Over the course of the past week, the Israeli media have been consumed by reports of an impending decision by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear installations.

The hullabaloo began last Friday with a screaming headline in Yediot Aharonot, the country’s most widely read newspaper, which declared that “Netanyahu and Barak want to attack Iran in the autumn.” The article was penned by Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, two veteran political reporters and commentators.

Not content with revealing the possible timing of a raid on Israel’s enemies, the story went further and sought to undermine the legitimacy of such an operation by insisting that the move is not supported by senior Israeli security officials.

Let’s stop for a moment and consider the ramifications of this report. Assuming it is true, Yediot Aharonot just gave a heads-up to Iran to bolster its defenses and be prepared for an attack within the next two to three months, something for which the ayatollahs are most certainly grateful.

After all, why should Tehran go to the trouble of investing in intelligence-gathering operations against the Jewish state when journalists at Yediot will do the work for them?

Just in case this was insufficiently damaging to Israel, Yediot’s intrepid duo decided to toss still more gasoline on the flames by intimating that Netanyahu and Barak would like to carry out the attack prior to the U.S. election in order to help Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the race for the White House.

What Yediot Aharonot did was nothing less than scurrilous and shameful. Indeed, it boggles the mind that even as Israel faces an existential threat, and a fateful decision over how to confront it, Israeli journalists would throw caution to the wind and undermine the Jewish state’s national security in such an audacious and carefree manner.

Needless to say, the Yediot report naturally compelled other journalists to focus their attention on the story and see what they could dig up as well.

Not to be outdone, Israel’s Channel 2 television decided to devote most of its Friday night news program to the issue of Iran, informing viewers that the premier has “almost finally” decided to launch a military strike in the autumn against Iran. The final decision, it declared, would be taken soon.

Don’t be surprised if in the coming weeks there are more revelations to come, as journalists work their sources and seek to squeeze out still more scoops and headlines on what promises to be a big story.

To be sure, the reporters at Yediot and Channel 2 would argue that they were just doing their jobs, gathering information and keeping the public informed about a major development.

Is an impending Israeli attack on Iran a good story? For sure. Is it relevant to public debate? Absolutely.

But that does not mean it is right or responsible to report it.

As the old saying in boxing has it, “Never telegraph your punches.” You don’t indicate to your opponent what you are planning to do or when, for the simple reason that he can then take the requisite countermeasures to undermine the effectiveness of your plans.

This is so obvious that it should not even need to be said.

And yet this basic, simple truth does not seem to have mattered all that much to some of Israel’s leading journalists.

If I were a pilot in the Israeli air force, or a soldier in the special forces, I would be scratching my head and wondering why the media would choose to endanger us all by letting Iran know when to expect an attack.

This is the kind of reckless reporting that not only affects people’s lives but could very well endanger them. It is possible that Israel’s young men and women in uniform will soon be asked to risk life and limb to take out Iran’s nuclear program. Was there really a need to let the Iranians know when to be ready?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all in favor of a vibrant and free press, one which challenges governments and serves as a watchdog for protecting democracy and civil liberties.

But there is a fine line between responsible reporting and undermining the national interest.

In recent weeks the United Nations has gone on the warpath against Israel, defaming the Jewish state and providing aid and comfort to its enemies.

Indeed, in a series of moves, the world body has sent the Jewish state a clear and unmistakable message that its decades-old hostility remains as potent as ever.

First, there was the decision last month by UNESCO – the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – to establish a chair at the Islamic University of Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas and has become a hotbed of Muslim extremism and terror.

This is the very same university whose laboratories have been used by Hamas to produce explosives and rockets that were later deployed against Israel. And in May, the University’s dean of Koranic studies called for the Islamic conquest of Spain and the Vatican.

It is simply unconscionable that UNESCO, which is ostensibly dedicated to “building peace in the minds of men and women”, would choose to partner with a Hamas-run outfit that inculcates students with anti-Israel and anti-Western values.

Not to be outdone, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) decided to get into the act last week by turning up the heat on Israel.

At the close of its 20th session in Geneva, the august body appointed a three-member fact-finding team to be dispatched to the Middle East.

But have no fear: the diplomatic trio in question will not be garnering frequent-flyer miles to investigate the Syrian government’s slaughter of its own civilians, nor will it be rushing through airport security to get a first-hand look at the fundamentalist takeover in Egypt.

Instead, despite all the turmoil in the region, the UNHRC is determined to get to the bottom of what it considers to be a far more vexing problem: ongoing Jewish housing construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

That’s right. A Jew enclosing a porch in Ariel, or extending a living room in Hebron, apparently poses a more significant threat to the rights of all humanity than rising Islamic fundamentalist extremism or the crushing of dissent.

The move comes following a UNHRC resolution passed back in March which employed all the classic anti-Israel bias and one-sidedness that has become standard fare in the halls of the UN.

Lest anyone had been toying with the naïve thought that the UNHRC might give Israel a fair hearing, the text of the resolution went out of its way to bash the Jewish state and its policies in the harshest of terms.

In its preamble, the decision affirmed that “Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and constitute very serious violations of international humanitarian law and of the human rights of the Palestinian people therein.”

It also expressed “grave concern” about “the continuation by Israel, the occupying Power, of settlement building and expansion.”

The UNHRC then defined the mandate of its investigative team, instructing it to explore “the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people.”

What do you think the chances are that Israel will get a fair hearing?

Not surprisingly, Israel was quick to reject the proposed UNHRC mission, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor saying, “The fact-finding mission will find no cooperation in Israel and its members will not be allowed to enter Israel and the territories.”

“Its existence,” he added, “embodies the inherent distortion that typifies the UNHRC treatment of Israel and the hijacking of the important human rights agenda by non-democratic countries.”

And then, to top it all off, came reports in the Israeli press that the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has been supporting and even building illegal structures for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria.

OCHA has ignored repeated Israeli requests to cease such activities, to the point where the government is now said to be considering imposing sanctions on its employees.

This is nothing less than a deliberate snub of Israel and its sovereignty and violates all norms of diplomatic decency.

Clearly, as the above examples illustrate, the UN remains as antagonistic as ever toward the Jewish state, treating it in ways it would not dare to treat any other country.

Displaying their customary respect for Jewish holy sites, Palestinian vandals struck again last month, desecrating an ancient synagogue in Naaran near Jericho.

In addition to damaging priceless relics, the perpetrators spray-painted swastikas, Palestinian flags and political slogans, adding insult to injury in their hate-filled assault.

The defilement of the site was discovered by a group of Israeli worshippers who visit it regularly to maintain a Jewish presence in the area.

The synagogue in question was built more than 1,500 years ago, predating the establishment of Islam and serving as tangible proof that the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel preceded that of our foes.

Indeed, perhaps that is one of the reasons why the Palestinians attacked it. After all, the Naaran synagogue gives the lie to their dubious claim to the land.

Needless to say, this latest outrage received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. Only a handful of Israeli news outlets bothered to mention it, and the international media showed no interest in sharing the story with their audiences.

Contrast this with the whirlwind of reports last October when an Israeli Arab mosque was desecrated and you begin to get a sense of the hypocrisy at work in the media. Indeed, the incident in Naaran is just the latest in a long line of Palestinian acts of sacrilege that have targeted Jewish religious sites.

Remember Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem (Nablus)?

It was nearly twelve years ago, on October 7, 2000, that the IDF withdrew from the site under cover of darkness after a joint assault launched by Palestinian police and terrorists. The Palestinians, of course, agreed to protect the tomb, but that promise quickly went up in smoke. Several hours later the burial ground of the biblical Joseph had been reduced to debris.

Palestinians armed with pick-axes and hammers attacked the tomb, smashing the stone structure and ripping it apart, brick by brick. They burned Jewish prayer books and other religious articles and subsequently began transforming the site into a mosque. It was then and there, at Joseph’s Tomb, just days after the start of the Second Intifada, that the Palestinians learned two very dangerous lessons – lessons that continue to haunt Israel until today.

First, they saw that violence pays. Israel’s retreat from Joseph’s Tomb was the first time Israel had fled under fire, abandoning territory to Palestinian control under threat of the gun.

Second, the Palestinians learned they could deliberately assault Jewish sites of immense historical, religious or emotional significance without fear of retribution from Israel.

The same holds true of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where successive Israeli governments have failed to stand up to wanton Palestinian acts of desecration. And therein lies the “original sin” of various Israeli policymakers, who have consistently capitulated, retreated and withdrawn whenever the Palestinians have trampled on some of our most important national symbols.

Instead of displaying some elementary Jewish pride and confronting the Palestinians to prevent them from assaulting what is holy to us, we prefer to shrug our collective shoulders, look away in shame, and hope for the best.

That may have made sense when the extent of our national power was limited to community councils in the shtetls of Eastern Europe, but surviving in the modern-day Middle East requires an entirely different approach.

For far too long we have inculcated in the Palestinians a sense of impunity when it comes to vandalizing or defiling Jewish holy sites, and it is time for this to change. In light of the Palestinians’ serial abuse of Jewish holy sites, it should be clear to all that they cannot, must not, be entrusted with safeguarding or administering them under any circumstances whatsoever.

The Palestinians have once again failed to demonstrate even the modicum of decency and civility that calls for respecting houses of worship that belong to others.

And so Israel should not hesitate to do what should have been done already: take back Joseph’s Tomb, reassert its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and eject the PA- controlled Muslim Wakf from the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

These three sites, more than any others, symbolize our ties to this Land, and the abiding faith upon which they are based. It is time for all of them to return to sole Israeli control, along with all Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria.

One of Israel’s leading universities seems to have lost its way.

In a move that is as incomprehensible as it is shameful, Tel Aviv University (TAU) agreed to allow a student group to hold a ceremony commemorating “Nakba Day,” when Palestinians bemoan the establishment of the state of Israel.

The event included the reading of Palestinian poetry, a moment of silence and the recitation of an alternative version of the Yizkor prayer Jews traditionally say in memory of their loved ones.

In case their intent was unclear, the organizers of this anti-Israel hatefest went out of their way to elucidate the reasons behind it, with one telling Haaretz in no uncertain terms that Israelis need to realize that, “We’re talking about a disaster that must be known on a human level.”

Another student involved in planning the event said she saw it as a way “to remember the tragedy and great loss that befell the people who were here before ’48.”

Have these people lost their minds? What on earth would prompt Jewish students at an Israeli institution of higher education to lament the founding of their own country?

Clearly, something is very wrong at Tel Aviv University. Though ostensibly a Zionist institution, its administration ignored the pleas of various public figures and permitted this outrage to go forward.

Indeed, for an institution whose website states that it has “a deep commitment to Israeli society and the Jewish people,” it is hard to fathom what would prompt university officials to sign off on such nonsense.

After all, this has nothing to do with the boundaries of free speech or the fundamental right to criticize one’s government. It is about delegitimizing Israel and attempting to undermine its very existence.

Promoting Nakba Day is a crucial political goal of the Palestinians. Giving it a platform not only fosters a false narrative of history, but it also plays directly into the hands of those who wish to dismantle the Jewish state.

At a time when Israel is facing existential threats from its neighbors, there can be no excuse for allowing the publicly funded grounds of an Israeli university campus to serve as a staging area for assaults on its continued survival.

Clearly, university administrators have lost sight of one of the essential purposes of education. As the 18th-century political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu pointed out, the promotion of love for one’s country “ought to be the principal business of education.”

This is so patently obvious that it should not even need to be stated.

Then again, given some of the radical faculty that populates various departments at Tel Aviv University, it should hardly come as a surprise that this basic idea has been all but overlooked.

As Dr. Steven Plaut and the IsraCampus organization have been documenting for years, various TAU departments have become hothouses for anti-Israel hotheads.

These range from a professor who denies that the Jews are a nation to another who has referred to the residents of Judea and Samaria as “Jewish Cossacks.”

Yet another TAU instructor justified a Palestinian grenade attack on Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of resistance while others have affirmed their support for efforts to boycott the Jewish state.

If you find this hard to believe, just go to the IsraCampus website (www.isracampus.org.il) and see for yourself how various anti-Zionist and Marxist loons have been indoctrinating Israel’s younger generation at TAU with toxic views. Anyone concerned for the future of Israel should be concerned by what is happening on campuses such as Tel Aviv University.

A growing cadre of Israeli academics are preaching extremist far-left views and turning the hallowed halls of higher education into profane pillars of puerile Palestinian propaganda.

There is no reason why the Israeli taxpayer, or pro-Israel Diaspora Jews, should continue to generously fund TAU even as it serves to undercut the values they hold dear.

For all their talk of principle, college administrators can be swayed if enough pressure is applied. And that is what needs to be done in order to restore some sanity, and Zionist commitment, to Israeli academia.

So the next time you reach for your checkbook and consider making a donation to Tel Aviv University, do yourself and the Jewish people a favor: stop and think whether your money is truly going to a good cause. In the current environment, chances are it isn’t.

This month marks a heartrending anniversary, one with ruinous consequences that continue to plague the Jewish state.

It was thirty years ago, in April 1982, that uniformed soldiers pledged to defend Israel and its citizens were given the order to uproot and destroy the Jewish community of Yamit in northern Sinai.

The move came in the wake of the peace treaty with Egypt, when Menachem Begin agreed to a complete withdrawal from all 23,000 square miles of Sinai, which necessitated the forced evacuation of over 7,000 Israelis, including those in Yamit.

Years of toil and sweat, of pioneering spirit and determination, were mercilessly swept away by bulldozers, and by April 25, 1982, Yamit was no more.

Indeed, if you open Google Earth, the popular online mapping program, you can still see the barren site where a thriving community of 2,500 Jews had made Yamit bloom. It looks as if a giant eraser had rubbed away the terrain, leaving behind scars where homes, schools and synagogues had once stood.

This act of destruction was overseen by then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, and the agonizing scenes of Jewish soldiers dragging Jews from their homes in Yamit were seared into the nation’s consciousness.

The traumatic significance and symbolism of the expulsion from Sinai cannot be overstated. After more than 100 years of Zionism and settlement, Israel was vividly turning its back on some of its key core principles, all for the sake of a dubious peace with a dictatorial neighbor.

Many fail to realize just how important Sinai was. It constituted over 90 percent of the territory Israel had liberated during the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel had more than 170 military installations and dozens of early-warning stations scattered throughout its vast deserts, which were also home to the Alma oil fields.

Sinai provided Israel with strategic depth, the potential for petroleum independence, and new frontiers to explore.

But all that was torn away by the withdrawal.

And while it may have brought us three decades of a cold peace with Egypt, conceding the Sinai will likely prove to have been a colossal mistake.

Consider recent events in the region, which underline the perils inherent in turning territory over to our neighbors.

With the fall of the Mubarak regime, there is no telling who will be running Egypt a year from now, or whether they will feel bound to preserve bilateral relations with Jerusalem. The sweeping victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliamentary elections certainly doesn’t bode well for the future.

So despite having given up the Sinai for the sake of peace, Israel might end up with neither, which is the worst of all possible scenarios.

Moreover, look at how the territory Israel gave to Egypt has been transformed into a staging area for anti-Israel smuggling and terrorism, as the Grad rockets fired at Eilat from Sinai earlier this month clearly demonstrated.

And most of the weapons Hamas has succeeded in stockpiling in Gaza were smuggled in through the infamous tunnels connecting the strip with Sinai.

Needless to say, an Israeli civilian and military presence in Sinai would have prevented this from occurring.

But with no Israeli forces stationed in the area, there is little that Israel can do about the terrorist threat other than to plead with Cairo to act.

In retrospect, the pullout from Sinai also had still another catastrophic effect on the Jewish state: it set the stage for later expulsions and launched a three-decade long period rife with Israeli retreat. The domino that fell in Sinai would later topple Bethlehem, Hebron and Jenin, and ultimately Gush Katif and Amona.

And now the world wishes to see Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem too, fall as well. But this is not a child’s game. It is about the very existence of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Our future is at stake, and we must resolutely turn back the clock and forestall any more withdrawals.

The steady march of capitulation that began in Yamit and continued on through the Oslo process has brought this nation to the brink of disaster, resulting in increasing violence and bloodshed.

We must put an end to this headlong rush towards calamity.

Let us use this anniversary of the original sin of the Yamit withdrawal to draw a line in the sand, literally and figuratively, and declare once and for all: never again will Israel uproot Jews from their homes.

We cannot allow the mistakes of the past to dictate future events.

Yamit’s legacy is one of desolation and despair. Let’s make ours one of destiny and hope.

Michael Freund is chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists lost tribes and hidden Jewish communities to return to Israel and the Jewish people.

As the U.S. election season enters into high gear, an important Gallup poll released earlier this month offers Israel and its supporters much reason to cheer.

For despite an onslaught of Palestinian propaganda and disinformation, the results demonstrate that the Jewish state continues to enjoy overwhelming support among broad swathes of the American public.

Each year, as part of its annual World Affairs survey, Gallup asks respondents about their views towards various countries around the globe.

The results regarding Israel could not have been more decisive.

A whopping 71 percent of Americans said they view Israel mostly or very favorably. This broad support extends across the political spectrum, with 80 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of independents and two-thirds of Democrats all standing behind the Jewish state.

By contrast, only 19 percent expressed favorable views of the Palestinian Authority.

And when Gallup asked people, “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?” the results were similarly lopsided, with Americans favoring Israel by more than a 3 to 1 margin.

“Americans,” the findings concluded, “have consistently been more sympathetic to the Israelis than the Palestinians since Gallup started asking the question in 1988. Since the mid-2000s, Americans have become increasingly sympathetic to the Israelis, while the percentage sympathetic to the Palestinians has stayed the same.”

What makes this so remarkable is that this overwhelming level of American popular support for the Jewish state comes after decades of anti-Israel bias in much of the mainstream press.

Despite all the distortions, half-truths, misrepresentations and falsehoods that have been peddled over the years by the liberal media, a super-majority of the American public still views Israel favorably and prefers her over her foes.

Can you imagine what the poll results would look like if the media were truly fair and balanced?

Now, we all know Israel’s public diplomacy, or hasbara, has been woefully inadequate over the years in terms of explaining Israeli policy and highlighting Palestinian shortcomings and misdeeds.

The other side has succeeded in storming college campuses, exploiting international forums, and hijacking the narrative of what takes place in the Middle East, all in an attempt to turn public opinion against Israel.

Nonetheless, all their calls for boycotts and divestment, and their slanderous accusations about “apartheid,” have seemingly gotten them nowhere.

After all, the Jewish state still earns exceedingly high marks.

As Gallup further noted, “The United States has long been an ally of Israel, and Americans continue to show decidedly positive views toward that nation. As nations throughout the Middle East undergo tumultuous change, perhaps making the region more politically unstable, Americans still appear to see Israel as important, with large majorities viewing it favorably and many more giving their sympathies to the Israelis than to the Palestinians.”

In light of this, it seems fair to ask a simple yet important question: does hasbara really matter? Should we be investing so much time, energy and resources into the battle for ideas when we seem to have so much already going in our favor?

The answer, of course, should be crystal clear: we dare not rest on our laurels.

Public opinion is decidedly fickle and there is no telling over time just how it might change.

Just because we have been winning the information war does not in any way guarantee that this will continue to be so.

Even the best team on the field still needs to prepare methodically for each game it plays, if only to ensure that its performance will be top-notch.

Likewise, Israel and its supporters must not desist from making our case, fine-tuning our arguments and constantly looking for new means and methods with which to disseminate them.

Take, for example, the rapidly growing power of social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, whose reach and popularity make them ideally suited to spreading the truth about Israel and the Middle East.

A pioneering effort in this regard has been undertaken by a group called United with Israel, whose Facebook page has already garnered more than 1 million ‘likes’ since last autumn.

Founded by my friend Michael Gerbitz, an American immigrant to Beit Shemesh, it operates on a shoestring budget but manages to distribute quality information about Israel to a global audience on a daily basis.

Such efforts are crucial precisely now, when a younger generation that is not as familiar with Israel is coming of age and new mechanisms will be necessary to cultivate their support.

If we care about Israel and its standing in the world, it behooves all of us to join in such activities and support them.

That is the surest way of guaranteeing that in the eyes of the public, the Jewish state continues to win over many hearts and minds.

Michael Freund is chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists lost tribes and hidden Jewish communities to return to the Jewish people. He can be contacted at michael@shavei.org.

Earlier this month, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas made a fateful decision.

Thwarting renewed efforts by Israel to restart negotiations, Abbas flew to Doha, Qatar, and signed a unity agreement with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

With the stroke of his pen, the Palestinian leader sealed the fate of the peace process, effectively declaring an end to any chance of reaching an agreement with the Jewish state.

Under the terms of the Doha deal, Abbas will head an interim joint Fatah-Hamas government that will lay the groundwork for Palestinian presidential and parliamentary elections in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The two sides also agreed to discuss the formal incorporation of Hamas into the PLO, which would transform the fundamentalist terrorist group into a primary component of the Palestinian leadership.

At the signing ceremony, Abbas and Mashaal both stressed that this was no charade. “We are serious,” said Mashaal, “in healing the wounds and ending the chapter of division and reinforcing and accomplishing reconciliation”, adding that Fatah and Hamas are determined “to resist the enemy [i.e. Israel] and achieve our national goals.”

Abbas also emphasized that “this effort will be implemented in the shortest time possible.”

The signing of the pact marks a critical stage in the implementation of the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement initialed in Cairo just nine months ago, and it underlines the fact that the two groups are moving closer towards unity.

Make no mistake. The forging of this agreement constitutes a strategic choice by Abbas to embrace extremism and toss aside two decades of dialogue with Israel. It is a farewell to peace and there should be no illusions about its meaning or significance.

After all, Hamas remains an uninhibited enemy of Israel, dedicated both in word and deed to its destruction.

The group’s charter says unequivocally that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” And it champions the use of jihad as the only “solution for the Palestinian question.”

Moreover, ever since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, it has used the territory as a launching pad for attacks against Israel.

Just since the beginning of last year, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have fired more than 390 rockets and 240 mortar shells into southern Israel. And Hamas continues to receive aid and support from Iran, which includes more advanced and precise weaponry.

Anyone who thinks Palestinian unity will have a moderating effect on the masked gunmen of Hamas is therefore deluding himself. If anything, the unity agreement will only further radicalize the already immoderate members of Fatah, as they will find themselves competing for support from the Palestinian masses.

This impact is already beginning to be felt. Since signing the agreement, Abbas has adopted an even harsher tone towards Israel.

Speaking to the foreign ministers of the Arab League in Cairo, the Palestinian chairman laid out a series of maximalist demands, insisting that Israel cease all housing construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, negotiate on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and release Palestinian terrorists from prison.

Failure to do so, Abbas warned, would lead the Palestinians to go back to the United Nations and seek unilateral international recognition of a Palestinian state.

This extreme and uncompromising stance is a recipe for failure. Abbas knows perfectly well that Israel cannot and will not accept such terms, and he refuses to make a single concession of his own, instead placing the burden entirely on the Jewish state.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was highly critical of Abbas’s remarks, issuing a statement that said, “Abbas’s speech showed he is turning his back on peace. Instead of engaging in negotiations that would bring an end to the conflict, Abbas prefers to link to the terror organization Hamas – the same Hamas that embraces Iran.”

And that is truly the case. We are witnessing a calculated shift in the makeup of the Palestinian Authority, one that will further strengthen the forces of rejectionism and pose an increasingly dire threat to the future of Israel.

If Hamas were to prevail at the ballot box in Palestinian elections, it would put the terrorist movement at the helm in Ramallah, just minutes away from the heart of Israel. The political, military and diplomatic ramifications of such a development would be frightening.

Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, various commentators have warned that creating a Palestinian entity adjacent to Israel was a formula for disaster. In light of recent events, those predictions are now looking undeniably prescient. Before long, Israel may wake up to find an Iranian-allied Palestinian Islamist regime at its doorstep.

It is therefore time for the international community to stop deluding itself and accept the cold, hard truth: thanks to Palestinian obstructionism, the peace process has reached a dead end.

This week marks the seventieth anniversary of one of the most chilling events of the modern era.

On January 20, 1942, as related by Dr. Erwin Birnbaum in an in-depth front-page essay on page 1 of this week’s Jewish Press, senior Nazi officials headed by SS General Reinhard Heydrich convened at a villa outside of Berlin in the suburb of Wannsee to discuss the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question.”

Though the Germans had already been busy murdering Jews en masse for some time, the Wannsee Conference, as it came to be known, sought to coordinate efforts across the various arms of the Nazi regime with the aim of fully implementing Hitler’s plan to eradicate the Jewish people.

It set in motion a full-fledged and synchronized bureaucratic endeavor unprecedented in the history of mankind, one that resulted in the systematic murder of six million Jews.

As we look back at that frightening event, and consider just how close its participants came to achieving their monstrous goals, there are two words which inevitably ring loudly in our minds: Never Again.

After the Holocaust, with all the defiance and determination we could muster, the Jewish people made a vow that we would not allow another genocidal fiend to threaten our existence.

But the question we need to ask ourselves with utmost sincerity is: do we really mean it?

After all, there is a gathering storm over the horizon, as the Iranian regime drives relentlessly toward its goal of developing a nuclear arsenal.

Are we really prepared to take the steps necessary to stop them?

Make no mistake. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the would-be Hitler of Persia, has spoken openly of his ambition to wipe Israel off the map, in effect promising to complete what the plotters of Wannsee began.

On January 3, the tyrant of Tehran was quoted by Iranian television as saying once again that Israel will be destroyed. “Zionists, who have no faith in religion or even God, now claim piety and intend to take away the Islamic identity of Jerusalem,” he declared.

“This ridiculous move is in fact the continuation of the colonialist policies of oppressors, which will not save the Zionist regime, but also take the regime closer to the endpoint of its existence,” he vowed.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad’s rants about exterminating the Jewish people have become so routine that they no longer receive much attention in the Western press.

But just because his threats have lost their news value does not mean they pose any less of a danger. We would be making a fateful and perhaps existential error to think otherwise.

Consider how belligerent Iran has been in just the past few weeks. Earlier this month, Iran’s Revolutionary Court had the audacity to sentence an Iranian-American to death on trumped up charges, accusing him of being a CIA spy.

The ayatollahs have also repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for international oil shipments, in retaliation for Western sanctions.

And the Iranians even went so far as to confirm reports that they have begun to enrich uranium at a second facility in defiance of United Nations resolutions.

They are openly thumbing their noses at the international community, obviously calculating that they can get away with doing so.

If this is how Iran conducts itself before acquiring a nuclear capacity, you imagine what they would do if they were actually to obtain a nuclear arsenal. The threat a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to Israel and the entire Western world cannot and must not be underestimated.

On a visit to Venezuela on January 10, Ahmadinejad and his host Hugo Chavez joked before the television cameras about having a “big atomic bomb” at their disposal. An atomic Iran would threaten its neighbors, undermine the stability of the region, and endanger the future of Western civilization.

Like it or not, 2012 is a year of decision. In the coming months there will be no shying away from a momentous choice. Iran will either be stopped, or the ayatollahs will be able to construct their own weapons of mass destruction.

No one is itching to pull the trigger and to start bombing Iran. Such a course of action would have plenty of unintended consequences and would throw the Middle East into turmoil.

But several rounds of sanctions and attempts at diplomatic pressure have all failed to dissuade the Iranian regime.

At this point, there is no choice left but for Israel or the United States to resort to military force. Iran simply cannot be allowed to go nuclear.

Sure, the thought of attacking Iran is terrifying. But as alarming as the idea might seem, it pales in comparison with the ayatollahs being able to threaten the world. As the events of seven decades ago at Wannsee demonstrated, when people say they plan to annihilate you, you had best believe them.