Three of my four kids will be in college at the same time this year. As an educator and writer, I'm no stranger to the other Good Book, but Webster's New World College Dictionary is an even closer friend of mine lately.



I read an excellent analysis (unfortunately) by Evelyn Gordon, "Gaza Grows", in the September 7th Jerusalem Post - the most immediate call to action for myself.



As those with connecting neurons knew all along, Gaza would be perceived by 99% of Arabs as just the first step in their well-known, post '67 destruction in phases scenario for Israel. Despite this, under the proper conditions (and as I and many others had written), a good case could be made for the Gaza withdrawal - despite all the legitimate reasons Israel still has to not relinquish that strategic territory.



Sure enough, not only are Mahmoud Abbas and his allegedly moderate, fellow Arafatians demanding a full withdrawal by Israel to its nine-mile wide, 1949, UN-imposed armistice line existence, but they're demanding additional territory now a part of Israel proper. Add to this their additional demand for the full "return" of millions of jihadist-raised Arab refugees and there's no doubt as to what the Arabs' real intentions are. (Those with the disconnected neurons will be the only ones surprised by this.)



Look, it's obvious what the Arabs are up to. Even the State Department's Foggy Folks know this. That this, however, doesn't stop them and most of the rest of the world from making one demand after the other on the Jew of the Nations to accommodate the proposed 22nd state for the Arabs -- at Israel's own expense -- should also come as a shock to no one.



So, it's back to the dictionary.



Webster's emphasizes "supreme" and "independent" in its definition of "sovereignty". While all nations are influenced by others, Israel, unfortunately, has often relinquished its sovereignty to Big Brother.



There is no doubt that Americans are the best friends Israel has, but that does not mean that those in positions of power behind the scenes in America are amongst those friends. As anyone with an interest in this subject knows, the State Department's opposition to the very existence of a Jewish State is legendary. Other government, Big Oil and business types have been soul mates on this, as well. The law firm of James Baker (Special Envoy for the Middle East), which represents the Saudis, is currently perhaps the most famous, but there are many, many other examples packing much clout and influence on American foreign policy. The Bush family itself is among those with huge financial ties to the Arabs. So, it's not merely a figment of the Zionist imagination to suggest that there is a very serious, on-going problem here; one not likely to disappear any time soon.



Time after time, America dictates policies to Israeli leaders and threatens them if they don't comply. This has involved such things as (in his own words) one of former Secretary of State James Baker's "Jew Boys" instructing Israel about what it could and could not include within the security barrier it has been forced to build to prevent Arabs from blowing apart its kids and other innocents. As a result, this has rendered that barrier virtually useless in key areas, including that near Israel's main airport. And this is typical of the relationship that has evolved between Israel and those calling the shots in Washington. This humiliating and endangering situation cannot go on. As many have increasingly noticed, Israel cannot allow itself to be turned into some resurrected Chamberlain's 1938 Czechoslovakia.



Poll after poll show enormous support among the American public for the Jewish State and an overwhelming distrust of even the allegedly moderate Palestinian Arabs. Scores of millions of Americans don't want to see Israel sold out and treated this way. But, the same way most didn't know what the Foggy Folks and others were doing in 1948 to try to prevent the very rebirth of Israel in the first place, they also don't know what's being done to force suicidal concessions from Israel today. While demanding, for example, contiguity and such for the Arabs' 22nd state, little concern is given to what this means for the contiguity of the Jews' sole, microscopic state itself. On her recent visit to Sharon's ranch, among other demands, Condi also insisted that the Jews arm the Arabs themselves - as America forced it to do earlier in the infamous Oslo Accords. We all know how that wound up and against whom those arms were mostly used.



So, the solution to this problem should be obvious by now. As painful as it might be in the short run, Israel -- like any other self-respecting sovereign nation -- really has no choice. The first duty of any sovereign nation, after all, is to protect its citizens to the fullest extent possible. Israel has repeatedly been forced to sacrifice such basics by those who call themselves its best friends.



Nations, including America, habitually acquire territory and take action often hundreds or thousands of miles away from home in the name of their own security interests. But the Jew of the Nations is expected to forsake this right in its very own backyard, and on disputed lands in which it has at least as much rights as those -- despite the sweet talk, suits and ties -- still aiming to destroy it.



Given this reality, again, there is really no choice if Israel intends to remain a viable nation. Despite vacillations, it appears the Old Warrior, despite his faults, really does understand this, as I've written and suspected all along. Ariel Sharon has once again taken steps to reinforce Israel's demand for a quid pro quo for its Gaza withdrawal. He and others who will succeed him must not budge on this. Yitzchak Rabin and others in Labor also knew this earlier; witness the Allon Plan and such.



While we get sick and tired at having to repeat ourselves over and over, we're forced to so indulge because of the same arguments repeatedly being used against those of us who care. Briefly, UN Resolution 242 -- the peace making formula carefully worded and constructed after the Arabs' attempt on Israel's life in 1967 -- called for the creation of secure and recognized boundaries to replace Israel's vulnerable armistice-line existence. The key words "all" and "the" were deliberately left out when a discussion of withdrawal from territories came up. And withdrawal was only to be made in the context of true peace, as that which gave the Sinai back to Egypt on conclusion of a peace treaty. A reading of Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg and other architects of that resolution is important here, and a look at the input from the American Joint Chiefs of Staff and comments from earlier American presidents such as Ronald Reagan are instructive, as well.



Thus the disappointment with Dubya's recent statement -- a reversal of his April 2004 public position -- that Israel had to get the permission from the Arabs themselves for any change to its rump-state status. They don't accept a nine-mile-wide Israel, forget about anything bigger. Millions of red-blooded Americans (Christians, Jews and others as well, including increasingly vocal moderate Muslims) are quite upset about this.



True, Dubya can't run again, but some of his pals are up for reelection in the not-too-distant future. And while millions of Evangelicals may not vote for the Democrats, they might not vote at all. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. And guess what this means in increasingly common close American elections?



Most of Israel's settlements were constructed in the very areas -- non-apportioned (not "purely Arab") parts of the original 1920 Palestinian Mandate -- in which Jews, as well as Arabs, were entitled to live, and in which Jews have thousands of years of history and ownership connecting them to the land. Indeed, many, if not most, of the Arabs themselves were new-comers -- settlers -- from elsewhere. Solid documentation supports this.



Israel must thus put forth its absolutes in terms of what it envisions as its final borders. And it must be reasonably generous to itself on this. An inadequate buffer against those who call all negotiations with the Jews merely a Trojan Horse will accomplish nothing. 242 allows Israel a rectification of an earlier travesty; Israeli leaders must accept no less.



Unfortunately, Yasser Arafat's former chief marionette, Mahmoud Abbas, differs from Hamas merely on the tactics and timing of Israel's destruction. Both are agreed that the Jewish State of Israel must cease to exist. Check out Abbas' Palestinian Authority web sites, textbooks, maps and so forth if there are any doubters out there.



Until a Palestinian Arab leader has the strength, survivability and will to behave differently, perennially-persecuted, dehumanized and massacred Jews -- who waited millennia for the resurrection of their lone nation -- must do what any other nation would do to survive. It must insist on a reasonable territorial compromise in the disputed lands; lands from which the Arabs repeatedly launched terrorism and invasion against Israel, long before Israel found itself in those territories in 1967.



That this will cause Israel problems with most of the rest of the world is, again, no shock to those with connecting neurons. But to do anything less is to shamefully surrender Israeli sovereignty to those who do not have its best interests in mind. Sad, but true.



An important Jewish sage, Rabbi Hillel, stated two thousand years ago, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"



Jews have long been at the forefront of following Rabbi Hillel's instructions about caring for others. Indeed, some of Israel's harshest critics have been Jews themselves. It's no accident that Jews have been in the lead of much of the world's great movements for social reform. The prophets of the Hebrew Bible made such demands themselves. The issues now coming to the front burner, however, are so basic to Israel's very existence and long-term viability that much more attention must now be given to the first part of that great teacher's advice. And Israel must have leaders who will follow it, regardless of the consequences.