Israeli defense officials expressed extreme concern Thursday over Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah's call for a massive protest Friday to bring down the Lebanese government, warning that UNIFIL might be expelled from Lebanon if Prime Minister Fuad Saniora were forced to leave office. Hizbullah and its allies in the parliamentary opposition have called for mass demonstrations to begin Friday in downtown Beirut with the aim of bringing down Saniora's anti-Syrian coalition.
If the shaky government falls, the Israeli defense officials warned, UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army might be forced from southern Lebanon, which, along with the Bekaa Valley, is Hizbullah's home ground. The second Lebanon war: JPost.com special report

While Hizbullah has continued to rebuild its military power since the UN-brokered cease-fire took effect on August 14, its gunmen have refrained from displaying their weapons near the border with Israel. "UNIFIL is not the best, but it has been effective so far in preventing Hizbullah from returning to the border," a high-ranking defense official told The Jerusalem Post Thursday. "If UNIFIL is kicked out of Lebanon, we could easily find ourselves back in the same situation we were in before the war this past summer, or even back at war." Saniora ...   more »

By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran. He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book. Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office? Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath? The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran. This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us). But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America. When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
Original Sources

Direct engagement with Syria necessary to ensure Israel’s long-term securityDavid Young
Israel’s conflict in the north with Hizbullah , Syria and (by extension) Iran is becoming increasingly ripe for a long-term resolution or containment, for the following reasons.

Why would Israel want to talk to any of its northern neighbors?

Hizbullah's summer attack and continued ransom of two Israeli soldiers has led many Israelis to realize that the status quo is ...   more »