How convenient that Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast is saying that the U.S. has no reason to keep troops in the Middle East now that Osama bin Laden is dead, and thus terrorism has been eliminated. Far from it. Iran continues calls for the obliteration of Israel, President Ahmedinijad called on Arabs to “free” themselves from “arrogant powers” (the U.S. and Israel), and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said:

People of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa — people of these regions — hate America from the bottom of their heart.

Islamists are seizing the occasion of Osama bin Laden’s death to undermine the US’ resolve against terrorism, but the War on Terror is far from over. Islamists continue their hate-driven quest to conquer Western infidels, with Iran becoming increasingly powerful, and now, successfully wooing Egypt–an increasingly radicalized country since Hosni Mubarak’s departure.

Most Egyptians want an end to the peace treaty with Israel, according to an opinion poll.  The survey also showed strong support for Islamic law and for the Muslim Brotherhood, which condemned the American killing of bin Laden and issued an inauspicious request:

The Muslim Brotherhood asks the US to stop conducting intelligence operations against those who disagree with them and to stop interfering in the business of Arab and Muslim countries

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and al Qaeda, though at odds in methodology, are conjoined twins in their objectives to conquer the world and subdue it under dhimmitude.  The MB is attempting to undermine the American resistance against stealth and violent Jihad as it continues to serve in its own Axis of Resistance “led by Iran and comprising Syria and non-state but nonetheless popular nationalist actors such as Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.”

Iran and Egypt have also been conducting so-called diplomatic meetings; Iran has now appointed its first ambassador to Egypt in over 30 years and Egypt, after years of cooperating with the Israeli blockade of Gaza, ended it for so-called humanitarian reasons after the flotilla incident.  Now, following secret negotiations, Egypt has mediated a reconciliation deal between rival Hamas and Fatah as it brokers a restructuring and unifying of Hamas security forces to assist the Palestinians.

Voices of appeasement coming from the far Left about provoking Islamists throughout the Muslim world are bound to surface with the killing of Bin Laden. But America and its allies need to continue vigilance and an even tougher resolve against the forces of terrorism and Islamism in the wake of Bin Laden’s death and with the rapidly developing events in the Middle East.

We knew this was coming. No American victory in this day and age, not even the long-overdue death of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, is safe from political hijacking by the useful idiots of the Left.  Within hours of hearing the good news, left-wing Daily Beast flunky Peter Beinart took to the keyboard to declare that the War on Terror is finally over.

Wow, what a relief! So that means Iran’s nuclear program is kaput? Er, no. Well, maybe it means the UN Security Council has stopped playing nice with Middle Eastern thug regimes. Wait, that didn’t happen, either. I know – peace between Israel and the Palestinians is finally in sight! Nope, try again. Um, then maybe anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations is waning? Uh-uh.

If none of that’s the case, then what does Beinart mean?

I don’t mean that there is no threat of further jihadist attack. In the short term, the threat may even rise. I don’t mean that we should abandon all efforts at tracking terrorist cells. Of course not. But the war on terror was a way of seeing the world, explicitly modeled on World War II and the Cold War. It suggested that the struggle against “radical Islam” or “Islamofascism” or “Islamic terrorism” should be the overarching goal of American foreign policy, the prism through which we see the world […] It made East Asia an afterthought during a critical period in China’s rise; it allowed all manner of dictators to sell their repression in Washington, just as they had during the Cold War; it facilitated America’s descent into torture; it wildly exaggerated the ideological appeal of a jihadist-Salafist movement whose vision of society most Muslims find revolting.

Bin Laden’s death is an opportunity to lay the war on terror to rest as well. Although President Obama avoids the phrase, its assumptions still drive our war in Afghanistan, a crushingly expensive adventure in nation building in a desperately poor country whose powerful neighbor wants us to fail. Those assumptions fuel anti-Muslim racism in the United States, where large swaths of the Republican Party have decided they are at risk of living under Sharia law. And they blind us to the differences among Islamist movements, allowing Glenn Beck and company to depict Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as al Qaeda’s farm team.

Instead, we can now take on real problems, like debt and China. Because Barack Obama has been such a crusader on those issues so far.

I’m struggling to decide what the most contemptible part of this screed is. Is it the insane implication that Obama taking one problem less seriously will lead to him taking the others more seriously, despite his manifest unseriousness towards both? The way he relies on his own past smears of conservatives as Islamophobes to prop up his latest thesis? Where he casually says, oh by the way, the Cold War was no big deal either?

I don’t know what the sleaziest element is, but it’s easy to see which one is the most dangerous:

The war on terror is over; Al Qaeda lost.

This has perhaps been no greater point of contention between hawks and doves since the September 11 attacks: is the War on Terror simply an effort to destroy the terrorist organization under whose banner 9/11 was carried out, or is it a larger struggle against the broader ideological movement of which al Qaeda was but one part?

I hate to break it to you, but despite the loss of their leader, al Qaeda has by no means been neutered, and either way, they’re far from the only Islamofascist game in town. Extremists have won a string of governments throughout the Middle East, and in particular, NRB’s Moshe Phillips notes that Hamas is still kicking. Indeed, learning where bin Laden was hiding—right under the noses of our Pakistani “allies”—should be enough to illustrate why it’s a bit early to herald a new era of U.S.-Mideast relations.

Then again, it’s not as if any of the above would change Peter Beinart’s mind—recall that according to him, the War on Terror has never been a war. Whether Osama bin Laden’s relaxing in a compound or sleeping with the fishes means nothing to him; he’d be saying it’s time to pack up regardless. In that sense, his entire column is a farce—bin Laden’s death is just the latest pretext of seriousness he’s using to whine, “are we there yet?”

Editor’s note: click here for NRB’s comic artist Bosch Fawstin’s take on this issue.

Once upon a time, superheroes were a source of comfort and escape from the difficulties and ugliness of real life. While real-life recession and terrorism aren’t likely to meet any tidy resolutions soon, we can always count on Batman to solve the Riddler’s latest puzzle just in time, or Spider-Man to save the damsel in distress (well, usually).

Somewhere along the line, though, it was decided that our heroes had to grapple with real-world issues. When done sparingly and handled well, this can elevate the genre, such as Harry Osborn’s battle with drugs or 2008’s brilliant The Dark Knight. But more often than not, such efforts these days instead result in train wrecks of heavy-handed political proselytizing and moral confusion.

Such is the case with the latest development in DC Comics’ Action Comics #900, in which Superman decides he has to renounce his U.S. citizenship:

In it, Superman consults with the President’s national security advisor, who is incensed that Superman appeared in Tehran to non-violently support the protesters demonstrating against the Iranian regime, no doubt an analogue for the recent real-life protests in the Middle East. However, since Superman is viewed as an American icon in the DC Universe as well as our own, the Iranian government has construed his actions as the will of the American President, and indeed, an act of war.

Superman replies that it was foolish to think that his actions would not reflect politically on the American government, and that he therefore plans to renounce his American citizenship at the United Nations the next day — and to continue working as a superhero from a more global than national perspective. From a “realistic” standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government.

First, it’s interesting to note that the story’s starting dispute comes dangerously close to a damning indictment of Barack Obama for not taking a stronger stand on the Iranian protests of summer 2009, which is surprising coming from an iconic cultural mainstay and a major entertainment company. And while John Hawkins is right to note that there are certain practical difficulties with throwing someone as powerful as Superman into geopolitical situations, I can see definite story potential in exploring the tension between Superman’s no-nonsense moral clarity and the empty suits on Capitol Hill.

But renouncing his citizenship? That goes far beyond distancing himself from any particular policy or administration. As an alien raised on a Kansas farm who grows up to fight for truth, justice, and the American way both as a superhero and as a newspaper reporter, Superman’s American identity and values have always been central to the character. That’s not to say he should be a pawn of the government, or that he should never save the day overseas, but it does mean he can’t simply switch who he is at will.

At the heart of this concept seems to be a recurring leftist inability to distinguish a nation’s citizens from her government. Superman’s not a government agent; he doesn’t need to be a “global citizen” to act independently of Uncle Sam.

Gutting his patriotism isn’t the only way the Man of Steel has been badly mishandled in recent years; remember when 2006’s lukewarm Superman Returns had him impregnate Lois Lane, then leave the planet for years? It makes you wonder: who do we turn to when our heroes are the ones who need saving?

One unfortunate but enduring truth of the Middle East is that the act of making peace with Israel, for an Arab leader—whether Christian or Muslim—is also the act of instantly becoming a target for assassination.

Bashir Gemayel didn’t even get as far as signing Lebanon’s peace treaty with Israel before the Syrians erased him. One man who did get that far was Anwar Sadat, and the legend of his assassin, the Islamist Khalid Islambouli, has been treated as the saga of a hero by Iran’s Islamist leadership ever since.

That reverence has been a point of contention between Iran and Egypt to this day—but that may be changing. Here is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty yesterday:

The Islamist army officer who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981 in revenge for signing the Camp David Accords with Israel has long stood as a symbol of the political and ideological divide between the two countries. Executed along with three co-conspirators for the crime the following year, Islambouli acquired pariah status in Egypt — an embodiment of the perils lurking behind Islamic radicalism.

In Iran, by contrast, he is renowned as a hero and a martyr, a privilege reflected in a massive mural painting in central Tehran. One of the capital’s most prestigious streets also bears his name, in what Egyptian officials have regarded as a provocation and a block to restoring long-severed diplomatic ties.

[…]

In what may be a blow to the interests of Israel and the United States, Egypt has declared itself ready to re-establish links with Tehran in the wake of February’s overthrow of former President Hosni Mubarak, who saw Iran’s Islamic regime as a bitter foe.

The new Egyptian foreign minister, Nabil Al-Arabi, signaled a thaw on March 30 when he voiced hopes for an “expansion of ties” with Iran.  His comments came a month after Egypt — in the wake of Mubarak’s departure — set Western alarm bells ringing by allowing Iranian naval ships to sail through the Suez Canal for the first time in 30 years.

This is something I touched on in a National Review essay in March. Egypt and Iran have a long history, post-1979 revolution, of deep antagonism. Egypt has since served as a secular bulwark against the spread of Islamist governance in the Middle East—a valuable role, despite Egypt’s many, many flaws.

I offered a note of (very) qualified optimism:

Does the Egyptian defense ministry’s approval for the transit of Iranian warships in the Suez mean the two are coming to terms? Not necessarily. Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the ships may indicate that for now, Egypt is far too disorganized to stand up to Tehran’s bullying.

But once Egypt is strong enough to stand on her own two feet again, she may challenge Iran’s bid for Islamic hegemony in the region. Though theoretically the balance would be restored, it would be between two unstable and unreliable nations, as far as the West is concerned. “Just because Egypt and Iran compete, it doesn’t necessarily accrue to our benefit,” Berman said.

But now Iran is set to establish an embassy in Cairo just as Egyptian protesters marched on the Israeli embassy there, demanding “the cancellation of normalization.” And that’s not all. RFE/RL reported in the same article that Al-Arabi has also suggested patching things up with Hamas.

That is a double-edged sword, however. The article notes that it could be a source of renewed tension between Iran and Egypt, as the two would compete over Hamas. I think that’s a bit naïve. And even if it does happen that way, would Israel not be alarmed if Iran and Egypt were competing over who could better fund and supply Hamas?

This is not yet reason for panic, but it absolutely is reason for great concern, not to mention some contingency planning for Israel’s energy needs. Additionally, the fact that NATO can’t seem to beat Qaddafi’s band of brigands does not bode well for our side in the mental chess game that takes place beneath the surface of Mideast geopolitics.

Odds are that if, as RFE/RL says, “the ghost of Islambouli is close to being laid to rest,” it will likely rise again—this time to haunt Israel and the West.

Less than one month ago – after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad began launching his brutal attacks against his own people – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to him as a “reformer.” She was continuing President Obama’s  fruitless exercise of “engagement” with Iran’s best friend in the Middle East.

As one resident of the besieged city of Dara’a (the center of the Syrian opposition movement) said, while filming tanks entering the city:

These are the reforms of Bashar al-Assad. He is reforming Dara’a with the tanks of Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian government’s brutal crackdown against protesters has already killed nearly 400 people to date. The New York Times‘ lead front page article today described reports of

bodies strewn in the streets

President Bashar al-Assad appears to be following the brutal example of his father, whose regime in 1982 crushed a revolt and killed at least 10,000 people in the town of Hama. Yet in contrast to the Obama administration’s willingness to push our longtime ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus and to use military force in Libya to get rid of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the Obama administration has done about as little to provide moral support for the Syrian dissidents as it has for the dissidents in Iran.

The Obama administration has issued a few bland statements, rebuking the Syrian government’s violence with adjectives like “unacceptable,” “deplorable,” and “outrageous.”

All that Obama himself could muster was a statement last Friday complaining:

Over the course of two months since protests in Syria began the United States has repeatedly encouraged President Assad and the Syrian government to implement meaningful reforms, but they refuse to respect the rights of the Syrian people or be responsive to their aspirations.

So much for trying to persuade the “reformer” through ”engagement.”

Obama’s statement went on to lament that Assad was,

putting his own personal interests ahead of the interests of the Syrian people, and resorting to the use of force and outrageous human rights abuses

Really? That’s all that the Presient of the United States could muster about an ongoing massacre? I guess President Obama is too busy going after those evil Republicans on the campaign trail to worry very much about the real evils being perpetrated in Syria.

The choice is not between entering a fourth war against a Muslim country, which would be a huge mistake, and doing virtually nothing. The choice is between calling out our real enemies with moral clarity versus pretending that we can “engage” with them in reasonable dialogue.

In Assad’s case, he has decided to throw in his lot with our biggest enemy in the region – the thugs ruling Iran. Syria has served as Iran’s conduit to arming the Hezbollah terrorists who now control neighboring Lebanon. By pretending we could engage rationally with both Syria and Iran, the Obama administration has given them the space to crack down on their own citizens protesting peacefully, and the time to further arm themselves and their terrorist surrogates.

Now, very late in the game, the Obama administration is reportedly discussing some limited new economic sanctions against Syria. At the United Nations, European and American officials have circulated a draft Security Council statement condemning the crackdown and calling on the government to respect human rights and freedom of expression. But Lebanon, which sits on the Security Council and led the charge against Qaddafi, is reportedly trying to slow things down at the Council with regard to Syria. Thus, according to Inner City Press, which spoke with a Permanent Representative of one of the countries that introduced the draft Security Council statement, it is being “watered down.”

Meanwhile, at the dysfunctional UN Human Rights Council that the Obama administration decided to join, the Organization of Islamic Conference (whose members dominate the Human Rights Council’s agenda) has blocked efforts to call a special session to discuss the crack-down in Syria and elsewhere n the Middle East.

What’s even worse, Syria is currently running for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and is likely to succeed. UN watchdog Anne Bayesfsky reports:

Seats are allocated to five regional groups, and just to make sure Syria’s ascendancy is unimpeded, the Asian group has only nominated the same number of states as they have seats. So barring any unexpected additions, Syria will join fellow U.N. human rights authorities like Saudi Arabia on the Council in May.

In addition to imposing our own economic sanctions along with our European allies if the UN Security Council does not act, there is one thing that the Obama administration could do right away to express moral clarity on what is going on in Syria. It should declare that if Syria is elected to the Human Rights Council, the United States will withdraw and cut off funding for this worthless body.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

An Iranian website has reported that a large coup by Revolutionary Guards commanders in Iran has been thwarted. Reza Kahlili writes:

Reports from inside Iran indicate that dozens of Revolutionary Guard commanders belonging to its Ground Forces have been arrested and charged with plotting a coup.

Based on the same reports, last night 37 Guards’ commanders were arrested and transferred to the Gohardasht prison to be transferred today to Prison 66, which is run by the Guards. Those arrested had plans to take over 130 key institutions in Tehran.

The recent conflicts within the Ministry of Intelligence & Security reportedly have resulted from the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit’s desire to control the Ministry.

The IRGC is the force that keeps the regime in power, but as I wrote in July 2010, there is a significant amount of dissent within the body. And now, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi says that 7 members were arrested for refusing to fire on protesters on March 10.

The regime has successfully prevented the opposition from mobilizing and presenting a challenge on the streets, but this does not mean the regime is not hated or that the Iranian people’s aspiration for freedom and justice isn’t a potent weapon.

Michael Ledeen documents how the Arab minority in the Ahwaz region have clashed with the security forces during protests and that on March 16, an opposition group called the Azerbaijan Movement for Democracy and Integrity in Iran took responsibility for a fire at the Tabriz oil refinery. There are also ongoing clashes between Kurdish militants and the IRGC and he says there is “systematic sabotage of the petrochemical industry and the nation’s vital pipelines.” As we told you, earlier this month suspicious explosions damaged three pipelines delivering gas near Qom. There were almost identical explosions in this same area in February.

At the same time, the Majiles is criticizing Ahmadinejad on economic matters, specifically the rising of natural gas prices by at least ten times. Angry citizens are now making their voices heard at the National Iranian Gas Company and 1,500 petrochemical facility workers in Khuzestan have gone on strike. There is still not a nationwide, coordinated strike but there are plenty of scattered ones.

Elections for the Majiles will be held on March 29, 2012, so these vocal confrontations between the pro-Ahmadinejad and anti-Ahmadinejad camps will escalate. Stay tuned.

From WorldThreats.com

According to a Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters released Wednesday, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have reached a new low at 42%. His disapproval rating was 48%. Half of those surveyed for the poll do not think that the president deserves a second term in office.

On the “O’Reilly Factor” last night, Bill O’Reilly posited that Obama’s declining poll numbers reveal Americans’ doubts about his leadership skills and where he is leading our country. Here are just a few examples of Obama’s leadership failures:

• Obama spent the first two years of his presidency on his signature issue – Obamacare – and pushed through a government-centric solution that the majority of Americans don’t want.

• Obama has led the country much further into debt, to the tune of $5 trillion of added deficits since he took office.

• Obama wasted precious time in addressing rising unemployment, relying on his failed stimulus program while the unemployment rate has risen during his administration. In fact, he has put thousands more Americans out of work with his moratorium on most drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And reducing this country’s oil supply when prices at the gas pump have doubled during the Obama administration is hardly a good idea.

• Obama’s budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year was an abdication of leadership. It raised spending and taxes, with no clear path towards real deficit reduction. It avoided entirely the issue of entitlements. Obama did not endorse any of the major elements of his own deficit commission’s deficit-reduction plan.

• Obama failed to crisis manage the Gulf oil spill by not proactively directing coordination of the timely use of maximum federal resources to help stem the spill and clean up the huge ensuing mess. In fact, his administration got in the way of those states such as Louisiana that were trying to  take care of the problem themselves.

• Obama has subjected national foreign policy decisions to the ‘global test’ of United Nations approval. He promised to address America’s “priorities” in the UN and warned that not following “the United Nation’s demands” (sic) would make “all people less safe.”

• Obama took months to respond to the military’s request for additional troops in the Afghan war and then, when he finally announced his decision to add 30,000 troops in December of 2009, he simultaneously talked about a withdrawal timetable.

• Obama failed to speak out forcefully in support of the dissidents in Iran who were being killed, beaten and tortured by the thugs ruling the Islamic Republic of Iran.

• Obama wavered from initial support for Egyptian President Mubarak, to wait-and-see, to finally pressuring Mubarak to leave. His administration can’t figure out how much to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s participation in a new Egyptian government, but is willing to give the radical Islamist group, which founded Hamas and has just recently told the Egyptian people to prepare for war against Israel, the benefit of the doubt.

• Obama dithered for weeks before following France and the Arab League into the United Nations-approved military intervention in Libya. Now that we are involved, Obama is unable or unwilling to clearly define the mission and criteria for success that will allow the United States to cease its active military involvement.

Beyond these specific examples, President Obama has failed to convince many Americans that he truly believes the United States is an exceptional country with a noble purpose. He tried in his Libya speech Monday night to invoke his understanding of American exceptionalism as the justification for his belated decision to use military force against Qaddafi. However, he has made apologies abroad for America on several occasions. For example, in France of all places, he said:

there have been times America’s shown arrogance

Most Americans want a president who leads by making firm decisions with moral clarity and common sense and who puts his country first. Barack Obama has failed this leadership test.

Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

In his presidential speech to the nation, Obama defended American use of military force as part of the coalition to protect Libyan civilians, yet as Vanity Fair fittingly described, Obama’s Speech on Libya Leaves Big Questions Unanswered, amounting to “an oddly belated effort to explain the obvious.” A pertinent question about Libya is this: what is the Western alliance backing?

According to analysts of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the rebel forces opposing Gaddafi– and yes the same ones that America is backing– are comprised of young Al-Qaeda jihadists.  Forget the premature liberal utopianism that peace, human rights and democracy as we know it, is on the horizon in the turbulent Middle East.

Most analysts are hailing the wave of pro-democracy movements in the Arab world as a boon for the Islamic Republic.Indeed, if Egypt can create a democratic model that combines political tolerance, economic prosperity and adept diplomacy, Iran’s model of intolerance, economic malaise and confrontation will hold little appeal in the Arab world.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (also former Israeli ambassador to the United States and foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) had more realistic thoughts about the Middle East uprisings:

The fear is that they will be hijacked, (following the) the model of Iran, the model of Hamas in Gaza, the model of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The region is crawling with Islamists—from the most violent to the so-called moderate adherents to the Muslim Brotherhood, the latter being confused with democratic freedom fighters by misinformed Westerners.

Take Libya for example where Darnah is one of the most significant towns in the east for the Islamist uprising against Gadaffi.  Its defenses are being led by rebel Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi,who admitted to fighting against American forces in Afghanistan and also to recruiting Libyans to fight against American forces in Iraq.

According to the French daily newspapaer Le Figaro, al-Hasadi is not only described as the “voice of Libya’s Islamists” but he also holds so much power that any transitional government must pass his approval. America’s enemies are bountiful with a dithering administration at the helm during a trying time for even the most decisive.

Barack Obama rose to prominence as a ferocious opponent of the war in Iraq. With barely any objection from either the left or the right, he is now deploying American military power to support some of the very same forces — in all likelihood some of the very same fighters — who were just recently fighting and killing American troops in Iraq.

A quick glance back will remind us that the Taliban swiftly emerged as a so-called reformist force from the Mujahideen warriors that fought the Soviets in the late 90s.   Its founder Mullah Mohammad Umar served as a Mujahideen warrior before advancing to create his own fundamentalist ‘vision’ for Afghanistan, the current menace America faces at war.  While we cheer the fall of tyrants in the Middle East there is no predictability on who or what will replace them at this stage.  With the powerful Islamist influence, this vacuum is ominous and brings with it potential complications to Western interests, particularly with America governed by a vacillating president who needs to focus more on the menace of Iran, while showing greater support for Israel.

Is it more terrifying to know your enemies are there but not be able to see them, or to stare daily into the wild eyes of the men who plan your execution? This is the question I pondered as I stood near Israel’s northern border with Lebanon last week.

The view from Israel’s north looks quite different than it did before the Second Lebanon War in 2006. As bad as the press was for Israel after that war, Hezbollah was so decimated by Israel’s counteroffensive that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah admitted that had he known Israel would strike back as it did, he would probably not have launched the war.

And now, where once Hezbollah commandos strutted around the border in combat fatigues with guns slung over their shoulders, they only go outside in street clothes. And while pre-2006 the Hezbollah military installations stood as concrete expressions of defiance, they are now all under or inside of civilian residential buildings.

But while that may represent a moral victory, does it bring any sense of reassurance to Israelis living in the north?

“Everybody deserves the right to live; the problem is that they don’t want us to live,” a young man named Yair told me. “Hezbollah is an example. They want to destroy us. We don’t want to fight; we just want to be in peace. But we don’t have a choice.”

Knowing that I was American–I was there on a weeklong media fellowship with Act for Israel–Yair was clearly speaking simple Hebrew for my benefit. But it was telling that perhaps his phrasing was appropriate. Was there really anything missing from his formulation?

There are now, according to the IDF, 40,000 rockets in Hezbollah’s possession south of Lebanon’s Litani River, which at its closest point comes to within four kilometers of the Israeli border. In the last war, rockets rained on Israel’s port city and economic and population center of Haifa. The city is home to over 265,000 Israelis, but another 300,000 live in adjacent towns.

Another important number is 1 million–that’s how many Israelis live north of Haifa and who, presumably, the rockets stockpiled in the Lebanese village of Al Khiam are intended for. Al Khiam sits four kilometers from the Israeli border as well, and the center of the village is home to at least eleven weapons depots. One is right next to a mosque, another is right next to a school. Both medical centers are within a few hundred feet of weapons depots. A second school is exactly 132 meters from another weapons depot. One bunker is situated about 100 meters from a school on one side and a mosque on the other.

This is Hezbollah. The world’s most feared and resilient terrorist organization, funded by Iran and running a state within a state in Lebanon (and on the verge of controlling the state of Lebanon as well) is also a machine churning out cowardice on a daily basis, as it puts both Lebanon’s and Israel’s civilians at risk. It’s entire strategy for war with Israel consists of using human shields. And why not? The media plays along.

“Israel kills [Arab] children. That’s what they’ll say,” Yuval, from the northern town of Poriyya, tells me. I asked him whether Israel is capable of defending herself from the onslaught that everyone I spoke to believes is coming–and soon.

“She can defend herself, but we are too worried what the world will think about us,” he responds.

It is here where Israeli confidence and cynicism meet. Israelis are always sure their army can win the war, but are less sure their leaders will respond as soon as they are attacked.

“When it falls in Tel Aviv,” Yuval says, referring to the rockets, “then Israel will take [action]. I don’t think they care when it falls down here.” But Israel responded when the rockets fell in Haifa, I said. Yuval brushes that aside. “When it falls in Tel Aviv, it’s like the center of Israel. And it symbolizes something.”

I think that response has a poetic element to it. He thinks it’s just realism, straight up. “It’s like when rockets fall in Sderot,” he tells me, offering me the answer he and I both knew was coming at some point. “For eight years they fall down every day and no one cared about it. For eight years.”

And this is more than frustration. This is a real fear. I ask him if he thinks another war is coming soon. “Yes, of course,” he answers. Is there a sense of nervousness among Israelis, especially those living in the north? “Yes, of course.”

Yuval’s concern is more common, of course, in the north. Yair told me something similar. He said the leaders don’t know how to solve the problem of Hezbollah. But it was the language he used that caught my attention. He used the phrase lo bnuyim in Hebrew. Bnuyim means build, and is often used to describe a sense of maturity or readiness. When Yair uses lo bnuyim to describe his leaders, he is wondering whether they are built for this.

Regardless, everyone I spoke to is certain that the Israeli leadership will strike back and that the IDF will win. It’s only a matter of when, they say, and at what cost. They have no doubt Israel’s governing coalition will defend the state. I was here when Kadima was in charge in 2006, and there simply wasn’t this confidence. Something about the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition with Ehud Barak as defense minister projects a toughness Israelis both like and relate to.

Part of the distress in the north is the feeling that the rockets are there to deter an Israeli strike on Iran. If someone–Israel most likely, but anyone really–attacks Iran, Israelis in the north expect the rockets to come fast and furious in response. Therefore, not only must they think about a possible future war with Hezbollah, but they must also confront the question of whether the existence of those rockets will enable Iran to go nuclear. Which is worse? Does it even matter?

“You can make peace with a snake? You can sleep with a snake?” Yosi Levy asks me rhetorically as we sit behind the counter in his kiosk along the boardwalk in Tiberias. Levy likes to speak in allegories.

Hezbollah doesn’t want land, he reminds me, as the Palestinians can at least claim. They just want the Jews dead, and they only understand force. So there will be war.

Levy is no stranger to war in Lebanon. He served in the IDF in south Lebanon in 1982, when Israel went in to root out the PLO. He pulls up his pant leg slightly and points to a three-inch scar on the right side of his ankle, then turns his foot and shows a similar scar on the other side. It’s where the bullet entered and where it exited his leg.

“It’s a present from the Palestinians,” he says.

I ask Levy if Israel is ready to defend herself. Yes, he says without hesitation. I ask him how he knows there will be war again. He tells me the story of the frog and the scorpion, pointing to the water nearby.

The scorpion finds the frog on the shore, about to swim to the island in the middle of the water. He asks the frog for a ride, since the scorpion obviously can’t swim. The frog responds that he thinks the scorpion will sting him–he is a scorpion, after all. The scorpion counters that if he stings the frog, they’ll both go under, and therefore the concept of mutually assured destruction will prevent him from stinging the frog. So the frog agrees. Halfway to the island, the scorpion stings the frog. As they’re going under, the frog shoots the scorpion a hurt and betrayed look.

Levy pauses before offering the scorpion’s response, clearly intended to represent Israel’s Arab enemies, and which he delivers with a smile: “I’m a scorpion, what did you expect, I’d kiss you?”

Editor’s Note: This popular post was first published on March 14 here.

A three month old baby girl was stabbed to death along with most of her family on Friday.

In the Israeli settlement of Itamar on the West Bank, at least one terrorist broke into the home of Ruth and Udi Fogel (35 and 36). The mother and father of six were brutally stabbed to death in their bed. The killer(s) then stalked from room to room and slayed three of six children – two boys, Yoav (11), Elad (3), and a three month old infant girl whose name was Hadas.

“The children were literally slaughtered,” an IDF officer said, describing the scene, including the children’s toys spilled out on the floor and covered in blood. “This is one of the most brutal attacks we have ever seen.”

Three other children in the family survived. Two were in a side room and perhaps went unnoticed. A third, the eldest son Tamar (12) was away from the home. Imagine how their lives have been devastated, how difficult it will be to salvage their broken hearts and rattled souls.

In in age where news of mayhem is constant, it can be difficult to appreciate the impact of such an event, and tempting to shield ourselves from contemplating its horror. However, by allowing ourselves to reflect upon this unspeakable crime, we can confirm an essential truth which is indispensable to our deliberation of policy.

Why must we contemplate this horror? Because it serves to demonstrate that evil exists, and acknowledging that fact enables us to fight it. The policies championed by the Left, whether they involve foreign affairs or domestic social concerns, are often predicated upon a premise which this terrible crime plainly disproves.

It is clear that some people do not value life, children, or innocence. Try to ponder what it would take to bring a knife down on a three month old baby girl. Chances are you can’t bring your self to imagine it. But someone could. Then they did it. That someone does not think how you think. They do not value what you value. And they plainly cannot be expected to behave as you would behave.

FrontPage’s Stephen Brown aptly describes why. He begins with a quote by Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we will take from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.

Next: Why taking death lovers at their word is an essential to our craft of policy…

The boarding was based on confirmed intelligence that the vessel was carrying illicit arms destined for terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip. It sailed Monday night from the Syrian port of Lattakai bound for Turkey. There, it was supposed to unload the weapons, which would be conveyed by land to Gaza. Lattakai is the same port where two Iranian war ships docked in February after traversing the Suez Canal. At the time, IDF officials raised concerns of the possibility that they were carrying weapons intended for terrorists organizations, but there was no confirmation.

“The operation was approved as necessary in accordance with government directives in light of Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz’s recommendations,” Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, Head of the Foreign Press Branch, said during a conference call this morning. Gantz updated Defense Minister Ehud Barak about the findings on-board the vessel Tuesday morning.

“The IDF and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs alerted German authorities about the interception of the “Victoria” due to the German ownership of the ship.”

In addition, the government of Liberia, whose flag it was flying under, was notified, as well as France, due to the French shipping company. The Israeli Navy has conducted numerous operations over the years against Iranian smuggling to Hamas and Hezbollah.  The IDF believes that neither Egypt nor Turkey has any connection to the ship’s cargo. The evidence it has indicates that Syria and Iran were the main actors.

The IDF has not said yet exactly what types of weapons they found on the ship but based on what can be seen in the pictures they provided, one can assume that they could do much damage. According to Lt. Col. Leibovich, the most important fact here is that the IDF can draw a direct line from Syria to the attempt to smuggle weapons into Gaza. The weapons are Iranian.

Lt. Col. Leibovich did not know whether the weapons were connected to the Iranian warships that passed through the Suez Canal three weeks ago. But this is a distinct possibility.

Lt. Col. Leibovich did not know whether the crew knew what they were carrying. But, it should be noted that nothing in the freight manifest of the Victoria revealed the true nature of the content of the ship’s containers, in violation of the relevant provisions of the International Maritime Organization’s Conventions and professional standards, including the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG).

The IDF did not notify anyone in advance that it was going to board the ship. The IDF informed the Germans, the French, the Liberians and the Americans only after it had opened the three containers of weapons. Intriguingly, Lt. Col. Leibovich did not answer when asked whether the Germans and French knew what was on the ships when they were contacted.

This raises some concerns for the world community, especially the need to prevent smuggling arms to terrorists. This attempt at moving large amounts of weaponry aboard the Victoria provides additional proof of Israel’s imperative need to examine all goods entering the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Israel cannot allow weapons and military equipment to reach the hands of terrorists, who will use them against its civilian population. If the world community doesn’t want to act, Israel will.

A three month old baby girl was stabbed to death along with most of her family on Friday.

In the Israeli settlement of Itamar on the West Bank, at least one terrorist broke into the home of Ruth and Udi Fogel (35 and 36). The mother and father of six were brutally stabbed to death in their bed. The killer(s) then stalked from room to room and slayed three of six children – two boys, Yoav (11), Elad (3), and a three month old infant girl whose name was Hadas.

“The children were literally slaughtered,” an IDF officer said, describing the scene, including the children’s toys spilled out on the floor and covered in blood. “This is one of the most brutal attacks we have ever seen.”

Three other children in the family survived. Two were in a side room and perhaps went unnoticed. A third, the eldest son Tamar (12) was away from the home. Imagine how their lives have been devastated, how difficult it will be to salvage their broken hearts and rattled souls.

In in age where news of mayhem is constant, it can be difficult to appreciate the impact of such an event, and tempting to shield ourselves from contemplating its horror. However, by allowing ourselves to reflect upon this unspeakable crime, we can confirm an essential truth which is indispensable to our deliberation of policy.

Why must we contemplate this horror? Because it serves to demonstrate that evil exists, and acknowledging that fact enables us to fight it. The policies championed by the Left, whether they involve foreign affairs or domestic social concerns, are often predicated upon a premise which this terrible crime plainly disproves.

It is clear that some people do not value life, children, or innocence. Try to ponder what it would take to bring a knife down on a three month old baby girl. Chances are you can’t bring your self to imagine it. But someone could. Then they did it. That someone does not think how you think. They do not value what you value. And they plainly cannot be expected to behave as you would behave.

FrontPage’s Stephen Brown aptly describes why. He begins with a quote by Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we will take from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.

Next: Why taking death lovers at their word is an essential to our craft of policy…