I would think a "thank you" is in order for the bunker busting bombs Israel just purchased or the US Patriot missiles protecting you from Iran's ballistic missiles. If Iran launched missiles at Israel, you can bet US submarines, B2 bombers, etc. would be ready to come to Israel's aid.

I think Ben-Ari's "tone" is a bit misplaced. The US needs an Israeli victory here for its own interests, that's true. But does this imply that we don't need that victory ourselves? We are not suckers for fighting this war just because it benefits others than ourselves. There is a strategic parity of interests between the US and Israel that Israel should be exploiting to help us win this war. Both need to see Islamic Fundamentalism have its military wings severely clipped. It needs to be embarrassed so severely that it no longer looks like a better alternative to compromise. To achieve this, I would like to see the US would attack Hizbollah from Turkey while we'll attack from the South. Lebanon's Hizbollah can't handle a dual front, and this will draw Syria into the war to save their proxy. Not far behind will be Iran - that's for sure. If Iran enters, we can attack them together on the Syrian battlefield and have a very good chance of defeating them handily. The reason this is in Israel's and the US's interests are clear enough - if the Iranian and Syrian ability to scuttle forces for peace in the PA and Iraq is severely curtailed, if the Iranian and Syrian governments are distabilized by their defeat, not only could Israel benefit from the peace that results when more reasonable governments evolve, but the US will because of the change eventually have something to show for its efforts in Iraq, and it will be able to reduce Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East (chiefly through their business partners, Iran), while eliminating the nuclear threat that Iran implies, since it will surely give the technology to terrorists. So in this respect I'd agree with Ben-Ari - apparently the US is not looking to get involved on the ground. They want Israel to take the burden upon itself. But the US has made the error of committing too little force before - why repeat that error? I'm not convinced Israel has enough ground forces to deal with a multifront war now that we have the Palestinians to deal with, unless we use non-conventional weapons. We know what it takes, so why not join in making it happen? It's wrong for the US to allow us to fight Syria and Iran to the last Israeli soldier - yes, it will supply us weapons, whatever it takes. But what I'd really like to know is that we could fight as allies for once, side by side, for a common goal. Every time Israel was willing to do this (chiefly, the last two wars in Iraq), the Americans found it politically inopportune. They told us to stand down while they did it themselves. Time will tell if the US changes tack, but I think we should be fighting this broader war together. If Britain is enough of an ally to fight side by side with America, so is Israel.

and it is NATO in the West bank and on the streets of Jerusalem, G-d forbid!

If you don't want to be our proxy you can stop succling at the American taxpayers teat. Shut the hell up and do what we tell you, or you should fend for yourselfs (lets just see how long THAT lasts without spare parts for our F-16's, and our GPS guided munitions.) The only thing standing between the Jews and the sea is the US TAXPAYER, and our vested interest in a proxy player while the middle east pumps oil. You don't think you have signed any agreements??? Every year you cash our $3BLN check, you sign on to do as you are told. Don't like it, screw you.

Military actions can only deliver short term settlements to the social psychological problems that exist in the Middle-East. A meaningful dialogue in the context of a more commonly acceptable internationalism is required but the idiom for this dialogue has to be a pronounced in completely innovative way. Fortunately we do not have to invent the idiom however. We only have to espouse it with innovation. What is it ? The idiom is called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it will be a 60 year old document in 2008. How could it be done (uttered) ? World leaders could pronounce it, article by article, on network and satellite television. This should be done on a sustained regular basis that means perhaps every day until all calls for armed struggle have been silenced or abandoned in the region. We are all born into the arms of mothers with different faiths. We have to live with the fact that we have different religious creeds in the world, but we have to live with this reality in the context of human rights universalism: Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one’s religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This is Idiom. This is the grammar of international social psychology. But we don’t use it. Almost nobody knows these articles exist. Therefore we do not articulate our individual or collective points of view in these terms of reference. Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. How much air time do television companies devote to reporting news from war zones? Answer: 24 hours How much progress to the search for peace and harmony could be made if world leaders pronounce the definition of universal human rights on television? Would it ultimately interdict in what has become the present dialogue of creed against creed? Would it put that hateful dialogue into a more sober context? Can universal human rights obliterate the causes of violence …… non violently!? It is up to the world’s leaders to pronounce it. Only they have the oral clout.

I think you are wrong, there are valid concerns in the article to be cautious. Israel owes us nothing in return and I think you need to shut the hell up. I don't blame them for not signing anything, what the hell if an sissy ass liberal get elected down the road or some asshole with a personality like yours? Then what? Israel is smart to be at no ones mercy or be anyones proxy. Now why don't you find a teat to suck,, I hear your mommy calling.. screw you troll!

Shai, you have asked me in the past not to be quick to count foolish or facile comments as really representing deep-felt anti-Americanism among Israelis. But this is an article, edited by professional editors. This article is the sort of thing that makes me doubt, not the sincerity, but the accuracy of your claims about Israeli views. Why are Syria and Iran American enemies? Obviously, one reason is that they view the US as an ally of Israel, which they view as their enemy. If the Israeli military believes that Israel has no interest in supporting the US against Syria or Iran, I doubt that the US has any need for support. Give me a single example of any material threat to the US from Syria. That is at the rational level. At the emotional level, to have an Israeli general claiming that the Israelis are suckers for doing the US's work in Lebanon is to demonstrate a level of hatred for the US almost pathological. The US interest in Lebanon is and has been to promote a democratic, pluralist state, a goal which Israel reasonably views as inconsistent with the immediate need to reduce the war-making potential of Hizbullah. But for an Israeli general to BLAME the US for Israel's invasion of Lebanon is possible only for one blinded by hatred of the US. If the Israelis think they are doing the US a favor by being in Lebanon, then they should pull out NOW. As for your personal wish to have Israeli troops helping the US, that reflects well on YOUR support for the US, but it is not realistic. Many of the US supporters are Moslem governments, eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, with huge disaffected populations. The US is walking a tightrope in supporting Israel while eliciting grudging or limited support across much of the Moslem world. Putting Israeli troops as a garrison into Moslem territories will not be helpful on balance.

This article was a manic combination of prudent caution and unrealistic expectations of the International community. I tend to agree with the general's desires, but does he really expect the international community to support Israel and/or the US in the fight against terrorism, since they've shown time and time again a desire to understand and "cure" the root causes of terrorism (cute way of saying destroy the US economy and drive Israel into the sea), as opposed to destroying terrorism by funding the slaughter of terrorists. Has he not been paying attention for the last 30 years? The International Community is against us and has been for a long time........don't ever expect them to do a damn thing but criticize when we succeed and criticize when we're attacked.

Islam answers your invocation to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with its own Universal Declaration: "Kill The Infidels." The West's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is heresy to the Islamic theocrat. Islamic law is not based on human rights but on Sharia (Islamic law). They are mutually exclusive. The former cannot coexist besides the latter. Sharia has no room for volitional choice among peoples. It is "Islam or death." It is futile for world leaders to preach to the choir about human rights. Those who need to hear simply won't listen. They march to the beat of a different drummer. Steve, we are up against an intractabe enemy for whom platitudes about peace, harmony and goodwill among men fall upon contemptuous, if not deaf ears. Until the West realizes that this is war is nothing less than an existential battle - as Tony Blair put it - not between civilizations but FOR civilization, we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I fear it will take another 9/11 or worse before we awaken from our utopian slumber. The Islamo-savages are acquiring 21st century tools with which to implement their 7th century Weltanshauung. What four jetliners were unable to accomplish 5 years ago, will soon be attempted with sobering efficiency by the Islamo-fascists who are putting the final touches on nukes while the West talks about human rights and avoiding collateral damage. When will we hear the drumbeat?

Ben Ari logic is that Israel could bare to have an hostile Hizballah on her northern border. It was true some years ago, however, we are now facing the prospect of a global war against Iran. That's why I believe that Israel & America share a common interest in weakening Hizballah at this point. However, this war will also profits Sunni Arabs who are frightened by the prospect of being smashed by Iran. That's why Israel must get a diplomatic outcome which strengthens Israel and weakens Shia & Sunni. No free meal for Arabs murderers. It will strengthen America in her war against Muslim crime as well. Israel and America must conclude a win-win agreement permitting to lead to victory against these Nazis.

This has to be the dumbest article I've read in a long time. Mr. Ben-Ari’s contrarian position vis-à-vis our strategic partnership with the US proves to me that military intelligence (his background) is an oxymoron (at least in this country). Not only can we not expect a strategic partnership to be a one-way deal, but for once we have an opportunity to regain our much-needed deterrence in the region with US blessings. The military should proceed with caution, but its mandate is military, not political.

Let's end this honey trap. Israel can stop taking U.S. money and monopolizing U.S. foreign policy efforts, and the U.S. can stop taking all the benefits and good things it receives in return for this "special relationship." I think there's a strong argument to be made that if Israel acts from time to time as America's proxy, then the converse is certainly true on occasion, if not frequently.

So pathetic and hypocritical is US foreign policy in the Middle East, it is no wonder that George Bush has all but promoted further terrorism by his one-sided stance, all in favor of the Rottweiler of the region, Israel. And that in itself is tragic as the Americans were once looked on as friends and honest brokers of democracy and justice by the people of the region. What is happening in Lebanon today is far from that. Justice and democracy have taken a back seat to the Zionist influence on US politics, and even the Lebanese will not be spared.

We have turned out to be your full-time army guarding your oil interests here. Trust of the Saudis can only go so far. When your Hummer sucks up everything Texas and Alaska have to offer, idiots like you will come begging to us rather than give up your proxy male body part.

pocket has only money and it is one pocket to israil and america ,,but pokets have no blood if the price is blood ..i think the american blood has a big price to themselves ,,,but sure the arabs has not the same pockets but evry one put his hand in another pockets to put money not to take ,,but about the blood no price to the blood ,,the price is only to OIL

No one made you dive into this ridiculous quagmire in Lebanon; you did it yourselves. If you're dumb enough to fight the same war against the same opponent who beat you the last time, and think you can beat them in a week this time, you deserve what you get. Don't point the finger at us. That monkey in the White House might be stupid, but he didn't tell you to invade Lebanon. Actually though, since you take so much money from us each year for free, it's only fair that you do some of the lifting around here. How about taking Iraq off our hands? Since you're so good at preventing terrorism and all, I'm sure it'll be easy for you. Just ask Shaul Mofaz; he'll tell you Israel can solve all the problems in Iraq in about a week, maybe two.

ONE THING GEORGE WASHINGTON IS WELL KNOWN TO HAVE SAID WAS THAT AMERICA SHOULD SPECIFICALLY AVOID ENTANGLING ALLIANCES - WITH ANYONE... IT TOOK THEM A LONG TIME TO HELP BRITAIN IN WW2 - AND THEY ARE AMERICAS OWN MOTHER ISRAEL SHOULD ALWAYS BE PREPARED TO FIGHT ALONE - BE ALONE - WORK ALONE ITS NOT IN THE INTEREST ON AMERICA TO SIGN AGREEMENTS OF PROTECTION - BECAUSE IT LOOSES ITS "INDEPENDANCE" TO ACT ON ITS OWN

WHEN 9/11 HAPPENED MOST AMERICANS THOUGHT WE WERE IN A GREAT MORAL WAR WE ARE THE PROBLEM CAME WHEN HALIBURTAN AND THE OIL INTERESTS OVERSHADOWED THE MORAL FIGHT - LIKE THAT WAS THE REAL REASON AMERICA WAS THERE TAKE HEART - AMERICA IN THE LAST 12 DAYS HAS REALISED THAT OIL IS #2 - AND WE ARE RE-ENGAGED IN THE MORAL STRUGGLE

At this very moment our Prime Minister, Ministers and bureaucrats are shuttling between Ottawa and Washington working on the "21st Century Solution". This plan involves Canada's vast ever expanding oil reserves to replace and eliminate America's dependence on overseas resources. Israel had better start making friends with its neighbours cause Schwarzenegger's Hummer fleet will soon be running off Canuckian petrol, their F-16s too I presume.

Even oil independance won't preserve America & Canada from jihad.

I've read this notion elsewhere -- that the U.S. is willing to "fight to the last Israeli". Hasn't the opposite fear been the main one -- that we would impose a cease-fire before you had finished the job? And what about that belated emergency order of bombs from the U.S. -- are the Americans forcing that on Israel? Finally, did George W. Bush order Israel to go into Lebanon? This whole post sounds a bit deranged.

Alex, you also have a few outspoken crackpots who are generals in the American military. Let's not draw conclusions about the American army or Americans based on things they've said. Similarly, don't do so based on what this Israeli general said. There's a great deal of evidence proving Israel's going out of its way to help the US as the rule, not the exception. I don't think the US needs to apologize to any Muslim country for attacking those who attack her. Real allies do not protect American enemies. Real allies work to enlist their populations to support western democracy. By this defnition, how many Muslim countries are actually allies? Maybe none? Further, the whole idea behind the invasion of Iraq was that the US had to stop supporting dictatorships and needed to start supporting democratic reform as a matter of American self interest. Look how the favor has been returned, Alex. Regarding your lack of knowledge about Iran and Syria, be it known that Iranians and Syrians have single handedly scuttled America's victory in Iraq. They are major government sponsors of terrorism against western targets, Syria harborded Iraq's Baath government Sadamists and allows insurgents to access Iraq with arms and soldiers. Iran has bolstered the insurgency in Iraq to disable the US's ability to use Iraq as a launchpad for attacking Iran. Lastly, regarding Lebanon as "Muslim territory", you're wrong. There are many ethnic minorities and religions in Lebanon. Many Lebanese are Christians. I suggest that the reason these Christians are endangered is precisely because people perceive Lebanon as you do - Muslim territory. The best thing the US could do is join Israel in a pincer attack on Lebanon that wipes out the 4000 strong army of Hizbollah. It would give the Lebanese a chance to rebuild without having it torn asunder again by Islamic radicalists.

Ynet, where do you find these people? "Do we really need to stand at the head of the sane world in the fight against the axis of evil?" As if Israel has any choice. It already is the head of the sane world in the fight against Radical Islam. It always has been. Where is this guy from? The moon?

US Army must not help IDF to win this war, it will strongly hamper Israel deterrence and Arabs will believe that Israel can't defend herself without American soldiers. Moreover, a serious country only rely on its own strength to defend itself against foreign agressions.

I did not say that Lebanon was "Muslim" territory. I am quite aware of the Christian and Druse minorities in Lebanon. Please do not attribute to me statements that I did not say or ignorance that I do not suffer from. You, however, did say that you wished that Israel was helping the US, presumably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are overwhelmingly Muslim countries, and an Israeli garrison would not be helpful. And where did I say anything remotely close to apologizing to any Muslim country about the US invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq? As for the Bush doctrine on establishing democratic, non-theocratic government in Muslim countries, suffice it to say that many Americans think it is Wilsonianism gone mad and that Bush is quite unlikely to succeed where Ataturk failed. I believe that Bush was absolutely right to topple the Taliban and Saddam. I believe he is idiotic to try to reverse two millennia of Muslim medievalism. We should have left both countries to fragment into their natural ethnic and sectarian divisions. The idea that there is any fundamental American interest in developing a united democratic state in either god-forsaken wasteland is absurd. Syria and Iran represent no threat to fundamental American interests though perhaps they threaten a misconceived policy. If either state becomes a fundamentla threat, then we know what to do. Nor is Lebanon, with or without Hizbollah, any threat to fundamental US interests. Hizbollah does represent a threat to fundamental Israeli interests, which is why I find quite reasonable the Israeli invasion. In any case, the thrust of the article, which was not published in a crackpot Israeli paper of negligible circulation, is that Israel should stop doing the US's work in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. It is not clear that the US has any work to do in any of those three countries. Nor do I think it unreasonable of me to consider such an article, written by an Israeli general and published in a major Israeli paper, as indicative of Israeli opinion about the US. I have been trying to give you, Shai, the benefit of the doubt about Israeli anti-Americanism. It hardly provides me much comfort when you accuse me of ignorance when I point out hard evidence of that anti-Americanism and find excuses for it. Are you unwilling to call a spade a spade?

To all: Have faith in G-d.

In the past, the Jewish were the slaves of Pharaoh of Egypt Goliath for thousands of years until God sent Moses and David to free them from slavery but instead of being thankful and obedient to God they then became apostates, traitors and killers of God messengers such as Jesus and the others. Later on in past few centuries they became the slaves of European ruling class by doing the dirty works for them by being their oppressive hands such as tax collectors and money lenders to the lower class in return for limited religious and cultural autonomy, so that when the lower class threatened to rise up against the ruling class, they could always blame the Jews as the scapegoats, resulting in notorious waves of repression that have taken place throughout the Jewish suffering in Europe. The emergence of Zionism was then to free Jewish slavery so that they could become their own masters in their own country which was the creation of Israel by the British in 1948, the irony is that Israel had become slave state of the Western powers (British and France later on the US) to maintain their interests in the Middle East, the two wars of 1956 and 1967 are examples so that Jews and Arab will always be enemies to each other by occupying the Arab lands.. The conclusion is that Israel is the weapon of the Western powers led by the US that can be used anytime and anywhere in the Middle East against any Arab country that is trying to challenge the Western interests in the region, no wonder that Israel is always supplied with the latest and unlimited quantity of US weaponry. Israel will always be the state in war forever until the Jewish people stop being slaves of the Western powers and I am sure that this is God everlasting punishment for you Jews until you stop being arrogant and traitors to God while in fact you are no more than slaves. So make peace with your neighbors the Arabs with whole peace process not just partially and return their occupied lands; Lebanon’s Shaba farms, Syria’s Golan heights and Palestinian West Bank including Jerusalem like you did to Egypt, only then you will have peace of mind.

If General Ben-Ari and his forces are the US's "proxy" in this offensive for Israeli survival, then presumably Monty and the 21st Army were likewise "proxies" for the US on the eve of D-Day . . . ? Oy, vey. Then again, clearly you're no Monty, sir.

You look to only one issue - Israel vs USA. The big picture is, how else, about oil and its prices. There are far more players (oil producers) involved in a game aiming at raising artificially oil prices; Russia with its Katiusha (spell?) rockets comes to mind. Hence, the Middle East area must be kept in continuous instability for the oil prices to stay high. None of the major oil players has any interest in a long lasting peace in the region. To achieve this, Israel and Iran - two democracies afterall - must be kept credible opposite forces.

Like John Bolton said how can you negotiate a cease fire with terrorist? We got Iran, Syria, North Korea, Al-Quaeda, and countries that implicitly support them...Venezuela, China, Russia, and countries that believe in appeasing terrorist....Spain, France, Germany, South Korea.....which leaves a few countries defending our freedom....Israel, the USA, and Japan....When the totality of WWIII does breakout, Japan & the Korean peninsula & Israel are going to be the major hotspots....along with worlwide terrorist actions. In this scenario you cannot have such as an Israeli policy....It is an alliance that needs to be coordinated to get rid of this evil scorge from this planet. Peace, terrorist do not want peace.