Syria’s latest demarche — a call for a ban on all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East — is such a sleazy maneuver that it wouldn’t normally be worth a comment. Except that it is being raised in the Security Council, where the dynamics have changed and France, Germany, and Russia have been operating against America and Israel. So let it be clear that Syria’s gambit is an effort only to advance the idea of a ban on Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which has saved the Jewish State.

The idea for the ban was tabled by Syria’s envoy at Turtle Bay, Mikhail Wehbe, who, at the end of a Council meeting on the Middle East, offered a draft resolution that is supported by the Arab group at the world body. One goal, Mr. Wehbe lied, was “To prevent any terrorist group from getting weapons of mass destruction.” The move, our Benny Avni reports, came immediately after our own man there, Ambassador Negroponte, accused Syria, as other administration officials have done for over a week, of possessing chemical weapons and, separately, harboring terrorist groups.

Mr. Wehbe’s line, Mr. Avni reported, is that these allegations are an attempt “to cover the aggression against the Iraqi people and its culture, as well as to give cover for the Israeli killing of Palestinian people daily.” The Syrian also said that Palestinian terrorist groups represented in Damascus are fighting for “liberation,” as does the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the one which says it wants more Jews to move to Israel so that it doesn’t have to travel around the world looking for places to kill them.

The Syrians know the Council is a mess right now, and sure enough, Mr. Avni reports that a British diplomat said that London would agree with the principles of the resolution, just not while the Council was trying to reach agreement on Iraq. Ambassador de La Sabliere of France also seemed prepared to consider the matter in a future debate. And even Mr. Negroponte was reported to have “acknowledged” that the council would need to deal with the Syrian proposal.

What needs to be said here is that it is not in America’s interest to have Israel disarmed — or even to have it armed equally with its enemies. It is in America’s interest to have Israel better armed. It is a democracy; that is, it is legitimate. There is no record of its enemies living up to the treaties they sign. It is better to have Israel armed with nuclear weapons while the wars against it are being fought. And after they are over, it will be better for Israel to maintain its nuclear arsenal so that new wars aren’t launched. The idea of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction is an example of moral equivalency among nations that aren’t equivalent.