FREEMANLISThtml> The Complete Maccabean: April, 2002
Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"

VOLUME 10       B"H APRIL 2002       NUMBER 4

APRIL 2002

ISRAEL, CHARLIE BROWN & LUCY....Bernard J. Shapiro
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST....U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)...Guest Editorial

WHAT CYCLE OF VIOLENCE?.....Raphael Israeli
POWELL WAS RIGHT....Evelyn Gordon
WAR NOW....Moshe Feiglin
MAKE THE PA PAY....David M. Weinberg
WIN THE WAR OR RESIGN NOW..(An open letter to Ariel Sharon)....Boris Shusteff
NEVER AGAIN?.....Berel Wein



THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2002 Bernard J. Shapiro * Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3) *




By Bernard J. Shapiro

As a kid, one of my favorite cartoons was Charlie Brown and his gang of off beat characters. It is a little embarrassing to admit that my fondness for Charlie Brown extended way into my adulthood. There was something about him that seemed to correspond to my life. He was always trying to do good but forces beyond his control kept intervening.

One of those forces was a nasty little girl named Lucy. She would promise Charlie to hold a football so he could kick it. Simple enough, except she never followed through on her promises. She would pull the football away and Charlie always landed on his back, stunned at the betrayal.

It may sound over simplified to equate Israel with Charlie Brown, but I am going to do it. Israel repeatedly has tried to make a cease-fire and negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat. Of course they always end up on their back with more suicide bombings, shootings, and sniper attacks.

Though Charlie Brown never learned his lesson, it now appears that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has. He recently launched a wide ranging offensive to destroy the terrorist infrastructure that was murdering Jews throughout Israel. The Freeman Center and all its associates and members wish him success in this important mission.




By Avi Davis

So it has come to this. The once and future President of Palestine, father of his people, so-called architect of their national rebirth, is hunkered down around a sputtering candle as his enemies' jets pound the walls of his compound and grenades explode in his courtyard. The scene is eerily reminiscent of another that took place exactly 20 years ago in Arafat's headquarters in Beirut. There the Israelis relentlessly shelled him in his lair before American intervention allowed him a face-saving departure to Tunis. Perhaps others will remember Chilean President Salvadore Allende's defiance of his own troops as they attacked the Presidential Palace in Santiago in 1973. There, too, the besieged President vowed to die a martyr's death and fulfilled his promise.

But this new round of events, which has been accompanied by the gravest toll of civilian casualties in Israel's history, offers to close a door on a situation Israelis have endured for far too long. Burdened with the intrigues of this murderer and terrorist for 40 years, it must now make a crucial final accounting: Is Arafat worth more to them dead or alive?

Killing the leader of any people is certainly not a matter to take lightly. But in Arafat's case, the balance sheet should make the answer quite clear. By not condemning Palestinian terror atrocities and failing to crack down on the terrorist activities of his own brigades, Arafat gives those groups his sanction. His tepid denunciations aside, it is clear that his implicit avowals of support for 'martyrs' have led to an escalation that he no longer can control. His relevance in stemming the violence is therefore minimal, but his continued operation, as a symbol of revolt and a figurehead to incendiaries, threatens Israeli life and thereby imperils the stability of the region.

It is argued, conversely, that only Arafat has the ability to rein in terror. But anyone watching interviews of the Palestinian leader in recent months could comfortably conclude that Arafat refuses to rein in terror, not because it threatens his political leverage, but because he is temperamentally incapable of making the psychological shift in order to do so. This has been starkly demonstrated in recent days by a profound display of self-delusion, wherein he and his cohorts appear convinced that the campaign of suicide terror has given them an advantage over the Israelis, whose surrender may be just days away. The same kind of delusion gripped the Palestinian leader in Beirut when he faced catastrophe. His tack then was simply to declare victory, then flee to fight another day. The same latitude should never be given him again.

Another argument is that Arafat's death risks the outbreak of a regional war. Such speculation has no basis in reality. As the Arab League Summit in Beirut convincingly demonstrated, Arafat is completely isolated. Prevented from addressing the Summit by even the Arabs themselves, he has, in reality, few sympathetic ears in that milieu. No Arab leader will shed tears for the end of this chronic schemer. Singed by his treachery and duplicity over the decades, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are loathe to aid the Palestinian leader, nor are they in any condition, either diplomatically or militarily, to receive the brunt of an Israeli assault - an event that would certainly occur to Syria if it allows Hizbullah to resume an assault on Israel from southern Lebanon.

Finally, there will be no international operation against Israel mimicking Kosovo in 1999. This has been Yasser Arafat's final card, a desperate gamble on international sanction and concerted military invasion to prevent what he has preposterously labels a genocide. But even with the Europeans' fierce denunciations there is no indication of a willingness of any nation to go to battle for Arafat or his corrupt regime. If the world is at war with the terrorist networks, which western country will risk the ire of the United States to defend a man for whom terrorism is a raison d'etre?

No one in either Israel or the United States, the only two countries who now really count in this conflict, should be fooled into believing that a surviving Arafat will suddenly see the light and seek a peaceful accommodation with Israel. His death may well turn him into a martyr, but isn't a dead martyr more acceptable than a live terrorist from whom proponents of civil violence worldwide gain inspiration and moral support?

Given these circumstances the appropriate analogy is therefore not to Allende in 1973 or Beirut in 1982. Instead, its parallel is Berlin of 1945 when another menace to world peace and an inveterate slaughterer of Jews faced annihilation. With this in mind, the true question is not whether Israel can afford to eliminate Arafat. It is whether it can afford not to.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies in Los Angeles and the senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine




Senate Floor Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)

March 4, 2002

I was interested the other day when I heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many people who had been down this road before.

I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 1967 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel.

I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace.

When it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process.

If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East--that is us--all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door.

I have some observations to make about that. But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it.

Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time. The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years.

It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have.

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology.

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby. Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem.

The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the holy places.

That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a single shot.

The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world, particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World. But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a result, they were able to continue that supply.

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland. That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now Israel and all of what was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917.

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless land.

I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you may have read "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer". Mark Twain--Samuel Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place."

In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically, they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.


The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food. Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the Czars.

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming in, was not desired by anybody.

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally.

It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count. They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada, more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world.

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today.

We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks.

We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied.

No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ..... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''

That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am giving you this land,''--the West Bank.

This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a right to the land.

Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, ``Let us appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.

He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked for.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the meeting?

A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion.

Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay attention to the details.

They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque. They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot. Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history. Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived.

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, ``No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. ..... They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.

These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.




by Michael Widlanski

(March 25, 2002) Israel has uncovered documents in recent days that irrefutably link Yasser Arafat with acts of terror being committed by the Fatah Tanzeem militia and by other terror organizations.

Other documents strongly suggest that Arafat and his lieutenants had been planning the current war of attrition (called "Infitada" by them) well before September 2000-perhaps as early as late 1995--and that they had no intention of reaching a peaceful compromise settlement with Israel.

"These documents-many of them signed by Arafat-are more than a smoking gun. They are a smoking pen-a pen dripping blood--held by Arafat," declared Uzi Landau, Israel's Minister of Public Security, who made the documents available to the A.P.

The documents were part of the archives containing tens of thousands of papers kept at "Orient House" a set of buildings owned by Feisal Husseini, Yasser Arafat's personal representative in Jerusalem (until his death late last year), and the Palestinian Authority's headquarters in the Israeli capital.

The buildings were closed down by order of Security Minister Landau, with the backing of the Israeli courts, because the Palestinian Authority is not allowed to maintain national institutions under terms of treaties signed with Israel.

Additional documents in the archives seized by Israeli authorities reveal close links between Arafat (and the institutions he controls) and Islamic terror groups such as HAMAS and the Holy Land Foundation (connected to Al-Qaeda).

The documents also show that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has a strong relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and was glad to receive special monetary aid derived from Iraqi oil revenues made under special arrangement with the U.N.

Among the notable finds amid the thousands of documents are:

*-- signed orders by Arafat to pay Tanzeem members who were known hit-men;

*--signed reports on terror activities, asking for more budgetary disbursements, directed to the man who was Arafat's personal representative in Jerusalem-Feisal Husseini;

*--and signed orders by Arafat to give official officers' commissions in the Palestinian Army to members of the Tanzeem militia, which is an un-uniformed army that is illegal under international law.

"Arafat denied involvement in the arms shipments of the 'Karinne A,' but he cannot deny these documents that show he and his top aides planned and financed acts of terror," declared Dr. Landau.

The documents may serve to put an end to the question whether Arafat controls the Tanzeem or is being controlled by it.

In addition, the archival material contains many handwritten notes and letters as well as typewritten articles and essays signed by leading Palestinians such as Arafat himself, Husseini and Tanzeem leader Marwan Barghouti.

The material suggests very strongly, among other things, that:

*-- The Tanzeem is an integral part of the Palestinian Authority's military branches, and its men operate essentially as an un-uniformed army, contrary to international law;

*--Yasser Arafat has formal and practical control of the Tanzeem, contrary to analyses that have contended that Tanzeeem is independent of Arafat's control;

*-- And Marwan Barghouthi regularly reports to Yasser Arafat even on seemingly minute details of his organization's operations-even the appointment and rank of a mid-to-high-level officer;

One of the most telling revelations of the documents is that the broadly accepted view that Arafat "leaves the details to others" is completely incorrect.

In fact, the documents repeatedly show that Arafat is in day-to-day control of the details of all his organizations, relaying the information for comment to the senior members of his military branches-for example, to Generals Haj Ismail, Abdel-Razek Mujaida and Haj Mutlik (who handles military salaries for the PA).

2002 Michael Widlanski, The Media Line (

Michael Widlanski is senior analyst at The Media Line and lecturer at The Rothberg School of the Hebrew University. Fuller versions of his articles are available at





At the annual Jewish Seder (which was Jesus' Last Supper, and is why Easter and Passover are so close), the youngest child will ask the Four Questions. The examination about the ancient Israelites' flight to freedom begins with "Why is this night different from all other nights?"

In Israel this week, however, the first question on a child's mind is more personal: "Will I be able to board a school bus without being blown up by a suicide bomber?"

Here are four secular questions that could be asked and answered after the Passover ceremony concludes:

Why is this war different from all other Arab wars to destroy Israel?

Unlike the other Arab wars of aggression, this war of terror is waged primarily against Jewish civilians, especially children. When Israel strikes back in self-defense, supporters of Palestinian attackers bemoan the loss of Arab innocents caught in the crossfire. By denouncing Israel's defense as part of a "cycle of violence," Arab sympathizers treat this latest Arab aggression and Israeli defense as morally the same.

But this terror war is but a battle in the same war that has been waged against Israel for 50 years. Jews have shown they want peace but misled Arabs have shown, time and again, that they want to win.

Why is it said that Jews "occupy" Judea and Samaria?

The land on the west bank of the Jordan was used by Arab armies in 1967 as a base to surprise and destroy Israel. When Jewish fighters won that war, Israel remained in that battle zone. The U.N. declared that Israel — unlike any other victorious victim of aggression — should return some, but specifically not all, of the land so close to its vulnerable cities. These are disputed territories; to call them "occupied" reveals a prejudice against Israel's right to what were supposed to be "secure and defensible" borders.

If a final peace settlement seemed so close two years ago, why can't America actively negotiate a peace agreement now?

After offering too-generous concessions that would have endangered Israel and divided Jerusalem, a nave Israeli soldier and an overeager American president were certain an agreement was "so close." The reason it was not is that the present Arab leaders want all of Israel, not just the disputed territories. That's what they teach their children. Only when Palestinian leaders realize that their new weapon of human missiles cannot wear down the Jews will they be willing to discuss a long truce.

That is why it is a tragic mistake for the U.S. — which just answered a terrorist attack on itself with heavy bombing and an invasion — to restrain Israel from hotly pursuing the creators of suicide bombers who are now under the protection of the Palestinian army. So long as Arab leaders believe outsiders will impose a settlement on Israel that renders it impotent, they will keep terrorizing through the next 10 cease-fires.

As for this week's vaunted Saudi visions in Beirut, "full normalization" could be rescinded on a royal whim overnight; "full withdrawal" is forever.

Wouldn't it be better for Israel to give the Palestinians all they want so that Arab nations will then help the Americans defeat Saddam Hussein?

No appeasement of Palestinian terrorists will persuade Arab rulers to help defeat Saddam; they want his defeat but cravenly want no part of defeating him. The Iraqi tyrant openly subsidizes Palestinian suicide bombing while he secretly aids Al Qaeda, which is why Palestinians danced in the streets of Ramallah on Sept. 11.

In the short run, Israel is the nation with most to lose from the overdue American-Turkish-Kurdish assault on Saddam. As his regime comes under fire, the Iraqi will again lash out at Israelis, this time perhaps with more fearsome secret weapons. Yet Israel, alone among U.S. allies, raises no objections to the campaign needed to remove Saddam. That's because Jews never forget that the greatest disasters follow in the wake of appeasement.

On Wednesday night, many Seder services will conclude, as tradition dictates, with the hopeful salute expressed by generations of Jews: "Next year in Jerusalem!" Some celebrants with long memories of access denied to the holiest religious sites will insert the word "undivided."



The Jerusalem Post, March 21, 2002


By Raphael Israeli

The dynamics of the Palestinian wave of violence have been so manipulated as to turn the victims into aggressors and the perpetrators into victims.

That the Palestinians and other Arabs should subscribe to such a distortion is nothing out of the ordinary, since this has been their wont for the past half-century, in conformity with the Arab proverb: "He beat me and cried, and was quick to complain" (Darabni wa-baka, sabakni was-ishtaka).

Western media, however, ought to be open-minded to logical and factual argument. It is evident to the media, for example, that since Israel did not declare the present war, and in view of the fact that, prior to its eruption, there were no sieges, no roadblocks, no tanks, no casualties, the media were certainly not interested in all those unpleasant corollaries of hostility.

Moreover, after the Dolphinar ium attack, in which 21 teenagers were blown up while making merry, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refrained from any retaliation for a month, "hoping that restraint meant force"; but the Palestinians decided to pursue violent attacks, and even openly declared their commitment to do so regardless of what the Israelis did or refrained from doing.

When casualties increased to unacceptable levels and the citizenry cried out for protection, Sharon's government had to move, and a policy of systematic retaliation set in, diametrically opposed to Yasser Arafat's. Reporters must see for themselves that, first, while the Palestinian terrorist attacks aim at maximizing the killing of innocent civilians with "Islamikaze" bombers, whose bombs are stuffed with bolts and nails for harrowing maximum effect, Israel retaliated against perpetrators of those acts, when they failed, or their operators who were hiding behind mosques, churches, and schools, or within refugee camps for immunity.

In other words, not only were the criminals themselves targeted, but maximum prudence was given to minimize collateral damage to innocent people.

But the press reported on the Israeli "invasion" of refugee camps, where those murderers hide and stockpile their weapons, as if Israel decided to just attack innocent civilians.

Had Israelis been interested in wanton killing, as they are often accused by the media, they did not have to send their boys into enemy territory and endanger their lives; they could sit placidly behind positions in Israel and bombard Palestinian cities with a fraction of their artillery and air power, without running any risk.

And of course, those weapons captured during the operations should not have been there in the first place, but nothing was done by the Palestinian Authority to seize or capture them; quite the contrary, Arafat has been trying to smuggle in more illegal weapons (Karine A and the tunnels from Egypt). But this is not reported as triggering Israeli actions aimed at seizing those arms, which was done with remarkably little or no casualties to the Palestinians.

Israeli artillery, tanks, and air power are used inside Palestinian territory, but not to maximize casualties; rather, air power is used to destroy Palestinian positions and institutions, usually empty, at night. Tanks are sent in to minimize Israeli casualties in enemy territory, not to inflict casualties on the Palestinians. But for the field reporters, real estate appears to be more important than human life; and the sight of Israeli troops running after the perpetrators of terrorism in order to arrest them, interrogate them, and bring them to justice (not to blow them into pieces), appears unbearable to them.

It is much easier to be critical than to be correct. What would any one of those reporters suggest if his countrymen were subjected to the same horrors day in, day out? Restraint was tried and failed; targeting killers was dubbed "assassination" by those same reporters who now criticize Israel's entrance into the camps in order to capture the killers and bring them to justice; responding to incessant attacks is viewed as a "cycle of violence" by them; destroying empty buildings is condemned as "excess of force." What is "adequate force" in their eyes? Sending undercover troops to blow up innocent Palestinians in the plazas and cafes of Nablus and Hebron as they do in Jerusalem and Kfar Saba? Tit for tat? Is that a civilized response in their eyes?

To act in a civilized manner, amid this persistent, barbarous attack on the Israeli population, means either demanding that the perpetrators and their operators are arrested by the Palestinian Authority, or asking for their extradition so that legal measures could be taken against them in Israel. But the Palestinians refuse to do either.

All that is left is either for Israel to move in by itself, in the process causing painful collateral but involuntary harm, or sit and do nothing, which encourages more terrorism, as we have seen.

Proportionately, Israel has suffered more casualties from this violence than the US did on September 11 (350, which in the US would be equivalent to 17,000). Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that it is a struggle for our existence, something that the Americans have never even remotely experienced, Israel has caused much less damage and casualties than have the Americans in Afghanistan.

But the same European media condemns Israel constantly, while turning a blind eye to the Americans. Unless the European media proclaim that it is not the killing and destruction that are important but who causes them, they better have another look at their unfair treatment of Israel.

(The writer is a professor of Islam and the Middle East at Hebrew University, Jerusalem.)



The Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2002


By Shawn Pine

(The writer is a major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence. He is also a research associate of the Israeli-based Ariel Center for Policy Research and the US-based Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.)

Editor's Note: (April 1, 2002) Bush is now supporting Israel in its fight against terrorism and the Freeman Center thanks him.)

The decision by the Bush administration to send special envoy Anthony Zinni back to the Middle East should be troubling to trouble anyone who believes that the threat of Islamic terrorism to civilized societies needs to be eliminated. Not only does this decision undermine the president's moral position, it amounts to political capitulation.

The moral imperative being propagated by the administration is that the US must step in to stop the escalating killing on both sides (implying that there is a moral equivalency between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli military response to that terrorism). However, Israel has been subjected to increasing terrorism since the publication of the Mitchell and Tenet plans.

It is only recently, with the escalating rise in Palestinian casualties, that the US has decided to reengage its good offices. If it is indeed the rising civilian casualties that has prompted this renewed concern, then it is ironic considering the United States has killed some 4,000 Afghan civilians in its unfettered war against al-Qaida.

The US government is deluding itself if it believes that there is a moral or fundamental difference between the US war against al-Qaida and the Israeli war against Palestinian terrorism. The long-term strategic goals of both groups are the ultimate destruction of Israel and the West. In this respect both Israel and the US are engaged in an existential struggle.

The Zinni mission is an attempt by the US administration to mute criticism and objections to its developing policy towards Iraq. However, the Bush administration is naive if it thinks modifying its position vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will engender enough goodwill among the Europeans and Arab states to allow the US to pursue its war against terrorism unfettered by criticism.

The rationale that Zinni will use to try to persuade Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to acquiesce to US interests, and cease military operations against Palestinian terrorism, is that the US destruction of the Iraqi regime serves Israeli strategic interests in the region. However, Sharon should understand that the US will take action against Saddam Hussein regardless of whether it receives regional and/or European support. It will do so because President George W. Bush believes that Saddam's regime poses a threat to US interests.

In the last decade, Israelis have deluded themselves into believing that the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict was over territories captured in the 1967 war. Hopefully, Arafat's rejection of the offer made at Camp David, and his launching of the intifada, have disabused Israelis of that notion. The reality is that Israel is involved in an existential war and any agreement by Sharon to cease military operations against Palestinian terrorists will be perceived by the Palestinians as a victory and will embolden Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to continue his terrorist war against Israel. In this respect, any agreement reached during the Zinni mission with prove ephemeral at best.

In a unipolar world, the United States has to decide whether it will be a leader or a consensus builder in its war against terrorism. If it decides to be a consensus builder, it will have to consult, cajole, and bribe nations to support its efforts. Moreover, building a consensus will require that the United States negotiate its morals and values, and settle for something far less than the president's vision of eradicating the threat of terrorism from the civilized world.

The other option is for the United States to be resolute, determined, and morally uncompromising in the conduct of its war against terrorism. Under this option the United States needs to tell the other countries to either follow or get out of the way.

While such a policy will result in much whining, it will, in the end, prove effective. This is because such a policy will also engender respect, fear, and an understanding that the US is resolute in its objective to eradicate the threat of terrorism. However, such a foreign policy requires the US president to not only make proclamations that anyone who supports, harbors, or feeds a terrorist will suffer the same fate, but to be resolute in carrying out such a policy.

In this regard, Bush's remarks are as applicable to the leadership in Ramallah as they were to the leadership in Kabul. Just as Bush has a constitutional responsibility to protect US citizens, so too does Sharon have a responsibility to protect Israeli citizens. Rather than allow himself to be cajoled into agreeing to yet another temporary cease-fire, Sharon should passionately, emphatically, and forcefully emphasize that Israel stands firmly behind the policy articulated by Bush when he said: "In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."



The Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2002


By Evelyn Gordon

(March 12) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell lambasted Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week, saying "If you declare war on the Palestinians and think you can solve the problem by seeing how many Palestinians can be killed, I don't know if that leads us anywhere." Powell has a valid point. It just isn't the point he thought it was.

Powell intended his point to be that military action is incapable of stopping Palestinian terror. That is the accepted leftist wisdom: that guerrilla warriors fighting for self-determination can never be vanquished. Historically speaking, of course, that is nonsense. History is rife with examples to the contrary, from the Roman defeat of Jewish guerrillas fighting to regain their independence 2,000 years ago, to the American defeat of Indian guerrillas fighting to regain their lost land.

However, it is also irrelevant - because the current Palestinian violence is not guerrilla warfare, but rather warfare backed by a recognized government. Indeed, the lion's share of fatal Palestinian attacks are now being committed by an organization that answers directly to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, which is a wing of Arafat's own Fatah party.

For government-sponsored warfare, there are certainly military solutions, but to succeed, they require a clear objective: the defeat of the enemy government. Sharon, however, has consistently refused to set that as his objective, and his military strikes are patently not directed at that aim. Without such an objective, Powell is quite correct - Sharon's military action is leading nowhere.

The current deluge of Palestinian terrorism is possible only because it is protected by a government to which Israel has essentially granted immunity. There are two main reasons for this.

The first is the existence of "safe havens." Much of the West Bank and Gaza is under the Palestinian Authority's control rather than Israel's, and these areas constitute havens where terrorists can build bombs, train bombers, and organize attacks undisturbed, and to which they can flee after an attack.

The existence of such safe havens was a major cause of the sharp rise in terrorist violence after the Oslo Accords were signed (more Israelis were killed in the following two-and-a-half years than in the entire decade preceding), and it is also a major reason why the current violence is so much worse than the first intifada. Never in the last 35 years has so much of the relevant territory been out of Israel's control.

Though the recent IDF incursions into the refugee camps are ostensibly meant to deny the terrorists such havens, their utility is limited, because for each camp the army temporarily invades, there are dozens more where Israel has no foothold. The result is that when Israel attacks in one place, they simply move their base temporarily to another Palestinian-controlled area.

The only way to truly deny the terrorists a safe haven is to have a government committed to fighting terror in control of all the territories, leaving the terrorists with no place to flee except abroad. And since Arafat's government is patently unwilling to fulfill this role, the only candidate at the moment is Israel.

The second crucial service the PA offers the terrorists is arms procurement and protection. The Palestinians built up caches of weapons during their eight years of self-rule, and the PA protects these caches by its very existence: Israel cannot effectively search for and seize this weaponry as long as another government controls the territory.

But even more important, additional arms are constantly being smuggled in. Arms smuggling is an expensive business, even when the costs are partially defrayed by generous donors such as Iran - and without PA funding, these efforts would be severely hampered. The weaponry aboard the intercepted arms ship Karine A, for instance, cost some $15 million, almost all of which came out of the PA's coffers. Individual groups such as Hamas could never hope to raise such sums. But a government can - especially one backed by generous infusions of European cash. By eliminating the government, one eliminates the main channel through which Western money is converted into guns and bombs. And without a steady flow of arms, no military conflict can be sustained.

It is true that military action can never eliminate every last terrorist. For that matter, neither can any diplomatic agreement. However, it is equally true that without the PA, the Palestinians would be unable to sustain the violence at anywhere near the current intolerable level.

Powell, albeit unintentionally, was thus right on the mark: Sharon "has to take a hard look at his policies to see whether they will work." His policy toward the PA would be a good place to start.



Arutz Sheva - - March 15, 2002


by Moshe Feiglin

There is a time for war and a time for peace. Now is the time for war.

Not a war in order to bring them to the negotiations table. Nor a war to bring peace. Nor a war because there is no alternative. Not even a war to halt the terrorist attacks.

But a war of justice.

A war of morality. A war for the truth.

A war - because everything else means coming to terms with badness, evil and cruelty. A war - because we are the good ones. A war - because we are the responsible ones.

A holy war, now.

Our sages taught us that those who have mercy on cruel people end up being cruel to merciful people. It's not the Arabs who are murdering mothers, but those merciful people who gave weapons to the murderers. It's not the Arabs who are burning babies, but the peaceniks that recognized the justice of the Arab cause. It's not the cruel people who are bombing us, but the merciful people who showed them mercy.

War now. A holy war. Now.

Israel has never made a declaration of war. This may sound surprising, but Israel has always seen itself as being in a state of war. The state that has experienced five wars has never actually been at war. We have faced a threat, we have fought for our lives, but we have never declared war and gone to fight for a justified issue. We removed the threat and paused.

Over the years, we did reserve army duty by patrolling along the electronic security fence on the border. One night, while the command car was slowly proceeding along the bank of the Jordan River, I asked the sleepy driver: "Tell me something - why is there a fence here?" The driver thought I was trying to make fun of him. For years we have been holding the line in this region and now suddenly I start asking why there's a fence here?

"What do you mean?" he asked.

"Why is the fence on our side of the river and not on the other side - on their bank? After all, they lost the war, didn't they?"

The driver got confused and I went back to my own thoughts. "The truth is," I said to him in the end, "that there was never a war and they never lost it. They threatened us from Kalkilya, so we pushed them away to here and now they continue to threaten us from here. If there had actually been a war that we had won, there would be no need for a fence; certainly not on our side of the river."

Israel has never had a war, because it has never had a sense of justice. All we ever had was a need for survival. Survival became the meaning of our life and the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center has formed a substitute for the Temple. It is permissible to fight to survive, but not for justice. Somehow, we managed to face up to the Arab countries. Our defense against them has been regarded as an alternative to justice, because they were more numerous and stronger than us, and because, in Christian morality, the weak party is always in the right.

The Almighty has had enough of this. For how long can the Jews be permitted to evade their true function? He decided to force us to acquire a meaning to our lives. He played a kind of sophisticated trick on us: He brought us a weak enemy, a kind of enemy that doesn't seem to threaten our survival. Now, we are the big and strong ones. With the Christian morality we have adopted we are incapable of fighting. We can only perform police activities, eliminating pockets of terrorists. Whatever the analysts say, we are incapable of going to war without justice. We are bleeding and dying and are incapable of facing up to a small, weak and wretched enemy, an enemy who has exposed Israel's weak spot, who has exposed the fact that Israel lacks a sense of justice. The Almighty is simply forcing us to admit that we are right - otherwise, we will die.

In order to declare that we are right, we have to declare war. War now. In America, the citizens enthusiastically went to war for a justified issue - the liberation of the slaves. Volunteers from all over the world joyfully participated in the Spanish civil war, allied soldiers sang while they boarded the trains to the front in the war against Nazi Germany. They believed that they were in the right. This was a source of encouragement to them. They declared war.

We are incapable of doing so, because we lack a sense of justice. We have no alternative other than to return to ourselves and to Jewish justice. We must roll up our sleeves and set up real objectives.

Our sages taught us that those who have mercy on cruel people end up being cruel to merciful people. It's not the Arabs who are murdering mothers, but those merciful people who gave weapons to the murderers. It's not the Arabs who are burning babies, but the peaceniks that recognized the justice of the Arab cause. It's not the cruel people who are bombing us, but the merciful people who showed them mercy.

War now. A holy war. Now.


Moshe Feiglin, founder and head of Manhigut Yehudit, The Jewish Leadership Movement, led the campaign of mass civil disobedience against the Oslo accords. For other articles by Moshe Feiglin, visit



The Jerusalem Post


By David M. Weinberg

(March 17) - News item: "Israel, US negotiating over tax monies to be handed over to Palestinians." Nothing could be more absurd. The EU and the US are pressuring Israel to release into Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's coffers some $1.6 billion in various taxes and customs duties collected by the Finance Ministry on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. US President George W. Bush himself raised the issue with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last month.

Now, I'm certain that Arafat has the best of intentions for the funds that our good friends abroad would have us deposit in his personal bank account in Tel Aviv. He plans to build old age homes, establish chess clubs, open soup kitchens, manufacture Kleenex, and sponsor the Palestinian Gaylee Boys Choir.

I'll even take Arafat at his word that he will not spend a penny of the $1.6b. to purchase guns, bullets, mortars, rockets and other projectiles that could hurt Israelis. Not even to pay-off his Iranian shipping bill.

I'm also willing to skip the argument that monies are fungible, meaning that if we give Arafat cash to spend on social welfare, it frees up other PA funds for the purchase of weaponry. Recall that the previous Bush administration wasn't so understanding. George Sr. coldly told Israel "no" when we requested loan guarantees to absorb Russian immigrants, because he didn't like Yitzhak Shamir's spending on settlements. Money is fungible, the elder Bush intoned.

Nevertheless, the notion that Israel owes anything to Arafat is both outrageous and ludicrous. Yasser owes us a lot more money than we supposedly owe him. It is time to make the PA pay, in hard cash, for the economic and financial damages it has caused Israel over the past 18 months.

To begin with, Jerusalem should use the PA's embargoed tax monies to pay the hundreds of Israeli companies that have been stiffed by the PA for supplied goods and services. Sources in the Israel Chambers of Commerce and the civil administration say the PA owes Israeli businesses over $100 million, including $13m. to Israel Electric and about $50m. to Bezeq.

In fact, 22 private companies, supported by the chamber and the Manufacturers Association, petitioned the High Court of Justice in January demanding exactly that. The companies - which include flour mills, air conditioning contractors, plastics, ceramics, chemicals and packaging manufacturers - hold about $5m. in bounced Palestinian checks. We should return these checks to the PA through Anthony Zinni. Call it a down payment on the $1.6b. we theoretically owe Arafat.

According to a 1994 Israeli law passed after the Cairo Accords (which established the parameters for economic relations between Israel and the PA), our Finance Ministry is empowered to deduct such Palestinian debts from tax monies we collect for the PA! Foolishly, the law has never been implemented.

PA liability is compounded by the whopping, devastating 95 percent drop in foreign investment that Israel has suffered since the armies under Arafat's control began shooting; from $2b. to $100m. in one year! That makes for another $1.9b. that the PA owes Israel. Some $100 million more has been lost in tourism. Tack it on to Yasser's bill.

The actual fighting has cost the IDF well over $2.5b., I estimate. One hour's operation of an Apache attack helicopter runs over $4,500; an F-16, over $12,000; a Merkava tank, at least $2,000. We have several thousand bulletproof vests for the police and for reservists on order, at $400 each, a new necessity courtesy of Mr. Arafat. The cost of security guards at schools, wedding halls, community centers, and synagogues is adding up, too.

Don't forget the high cost of maintaining so many Palestinian informants, and funds for hundreds of additional ambulance drivers, surgeons, social workers, occupational therapists, trauma support groups, etc. Valium, Prozac and Seroxat use in this country has gone through the roof. The Health Ministry says it needs an additional $300m.

I think we should add to Arafat's bill the enormous cost of the election to dump Ehud Barak, and the overtime paid to Carmela Menashe of Israel Radio so that she can broadcast her trenchant criticism of IDF operations.

Now for compensation to the approximately 1,500 Israeli victims of Palestinian terror: each victim should get no less than the Palestinian dead are receiving.

Reportedly, Hamas gives $10,000 to the family of every suicide bomber. According to The Financial Times of London, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said last Monday that Baghdad would raise its financial contribution to the families of Palestinian martyrs from $10,000 to $25,000.

That's a total shahid package of $35,000. The principle of equity demands that our dead - and I think even our wounded - get the same. Which adds $52.5 million to the reparations owed to Israel by Yasser Arafat's Evil Authority. Not including punitive damages.

Arafat shouldn't count on pocketing too much change once we get through adding up the costs of the nasty little war he forced upon us.

(The writer is director of public affairs at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.)




(An open letter to Ariel Sharon)

by Boris Shusteff

Mister Prime Minister, the time for vacillation is over. The sand in you prime-ministerial hourglass is almost gone. If you do not immediately recapture the initiative in the war with the Arabs, you will go down in history as the Israeli prime minister who had the best chance of being remembered as the savior of the nation but instead helplessly forfeited the opportunity.

Pre-election polls clearly showed that Israelis did not believe that you would bring peace. When asked "If Ariel Sharon is elected prime minister will he succeed in reaching a peace agreement?" 57% answered No (Dahaf Poll, January 12, 2001). While they did not expect you to bring them peace, they were also afraid of war. When asked if they "fear that as the result of the conflict with the Palestinians a regional war will break out" 70% said Yes (Gallup poll, October 18, 2000). Moreover, Israelis knew that if they preferred you to Ehud Barak the possibility of the war would increase 250%. When asked "Who has the better chances of causing a regional war?" 46% answered Sharon and only 19% said Barak (Gallup Poll, January 31, 2001). Nevertheless the people brought you to power in a landslide victory, because they trusted that if war were to erupt you would lead them to glory.

Alas, you did not meet their expectations. You, the warrior, one who has saved the Jewish state on several previous occasions, suddenly lost your grip on the situation. The word "war" scared you. For many months you did not want to admit that the Jewish nation was in a state of war with Arafat's gangs. Finally you allowed yourself to use the "w" word,

"but even then you tried to pretend that it was possible to have a situation in which one side - the Arabs - fights the war, and the other - the Jews - is involved in a different activity, which you called "returning fire in self-defense."

A statement released by your press-bureau on March 6 clearly demonstrates that you prefer to remain in an Orwellian fantasy world instead of looking directly at the truth. How else is it possible to interpret the following words:

The war that Israel finds itself in was forced on it by the Palestinian Authority and its Chairman following the Camp David summit in July 2000. Israel never declared war on the Palestinians; Israel is returning fire against the terrorist organizations in the framework of its right to self-defense. He who initiated the war has the power to stop it but he continues to prefer the terrorist war.

When Japan attacked America, the United States declared war on the Japanese. When Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the Soviet state declared a war on the Nazis. When Al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center, America declared a war against terrorism. How in the world can you abstain from declaring War on the Palestinian Arabs?

In the beginning of October, 2001, while participating in a ceremony marking four months since the terrorist murder of Gilad Zar, you told his sister Anat that you knew that in the end there would have to be a "no-choice" war, but that you, as Prime Minister, must determine the "right timing." A week after your "explanation," your friend, Tourism Minister Rechavam Ze'evi, was brutally murdered by Arafat's thugs. Since that day that you spoke to Anat, the number of dead Israelis has doubled, but you are still hesitant to declare war on the murderers.

Your latest moves - dropping the requirement for seven days of "absolute quiet" before negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs, and deciding to unshackle Arafat, and allowing him to leave Ramallah - represent just two more samples in your voluminous portfolio of "un-crossable" red lines that you have crossed. Especially preposterous is your explanation of the decision to allow freedom of movement for Arafat. You said, according to the media, "I promised, that when all the murderers of our Minister are arrested, I will let Arafat go. Since our demands are met we must fulfill our promises."Mister Prime Minister, why are you in such a hurry to fulfill your promises to Arafat before you fulfill your promises to the citizens of your own country? Did you not promise to bring peace and security to the Israelis when you were elected? What right do you have to deceive your own people? Why haven't you declared the plain fact that is obvious to all - that your country is in a state of war?

Every day more and more Israelis are murdered only because you are not brave enough to utter the "w" word. You have many times proudly declared that, first and foremost, you are a Jew. So why then do you violate the tenets of Judaism? Why do you allow innocent Jews all over Eretz Yisrael to be murdered, while trying to preserve the lives of Palestinian Arabs who dance in the streets every time they hear that another Jew was killed?

Perhaps you have forgotten what our sages said about the value of human life, comparing it to an entire world? "The rabbinic belief that each human life is of infinite value has a legal... implication. It means, for example, that saving many lives at the expense of one INNOCENT life is not permitted, since by definition many 'infinities' cannot be worth more than one 'infinity'" (1). Can you count how many INNOCENT lives have been lost since you became the Prime Minister of Israel?

You and your government keep repeating that you will not allow Israel to be dragged into a full-scale war, since this can endanger many more lives. But your procrastination leads to more and more killed and maimed INNOCENT Jews. Every time that a terrorist attack occurs you say that Israel will not respond with full force because "that is exactly what our enemies are waiting for in order to expand the conflict." By doing so you are acting exactly in the manner that is forbidden by our sages. You try to decide whose life is more valuable Gilad Zar's, Rechavam Ze'evi's, Arik Krugliak's, Pinchas Cohen's, the hundreds of others who have been murdered since you became Prime Minister, or the potential lives of other Jews who might be killed if the "conflict expands."

If you want to preserve Jewish lives you must destroy your enemy instead of appeasing it. What cease-fire are you talking about, when the enemy is not defeated? Why do you need this cease-fire? What are you going to talk about with "irrelevant" Arafat? Do you not know what the Arabs demand from Israel? They are not tired of repeating it ad nauseam. For only the first stage they want you to return to the so-called 1967 borders, which in reality are the 1949 armistice lines.And they demand the part of Jerusalem most sacred to the Jews, and the resolution of the so-called "refugee problem," by which they mean the invasion of Israel by millions of Arabs.

Why do you drag your feet, knowing all this? Perhaps you have some clandestine strategic plans that you do not want to share with your own citizens. Have pity on them. Your "cunning" has led to a situation in which the people have completely lost hope. They do not know where they are being dragged by their leaders. They do not know where their country is going. They do not know what to do. They are depressed.

The people are sick and tired of electing leaders that deceive them time and again by betraying promises and principles. Can you imagine what the people think about your policies if even Uzi Landau, during a March 12 Likud ministerial forum, exclaimed, "I do not understand where you are leading us. Who are the experts you consult with, and why don't you consult with us?"

How shall your colleagues understand your response, "You may want to go to war, but I don't"? Take a look at the empty streets of Jerusalem, at the bleeding heart of the Jewish state. Can you imagine any other country in the world that would allow its capital to be desecrated by explosions and shelling without declaring a war against those who commit these atrocities?

You said that you do not want to go to war? But the war has already come to you. You cannot run away from it. The cease-fire for which you strive will not extinguish the Arab hatred. The term "cease-fire" speaks for itself, implying that the fire will be resumed, and therefore that more INNOCENT Jews will be killed.

You were elected to win the War. The Israelis believed in your military genius. How did it come to pass that you have surrendered the initiative to the enemy? Your excuse that you cannot hit Arafat hard since this will complicate America's plans towards Iraq will not stand any ground when the Almighty judges you. Do not even dream that America is planning to topple Saddam Hussein's regime because it cares about Israel. America cares about its own interests. It feels threatened by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and it will go ahead with its plans regarding Iraq notwithstanding your actions against Arafat.

You might say that if you allowed the IDF to defeat the Palestinian Arabs, then Hizballah would start bombarding Israeli cities. This may be true, but Hizballah's threat is looming over Israel exactly because of the same kind of appeasement policy that your predecessor, another general, conducted before you.

You hold the post of Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Therefore your personal sentiment of "I do not want to go to war" is irrelevant.Your country is already in the midst of this war. Your choice is very limited. Either declare war and unleash all the might of the Israeli army upon the enemies of Israel, or admit your failure and resign. 03/12/02

1. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. Jewish Literacy. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1991.


Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.




by Richard H. Shulman

As Arabs complain about Israel, "A & I" points out that they more accurately and fairly should be Israeli complaints about the Arabs. What the Arabs do, for propaganda they falsely accuse Israel of doing. Since they accuse Israel of doing it, doesn't that mean they knowit's wrong? No. They have a double standard. They define crime according to who commits it against whom. That is the height of ethnic arrogance, which is another thing they falsely accuse the Jews of. Let's list ten more types of Arab accusations, heretofore discussed as they individually arose:

1. Israel steals Arabs' land. No, the Arabs' steal Jews' and Israel's land. The Arabs also steal much besides, some in such quantities as to ruin the industry.

2. Israel threatens Muslim holy sites. No, the Arabs destroy and desecrate Jewish holy sites (and Christian and Hindu ones, too, over the centuries).

3. Israeli troops attack PA civilians. No, PA troops attack Israeli civilians.

4. Israeli troops shoot Arab children. Arab gunmen place willing children in front of them, as human shields. Arabs shoot Jewish children in their innocence.

5. Israel fires at Arab ambulances. Not unless they run roadblocks -- the Arabs use ambulances to hide terrorists. The Jews don't use ambulances to hide gunmen, it would be a war crime, but theArabs fire on them, anyway, which is a war crime.

6. Israel preaches hatred against the Arabs. No, the Arabs preach hatred of Jews.

7. Israel overdraws water, leaving the Arabs less. No, the Arabs overdraw it and pollute Israelis' water. Israel once replenished the Gaza aquifer from its own stores.

8. Israel commits aggression. No, Arab aggression has resulted in all their wars. The Arabs would deny it, but we should not accept their politicalized perversion of dictionary definition of English words.

9. Israel dispossessed the Arabs. Just a few for security in war, but the Arabs dispossessed about 900,000 Jews and tried to do so in Israel and Yesha.

10. Israel demolishes Arab houses in order to reduce their presence in Jerusalem. No, it demolishes a small percentage of the illegal Arab houses, those which interfere with normal municipal planning. It demolishes too few for proper law enforcement. The Arabs build many of them to keep the Jewish population in and around Jerusalem from thriving.

See the difference between Arab and Israeli ethics? You probably know of more examples.




by Emanuel A. Winston,

Mid East Analyst & Commentator

For some time under the deliberate or benign neglect of successive Israeli Prime Ministers and the Israeli Supreme court, the ancient Jewish Temple Mount, 3000 years old, was being literally mined and undermined by the Palestinian Wakf (the Muslim authority now in control of Temple Mount). Having weakened its foundation, it is just a matter of time before it will collapse - possibly with a nudge from nature. It was thought that these "Jewish" Prime Ministers merely feared the Arab response if they dared to stop the carnage or challenge the recent Arab claim that the ancient Jewish Holy of Holies belonged to Islam. There is a growing conviction that many of these non-observant Jewish leaders believe that if Israel were de-Judaized with the loss of the Jewish Temple Mount, the rest of the world would accept and even love Israel.

The concern of the non-observant is that, if the prophesied Third Temple of the Jews were re-established along with ancient Temple ritual and law, a secular government would be made less important. Therefore, having the Arabs claim the whole Jewish Temple Mount and core out its center is acceptable, even desirable to the secular Israeli governments who have been mostly ideologically Left with some violently anti- or non-observant. Clearly, successive Israeli governments has been ready to issue a "quit claim" deed to the Arab Muslims, offering the illusion that they had no choice. If one tracks Oslo in terms of abandoning most Jewish Holy sites, you would find that it all leads up to the disposal of Solomon's Temple - with a secular society to follow.

Given that our history is both glorious and bleak, it seems clear that each time we Jews lower ourselves, an outside force appears to war against us. We seem unable to learn the lesson as this time Amalek appears as Yassir Arafat.


Jerusalem was the city of King David 3000 years ago. The Temple built in 960 BCE by King Solomon, the son of David, became a magnet for other nations and their religions who all sought dominance on earth and in heaven. They correctly believed that the Holy Spirit of G-d did reside in the Beis HaMigdash and, therefore, was something valuable to own and control. Wave upon wave of conquerors came and all built an edifice to their religion on the Jewish Temple Mount to show their superiority and to absorb the strength of the One G-d whose Spirit lived there. They were not giving up their gods but, as was the custom, merely adding another god to their often numerous pantheon of gods, spirits and other mystical figures.

The First Temple was destroyed on the ninth of Av, 586 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar who exiled the Jews to Babylon. In 538 BCE, after he conquered Babylon, Cyrus decreed that the Jews should be allowed to return to Jerusalem and re-build their Temple - which they did under Ezra. Later the despotic King Herod, appointed by Rome to rule the Jews of Judea around the year zero in the Gregorian calendar, remodeled and greatly enlarged the Second Temple.

The Second Temple was destroyed and burned with the city of Jerusalem on the ninth of Av in 70 CE.

The Romans built their edifice to their gods on the Jewish Temple Mount and later the Dome of the Rock and al Aksa were built by Arab Muslims on the ruins of the Roman structures. This demonstrated a double conquest by Islam, one over Rome and one over the Jews. Most searched for the Ark of the Covenant in the belief that whoever controlled the Ark had a powerful instrument with which to conquer other nations.

For example, during the Christian Crusades, the core mission of the Knights Templar was to obtain the Ark and whatever Temple service pieces they could dig up. Perhaps they forgot what happened to the Philistines when they captured the Ark of the Covenant and suffered so serious a plague that they voluntarily returned the Ark to the Jews.

After the Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 C.E. against the Greco-Roman secularization, the Jews were exiled by the Roman Emperor Hadrian who changed the name of the Eternal Jewish city from Jerusalem to Aelia (after his own name) Capitolina to obliterate any mention of Jewish identity. He demolished 50 fortresses, destroyed 985 villages and killed 580,000 Jewish people. Roman legions were brought from all over the empire, including the Syrian Navy creating a huge military force. All significant sources including Jeremiah 31:15 and Deuteronomy 3:13, state that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian. Bar Kochba was murdered during the siege of Bethar in the Judean Hills. (1)

Following that, Roman temples were built on the Jewish Temple Mount to the gods Jupiter and Aphrodite. Hadrian implemented his "Jewish Final Solution" just as Hitler had his and now the Arabs wish to try theirs. "It was thought" that Hadrian's statue had been placed over the Jewish Holy of Holies, presumably to transfer the mystical power to Hadrian, the man. Later the Byzantine Christians destroyed the pagan Roman temple. After that, the Arabs conquered the area and built their Dome of the Rock and the al Aksa mosque on the earlier foundation ruins of the Roman temple.

During the 1948 War of Independence when six Arab armies attacked the newly born Jewish State of Israel, the Jordanians captured the entire walled Old City, most of which was Jewish, evicted all Jews, destroyed 58 synagogues, desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Jewish Mount of Olives and refused the Jews entry to their most Holy site, the Temple Mount - housing the only remnants of the First and Second Jewish Temples.

After the 1967 Six Days War when Israel liberated the Old City, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights, then Defense Minister, General Moshe Dayan simply turned the keys and control of the Temple Mount over to the Muslim Arab Wakf. Dayan left the outer Western Wall for the Jews. Dayan was a famed secular Israeli general but he cared nothing about anything important to Judaism. When Dayan gave away the Holy of Holies, for him it was no loss.

Having turned over the Holy Temple first built in 960 B.C.E. by King Solomon, the son of King David and later re-built by the corrupt architectural genius, King Herod, the Temple has been occupied by Arab Muslims since the Jews liberated it in 1967. In retrospect, Moshe Dayan, as a dedicated Leftist and totally non-observant, started the process of trying to de-Judaize the Jewish Temple Mount. Had he or other non-observant Jews come across the Ark, they would probably re-bury it as quickly as possible lest the Jewish people fully awaken to the power of their ancient history and demand the re-building of the original Temple.

Over a period of time, the Wakf began to Arabize the Temple Mount by excavating beneath its surface. They also wished to find and own whatever instruments of G-d's power, presuming they could unlock and utilize its powerful mystery. The ancient Temple built by King Solomon was recently claimed the as religious core of a non-people who now called themselves Palestinians. They needed a history where none existed before. They are trying to co-opt the Jew's history as other have done before - as well as their geography and holy sites. Their efforts grew bolder when they saw that successive Israeli governments did nothing to stop them or to defend the Jewish essence of the Temple Mount.

Again, it retrospect, it now seems plain that the Israeli political Left, usually in control of the government, were dedicated to a secular nation which mandated disposing of sole ownership of the Temple and its G-d.

The Arabs brought in excavating machinery with large dump trucks to haul away the debris. Still, various Israeli Prime Ministers and the Courts remained virtually silent as hundreds of trucks dumped their loads into the nearby Kidron Valley. It is estimated that between 6,000 and 10,000 tons of ancient material have been excavated to date - and the sacrilegious work continues under the gaze of this Prime Minister and Israel's slumbering Knesset.

Archeologists were furious as they inspected what was excavated, discovering vital artifacts from one century, mixed with those of other periods. It has been reported that Israelis inspecting the dump site have been harassed by Israeli Police, presumably, for calling attention to the complicity of the government in allowing the despoiling of the site by Arafat's excavators. They, along with religiously observant Jews, mounted legal protests but, all fell on deaf ears. The Israeli governments and the Supreme Court, both non-observant, refused to interfere with this egregious defilement of the site housing the very core of Judaism. These secular government officials and the Courts were barely Jewish if their non-observance of Jewish law (halacha) was any criterion of one's Jewish soul. In effect, these Jews became co-conspirators with the Arabs in erasing the Jewish presence on the Jewish Temple Mount.

The digging and tunneling went on, exposing dozens of vast cisterns and tunnels. Slowly, the excavated areas were enlarged as supporting walls and pillars were torn down. This was to enable the building of a vast underground mosque, large enough to accommodate thousands of Muslim worshipers. The by-product of this huge destruction was to remove any signs of the Jewish presence from the time of King Solomon while building their claim that all was theirs and re-named it Haram el Sharif.

This de-Judaization of the Temple Mount was intended to be the ultimate proof of Muslim dominance over Judaism and title to the entire Temple Mount area including, by extension, all of Jerusalem. There was to be no professorial supervision allowed by either Israeli archaeologists or engineers - nor did the various Israeli Prime Ministers demand it. Bit by bit the Muslim Wakf weakened the remaining structures as Israeli Prime Ministers and the Courts deliberately avoided their obligation to preserve this site chosen by G-d.

Aside from the deliberate desecration of a Holy site, this hollowing out started to weaken the structure that had withstood thousands of years of earthquakes. The Temple Mount literally sits along the fault line that runs through the Jordan rift. The outer walls now show the signs of this weakening as they are bulging outward in certain places on their way to a possible collapse.

The Arabs have patched up these areas as Arabs are wont to do on sub-standard walls and buildings. But, these are high retaining walls, with massive stones which could not be shored up by primitive patchwork. Still, the Israeli government has remained silent even as protests grew.

Sitting on top of the Jewish Temple Mount are two large buildings: the Dome of the Rock with its golden dome and the Al Aksa Mosque. The Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph El Malik 70 years after Mohammed's death in the year 632 C.E. Malik's goal was to turn Muslim 'Quibla' (direction of prayer) away from Mecca, towards Jerusalem and him. This was a political move to bring pilgrims to Jerusalem in order to increase his power in the areas under Malik's control and make himself heir to Mohammed. He had no religious motivation, just geo-political ambition.

Mohammed, in his time, had made Jerusalem literally a forbidden place to Muslims. It is not mentioned once in the Koran. If a Muslim had to go to Jerusalem for trade, it was called a 'zira' (journey) - not a religious 'haj' as when Muslims make their mandatory pilgrimage to Mecca. While Mohammed tried to persuade the Jews to convert to Islam as the last, best and only religion, he had prayed from Arabia toward Jerusalem for a short time, only 19 months. But, when the Jews refused to convert, he was furious and turned the Muslim 'Quibla' toward Mecca with their backs to Jerusalem. Mohammed was never actually in Jerusalem but understood that the power of Jewish essence pervaded the ancient city which he had to exclude from Islam. (Strangely, the Israeli government followed in Mohammed's footsteps in disposing of this attractive nuisance to their rule.)

Malik did not succeed in his goal to bring Muslims to Jerusalem or to himself. The Dome of the Rock was virtually ignored by the Muslim and Arab world as it fell into ruin. Twenty years later, El Malik's son built a mosque which he called "al Aksa" after the folk-tale of Mohammed's mythical night flight on a winged horse with the head and breasts of a woman, named Buraq. This dream tale said that in the time it took for a tipped pitcher to spill one drop of water, Mohammed was carried on Buraq to al Aksa (which mean the farthest) Mosque. This was thought to then be either in Medina or to Allah's heavenly courtyard.

By naming his new mosque "al Aksa", Malik's son tried to capitalize on the myth, bringing Mohammed to Jerusalem's al Aksa Mosque where he then flew to heaven to receive the blessings of all the earlier prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, with the later addition of Jesus, 'et al'. This would link or add the Jewish and Christian lineage to the Muslims in order to bring the strength of the Jews and Christians into Islam while eliminating the Jews' physical link to the Covenant. In Arafat's war against the Jews, he uses this myth by calling the Western Wall, (a remnant of the Second Temple's retaining wall) the "Buraq" wall, furthering his spurious claim to the Jewish Temple Mount.

(What is astonishing is that no one major media source, with all this rich history at hand, has ever dared to challenge Arafat's claims that the Temple Mount is Muslim - not Jewish.

At the time of Mohammed's death, there was no mosque on the Jewish Temple Mount. It wasn't until the 12th century that the Kurd, Saladin, mounted a large propaganda campaign to claim that the mosque named "al Aksa" was where Mohammed had flown on his mythical night flight. Saladin used this as an excuse to justify his attack against the Christian Crusaders who then had control of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple Mount. Saladin's goal was to whip up the religious hysteria of the disparate tribes - much the same as Arafat does today.

As stated earlier, layers and layers of unholy construction are built over the Holy of Holies which were not part of G-d's specific instructions to King Solomon.

I believe that either in the near or not too distant future, there will be a small trembler or a large earthquake which are endemic to the region. Such earth movements, small or large, will likely cause the collapse of these structures whose infrastructure the Arabs have undermined into the very pit which they have excavated. I speculate that this collapse will also expose the great foundation stones of King Solomon's Jewish Temple.

No doubt, the Arabs will find a way to blame the Jews for the destruction of the false temples they have claimed as the third holiest site of Islam - only since 1967. Strangely, in a way, they will be correct since, under Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon (including Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak), they were allowed to dominate, excavate and undermine the Temple Mount area. Both the Jews and Arabs, each in their own way, will be shocked and forced to re-think their role in the collapse of these false temples and the exposure of Solomon's great foundation stones.

Perhaps too, it is all for the best, since King Solomon's Temple has been treated like a religious icon wherein layer upon layer has coated Solomon's Temple by its conquerors. All "tumah" (un-holy or contaminated) which must be cleaned before the Temple is once again purified and fit for Jewish prayer and sacrifice. Shedding these unwanted layers will probably lead to the re-building of the Beis HaMigdash by those with clean hands and souls.

The Jewish Temple Mount has been targeted for conquest by successive invaders as if they could capture the very spirit of G-d and with it, life eternal. The Temple Mount has been abused, defiled, desecrated and made to serve men's self perceptions of their own greatness. Herod, decreed King of the Jews by Rome, was a hideous leader and tormentor of the Jewish people. But, in his megalomaniacal madness, he was also a great builder who further contaminated the ancient site. Herod undertook the enlargement and re-construction of Solomon's Temple - not for the glory of G-d - but his own self-elevation to a god-like ruler, aping the Romans with their pantheon of gods who could consort with men.


Should this outer shell of Herod's construction collapse in an earthquake (along with the foundations of the Crusader churches - later to be used as the foundations for Mosques), it would be a fitting end for the desecration of the Jewish Holy of Holies. G-d carefully instructed King Solomon on the construction of the Temple, wherein His Shechina (Spirit) would dwell with His chosen people. There they would serve Him with ritual through the Kohanim (priests) of the selected tribes.

Neither Herod, nor the Crusaders, nor the priests of Islam were similarly instructed but, they took possession anyway. Wave after wave of conquerors captured the bricks and mortar but could not capture the Spirit of G-d. Only when the Jews lived there and when they returned after their 2000 year exile, did Jerusalem glow with His Shechina.

It is, indeed, regrettable that a succession of Jewish rulers called Prime Ministers were empty of G-d's spirit and, therefore, allowed this profanation of G-d's Holy of Holies. That is a debt each of them must pay. The Muslims have attempted to dig the heart out of the Jewish Temple Mount which will soon be filled with the debris of all the Muslims built when G-d decides that the earth must shrug.

Note! The history of Solomon's Temple starts with David buying a granary on Mount Moriah, which since underwent hundreds of transformations.

Therefore, when G-d shrugs, the earth heaves, and the hills skip the layers of unacceptable imposed religions, including those of Islam's buildings will be stripped away in a calamitous earthquake due to a mere slip of the Jordan Rift plates.

As the Wakf under Arafat's instructions, attempts to erase all representations of Solomon's Temple and the Jewish Presence so shall all foreign contamination be eliminated as all fall into the pit dug by the Arabs in the name of their pagan moon god whom Mohammed called Allah.


1. Encyclopedia Judaica Volume 15 pp.943-6



The Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2002


By Berel Wein

(March 14) One of the slogans that gained favor in some Jewish circles in the 1970s and 1980s was "Never Again!" The import of the slogan was that Jews would never again allow themselves to be slaughtered indiscriminately by those who hate them. It was not only the scope of the Holocaust that would never again be repeated, but the idea behind that atrocity - that Jews should be killed merely for being Jewish - would also never again be tolerated.

Well, the slogan has been proven wrong and even empty. Jews are being killed merely because they are Jews. They are being killed in cafes and banquet halls, outside synagogues and in the study halls of yeshivot, walking on the streets and driving their automobiles. The Jews who are being killed are old and young, Zionists and anti-Zionists, Left and Right, haredi and secular, militants and peaceniks.

They are being killed wherever they can be found - in Gaza and the West Bank, Hadera and Netanya, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. They are being killed in locations and neighborhoods that were Jewish-owned and populated before Arizona and New Mexico were admitted to the United States.

And, as was the case 65 years ago, much of the "civilized" world in effect condones these killings by its inaction, its biased positions on the dispute, its public stance in support of the killers and its pathetic sense of relative morality and hypocritical evenhandedness.

There is no nationalistic cause that justifies rolling hand grenades into a hotel lobby or bombing people standing outside a cafe. It is only killing for killing's sake, hatred for hatred's sake that defines such behavior; except that in the minds of the killers and those who create, protect and send these fanatics to their deaths, all of this is justified by the fact that they are killing Jews. No Jew is ever an innocent victim in their eyes.

In his infamous speech to the SS in the midst of the Holocaust, Himmler praised them for remaining strong and true even though they had to suffer the trauma of killing babies and old people every day. Well, that is pretty much the same speech that we hear from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all the other fronts for Yasser Arafat's murderers. Himmler was also embarked on a jihad. And the world then condoned that jihad, just as much of it supports the current one.

Well, rabbi, you will say, isn't it true that Israel is killing Palestinians on a daily basis? Why doesn't Israel just retreat into its original Auschwitz borders (Abba Eban's felicitous phrase) of pre-1967 and then the killing will end?

Yes, Palestinian Arabs are dying every day. But they are dying not because they are Arabs or Palestinians. They are dying because they are shooting at Jews, planting bombs, sending out suicide terrorists, or being in the unfortunate situation of having terrorists use them as shields and havens. They are dying because not one of their leaders has had the courage to condemn their terror. Even in Nazi Germany there were those who spoke out against the killings.

We are faced with a wall of Arab silence, broken only by warmed-over peace plans that if adopted in their present publicized form, can only result in the destruction of the State of Israel.

The tragedy is that the killing can be stopped. If Arafat can and will impose a true cease-fire, then perhaps even positive progress toward a mutual arrangement of prosperity and accomodation may result. But as long as the thrust of Arafat's policy is that indiscriminate killing of Jews will gain him more than any negotiated arrangement, that the way to the Palestinian future is through jihad, then more of his people are also destined to die because of his cruel cynicism.

And if Arafat continues to prove untrustworthy, then to whom should Israel turn to negotiate borders, settlements, commerce and normal relations? To whom, indeed? The entire idea of any peace arrangement here is hinged on a satisfactory answer to that question.

Above all else, Israel needs a leadership which will tell us the truth - that somehow "Never Again!" was wishful thinking. We now need inspiration and comfort, not slogans and rallies. We need Churchills and not Chamberlains, Isaiahs and not false prophets of doom on the one hand or makers of pie-in-the-sky promises on the other.

The Jewish people have within it a strength that has withstood every historical trauma heaped upon it. It is strong in this hour of crisis and sadness as well.

In the time of the Holocaust, much of Jewish leadership was silent or ineffective. They did not want to rock the boat, to say things that were impolitic or challenging.

Well, at least that part of "Never Again!" should be resurrected and implemented. We should speak up and speak out, to state our right to live in Israel without being terrorized and murdered. And if force is the only way that this can be achieved, then force it will be. We really don't want it to be this way, but...



Editor's Note: If you are considering the Saudi "peace" plan, please read article below.


The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

In an article published by the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, columnist Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam, wrote on "The Jewish Holiday of Purim." Following are excerpts of the article:

Special Ingredient For Jewish Holidays is Human Blood From Non-Jewish Youth.

"I chose to [speak] about the Jewish holiday of Purim, because it is connected to the month of March. This holiday has some dangerous customs that will, no doubt, horrify you, and I apologize if any reader is harmed because of this."

"During this holiday, the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare - it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets."

"Unfortunately, this filling cannot be left out, or substituted with any alternative serving the same purpose. For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!!"

"Before I go into the details, I would like to clarify that the Jews' spilling human blood to prepare pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various times."

"This holiday [Purim] begins with a fast, on March 13, like the Jewess Esther who vowed to fast. The holiday continues on March 14; during the holiday, the Jews wear carnival-style masks and costumes and overindulge in drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery. This holiday has become known among Muslim historians as the "Holiday of Masks."

How the Jews Drain the Blood From Their Young Victims

"Who was Esther, and why the Jews sanctify her and act as she did, I will clarify in my article next Tuesday,[1] Allah willing. Today, I would like to tell you how human blood is spilled so it can be used for their holiday pastries. The blood is spilled in a special way. How is it done?"

"For this holiday, the victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew - that is, a Christian or a Muslim. His blood is taken and dried into granules. The cleric blends these granules into the pastry dough; they can also be saved for the next holiday. In contrast, for the Passover slaughtering, about which I intend to write one of these days, the blood of Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and the cleric can mix the blood [into the dough] before or after dehydration."

The Actions of the Jewish Vampires Cause Them Pleasure

"Let us now examine how the victims' blood is spilled. For this, a needle-studded barrel is used; this is a kind of barrel, about the size of the human body, with extremely sharp needles set in it on all sides. [These needles] pierce the victim's body, from the moment he is placed in the barrel."

"These needles do the job, and the victim's blood drips from him very slowly. Thus, the victim suffers dreadful torment - torment that affords the Jewish vampires great delight as they carefully monitor every detail of the blood-shedding with pleasure and love that are difficult to comprehend."

"After this barbaric display, the Jews take the spilled blood, in the bottle set in the bottom [of the needle-studded barrel], and the Jewish cleric makes his coreligionists completely happy on their holiday when he serves them the pastries in which human blood is mixed."

"There is another way to spill the blood: The victim can be slaughtered as a sheep is slaughtered, and his blood collected in a container. Or, the victim's veins can be slit in several places, letting his blood drain from his body."

"This blood is very carefully collected - as I have already noted - by the 'rabbi,' the Jewish cleric, the chef who specializes in preparing these kinds of pastries."

"The human race refuses even to look at the Jewish pastries, let alone prepare them or consume them!"[2]

[1] In the second part of the article (March 12), the columnist tells the story of the Book of Esther and concludes, "Since then, the Old Testament, the Jewish holy book, requires the Jews to glorify this holiday and show their joy. This joy can only be complete with the consumption of pastries mixed with human blood."

[2] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), March 10, 2002.


The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077



Makor Rishon, March 15, Ynet, March 10, 2002.


By Yoram Ettinger

A LETHAL COMBINATION OF WEAKNESS OF THE SPINE AND WEAKNESS OF THE MIND, has produced the unprecedented deadly delusion of the Oslo and Wye Accords, Camp David-2 and the Mitchell and the Tenet Plans. It has nurtured an unprecedented Palestinian hope, inspiring the bloodiest ever wave of Palestinian terrorism. The "Separation Fence/Buffer Zone" concepts constitute another expression of the fatal Israeli delusion.

A PROPER DUE-DILIGENCE OF THE 8.5 YEARS SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE OSLO ACCORDS (1993) AND THE 34 YEARS SINCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLO (1964), has confirmed that the PLO is indeed a mortal enemy, rather than a partner to negotiation. It has also reaffirmed the fact that Palestinian terrorism cannot be resolved through political means. PLO/PA-LED TERRORISM CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY THROUGH A PROACTIVE (rather than reactive), OFFENSIVE (rather than defensive), SYSTEMIC (rather than surgical and local), SWIFT (rather than protracted) MILITARY INITIATIVE CONDUCTED AT THE TERRORISTS' HOME BASE (rather than at the victims' arena), AIMING AT THE OBLITERATION OF (rather than negotiation with) THE ENEMY. Such a military initiative should restore Israel's long-term posture of deterrence, while ANNIHILATING THE OPERATIONAL, LOGISTIC, POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL and MEDIA INFRASTRUCTURE of PLO/PA-led Palestinian terrorism.

THE AIM SHOULD NOT BE A CEASE-FIRE, BUT RATHER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH FEEDS THE FIRE (OF TERROR), including Arafat, his lieutenants and the 60,000 Palestinian terrorists imported - since 1993 - from Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia. Such a strategy has guided the U.S. War On Terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama and Grenada, and Turkey's and Egypt's battle against Kurdish and Muslim terrorism. It also characterized counter-terrorist measures by Peru, Germany and Italy, in face of Shining Path, Baader Meinhoff and Red Brigade terrorists.

On the other hand, THE CONCEPTS OF "SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE" ARE BASED ON SURGICAL AND LOCAL RETALIATION, DEFENSIVE RESTRAINT AND A GRADUAL DRIFT TO A PROLONGED WAR OF ATTRITION - the fantasy of terrorists and the nightmare of democracies. These concepts constitute an erroneous tactical step, supplying the public with a short-term false sense of security. They intend to bypass the inevitable need to undertake a difficult and a resolute strategic decision, which would bolster long-term national and personal security. A unilateral scheme of "separation fence/buffer zone" adopted under fire - just like withdrawal under fire (e.g. from Lebanon) - reflects WEAKNESS, IMPATIENCE, DESPAIR AND SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS. The mere public debate over separation/buffer zone accelerates the erosion of Israel's posture of deterrence. It is perceived as a form of an Israeli retreat and a Palestinian achievement, fueling Palestinian radicalism and terrorism. A "separation fence/buffer zone" would re-entrench, rather than eradicate, Palestinian terrorism. It would undermine the maneuverability of the IDF, in pursuit of terrorists, and would sustain - rather than eliminate - the terrorist sword over the head of Israeli towns on both sides of the fence/buffer zone, encouraging their inhabitants to emigrate to Israel's coastal plain.

The system of "separation fence/buffer zone" consists of a number of human and technological elements. ITS EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON THE GEOGRAPHIC DEPTH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE/BUFFER ZONE. The deeper the zone, the higher its effectiveness. For instance, in order to safeguard the personal security of U.S. GIs in Bosnia, the U.S. Army requires a 25km radius Killing Zone (off limit to local folks). National security requires a deeper zone. However, the 2,200sqm of Judea&Samaria barely provide for a 25km radius Killing Zone, and the Israeli psyche certainly does not tolerate the killing of thousands of Palestinians crossing the Killing Zone in order to seek employment in Israel. The more dense is the population along the fence/buffer zone, the less effective is the entire system.

THE REALITY IN THE GAZA STRIP ATTESTS TO THE FAILURE OF THE "SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE CONCEPT". Thus, terror fatalities in Israel have reached an all time high since - and as a result of - the 1993 unilateral separation from Gaza, which has been surrounded by a fence and a series of buffer zones. An advanced fence was erected in 1999, in Gaza, between the Palestinian town of Khan Yunes and the Israeli towns of Gush Katif. However, THE ABSENCE OF A SIGNIFICANT GEOGRAPHIC DEPTH, THE HIGHLY DENSE PALESTINIAN POPULATION, AND THE INABILITY OF THE IDF TO MAN EACH SEGMENT OF THE FENCE, have caused the dismantling, theft and eventual breakdown of the sophisticated system. The 2001 fatalities at the Marganit Outpost serve as a reminder of the pitfalls of the concept. Moreover, in January 2002 Palestinian terrorists caused a false alarm at the Gaza fence (next to the Kissufim check-point), killing a tracker who arrived to the site. A simultaneous operation by scores of terrorists, alarming the IDF at dozens of sites, could cause major losses and the collapse of the system. Palestinian terrorists broke through the fence near the Jewish town of Eleigh-Sinai in Gaza, taking advantage of the slim geographic depth, reaching homes of potential Jewish hostages well before the arrival of the alarmed IDF patrol.

THE CRITICAL FLAWS OF THE "SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE" CONCEPTS WOULD BE MORE STRIKING IN JUDEA&SAMARIA, AND IN JERUSALEM, THAN IN GAZA. A fence/buffer zone in Judea&Samaria would be much longer, the topography is significantly more complex (with major advantages to the higher J&S over the lower coastal plain) and the demography extremely dense. The IDF lacks the manpower to man every spot of the fence, which would also be vulnerable to vandalism by Israeli Arabs.

AS EVIDENCES BY THE LAST FEW YEARS, "SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONES" CANNOT PROTECT THE INHABITANTS OF THE GILO NEIGHBORHOOD, IN JERUSALEM - AND OF OTHER SITES IN JERUSALEM AND ALONG THE GREEN LINE - AGAINST MACHINE GUNS, MORTARS OR MISSILES. On the other hand, the implementation of such a concept could become a precedent for the arrival of foreign observers/forces, as desired by the PLO, which would further constraint the ability of the IDF to hot-pursuit and preempt terrorists. It could also become a precedent for the separation of Jews from Arabs in the Galilee, Wadi Ara', the Negev, and even in Jerusalem. Such a concept could cause the pouring of the Baby (security) with the Dirty Water (demography). It would erect a gigantic White Elephant, the cost of which could finance a much more productive instrument: a substantial expansion of Israel's combat units and Security Services.

THE UNILATERAL SEPARATION FROM LEBANON HAS UPGRADED HIZBALLAH FROM A TACTICAL, TO STRATEGIC, THREAT. IT HAS ADRENALIZED THE VEINS OF PALESTINIAN TERROR, at a devastating cost of human life. The application of such a concept to Judea&Samaria could be fatal - humanly and financially - due to the proximity to Israel's major population centers, the scarcity of geographic depth, the inferior topography of the coastal plain and the dense Palestinian population along the 1967 Lines. THE SOLUTION TO TERRORISM IS NOT THE ERECTION OF A "SEPARATION FENCE/BUFFER ZONE," BUT RATHER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH FEEDS TERRORISM.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments