For all intents and purposes Yasir Arafat is Mr. Palestine, he has been the symbol, the substance, the servant and the savior of the Palestinian national movement. His time in power, however, although it may not be numbered in days or months, will certainly last no more than a year or two. Who

Much has been said in reaction to President Bush's characterization in his State of the Union address of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil." An overwhelming consensus here at home and abroad seems to have emerged that the president's characterization is, at best, misguided. Lumping all three nations together as if we could deal with them on equal terms only undermines our national interest and the war against terrorism.

Winning the war for the hearts and minds of the peoples of the Muslim world may prove considerably harder than winning any military campaign. Our military victories will neither have any lasting effect, nor will we see the end of terrorism unless we persuade the Muslim masses that our war is against

There is a growing consensus in the Bush administration and Congress that Iraq will be the next target in our war on terrorism. This consensus is based on the premise that Iraq has developed chemical and biological weapons, including Anthrax with delivery systems, and as such poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. The problem we face is whether we should strike Iraq at all, and if so how and when so that we may serve much larger national concerns on the long road to combating terrorism than simply winning a war against that nation.

The question whether we should continue the war on terrorism during the holy month of Ramadan presents us with a critical strategic, ethical and diplomatic challenge. If we cease all hostilities in order not to offend the sensibilities of our Arab and Muslim friends, we could severely undermine our war efforts. If, however, we elect to continue with the war, we could unleash a tremendous backlash from the very nations whose support we seek.

The U.S. policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq has run its course. Given the geopolitical changes that have swept the Middle East since the Gulf War, continuing the same policy would only destabilize our allies and undermine our strategic interests in the region.

Israel demands early warning stations on the Golan Heights following the withdrawal of its forces. Syria refuses to meet these demands. While these positions rest officially on security considerations, they are rooted deep in the national psyches of both Israel and Syria.

Only the United S

The punitive air strike on Iraqi military installations will certainly not put an end to Saddam Hussein's provocations. But it could be the catalyst for a badly needed United States strategy in the Persian Gulf. The great danger to Western interests in the Middle East emanates from Iran, not Iraq. Combating the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism which threatens the stability of many Arab states, restoring the traditional balance of power between Iran and Iraq, and fostering regional stability, must be the Clinton Gulf strategy. Due to size, composition, and proximity, Iraq is in a unique position to check Iran's export of Islamic fervor. This was the rationale for supporting Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. The rationale is still valid.

The following is an editorial reptinted from our newspaper from exactly 10 years ago. In light of recent events, we are reminded how different the present could have been without the brave actions of the IDF. And we are also reminded how little support Israel has received from the International community for decades now.