While we struggle without own war related issues Israel seems to have the same concerns, only much more immediate. Following are reports direct from Israel via a relative living there:

Tehran, Aug 22, IRNA Iran news agency
ARTICLE LINK
Iran's guided intelligent bomb named `Ghased' (Messenger) will be operational during Government Week (August 24-30).
Defense Ministry's Defense Propagation Department said the bomb, developed by the Ministry's technicians and experts, is one of the most powerful, modern and intelligent bombs of the world, whose construction has thus far been under monopoly of a few states.
The bomb can be fired from F4 and F5 planes.

Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 22, 2007
Preparing for a possible American or Israeli strike on its nuclear
installations, Iran has developed a remote-controlled launch system that can be used to operate dozens of unmanned Shihab ballistic missile launchers in underground bunkers , The Jerusalem Post has learned. After recent upgrades, the Shihab-3 ballistic missiles are believed to have a target range of 2,000-kilometers. The missile was initially developed with a 1,300-km. range.

According to informed Western sources, the remote-controlled launch system was developed by the Iranians in conjunction with North Korea and by employing Chinese technology. Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commander Yayha Rahim Safavi said recently that Iran had equipped its Shihab missiles with an advanced guidance system that can control them after they are launched. AP contributed to this report.

Aug 19, 6:06 AM EDT
Israel to Turn Away Darfur Refugees
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel said Sunday it would turn away refugees
from the wartorn Darfur region of Sudan in an effort to stop the flow
of Africans across Israel's southern border with Egypt.
Overnight, Israel expelled to Egypt about 50 Africans who had entered
Israel through Egypt's Sinai desert, Israeli government spokesman
David Baker said. It was not immediately clear if any of those sent
back were from Darfur, he said.
" The policy of returning back anyone who enters Israel illegally will
pertain to everyone, including those from Darfur," Baker said.
Israel has until now accepted about 400 refugees from the Darfur
region, according to Eytan Schwartz, an advocate for Darfur refugees
in Israel. Fighting between ethnic African rebels and pro-government
militias in the Western Sudanese region has killed more than 200,000
people and displaced 2.5 million since February 2003.
The refugees are among 1,160 Sudanese and a total of 2,800 Africans
who have entered Israel in recent years.

Israeli Soccer Fans Strike Back After Bosnian Nazi Salutes
by Ezra HaLevi
(IsraelNN.com) Israeli sports fans in Bosnia say they were
ejected from a game after angrily responding to Nazi chants and
gestures by opposing fans.
Supporters of HaPoel Tel Aviv attended Thursday night's soccer
match against Bosnia Siroki Brijeg. They told Army Radio that
Bosnian fans were shouting "Sieg Heil" and making Nazi salutes,
enraging many Jewish fans - one of whom threw a firecracker into
the Bosnian fan section.
At that point, the game was halted and Bosnian police rushed in
and began beating the Israeli fans. The referees then made a
decision to eject all Israeli fans from the stadium.
Other Israeli fans told Army Radio, however, that the blame lay
with their fellow Israelis, who come to the games drunk and "go
wild." They reject news reports, however, saying that the
Israelis lit the stadium's seats on fire. "Some firecrackers and
torches were thrown on the field, and when the ushers threw them
back into the stands - that started the fire."
Two Israelis were arrested and one was hospitalized. The Israeli
team won the game, 3-0.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123407

Religious conflict in Harvard football schedule
Asks game be moved from Yom Kippur eve

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff  |  August 17, 2007
Under pressure from season ticket holders and alumni, Harvard
proposed yesterday to move the date of its first nighttime football
game from a Jewish holiday to another day that would not conflict
with the religious observance.
The game against Brown, billed as a momentous occasion in the
133-year history of Crimson football, had been scheduled for Sept. 21
at 7:30 p.m.
When Jewish fans pointed out that the date conflicts with the eve of
Yom Kippur, known as Kol Nidre, Harvard initially told them they
could exchange their tickets for another game. Fans complained that
the university was forcing them to choose between synagogue and
football. And Harvard relented.
Yesterday, Harvard said it had asked Brown to move the game to Sept.
22 at 7:30 p.m. Yom Kippur ends at sunset that day.
"We understand the sensitivity, and we want as many people as
possible to be able to come to the game," said Harvard's athletic
director, Robert L. Scalise.
Chris Humm, a spokesman for Brown football, said the program had not
decided whether to honor the request.
"We just heard about this today, and no decision has been made --
real simple," Humm said.
Michael Simon -- associate director of Harvard Hillel, a campus
Jewish organization -- applauded Harvard, saying the new date would
allow Jews to attend services and catch the game.
"Clearly, they understood there was a problem with having it on the
highest of holidays in the Jewish calendar and are clearly making an
effort to correct their mistake," said Nancy K. Kaufman, executive
director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston.
Scalise said athletic officials from Harvard and Brown knew that
Sept. 21 was the eve of Yom Kippur when they chose the date in the
spring. Harvard believed that the date, on a Friday night, would draw
the most freshmen to its newly illuminated stadium. And because Ivy
League football is typically played on Saturdays, they figured the
date would pose no more of a conflict than a regular game. Scalise
said Harvard has no official policy on scheduling games on holidays.
He pointed out that the baseball team has played on Easter Sunday.
"Let There Be Light!" Harvard's official sports blog proclaimed in
May. "September 21, 2007, will be an historic day as plans are in the
works for the first-ever Friday night Harvard Football game at
Harvard Stadium."
After the announcement, a dozen fans called Harvard to complain. Six
mentioned Yom Kippur, five the hassle of driving to the stadium on a
Friday night, and one the cost of electricity to power the lights,
Scalise said.
Harvard Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz said he received a dozen
e-mails and calls from angry fans. Dershowitz called the date
"insensitive to religious obligation."
Harvard reversed course yesterday and said it hoped that Brown would
agree.
Such conflicts are hardly new. In 1965, Sandy Koufax of the Dodgers
famously chose not to pitch the first game of the World Series
because it fell on Yom Kippur. In 2004, Shawn Green of the Dodgers
also decided not to play on the holiday, while Gabe Kapler suited up
for the Red Sox, saying it would be "slightly hypocritical" of him
not to, because he does not consider himself an observant Jew.
Harvard also has Jewish football players.
"This is about what does it mean to try to balance religious
observance and the expression of your American values and it's very
much a part of the challenge of modern life," Simon said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/17/religious_conflic
t_in_harvard_football_schedule?mode=PF

Rudolph Giuliani: Toward a Realistic Peace

It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is
being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of
another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will
have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's
commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign
policy.
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007
ARTICLE LINK
Summary: The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy
challenges: setting a course for victory in the terrorists' war on
global order, strengthening the international system the terrorists
seek to destroy, and extending the system's benefits. With a stronger
defense, a determined diplomacy, and greater U.S. economic and
cultural influence, the next president can start to build a lasting,
realistic peace.
We are all members of the 9/11 generation.
The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall
of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of
the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001,
even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world
order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil,
our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away.
Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.
America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We
have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a
decadelong -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction
in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the
international system that promise a safer and better world for
generations to come.
The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy
challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in
the terrorists' war on global order. The second will be to strengthen
the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing a
determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and cultural
influence. Using all three, the next president can build the
foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.
Achieving a realistic peace means balancing realism and idealism in
our foreign policy.. But unless we pursue our idealistic goals
through realistic means, peace will not be achieved.
WINNING THE EARLY BATTLES OF THE LONG WAR
The first step toward a realistic peace is to be realistic about our
enemies. They follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism,
which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and
aims to destroy the existing international system. These enemies wear
no uniform. They have no traditional military assets. They rule no
states but can hide and operate in virtually any of them and are
supported by some.
Above all, we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by
signs of weakness. Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World
Trade Center in 1993,the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in
1996, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the U.S.S.
Cole in 2000. In some instances, we responded inadequately. In
others, we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983
and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak.
We must learn from these experiences for the long war that lies
ahead. It is almost certain that U.S. troops will still be fighting
in Iraq and Afghanistan when the next president takes office. The
purpose of this fight must be to defeat the terrorists and the
insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow these countries to
become members of the international system in good standing. We must
be under no illusions that either Iraq or
Afghanistan will quickly attain the levels of peace and security
enjoyed in the developed world today. Our aim should be to help them
build accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs
of their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and
eliminate the export of terror. As violence decreases and security
improves, more responsibility can and should be turned over to local
security forces. But some U.S. forces will need to remain for some
time in order to deter external threats.
America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. Then, as
now, we fought a war with the wrong strategy for several years. And
then, as now, we corrected course and began to show real progress.
Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South
Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong
insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political
self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the
communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing
fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union,
and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be
worse. Our goal is to see in Iraq and Afghanistan the emergence of
stable governments and societies that can act as our allies against
the terrorists and not as breeding grounds for expanded terrorist
activities. Succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan is necessary but not
sufficient. Ultimately, these are only two battlegrounds in a wider
war. The United States must not rest until the al Qaeda network is
destroyed and its leaders, from Osama bin Laden on down, are killed
or captured. And the United States must not rest until the global
terrorist movement and its ideology are defeated.
A STRONGER DEFENSE
For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats
has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with
increasingly less . We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. When America
appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites
conflict.
The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system.
An even greater danger is the possibility of a terrorist attack on
U.S. soil with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear
weapon . Every effort must be made to improve our intelligence
capabilities and technological capacities to prevent this. Constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories everywhere around the globe, day and night, above- and below ground, combined with more robust human intelligence, must be part of America's arsenal.

Syria reportedly gets Russian SA-22s
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 18, 2007
ARTICLE LINK
Syria has begun delivery of the first batch of anti-aircraft missile and gun
range land-based Pantsyr-S1E defense systems (SA-22 E in NATO terminology), the Web site of Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported Saturday. The report, based on wires from the arms-related branch of the Russian Tass news agency, cited a previously signed agreement between Syria and Russia for the purchase of 50 sets of the system for a total of about $900 million.
According to other sources, however, the signed deal included only 34-36 systems.
Army Radio reported that Russian military officials agreed to the deal only after Syria vowed that the systems would not be resold or distributed to a third country, such as Lebanon or Iran.
But in May, the reputable Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Syria agreed to transfer ten of the systems to Iran.
According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the recently developed SA-22 E will be dispatched to Syria even before its deployment in the Russian military. Other clients of the system are China, Greece and the United Arab Emirates, which already owns 50 systems, half on wheeled vehicles and half on tracked carriers.