songs” evokes a literal translation of la m’natzeach b’neginot, mizmor shir” “to Him Who grants victory through the power of music, a glory of song” [3].

We have observed that redemption is delayed “until the arrogant [government and judges] are removed from Israel “and leave in your midst a humble and forbearing people” (Zephaniah 3:10-12). Previous essays have explained that this is a clear reference to the “sorcerers” or spin-masters and “idolatrous judges” who betray Jews to gentile powers, more evidence that the sages of the Mishna and Talmudic Midrash saw our own day through the oppressions of theirs [4]. The fashioners and sellers of today’s diplomatic processes and media ‘interpretation’ or conditioning, of confounding truth with lies and debasing language exemplify the “stealing of eyes” and stealing of minds (gonev da’at) that is a form of idol worship and the reduction of human freedom to fatalism and inability to perceive clearly and think [5]. Primary 20^th century expressions of this idolatry and official lying, this teaching of falsehood is the notion that there is a “Palestinian people” that this non-nation should have a “Palestinian State” carved from the center of ancient Israel and its holiest sites, and that Israel thus will receive “peace,” that is, the peace of the grave as the Pax Romana often has been termed by the victims of its protection racket. As the Jewish people, having been delivered by a series of autocratic governments (Avot 2:3) suffer expulsions, rocket barrages, and the steady loss of their autonomy, the modern Roman solution to its Jewish problem appears: the Promised Land with Jewish sovereignty reduced to “Holy Land Theme Park” administered by the UN, policed by NATO and the EU, including its subservient local contractors, the IDF all for the benefit of a Vatican-“Palestinian” bilateral accord to be followed, after the inevitable escalating violence, by the last Crusade [6].

Israel again is being dispossessed of its dearly regained heritage, -- and so is the Creator. The answer inheres in the nature of the Eternal One and has been articulated and is being urged by hundreds of Israel’s best, -- students from yeshivas demanding that all those who care for Jewish survival and sovereignty unite. Unity and love is the essence of Israel’s internal relations and stance to the world; the fullness and perfection of mitzvah yichud called figuratively, “the Kingdom of Heaven” fulfilled in an intact Israel, Yisrael shleimah [7]. Because Israel is the heritage of the Eternal, there is no forgiveness for dividing it or scattering the Children of Israel for that is denying the Unity of God.

Rav Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal made this a central theme of his amazing work, “Em HaBanim Smeichah (“A Glad Mother of Children”) written and printed as he fled the Nazis in Hungary [8]. The fourth and last chapter of this masterwork of scholarship and focused compassion is titled, “Unity and Peace: Israel’s Restoration.” The gist of this unique work is captured by a sub-title heading, “a plea to the survivors [of the shoah]: return to your motherland” (3.6) and of abundant proofs brought to support “the importance of settling the land,” “our obligation to support and build the land” and at the thematic core, “the Unification of Israel through the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (“settling the Land of Israel”) [9].

In regard to the Mishna cited in the epigraph and discussed in paragraph one, above, Rav Teichtal wrote that “Redemption will come only at a time of extreme poverty and hardship” (I.5). It would have pained but not shocked him that the disunity and mutual recriminations he saw, though he spoke little of the hatred of the secular Jews for the observant, and, ultimately for Judaism and the central focus on settlement which in his days they led were leading to the disintegration of the state under the relentless hammer blow pincers of diplomacy and attrition orchestrated and equipped by Edom. Rav Teichtal cites the very passage from Mishna, “I will leave in your midst a humble and forbearing people” and notes that “it is a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved from it” (Jeremiah 30:7). Commenting on the crying of the infant Moshe (Exodus 2:6) he quotes the sages of the Zohar in linking this to the adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter (“and she had compassion on him”) to explain that “the era of ‘in its time’ (b’ita) will arrive at a time to weep, as Kohelet said [10].

Millennia of abuse by the nations have turned Israel’s might and self-respect into fear, bickering and even hatred of each other, and more. Perhaps this is why Rav Teichtal so repeatedly and thematically related unity to love among Jews. One notable occasion is when he quotes the Rabbi of Belz telling another senior Rabbi that until Mashiach comes “it is of the utmost importance that the Jews love one another. One must love even the lowliest Jew as himself. One must engender unity and keep far away from anything that causes disunity; the salvation of Israel during times of trouble depends on this” [11]. In this context, Rav Teichtal quoted the verse, “indeed they are my people” (Isaiah 63:8) adding, “even when they sin it is a mitzvah (commandment) to love them, to bring them near [to you] and treat them affectionately. In this way we will achieve salvation” [12]; for Hashem’s portion is His people: Jacob is the measure of His inheritance” (Deut 32:8).

It is ironic and terrible that in recent years, so notably at the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif, it was the observant who followed this council, showering love and sweet reason on soldiers, government officials, and the nation and in return being treated, at the orders of American diplomats and the joy of the sinners – or the Erev Rav – among Israel as if they and not the Arabs were the enemy. Of that part of the ruling class that is Jewish it is written, “all of his evil deeds are the result of the strengthening [in this world] of the evil forces and are due to the hardships and suffering which have caused him to lose his understanding. I swear by the Eternal God, that all of the wicked Jews in this country are like infants kidnapped by gentiles. They act under [internalized] duress and speak out of ignorance” [13]. It is for this reason that Maimonides commented extensively on the terrible damage done by “time deciders” and “conjurors” as noted above, and for this reason that he enumerates so explicitly the commandments against studying, thinking about or gazing at the practices and idols of the star worshippers or idol makers and their philosophies [14]. The love that pours from the brilliant and afflicted Rav Teichtal as he cites Rav Komarno recalls the wise teaching that time, place, community, and forebears all shape a person’s capabilities and judgment [15]. Yet in this context too, as the times seem designed to teach us, the words of the Rambam are very timely that those who give the lives or property of fellow Jews to gentiles are themselves like gentiles. These recall the Mishnaot and Talmudic teachings on the sorcerers and arrogant, idolatrous judges discussed above and this is the saving lesson of these days.

In simplest terms, and to a degree that might shock Rav Teichtal writing from the midst of terrible affliction (and that shocks millions of Jews today) it is the Jews who took the lead in building, planting, and settling large parts of the land who most often forget his and the Torah’s essential points of unity, love and brotherhood encapsulated in the commandment “to love your fellow Jew as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18). The hatred by these for other Jews proves the stringencies of Rambam’s comments on “those who worship other gods” whether these are pride, money, the power of NATO or the ability that the latter gives to afflict their fellows and serve as their alien taskmasters.

Nevertheless, Rav Teichtal wrote, “not a single Jew will be cast aside [at the time of the redemption], not even the greatest and most rebellious of sinners.” Here again one sees his conflation of love, unity and sovereignty, following the views of Rav Shmuel and Rambam that the main change in the era of Mashiach is Israel’s liberation from rule by foreign nations [16]. “Unity,” the Rav stresses, “is the only remedy for widespread adversity. Disunity is worse than idolatry [supra, on fragmenting Israel vs. mitzvah yichud]. Those who unify belong to Ya’akov’s camp and those who divide belong to Lavan’s” (Genesis 28-31). Support for this comes from the practical problems addressed by the students and their call for unity among those who support Yisrael Shleimah, and thus the integrity of the Creator, and from Rambam who explains that there are warnings, negative exhortations against factionalism and “schisms in the nation” contained within the prohibition against lacerating oneself when mourning (Sefer HaMitzvoth II. 45).

An pertinent aspect of achieving unity and redemption is explained by Rav Avraham Yitzhak Kook in commenting on the influence of Amalek, the eternal enemy of Israel, its election and mission of exemplifying godliness; an enemy who has never been more fiercely intent than today when the hills of Israel have once again put forth their fruit and the Children of Israel in large numbers have fulfilled the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz, settling the Land. He notes the verses, “God told Moses, ‘write this as a reminder in he Book and repeat it in Joshua’s ears: I will totally obliterate the memory of Amalek…the Eternal shall be at war with Amalek for all generations” (Exodus 17:14, 16). There is no pointless repetition in the Torah so what is the point of the apparent redundancy,” asks Rav Kook. He explains that it in part refers to the written (“write it in the Book”) and the Oral Torah (“and repeat it in Joshua’s ears”). In fact implicit evidence for the beginnings of teaching Torah orally had begun in Exodus 12:2 and were clearly referenced by Yithro a few verses later in chapter 18. Rav Kook explains that this passage refers not only to the singular enmity of Amalek and the obligation of Israel to remember their hatred and destroy them “for all generations” but to the integration of the written and oral Torah. To the extent that Amalek is destroyed, Torah achieves some of its original unity and the complementarity of the written and oral teachings is affirmed, as will be the unification of all factions and degrees of observance among the Children of Israel as they embrace the mitzvah of settling the land [17].

Rav Teichtal quotes the Rambam on an issue critically important in these times as it has been, as Rambam notes, since the exile of Edom and Ishmael, with all their shmadot (“destructions,” assimilation and forced conversions) began. “We must not rely on miracles alone,” Rav Teichtal writes, speaking of settlement, unity, and love. As tradition says, “man must begin and the Eternal will complete.” More formally this is stated, “it is not your duty to complete the work, neither are you free to desist from it” (Pirke Avot 2:21). The Rav cites two letters from Rambam to prove his point that metaphysical and spiritual perfection are one with physical and earthly redemption. Rambam tells the Jews of Marseilles that astrology books “are absolutely foolish,” distract and steal the mind, as he explains in many mitzvoth we have noted. And Rambam added strong admonitory words to this caution: “this [focus on esoteric wisdom] is what abolished our kingdom, destroyed our Beit HaMikdash [“Holy Temple”], prolonged our exile and brought us to our present predicament…our fathers imagined that these wisdoms, vanities that cannot avail, were glorious and they did not study warfare and land conquest; instead they imagined that these wisdoms would help them...but they are vain” [18]. This is the good sense and practical wisdom that is part of Jewish holiness and it is apt that it focuses on sovereignty, the Temple and, implicitly, its service. This harks to the opening of the famous Mishna, “on three things the world is based: Torah, Temple Service, and deeds of kindness” (Avot 1:2). In the absence of the entire Torah and Temple service and all the loving kindness and blessing it sustains, “the sword comes into the land for the delay of justice and the perversion of justice” (Avot 5:11). It is just such perversion that the youth of the land and all those who fulfill mitzvah Yishuv strive to halt and prevent, and to fulfill the mitzvah of not standing idly by while your brother’s blood is shed (Vayikra 19:16). Moreover, Em HaBanim Smeichah was directed mainly at observant Jews who had refrained from the practical study of war, leaving it to the secular who now use it against them, degrading their own military capabilities in the process. “The sun will not rise before dawn,” he notes citing many sources. The first faint glimpse of the morning star, its strengthening and then the dawn are the pattern for human effort to initiate great changes. “The gedolim and ‘shepherds’ of Israel must lovingly accept any opportunity for redemption and strive to bring it to completion. They are responsible for using their wisdom for the mitzvah of gathering and uniting [Israel] as one” [19].

Neither the Rav nor Rav Kook would have guessed the degree to which the original HaShomrim (“guardians” of the rural Jewish settlements) would evolve from lack of observance or faith to the hatred of Jews and a Jewish Israel that characterizes post-Zionist Israel. Thus Rav Kook wrote in 1913 that “though there are many souls who are on a very low level with regard to their willed-holiness [and] are afflicted with immoral behavior and dreadful beliefs, their innate segula [Jewish potential for glowing holiness] shines brightly. That is why they so dearly love the Jewish people and the Land of Israel” [20].

All the more reason to emphasize Jewish unity, love and good sense; politics, factions and power-brokering are Greek imports; Israel is enjoined against them as noted. All of the Jewish people are tzaddikim, saintly, a “branch of My planting” says the Holy One, “for me to glory in” as they rejoice in My land, bringing redemption close and increasing to “a mighty nation” (Isaiah 60:21-2). Unity, good sense, and love among Jews; remembering and warring against Amalek; achieving the integrity of the land as an essential basis of unity and the dominion of the Highest Wisdom. As Amalek tramples and demands, thrusting their mockery world into the place of the Creator’s these principles blaze more and more clearly to the Nation of Israel: “they will attain joy and gladness; sadness and sighing will flee” from the dominion of Israel, “a holy nation.”

1. Isaiah 18:5 cited in Sanhedrin 98a2 Talmud Bavli, Tractate Sanhedrin III (Mesorah 1995; 2004, Daf Yomi edition), Rabbis Dicker, Katz and team. Sekhel Tov is “good sense,” common sense informed by Torah study.

2. The phrase is in Zechariah 9:9 and describes the Mashiach when redemption is “in its time” (b’ita, Isaiah 60:22) in due course and much anguish, pain and confusion. The comments by Rishonim and Achronim are discussed by Rabbis Dicker & Katz, supra. They note the etymology linking zalzalim, “shoots” and zalah (“petty”).

3. For example psalm 67, etc. Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Hirsch Psalms (1882; English translation, Feldheim 1960; 1997, Gertrude Hirschler); cf. Genesis 43:11, “take of the Land’s glory” (mizimrat Ha’Aretz); on Edom and the nations that covet Israel and would preempt its flourishing see Ezekiel 36:4-12

4. Sanhedrin 98a3 with comments.

5. Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvoth II.32 (Moznaim 1993)

6. Vatican-Palestinian Accord for “Protection of Holy Sites,” February 2000; cf. all prophecies on Edom.

7. Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvoth I.2, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1.7-12; on the initiative of the students, see www.israelnationalnews.com 4-01-8 item #10

8. Em HaBanim Smeichah, printed December 1943, English translation Moshe Lichtman (Kol Mevaser 2000), distributed in America by Lambda Publishers, Brooklyn, NY

9. ibid. III.5, 12, 9 in order quoted.

10. ibid. 123-5 with notes, Kohelet (“Ecclesiastes”) 3:4, “a time to weep and a time to laugh,” hence, “a glad mother of children” in the title, quoting psalm 113:9, this being an ultimate analogy for “lifting the destitute” such as Israel was during the shoah and has become, diplomatically, for many of them now with the institutions of state indoctrinating students and soldiers into seeing their brethren and heritage as obstacles to joy, much as the major media have taught the world to see Israel’s restoration. Thus we live in a world of war processes called peace, a world of lies and shadow wars, of sterile virtual reality cloaking more and more of life. See www.Israelnationalnews.com item #6, 4-01-08 and archives

11. Ibid. 111-12; the exhortation was addressed to Rav Moshe David Teitelbaum.

12. ibid. 112-13

13. Rav Teichtal quotes Rav Isaac of Kamarno, ibid. 105-06 and passim

14. Hilchot Avodat Kokhavim 2:1-4; Sefer HaMitzvoth II.10: “even to gaze at the form of the external image and to consider its construction is forbidden…or giving thought to idolatry” (cf. Deut. 11:16); and “do not contemplate them with the eye of intellect” (Deut. 12:30). The practical aspect of this is “people have limited powers of understanding” and “might destroy the whole world” even by intellectual meddling with these principles that pervert creation and Creator (Avodat Kokhavim 2:3, cf. Sefer HaMitzvoth II.32

15. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato (Ramchal), Derekh Hashem 2.3.7 (Feldheim 1997 revised translation)

16. Rav Shmuel in Sanhedrin cited by Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11:1-3, 12:1

17. Rav Abraham Yitzhak Kuk, Igrot Ha’Reiyah, III, pages 86-7 (1917) cited and elaborated in Gold from the Land of Israel: a New Light on the Weekly Torah portion from the writings of Rav Kuk, Rav Chanan Morrison (Urim, Jerusalem, 2006), 127-9; On Amalek, Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvoth I.187-90; II. 48-51, 59

18. Teichtal, op. cit. 272-3 quoting Rambam, Igrot U’Teshuvot, Igrot Shonot, p. 21; Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1-2, 5:1,4,5 passim

19. Teichtal, 267-74, passim; “our redemption depends upon redemption of the land.” And adds (267) “we must not disregard or ignore any redemptive event” like the building of outposts or marches to Homesh. A main source for the reference to the morning star and dawn is Rav Chiya cited in Brachot 1:1 of Jerusalem Talmud.

20. Rav Kook, Igrot HaReiyah, II.555 cited in Morrison, op cit, 126

............With Love of Israel

---

---

 

If you had collaborated with enemy to get elected to office,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy and not given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy, given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; and not divided the People of Israel setting brother against brother,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; and not beaten and abused women and children,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places, divided the People of Israel; beaten and abused women and children; and not suppressed our freedom of speech,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech and not endangered our water supply,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply and not released terrorist murderers into our midst,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply, released terrorist murderers into our midst and not surrendered our strategic mountains that protect us from attack,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply; released terrorist murderers into our midst; surrendered our strategic mountains; and not created a Palestinian State dedicated to the destruction of Israel,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply; released terrorist murderers into our midst; surrendered our strategic mountains; created a Palestinian State and not broken G-d's Covenant with Abraham,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply; released terrorist murderers into our midst; surrendered our strategic mountains; created a Palestinian State, broken G-d's Covenant with Abraham and not defamed religious Jews and their TORAH,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

If you had collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply; released terrorist murderers into our midst; surrendered our strategic mountains; created a Palestinian State, broken G-d's Covenant with Abraham, defamed religious Jews and their TORAH and not jeopardized Jewish rule in Jerusalem,

Dayenu -- It would have been enough to rebel against your rule

 

TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT OF OLMERT, BARAK,

LIVNI AND PERES:

 

You have done all of these things. You have collaborated with the enemy; given away our Sacred Land and Holy Places; divided the People of Israel; beaten women and children; suppressed our freedom of speech; endangered our water supply; released terrorist murders into our midst; surrendered our strategic mountains; created a Palestinian State; broken G-D's Covenant with Abraham; defamed religious Jews and their TORAH and even jeopardized Jewish rule in Jerusalem.

 

DAYENU! WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR RULE! BY YOUR ACTIONS YOU HAVE FORFEITED ANY CLAIM TO LEGITIMACY. DAYENU!

 

"FOR ZION'S SAKE I WILL NOT HOLD MY PEACE,

AND FOR JERUSALEM'S SAKE I WILL NOT REST"

 

---

 

Condi And Other Foggy Fulminations

by Gerald A. Honigman

 

     As we approach the 60th anniversary of Israel’s resurrection, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice--true to State Department form--seems intent on reliving the fight Foggy Bottom had with President Harry S. Truman over his supporting that rebirth in the first place. She has had plenty of company over the decades. The Arab oil spigot nourishes well.

 

     While already having an oil tanker named after her is indeed special, a list of American Foggy Folks (not to mention Presidents and other officials) tied to the Arab petrobuck over the years rivals the name Smith in the phone book. But, “of course,” waving the flag, they did this just for American interests only…so says the Passover Bunny.

 

     Many have written about James Baker--Bush the 1st’s Secretary of State.

 

     Among the many gems ( i.e. “f_ _ k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway,” etc.) spewing from his mouth, the following is typical of his mindset…

 

     "Don't worry, Jews remember the Holocaust, but they forget insults as soon as they smell cash."

 

     Recall that this is from the same gentile zillionaire whose law firm represents Saudi ($$$) Arabia against American 9/11 victims (talk about an insult…), whose partner is American Ambassador to the medieval oil monarchy, whose law firm gets rich off of other Arabs who delight in insulting America and beheading Americans, and so forth.

 

     Now, what’s that about money and insults?

 

     Back to Condi…

 

     While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was still of this world, reliable reports told of Rice screaming demands at his ranch that Jews must provide Arabs with weapons (her “good cop” latter-day Arafatians of Abbas and Fatah, of course), ease up on checkpoints, engage in additional withdrawals, further expose the necks of their innocents, and so forth.

 

     So, a weakened Sharon and his pathetic successors prostrated themselves and said Amen.

 

     Israelis were soon murdered because of Rice’s demands…including those recently slaughtered while studying at a Yeshiva. No surprise here.

 

     And we all know what Israel got as a result of its compete unilateral withdrawal from Gaza…thousands of mortars and rockets causing death and destruction in Israel proper, especially in Sderot. Condi now demands that Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion International Airport, the Knesset, Jerusalem, Haifa, and so forth be exposed similarly.

 

     Rice and a President (whom I voted for) whose family is already also tied to Arab oil big time (with the promise of who knows what afterwards--just ask Bush Sr., Carter, and Clinton ) are looking to leave office with Mideast “peace” feathers in their caps…even if they’re ones that Chamberlain would be proud of when he sold out the Czechs at Munich in 1938. The world got massive war anyway.

 

     And does one really believe that if the Foggy Folks had their way and Israel was never reborn that Arabs and militant Islam would still not have dreams and plans to further the Dar ul-Islam (them) at the expense of the Dar al-Harb (us)? Just ask the Serbs and India for starters…

 

     Israel thus faces a series of additional demands from Condi (where’s the Israeli leader with his private parts still intact these days?) to soften it up further for President Bush’s scheduled visit in May.

 

     Despite millions of dollars in American aid already falling into Hamas hands and that, when it comes to the acceptance of Israel as a permanent Jewish neighbor, there is no difference between the Foggy Folks’ alleged Arab good cops and bad cops, here’s a partial list, from DEBKA (a very reliable source) of Condi’s latest dictates…

 

     “…Israel must lift restrictions on Arab travel from the northern West Bank terrorist stronghold of Jenin--all the way through Jerusalem's outskirts to the southern West Bank Tarkumiyeh terminal, the Palestinian Arab entry point from the Gaza Strip.

 

     Israel's top military commanders warned government leaders in the strongest possible terms that the US secretary's demands if met would spell the end of their war on terror and expose Jerusalem and other Israeli cities to the waves of suicide killers their systematic efforts had been holding back. The checkpoints were a vital element of this effort. The Jenin-Tarkumiyeh route, they said, was already targeted by terrorists led by Hamas for two-way smuggling between Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Removing all existing controls would give them a direct link.

 

     The same applied to her second demand for free Arab travel between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

     Rice's third demand was for Israel to let 12,000 Palestinian security officers train in Jordan for duty in all the West Bank's towns. This is twenty times the number Israel proposed to allow….”

 

     Perhaps Baker was correct.

 

     Perhaps the Jews running Israel’s current show will accept insults, loss of Israeli sovereignty and willingness to do the mere basics which leaders of any nation are supposed to do--defend their citizens as best as possible--in exchange for American aid.

 

     David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, and Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, must all be turning in their graves.

 

     What other reason could there be for not throwing Rice out of the country on her derriere?

 

     Insulting, you say? How dare I speak this way!

 

     I say, that’s far better than what she deserves for what she and her Department have constantly been up to...

 

    Thousands of innocent Jews have lost their lives and have been maimed because of Foggy schemes shoved down Israel’s throat over the years...especially since the Oslo fiasco. The more Israel caved in, the more it has constantly bled in return. Arabs only interpreted forced Israeli concessions as weakness and learned that they themselves had assorted “protection” against similar American pressure.

 

     One who demands suicide from another should not be treated gently…and the demands Rice brings to Jews indeed fall into that category given the rejectionist nature of the merely game-playing beast Israel faces. At least Hamas doesn't play Fatah's games.

 

     An America, which is 3,000 miles wide and fights wars and has acquired territories and bases thousands of miles away from home in the name of its own national interest, has no right to dictate and demand what a miniscule Israel (which fits 34 times into Bush’s home state of Texas) needs in its own backyard to defend itself against enemies still sworn to its destruction--despite all of the Foggy whitewashing (done frequently for Arafat, by the way) which occurs.

 

     While America pours hundreds of billions (trillions over time) of dollars and much blood into a venture in Arab democracy in Iraq which will most likely be futile over time (and I supported Saddam‘s overthrow), the Foggy idiots still continue to try to undermine the biggest success story over there--and which it fought Truman about. They’re still fighting Give ‘Em Hell, Harry’s ghost.

 

     Where are Condi’s demands on her Arab buddies?

 

     Where’s the demand that daily incitement to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State in “moderate” Abbas’s school textbooks, mosques, assorted media, and so forth come to a halt before anything else is expected of Israel? That was supposed to happen long ago, but never has and State has never “demanded “ it. Rice warned that she would be monitoring Israel’s acquiescence to her latest demands upon it very closely. Where’s her warnings to her Arab butcher friends?

 

     Where’s her demand that if Abbas does not take a more active stand to fight terror, American support will be withdrawn? Without Arab terror, Condi won’t have to threaten Israel about checkpoints it needs to protect itself. What’s wrong with this picture…a bit reversed, no?

 

     Where’s the Foggy Folks demand that Abbas and his Arafatians, Israel’s alleged “peace (of the grave) partners--state loudly and clearly in Arabic that they accept a Jewish Israel as their permanent neighbor before Israel consents to a second, not first, Arab state emerging in 1920’s original Mandatory Palestine…before a newly created (Trans-)Jordan got handed some 80% of that territory?

 

     Where’s the demand that Abbas’s Fatah finally remove--which it hasn’t--the clauses in its charter calling for Israel’s destruction? Not to mention Hamas--which will probably wind up with all that Israel consents to Fatah anyway.

 

     Where’s Rice’s demand that Israel receive a fair compromise over disputed territories which UNSC Resolution 242 promised it in the wake of the ‘67 War (which it was forced to fight for its very life), so that it would not be forced to return its 9-mile wide, ’49 armistice line-imposed, rump state, microscopic existence again?

 

     Where’s the demand that Arabs deal with other Arabs killing Jews not as heroes but as criminals, and that jail time becomes something other than a cruel joke?

 

     Many other of such demands should be here as well…but don’t hold your breath.

 

     Is it reasonable for any nation, faced with what Israel daily faces, to cave in to such insulting, condescending, and unreasonable dictates…even if they do, unfortunately, come from a bullying, powerful representative of America?

 

     In case one needs further convincing, check out some typical findings discovered amongst those whom Condi demands Israel further expose itself to…

 

    A recent Palestinian Authority--Abbas not Hamas--poll showed that 84 percent of PA Arabs approve of the recent massacre at the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, where eight students were deliberately gunned down and ten wounded.

 

     Conducted by Ramallah-based Khalil Shikaki, of 1,270 Arabs interviewed, 64 percent supported rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

 

     In February of 2007, a Near East Consulting (NEC) poll found that 75 percent of PA Arabs (the “moderates”) did not think that Israel has a right to exist.

 

     While much more could be said about all of this, there’s already enough in this essay to expose the all-too-typical nasty, unreasonable nature of Rice’s State Department expectations placed upon America’s vulnerable friend on the front lines of the battle with both militant Islam--of either the Shi’a or Sunni stripe--and a renascent, imperial Arab mindset which sees virtually the whole region as merely purely Arab patrimony…the Arab-Jew, Arab-Kurd, Arab/Amazigh (Berber), Arab-black African Sudanese, Arab-Copt, Arab/pre-Arab native Lebanese, and other such conflicts summed up in a nutshell. Consent to a state of subjugation and dhimmitude or die.

 

     Now, before ending, I have a demand…

 

     I demand that Rice, the Foggy Folks, and my current President read the quotes below from just a few of many other truly great American leaders commenting on what all of the former are now demanding that Israel forfeit its right to…

 

     President Lyndon Johnson, June 19, 1967, soon after conclusion of the Six Day War:

 

     A return to the situation on June 4 (the day before outbreak of war) was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities." He then called for new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war.

      

     President Reagan, September 1, 1982:

 

     In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.

 

     Secretary of State George Shultz , 1988:

 

     Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.

 

     The problems and “inconveniences” of everyday life Condi complains about which Arabs face vis-à-vis Israel are of their own making. Again--no terror, no fence, no checkpoints, and so forth.

 

     Arabs rant and rave because Jews resist marching into the slaughterhouse they have planned for them…a scenario both Condi and Dubya now seem to be a party to. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here.

 

     The demands of any such 22nd Arab state must not come at the expense of the security of the sole, miniscule state of the Jews in a land in which they have 4,000 years of history. 

 

     Most Americans--non-Jews as well as Jews--oppose such lop-sided, anti-Israel American pressure.

 

     Israel must resist Washington’s current unreasonable demands for it to act insanely--at least until America’s own upcoming Presidential election--and hope that more reasonable voices will once again gain ascendancy.

 

 

---

 

Our World: Covering for the enemy

---

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Apr. 7, 2008

---

It has taken seven months, but it appears that the Bush administration has finally buckled under Congressional pressure and is ready to give US lawmakers a full briefing on the September 6 IDF bombing raid against the North Korean-built nuclear installation in Syria. Sunday it was reported that Congress has forced the administration's hand on the issue by making its approval of the administration's intelligence budget contingent on receiving a full briefing on the raid.

 

Israel, which initially was upset with the administration's insistence on silencing all discussion of the Sept. 6 operation, is now reportedly unhappy with the administration's decision to release its details. The administration is expected to provide the information at Congressional hearings later in the month and Israeli Defense Ministry officials are beside themselves.

Defense officials fear that the revelation of Syria's rogue activities will push Syrian dictator Bashar Assad over the edge. They caution that today, in the aftermath of terror-master Imad Mughniyeh's assassination in Syria in February, and with heightened tensions along Israel's borders with Lebanon and Syria, Assad may view the exposure of his nuclear proliferation activities as an invitation to throw caution to the wind. He may embrace his exposure as a full-fledged member in the North Korean-Iranian-Syrian axis of nuclear proliferating, terror-sponsoring states and take actions commensurate with his status.

 

Both the Defense Ministry's concerns about the consequences of exposing the Israeli operation and Congress's demand that the details of the raid be revealed demonstrate important lessons about the constraints and imperatives that fighting long, complicated wars place on policymakers in democratic societies.

 

ISRAEL'S POSITION reflects a conflict between immediate and long-term interests. Israel has an immediate interest in dissuading Syria from attacking either directly or through any of Syria's multiple terror proxies. It also has an interest in protecting intelligence sources and methods which may be compromised by a disclosure of the operation.

 

Israeli politicians have no need to inform the Israeli public of the nature of the raid because among the Israeli public, there is a consensus regarding the nature of the threat that Syria poses to the country. Israelis understand that Syria cannot be permitted to acquire certain arsenals and they understand that some things are better left unreported. The Israeli public's relative sophistication on the issue did not spring from nowhere. Syria has been in a declared state of war against Israel for 60 years. And every time that Israelis have permitted ourselves to believe that Syria might be interested in ending that state of war, through their own actions the Syrians have been quick to dispel the notion.

 

While Israel's immediate interests are understandable, in the medium and long terms, given the rogue nature of the Syrian regime, its strategic alliance with Iran and its strategic collaboration with North Korea, Israel has its own strategic interest in exposing Syria and building an operational alliance with the US to defeat Syria and Iran in the war that they wage with North Korean assistance against Israel and the US. That medium- and long-term interest ought to outweigh immediate concerns. And the outcry in the Defense Ministry should simply be understood as an expression of dismay at the inevitable cost of building alliances.

 

The standoff between the administration and Congress on the nature of the Sept. 6 raid is illustrative of the second lesson for policymakers that the Syrian operation manifests. It goes to the heart of the need for policymakers in democratic societies to be open with their publics about the identity of their adversaries and of the nature of the war being waged against them in order to form a consensus about the nature of those adversaries and the need to combat them like the consensus that already exists in Israel about Syria.

 

SINCE SEPTEMBER, Congressional leaders have given three main justifications for their need to understand what happened on Sept. 6. First, they have argued that lawmakers and the American public have a right to understand the significance of the target in light of what it says about North Korean nuclear proliferation activities.

 

Last year, the US signed an agreement with North Korea. North Korea pledged to disable its nuclear installation at Yongbyon and to give a full accounting of its other nuclear installations, its nuclear arsenal and materials and its nuclear proliferation activities. The US in exchange agreed to lift financial sanctions against Pyongyang, normalize relations between Washington and Pyongyang, remove North Korea from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and provide economic assistance to North Korea. The US is still awaiting North Korean compliance. A disclosure of the nature of the target of Israel's Sept. 6 operation in Syria, Congress argues, is essential for assessing the reasonableness of the US's current North Korean policy.

 

Moreover, Congressional leaders - and most prominently among them, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Peter Hokstra - have argued that by failing to give a full accounting of the IDF raid, the administration is preventing lawmakers and the US public from making an educated assessment of the nature of the threat that Syria poses to US national security interests. Syria actively promotes war in Iraq by training Iraq-bound fighters on its soil and acting as the major transit point to Iraq for jihadists. Syria is the headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and several other Islamic terror groups. It is Hizbullah's logistical backbone. While all of these actions are sufficient to place Syria squarely in the camp of US enemies, its apparent nuclear proliferation with Iran and North Korea requires a reclassification of the threat posed by Syria from nuisance to strategic threat.

 

Finally, American lawmakers have argued that understanding the Israeli operation is essential for understanding the nature of the Iranian-Syrian-North Korean alliance. By preventing the release of details on the raid, the administration is denying Congress and the American public the ability to understand the rationale and the modes of operation of arguably the greatest threat to US national security. How can Congress support an ally like Israel if it doesn't understand why what Israel does promotes US national security interests? And how can Congress support US actions in the war if it isn't aware of the nature of the axis fighting the US?

 

WHAT IS most striking about the Bush administration's unwillingness to reveal the nature of the Israeli raid to Congress is how it seems to upset the administration's own war efforts in Iraq. Working together, under Iranian control, for the past five years Syria and Iran have been the major forces behind the war in Iraq. Jihadists of both the Sunni and Shiite variety enter Iraq from Syria and Iran. They receive training in both countries. They receive direction and orders from Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

 

And yet, rather than make clear to Congress and to the US public that the war in Iraq is not an Iraqi war per se but a key battleground in a regional war in which Iran and Syria have combined forces on multiple fronts in a bid to defeat the US and its allies, the Bush administration obfuscates that central truth. For the past five years, key administration officials have repeated the bizarre claim that Iran and Syria share the US's interest in bringing stability to Iraq and that responsibility for ending the war rests solely on the shoulders of Iraq's government rather than on the shoulders of the foreign governments who are waging the war.

 

The administration itself then holds a major portion of responsibility for the fact that five years after US-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, the majority of Americans believes that the US doesn't have an interest in what happens in post-Saddam Iraq and should simply remove its forces from the country at the first opportunity. If the administration was less concerned about obfuscating Syrian and Iranian centrality in the war, there can be little doubt that more Americans would understand why it is essential that the US not allow Iraq to fall into their hands. Indeed, a larger number of Americans would understand that Iran and Syria are waging this proxy war against coalition forces and Iraqis in a bid to advance their goal of regional dominance.

 

Notably the US official who has been most consistent in highlighting Iran's central role in Iraq is US Commander in Iraq General David Petreaus. Petreaus and his officers, whose job it is to win the war in Iraq, apparently understand what the administration has spent the past five years ignoring. They understand that to secure the public support necessary to fight a long war, they need to tell the American public what the war is about, who the US is fighting and what is at stake.

 

Last week the Iranians rejected yet another European-American offer to appease them in a North Korean-styled deal in exchange for a pause in their uranium-enrichment activities. The Iranians also introduced a new set of advanced centrifuges to their Natanz nuclear installation which are apparently better equipped to enrich uranium to weapons grade than the current 3,000 centrifuges now operating at the facility. The Iranians also promised that on Tuesday April 8 - a day they have designated their celebration of nuclear power day - they will provide more "good news" about their atomic program.

So as it wages war against the US in Iraq and against Israel in Lebanon and Gaza, supported by its Syrian and North Korean allies, Iran moves brazenly and swiftly forward in its bid to acquire nuclear weapons. And as it moves, it drags the US and Israel ever closer to a great war. The question is how can the US be expected to handle the coming conflagration when it demurs from explaining its eminently more manageable current situation either to itself or to its public?

 

---

 

Our World: What is a sufficient victory?

---

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Apr. 14, 2008

---

Speaking to IDF commanders in Judea and Samaria last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert exhorted the officers tasked with preventing Palestinians from attacking Israel while operating under civilian cover to have sympathy for them. Olmert said "Take all the Palestinians who have been stripped at the roadblocks just because of fear that there may be terrorists and terror operatives among them. Take all those who wait at roadblocks because of fear that a car bomb may drive through the same roadblock. This could be a boiling cauldron, liable to explode and cause horrible burns, and it could be something else, dependent only on your ability to act wisely and forcefully."

 

Since Olmert knows that IDF soldiers are as courteous as possible to Palestinians at roadblocks, his statement will have two major consequences. First it will cause a loosening of regulations at roadblocks and so impair IDF counterterror capabilities. Second, by insultingly insinuating that IDF forces are cruel, Olmert demoralized his own soldiers and reduced their willingness to accomplish their mission by hinting that they cannot expect the government to back them.

 

Olmert's message is just the latest action his government has taken in recent weeks that undermine the IDF's ability to maintain its military success since 2002 in defeating Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria and preventing them from reorganizing.

 

The Olmert-Livni-Barak government's decision to take down roadblocks throughout Judea and Samaria; provide immunity from arrest to wanted terror fugitives; and permit the deployment of US-backed Fatah militias in Jenin all serve to directly undermine the IDF's remarkable achievements in defeating and preventing the reconstitution of the Palestinian terror war machine in Judea and Samaria since Operation Defensive Shield was carried out in 2002. Even more disturbingly, its reported willingness to cede the Jordan Valley to Fatah in the negotiations it is now conducting with Fatah leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qurei indicate that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is ready to transform Judea and Samaria into a base for global jihadist forces just as occurred when Israel surrendered Gaza's border with Egypt in 2005.

 

That the government is squandering the IDF's hard-won achievements in Judea and Samaria is made clear in a paper on counterinsurgency warfare authored by Major General (res.) Yaakov Amidror released this week by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Amidror's paper, "Winning Counterinsurgency War: The Israeli Experience," focuses on Israel's military defeat of Palestinian terror forces in Judea and Samaria during and subsequent to Operation Defensive Shield.

 

AMIDROR IDENTIFIES six components of counterinsurgency warfare which he deems essential for effecting military victory over irregular forces. These components are: a political decision by the government to defeat terrorism; winning and maintaining control of the territory from which terrorists operate; acquiring relevant intelligence; isolating the terror enclaves from outside supporters; multidimensional cooperation between intelligence gatherers and fighting forces; and separating civilians from terrorists. Through its actions, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government it is undermining four of these components.

 

After identifying what he views as the essential components of successful counterinsurgency campaigns, Amidror identifies and defines three forms of military victory. First, there is "total victory" which involves both a military defeat of insurgent or terror forces and the political reorganization of their societies from terror-supporting societies into terror-combating societies. Second, there is "temporary victory" which involves a one-off military defeat of enemy forces which is not combined with any political transformation of their societies. Finally, Amidror considers what he refers to as "sufficient victory." As he defines it, a sufficient victory involves defeating an irreconcilable foe and then preventing him from rebuilding his capacity to wage war.

 

Like a temporary victory, a sufficient victory doesn't entail any political transformation of enemy society, and indeed it takes for granted that such a transformation is impossible to enact. But as opposed to a temporary victory, Amidror argues that the effect of a sufficient victory can be longstanding if the victorious side is willing and able to consistently prevent enemy forces from reconstituting themselves. That is, a sufficient victory requires a continuous rather than one-off campaign.

 

Amidror's definition of sufficient victory leads him to conclude that contrary to the approach of the Israeli and Western Left, there is a military option for victory in counterinsurgency wars devoid of political transformation. From an Israeli perspective, Amidror's vision of counterinsurgency warfare view is reasonable and understandable.

 

Israel's options for transforming Palestinian society from a terror-supporting society to a terror-combating society are limited. Influenced by domestic, pan-Arab and pan-Islamic jihadist indoctrination; supported militarily, financially and politically by Arab states, Iran, terror groups and the West, the Palestinians have little reason to transform.
.
MOREOVER, ISRAEL's strategic and national interests in maintaining control over Judea and Samaria could render sustainable a military strategy with no withdrawal element. This is not the case in other battlefields such as the US counterinsurgency in Iraq.

 

To a degree, Amidror's view that sufficient victory is possible is echoed in recent statements by US military commanders in Iraq. In a dispatch from Iraq published last month in National Review, Richard Lowry reported, "For all the security gains over the last year, American commanders believe they have hit a plateau." Absent coherent, competent action by the Iraqi government to secure and maintain the loyalty of Iraqis to the Iraqi state, like the IDF in Judea and Samaria, all US forces in Iraq can do is keep violence down to sufferable levels.

 

Yet in contrast to Israel's success in Judea and Samaria, the success of US counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq is the consequence first and foremost of their politically-transformative guiding principles. As Lowry noted, the 80,000 Iraqi security volunteers who now openly collaborate with US forces in counter-terror operations, "represent more or less a direct transfer of forces from the enemy's side to ours."

 

In Israel, the basic assumption that guided both the decision by the Rabin-Peres government to embrace the PLO and form the Palestinian Authority in 1993 and the decisions by subsequent governments to leave the PA in place and maintain allegiance to the PLO as a negotiating partner was that like the Iraqi security volunteers, and like the South Lebanese Army which supported IDF operations in South Lebanon from 1985 through 2000, PLO and Fatah forces would act as transformative agents in Palestinian society moving it from a terror-supporting society to a terror-combating society.

 

This view, always controversial, has been proven wrong again and again. Just last week, the PLO ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki restated the PLO's aim of destroying Israel in an interview with Lebanese television.

In Zaki's words, "The PLO... has not changed its platform even one iota." That platform, to destroy Israel in stages, remains the objective of the PLO. He continued, "In light of the weakness of the Arab nation and the lack of values, and in light of the American control over the world, the PLO proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine."

 

Israel's willingness to maintain its support for the PLO in spite of the PLO and Fatah's obvious rejection of Israel's right to exist and their continuous support and involvement in terror attacks against Israel exposes two flaws inherent in Amidror's view that it is possible to maintain a sufficient victory in counterinsurgency wars over the long term without inducing political transformation of enemy societies.

 

The first flaw is that it takes as a given that the will of the victorious army's government to maintain counterinsurgency operations will remain constant. The Olmert-Livni-Barak government's maintenance of the inherently adversarial Fatah terror group as a legitimate negotiating partner shows that this is not the case. The government's commitment to Fatah necessarily induces it to undermine IDF achievements in Judea and Samaria. Those achievements are inimical to the interests of Fatah and so, from the government's current perspective, they must be cancelled to please Fatah.

Since 2002, the IDF's military control over Judea and Samaria has not involved any serious efforts to transform Palestinian society on the grassroots level. It has not enhanced security for Palestinian civilians who are terrorized by terror operatives operating in their villages and towns. As Amidror notes, Israel's actions to separate civilians from terrorists in Judea and Samaria are limited to crafting operations that minimize collateral damage. But while Israel does not target Palestinian civilians, it has done nothing to prevent them from being targeted by Palestinian terrorists. And so, it has given them no option to fight those terrorists. As a consequence although militarily the situation in Judea and Samaria has been transformed over the past six years, politically, the only change among Palestinians is that they have become more radicalized.

 

And here lies the second flaw in his analysis. To be successful, a counterinsurgency war must have a political component that reaches out to enemy populations. While it is true that Israel has limited capacity to change the way that Palestinians think about Israel and the form their society ought to take, Israel does have some capacity. For instance, Israel could launch a hearts and minds campaign among Israeli Arabs who are both politically and demographically linked to the Palestinians.

 

Such a campaign would be two-pronged. First it would involve a concentrated law and order campaign whose aim would be to reassert Israel's sovereign authority in Israeli Arab areas. Second, it would secure law-abiding Israeli Arabs while delegitimizing the current anti-Israel, pro-terror leadership now in charge of Israeli Arab society and so cultivate the conditions necessary to replace that leadership with Israeli Arabs who embrace their identity as Israelis and oppose terrorism. The impact of such a campaign on the Palestinians in both Judea and Samaria would no doubt be dramatic.

 

Amidror makes the important point that there is no empirical data that proves the oft-repeated contention that terror-supporting societies are more willing to sacrifice for victory than terror-combating societies. As the Israeli public has shown since the Palestinians began their terror war in 2000, Israelis are just as willing, if not more willing, to make sacrifices for victory as the Palestinians. But for victory to be accomplished and secured, a military campaign needs to be complimented by a political campaign led by a political leadership that explains reality to its own public and is able to give terror-supporting societies another option.

 

---

 

Column One: Ahmadinejad's smile

---

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Apr. 10, 2008

The regime-affiliated Iranian Fars news agency published a sensational story this week. According to the Fars report, Saudi Arabia and Israel collaborated in killing Iranian terror-master Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in February. The story is important regardless of whether it is true. It is important because it says something important about the nature of Iran's relationship with Syria. Specifically, it says that Iran views Syria as a vassal state.   If Teheran were not convinced of its control of the Syrian regime, it would never have dared to publish a story that places the Assad regime in an open confrontation with Saudi Arabia. An even partially independent Syria would never go along with such an open challenge to Saudi Arabia.   Syria, of course, is not Iran's only proxy in the Arab world. There is the Hamas regime in Gaza as well. On Thursday the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center released an in-depth report on Hamas's military buildup since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005. The report notes that Hamas receives arms and funding from Iran and Syria and sends its fighters for extending training at camps in Iran and Syria.   By directly supporting Hamas and by supporting Hamas indirectly through Syria and Hizbullah, Teheran has transformed Gaza into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran. While Hamas may have independent interests, the fact is that any independent will Hamas may have had at one time has become entirely subservient to Teheran. This is so because Teheran has rendered itself Hamas's indispensable ally and protector. Without Iran, Hamas would have no staying power.   Then there is Lebanon. The weak Saniora government, which was brought to power by the anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian March 14 Democracy Movement three years ago, is clearly no match for Iran and its proxies. Presidential elections have been held up for five months due to Hizbullah's Syrian- and Iranian-ordered refusal to agree on a compromise candidate. The Saniora government needs Hizbullah's agreement because Iran's proxies have murdered a sufficient number of cabinet ministers and members of parliament to take away Saniora's parliamentary capacity to elect a successor to the Syrian-puppet, former president Emile Lahoud. The assassination of political opponents in Lebanon, of course, began in earnest with the March 2005 assassination of pro-Western and pro-Saudi former prime minister Rafik Hariri. This week in Washington, Sen. Arlen Specter asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to comment on an interesting Syrian offer. According to Specter, during Jordanian King Abdullah's visit to Washington last month, he suggested that Syria might be willing to rein in Hizbullah and Hamas in exchange for an offer of immunity for President Bashar Assad in the UN's probe of Hariri's murder. Rice rejected the offer, but that is not what is interesting.   What is interesting is that Syria would feel comfortable making what amounts to a confession of control over Hizbullah and Hamas. While at first glance the Syrian offer seems to contradict the assertion that Syria is an Iranian proxy, it actually does no such thing. It shows that Iran is willing to shuffle some proxies around to protect other ones. To protect Assad, for instance, Iran may be willing to have Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal temporarily decamp to Teheran or Qatar or Bahrain. While such a move would have absolutely no impact on Iran's continued control over its proxies, it could neutralize the UN tribunal's threat to the Syrian regime.   To sum up, through its proxy strategy, Iran has taken control of Syria, has paralyzed and is increasingly calling the shots in Lebanon, and has effective control over Gaza, from which it can attack Israel and Egypt at will. And of course, it is the primary sponsor of the insurgency in Iraq. LED BY Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Sunni Arab states are well aware of Iran's proxy strategy for attaining regional dominance, and they are not pleased. The partial boycott of the Arab League summit in Damascus last month was the Sunni Arab states' way of showing their displeasure with Iran's domination of Syria and Lebanon.   On a more operational level, this week the Syrian media reported that the Syrian oppositionist National Salvation Front run by the Muslim Brotherhood and former Syrian vice president Abd al Halim Khaddam will launch an anti-regime satellite television channel in a few months. Presumably wealthy Gulf kingdoms are bankrolling the project. Strategically, the Sunni Arab states have voiced varying degrees of interest in building their own nuclear programs to compete with the Iranian nuclear program But diplomatic snubs, jihadist television stations with anti-regime bents, and loud plans to build nuclear reactors will not suffice to defeat Iran or even to slow down its bid for regional domination. And the fact is that the Sunni states are aligned with most of Iran's policies. They keep Iraq at arm's length and loudly criticize US operations in the country. They continue to back Hamas and ostracize Israel. And they have taken no substantive stands against Hizbullah's subversion of the Saniora government since the end of the Second Lebanon War.   The main reason that the Sunni Arab countries cannot contend with Iran is that their publics share Iran's jihadist ideology. And their publics share Iran's general jihadist ideology because the Sunni states have indoctrinated their publics to believe in jihad through their state-controlled media. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and their Sunni Arab brothers are in no position to argue with Iran publicly or to confront Iran's Arab proxies because they can't explain to their own people why Iran's bid to destroy Israel and to dominate the world in the name of Islam is a bad thing.   The attraction of Iran's jihadist ideology for so many Muslims has also helped Teheran expand its army of proxies. Acting as the avant guard of global jihad, Iran has collected otherwise adversarial terror groups in their hours of need and has transformed them into Iranian proxies over time. After the al-Qaida leadership fled Afghanistan in late 2001, for instance, many of its leaders received sanctuary in Iran from which they continued to operate. The late al-Qaida in Iraq commander Abu Musab Zarkawi received medical care in Iran and entered Iraq from Iran. He received his operational orders from the al Qaida leadership in Iran.   In a recent interview with the Qatari Al-Arab newspaper translated by MEMRI, Ahmad Salah al-Din, who serves as the spokesman for the Iraqi Sunni jihadist group Hamas-Iraq, alleged that al-Qaida in Iraq today is wholly subservient to Iran. Salah al-Din claimed, "We found Iranian toman [currency] at an al-Qaida headquarters that we uncovered. We have also captured Iranian weapons, not to mention audio and video recordings containing announcements by al-Qaida fighters that they had received training in Iranian military camps and that al-Qaida wounded were being transported to Iran for medical treatment."   So too, Iran has a long history of collaboration with Fatah dating back to the early 1970s, when Ayatollah Khomeini's future revolutionary leaders received training in PLO camps in Lebanon. In 1999, as Yasser Arafat geared up his terror armies ahead of the launch of his terror war against Israel in 2000, Iran began funding Fatah terror cells. Today, after sponsoring Hamas's rout of Fatah in Gaza last June, Iran no longer needs to deal with the Fatah leadership. Through Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah it controls Fatah terror cells directly.   IRAN'S POLICY of combining a proxy war strategy with a popular revolutionary ideology is almost an exact reenactment of the Soviet Union's Cold War strategy for fighting the US. Two things, however, distinguish Iran's war against the West today from the Soviets' war against the West in the 20th century. First, Iran is much less powerful than the Soviet Union was. Second, the Iranian regime is far less open to deterrence than the Soviets were.   As David Wurmser, US Vice President Richard Cheney's former Middle East adviser noted recently at an address before the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, the Iranian regime is motivated by a messianic ideology with a strong apocalyptic component. This renders useless the threat of mutually assured destruction.   The other main distinction between the Soviet war against the West and the Iranian war against the West is that the US-led West embraced a dual strategy of confrontation and containment against the Soviets. Today, the same US-led West follows no coherent strategy for contending with Iran. The only battleground where Iranian proxies are directly confronted today is in Iraq. After the 2006 Iranian proxy war against Israel, the US largely abandoned its support for the Saniora government. Hizbullah has been permitted to rebuild its forces and its arsenal and to reassert control over much of south Lebanon and to extend its control north of the Litani River. Rather than confront Hamas, at the US's insistence, Israel has done nothing to prevent Hamas's military buildup in Gaza or even to prevent it from continuing its rocket campaign against the western Negev.   Then too, by supporting the defeated Fatah leadership, the US and Israel are indirectly strengthening Hamas. During the Arab League summit, Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas announced that he spends some 58 percent of his US, Israeli and European supplied budget on paying the salaries of 77,000 officials who serve under the Hamas regime in Gaza. So by funding Fatah, which supports Hamas, Israel and the US are strengthening Iran's control of Gaza through its Hamas proxy. They are also facilitating the weaker Fatah's incremental absorption into the Iranian axis.   As for Syria, both Israel and the US consistently ignore the fact that Syria is no longer an independent actor. By effectively adopting the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group's recommendations from 2006, the Bush administration and Israel give credence to the notion that Syria will moderate its behavior if Israel surrenders the Golan Heights, and so encourage Iran to continue its aggression by seeming to reward it.   Then too, while allowing Sunni states to support the Muslim Brotherhood as a presumed counterweight to Iran, Israel and the US ignore the repeated pleas of Syrian Kurds for assistance in their campaign to overthrow the Syrian regime in favor of a federal, anti-Iranian democratic state. The Syrian Kurds receive no assistance from either the US or Israel in their own bid to set up a pro-democracy satellite television station to broadcast into Syria, even as they are violently repressed by the regime.   In the absence of a strategy of confronting Iran either directly or through its proxies, the only coherent course that remains is one of containment. But this option is raft with danger. With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement this week that Iran is introducing 3,000 upgraded centrifuges to its Natanz nuclear installation, it is clear that international sanctions have had no impact on Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. It is also clear that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be impossible to confront its proxies, who will operate under Iran's nuclear umbrella.