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 11       B"H APRIL 2003       NUMBER 4

April 2003


PUT ARAFAT ON TRIAL LIKE EICHMANN...Guest Editorial....Ariel Natan Pasko

ORDERED TO DIE QUIETLY....Emanuel A. Winston
A MATTER OF COURAGE....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
APPEACEMENT....David Wilder



FRIENDS OF THE CIA - The Palestinian Militias....Jim Hoagland




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 © 2003 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)





By Bernard J. Shapiro

As talks in Washington seem to be reaching a conclusion, I wish to remind our readers of what the Freeman Center position on such talks is. There is no possible successful negotiation with Arafat or any PA leaders. There are many security based reasons for this position and we have discussed those extensively in the past.

Now we feel it necessary to state our position in the area beyond security and into the spiritual realm. Should Arafat become as peaceful as a choir boy or as honest as a boy scout for a period of 1000 years, we would still not give him even one grain of sand of Eretz Yisrael.

We further believe that any Israeli government, whether Likud or Labor, are custodians of the Land of Israel, to be held in perpetuity as an inheritance for the Jewish people. We agree with DAVID BEN GURION, founding father and first Prime Minister of Israel, who said this about territorial concessions:

"No Jew has the right to relinguish the right of the Jewish people over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish people has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time." (Zionist Congress, Zurich, 1937)

It is the height of arrogance, indeed it is a rebellion against the Almighty, that the Israeli government negotiates the abandonment of Eretz Yisrael. The consequences will be more dreadful than can be imagined. Some important Jewish voices that agree with the Freeman Center:


Below is the letter from the Jewish leader Simon, the only survivor of the five Maccabee brothers to the Seleucid king Antiochus, whom they had just defeated. Antiochus demanded the return of the 'occupied territories' -- that is territories the Maccabees liberated during their recent war.

Simon writes: "We have neither taken foreign land nor seized foreign property, but only the inheritance of our fathers, which at one time had been unjustly taken by our enemies. Now that we have the opportunity, we are firmly holding the inheritance of our fathers."

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party (and BEFORE becoming Prime Minister of Israel) in his book A PLACE AMONG THE NATIONS writes the following when told that Judea and Samaria are foreign "occupied" lands:

"This land, where every swing of a spade unearths remnants of the Jewish past and where every village carries the barely altered Hebrew names of old; this land, in which the Jews became a nation and over which they shed more tears than have been shed by any other people in history; this land, the loss of which resulted in an exile of the Jews such as has been suffered by no other people and the spilling of a sea of blood such as has been spilled by no other nation; this land, which never ceased to live as a distant but tangible home in the minds of Jewish children from Toledo in medieval Spain to the Warsaw ghetto in our own century; this land, for which the Jews fought with unsurpassed courage and tenacity in ancient as in modern times -- this is the "foreign land" that world leaders now demand be barred to Jews and that Israel (should) unilaterally forsake. The answer to such absurd demands must be a resounding NO!"


You have seen many articles in THE MACCABEAN ONLINE which describe in excruciating detail the apocalyptic security dangers that this Road Map to destruction brings to Israel. I must report that there is only a brief window left to save Israel. We are definitely in the END GAME. The time may be less than one to four years. Our actions will have a profound affect on Jewish history for all time. Israelis never rose en masse to protest Oslo and after the assassination of Rabin the fear of leftist persecution had a chilling effect on mass demonstrations.


If Israel is to be saved then two things must happen: (1) the Land for Israel Knesset members must increase their numbers and prevent Sharon from negotiating on the Road Map and accepting even the concept of a Palestinian state. (2) large and credible numbers of Israelis must take to the streets and demand an end to the Road Map Process. These two groups (1 + 2) will re-enforce each other and with good hasbara (information) it is possible to achieve victory for Israel. The Freeman Center will be there with hasbara, but Israelis must make their voices heard in a resounding way.




By Avi Davis

The Ardennes Forest in Belgium is one of those impenetrable corners of Europe where one would least expect a battle to take place. Intense folding, faulting, uplifts and periodic denudations have ruptured the landscape, making it almost impossible for modern vehicles to negotiate Yet it was in this 10,000 square mile region covering the south west corner of Belgium that Nazi Germany's fate was finally sealed. The Battle of the Bulge, fought largely by American troops against the panzer units of General Gerd von Rundsedt, was not only the largest tank battle in history but also Nazi Germany's last gasp. It finally liberated both France and Belgium. Today the bodies of thousands of American troops who died in that battle fill graveyards in southern Belgium and Northern France.

The same landscape was of course the scene of intense combat in the First World War where hundreds of thousands of men died in trench warfare, in order to defend France and Belgium against German aggression. One of Britain's most famous World War One recruiting posters shows a silhouetted German hussar overpowering a Belgian woman. Its title: "Remember Belgium."

That a small country like Belgium could have played such a pivotal role in world history over the past century, should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with European geography. Belgium stands as a wedge between France and Germany, the two nations responsible for 80% of European wars over the past 300 years. Conquest and control of the low countries, of which Belgium was the most southern, became vital in modern times to any victory between the two belligerents.

So much blood has been spilled defending Belgian soil by outsiders that it is reasonable to expect that the Belgians would be quiescent when those same outsiders find a need to defend their soil against actual or potential aggression. But Belgian resistance to U.S and British attempts to coerce Iraqi disarmament has not been quiescent. On the contrary, Belgian objections to a military assault against Iraq, a country that poses a grave danger to U.S interests, has been startlingly vocal. Led by its rabidly anti-U.S foreign minister Louis Michel, Belgium has played a significant role in defying U.S backed resolutions at the United Nations; Belgium refused to sanction a meeting of Iraqi opposition leaders when it was scheduled for Brussels this month; and two weeks ago, the Belgian government threatened to veto a U.S. request that NATO provide military materiel for Turkey. Michel, perhaps reflecting the views of a majority of his countrymen, has openly labeled the U.S projected assault as, "the vanguard of unrestrained colonialism."

Belgium has only added to its reputation for collective amnesia when, earlier this month, its Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling by proclaiming Ariel Sharon eligible to face prosecution for his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacres in Lebanon. Little consideration seems to have been given to the fact that no Israeli soldier was ever alleged to have played a direct role in the atrocities - a blood letting carried out exclusively by the Christian Phalange. Nor did the Court take into account that the surviving leaders of the massacre have not been indicted anywhere in the world and still live in freedom in northern Lebanon.

Belgium certainly knows whereof it speaks when it fulminates about colonialism and atrocities. The Congo Free State (1885- 1908) was the great Belgian contribution to Europe's rape of Africa and became the model for all other countries seeking to dispossess native populations of their resources. Under the predatory machinations of their king, Leopold the Second, Belgian overlords systematically enslaved, murdered, raped and mutilated millions of Congolese natives while press-ganging them into work on vast rubber plantations. Belgium's enormous pre -war wealth was built on the backs of these millions of men, women and children. Thousands who refused to participate -including children as young as five, had their hands or feet severed in retaliation. During Leopold's perverse reign, Congo's population was slashed by ten million. It should be no surprise, then, that Joseph Conrad based his ground breaking masterpiece, Heart of Darkness, on scenes he had witnessed in the Belgian Congo.

Leopold was later lionized in Belgian history books as a great humanitarian and until relatively recently the complete history of Belgium's colonial rampages in Africa had not been exposed. Even today, Belgians are loath to address Leopold's legacy. No memorial or museum recounts the horror of those years. No government legislation has been proposed to compensate Congo for nearly a quarter of a century of extortion and murder.

So much for Belgian self-righteousness. Isn't it time for those countries committed to setting obstacles for the war on terror and its goal of preventing future atrocities, to engage in a little introspection? Surely one does not have to be only either American or Israeli to appreciate the very real threats humanity faces from rapacious, unimpeded rulers. For the Belgians, at least, those dangers should be prodding a bitter memory, buried deep in that population's collective subconscious.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for the online magazine




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Recently, Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that Yasser Arafat should be treated like Saddam Hussein. Speaking in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said the guiding principle of both Israel, in its war against Palestinian terror, and the United States in its campaign against Iraq, is "no tolerance for terror and no tolerance for regimes that spawn terror."

Netanyahu stated, "I think what applies in Iraq should apply here as well. What applies in Iraq, that a brutal terrorist should be removed and democratization should be introduced, should be applied in the Palestinian dictatorship as well." Netanyahu said that in order to begin a process of democratization in regimes that foster terrorism, as was done in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; the existing terror-supporting regimes must be totally defeated and tossed out. It does no good he said to replace one dictator with another.

But in response to Netanyahu's earlier call for Arafat's expulsion in November 2002, Arafat retorted, "No one has the right to deport me from my homeland." I take issue with the last two words, 'my homeland'. As I recall, his 'official biography' ( states he was born in Cairo, so he's an Egyptian like his father, not a 'Palestinian'. But, on the first part of his statement I couldn't agree with him more.

I ask you, what's all the debate in Israel about expelling or not expelling Arafat? Have we all gone mad? How will expelling him solve the problem (him)?

As I recall, Arafat was in exile till 1993, where he was able to lead a terrorist organization and plan attacks on Jews, Israelis, and others, around the world and in Israel. Don't forget, he managed to ally himself with Syria and its occupation of Lebanon (which continues), creating a 'PLO state' with-in a state, brutalizing Lebanese along the way. He also allied himself with Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War of 1991. Oh yes, he also managed to hobnob with the rich, famous, and powerful, lobbying for a Palestinian State in his spare time. Can someone tell me what expelling Arafat will accomplish other than turning him into a victim again? A roll he plays so well.

The debate shouldn't be about expelling or not expelling Arafat, either way we're still stuck with his leadership of the Palestinians. Do you really think they're going to pick a new leader? And who would that be, Arafat's second-in-command Mohammed Abbas? He is Holocaust denier and lifetime terrorist. The real debate that has yet to begin in earnest, in Israel, is over trying Yasser Arafat for crimes against humanity, i.e. the Jewish People, Lebanese, Americans, and others.

The only decent question for decent people to debate, is whether he should receive life in prison, or the death penalty?

I believe an Eichmann-like War Crimes Trial in Israel, would educate a generation of Israelis and others world-wide who might still think of Arafat as a 'peacenik' (he won the Nobel Peace Prize didn't he?), about his murderous criminal activities. It would teach the world how to deal lawfully with terrorism and how not to appease it. Some might say that Arafat, as head of state is immune to prosecution. Well, guess what? He's not the head of any state yet!

Let's say for the sake of argument, that since 1993 as head of the Palestinian Authority Arafat's wanted peace with Israel, and he just hasn't been able to stop those nasty Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Tanzim, and Al-Aksa Brigade terrorists (as head of Fatah, he's officially the leader of the last two groups). Do you really believe that? Well, if so, why should Israel negotiate with him? Either he's in charge, in which case he is culpable for their crimes, or he's not in charge in which case Israel should start discussing who is and talk to them. But if he's not responsible for all those bombings and killings since returning in 1993, on what could Israel try him?

How about for starters, trying him for his involvement in the murder of Americans. For example, Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, the two US diplomats killed in Khartoum, Sudan in 1973. He's already admitted publicly to it years ago. And throwing wheel chair bound Leon Klinghoffer off the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro, at high sea, in 1985. Arafat's henchmen killed them and many more over the years. The world might not care much about Israelis and Jews killed around the world from the 1960's till 1993 (when his immunity began), but Americans care about the murder of their citizens overseas. And, don't forget the PLO's murderous activities in Lebanon. Arafat should be tried for the massacres in Damour, Beit Mullat and elsewhere also (see Mordechai Nissan's "The Palestinian Strategy for Destroying Lebanon and Israel" at Lebanese also want to see justice done.

Let me tell you, Israel should care about those Jews and Israelis killed even if others't, and try him for those crimes as well. Bringing their murderers leader to justice would teach the world a moral lesson for years to come.

In most democracies, there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder, or accomplice to murder. Not long ago, a Connecticut court found the nephew of the late Ethel Kennedy's widow guilty of a murder he committed in 1975 at the age of 15, and gave him 20 years to life, in prison. Connections to the Kennedy family didn't seem to help him escape justice. Why should Arafat, a serial murderer of the worst kind, be allowed to escape justice, just because he,s become a respectable politician?

Many of you may now raise the issue of world outcry. Well, Israel seemed to deal with it during the Eichmann trial in 1961 and the Demaniuk trial during the 1980's (for their Nazi past), and the cries of massacre at Jenin. One lesson to learn is no matter how much the world condemns Israel; in 2 weeks there are new headlines. Israel only needs the political strength to stand up for itself. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and others, showed a glimmer of that during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, by resisting the UN desire to investigate the 'Jenin Massacre'. Which turned out to be nothing but PLO propaganda, again.

Besides, fighting terrorism is in, and a strong Israel leading the way, would return its image that others looked up to in the past. We don't compromise with terrorists, was a phrase that previously earned Israel respect in many quarters. It also set an example that others followed. Israel in the full light of day, through a legitimate judicial process, could try and when found guilty, execute a mass murderer of innocent men, women, children, and babies.

Although I don't feel the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), and Gaza. There is an interesting point to think about for those who prefer expelling Arafat. While Part 3, Section 3, Article 49 forbids individual or mass transfers from occupied territories (and is likely to raise many cries worldwide that we are violating International Law). Articles 64, 66, 67, and 68 (of Section 3), allow the Occupying Power to bring to trial and impose the death penalty on a person guilty of espionage, serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons. Israel would be on firmer legal ground trying Arafat (and any others), than expelling him.

Which leads to the last issue many might bring up. What's after Arafat? Won't Hamas or who knows what take over? Well friends, with over 700 killed and 1,000's injured since Arafat started the 'Oslo War' in September 2001, tell me how it could get worse. Either Arafat is in charge and encouraging the terror, or he's in charge but not doing anything to stop the murder, or he's not really in charge and can't control the terrorist groups. Either way he's politically irrelevant, as the Israeli government has declared. Israel just needs to follow through with the next logical step. Try and execute him! As I said earlier, educationally, he,s a great opportunity waiting for us to take.

What many need to begin to understand is that behind Arafat, the PA and its leaders are Sheikh Yassin, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida and Hizbollah operatives, and others. Maybe Israel should start thinking of negotiating with Sheikh Yassin already. Or, maybe it has other ways to deal with them also.

You see Netanyahu only got it partially right. When referring to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Netanyahu (and those in America who have called for Saddam Hussein's expulsion) forget that those wartime leaders weren't 'exiled'; they were tried for war crimes. Many were hung!

At a recent Arab League meeting, the United Arab Emirates' President called on Saddam to leave Iraq in exchange for 'immunity' from prosecution. Why should Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein, with personal fortunes estimated by Forbes, at $300 million and $2 billion respectively, be sent into 'exile', immune from prosecution? They should be brought to justice for their crimes. And so should other dictators in the region, such as Bashar Assad of Syria.

Recently, victims of Arafat's terror have filed claims against him and the Palestinian Authority, with courts in Belgium, in Paris, and in Tel Aviv. But why should it be up to individuals to chase after him? Why doesn't the Israeli government itself take the lead?

The real debate over what to do with Yasser Arafat hasn't yet begun in Israel. The only decent question for decent people to debate is, whether he should receive life in prison, or the death penalty? If there's a referendum, you know my vote.


Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:



[Editor's Note: Israel is NOT Czechoslovakia. It is time for Israel's government and especially Sharon to make this CLEAR to those who seek to sacrifice Israel on the alter of pleasing Arab/Muslim bloodlust.]


By Barry Schweid

(c) The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House said Monday its road map for setting up a Palestinian state by the end of 2005 is not negotiable and that Israel must "play its part" to pave the way.

In a speech to a pro-Israel lobby group, Condoleezza Rice, who is President Bush's national security adviser, also called on all Arab governments to recognize Israel's right to exist and said democratic reforms within the Palestinian Authority were "extremely important."

The road map, prepared jointly with the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, is designed to reopen negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians once Mahmoud Abbas is confirmed as the Palestinian prime minister.

Rice's call for a quick start - one that would prevent attempts by either side to revise the terms of the so-called road map - follows complaints by European and Arab governments that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would try to arrange more favorable terms.

They registered their objections after President Bush had said "we will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document."

But first Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Rice, in responding to questions at the 44th annual policy meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, tried to discourage delay.

Rice, who had asked that her remarks to thousands of members of the pro-Israel lobby be off-the-record to the news media, said of Israel and the Palestinians: "We expect their comments; it is not a matter of renegotiation. It can be commented on by the parties."

Bush envisions two states, democratic Israel and democratic Palestine, living side by side in peace.

On the war with Iraq, Bush's assistant said the most effective way to deal with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was to try to eliminate them before they could be used.

On the war itself, she said "we are confident of the outcome."

And on Iran, which Bush has included with Iraq and North Korea in an "axis of evil," Rice said the International Atomic Energy Agency "needs to do a more thorough investigation" of its nuclear weapons program.

On Sunday, Powell said Iran must stop its drive for weapons of mass destruction and Syria must end its support for terrorism.

In a strongly worded speech to the pro-Israel lobby, Powell bracketed Iran and Syria with Iraq as promoters of terrorism and suggested they faced grave consequences.

His tough words matched those last week of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and served to signal unity within the Bush administration on the anti-terror front.

Both Iran and Syria have shown no inclination to bend to the Bush administration's growing rhetorical campaign against them.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said Sunday that "Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq."

Rumsfeld on Friday accused Syria of supplying military technology to Iraq, a charge Syria denied. He also said the United States would hold Iran responsible for the entrance of Iran-sponsored forces into Iraq.

Carrying the threat a step forward, Powell on Sunday demanded that Iran "stop its support for terrorism against Israel" and said Tehran also "must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

Turning to the regime in Damascus, Powell said "Syria now faces a critical choice" of whether to "continue its direct support for terrorism in the dying days" of President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

"Syria bears responsibility for its choices and consequences," Powell said sternly at the 44th annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

And Powell said, to wide applause from the heavily Jewish audience, "we will keep his weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East."

Stepping into a growing debate, Powell, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, endorsed the Bush administration's current war plan, which has encountered some criticism as the drive against Saddam has slowed.

"I have total confidence in the plan and total confidence in General (Tommy) Franks and those carrying out the plan," he said.

Powell renewed the Bush administration's support for establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2005, and said the drive would be stepped up once Mahmoud Abbas was confirmed as prime minister.

The longtime lieutenant of Yasser Arafat has at times spoken in support of all measures against Israel and at other times appeared critical of attacks on civilians.

On Sunday, Powell urged Israel to make peace with the Palestinian Authority, saying "Israel's security requires peace with its neighbors." He also renewed President Bush's call for a halt to Jewish home-building on the West Bank and Gaza, which drew a mixed response of mild applause and a few boos.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom followed Powell's speech with his own condemnation of Iran as a sponsor of terrorism. He said Iran was behind the bloody attacks in 1992 on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and in 1994 on a Jewish center in capital of Argentina.

"We will work closely with the United States to oppose terror," the minister said.

On the conflict with the Palestinians, Shalom was cautious. "We need a true Palestinian partner, one who will stop the violence once and for all," he said.




by Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

President George W. Bush, through Secretary of State Colin Powell has given notice to Israel that, should Saddam attack Israel and should Israel respond, Israel would forfeit all international support. (1)

The United States on balance has given Israel the privilege of receiving, in real time, whatever electronic intelligence which the U.S. is generating. The report did not say what Israel was supposed to do or allowed to do if Saddam's attack was non-conventional, such as NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical)?

I would presume that Bush and Powell would expect to be notified if Israelis were to suddenly die 'en masse' as did the Iranians or the Iraqi Kurds in an Iraqi town of 45,000 Halabja, August 1988. As I recall, Saddam used a mix of Mustard Gas and a potent cocktail of nerve gases, including Tabun, Sarin and Soman. Half of the victims died in choking, blistering agony while those hit with Sarin died as if peacefully asleep. Some may recall the photos of Saddam's work in one photo news magazine. There are 160 web site references in Google.

The people of Halabja who survived are now suffering from tumors and cancers of all kinds, mutations in birth, eye damage, respiratory and neurological malfunctions. Children die in a few years from Leukemia and Lymphomas. Miscarriages are common. Well, you get the idea. And yet, despite all this prima facie evidence, Israel is not to attack pre-emptively and not even after she has been struck.

Bush and Powell mentioned that Israel would "forfeit" international support. I was wondering what "International Support" they were referring to. Hopefully, the President did not mean America would remove her support, if Israel fought back should it be struck with WMD (Weapons of Mass Death). Israel has always been grateful for the generous support America has given her throughout the years and tried to repay that generosity with good intelligence and loyalty.

As for the "International Community", they are not even supporting America in her fight against Global Terrorism and Terrorist nations. If Bush and Powell were referring to the "Quartet", namely, the United Nations, European Union (especially France and Germany), Russia and the U.S. State Department - well, Israel does not have to do anything to forfeit their support - since it was never there.

In the last Gulf War, Desert Storm 1991, Israel was promised that American, British and French aircraft would make taking out the Iraqi SCUD launchers a "top priority" IF Israel did not attack Iraq and upset the Arab coalition members. Not one launcher was actually destroyed, according to the U.S. Government Accounting Office report years later.

As a relevant aside, those mobile SCUD launchers were manufactured by Matrix-Churchill, an English company, later purchased by Saddam's front companies where Matrix also acted as a procurer for other weapons like cluster bomblets. Germany and France have been excellent suppliers of embargoed weapons and other substances used for NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons) to Saddam.

In any case, after the 1991 Gulf War, the GAO published its findings about President George Herbert Walker Bush, then Sec. of State James Baker and then Chief of Staff Colin Powell regarding their pledge to attack the SCUD missile launchers. The fact surfaced that, apparently, the order was never given - but, even if it was - it was not obeyed.

Israel was hit by 39 SCUDs and if any had contained Biological or Chemical Warheads, the casualties would have been in the tens of thousands and worse than those in Halabja. By G-d's miracle only one man was killed by a SCUD although the property damage was extensive. The Patriots of that day hit the motors of the incoming SCUDS and their shrapnel and explosives hit the residential areas. Israeli pilots who are trained to fly at deck level could have found and hit those SCUDs and maybe could have saved the 28 American soldiers who were killed when their barracks in Saudi Arabia was hit by a Saddam SCUD.

Israel received many promises for additional aid and protection if they stayed out of wars in which they became targets. PM Yitzhak Shamir kept his side of the bargain and didn't send Israeli aircraft ready which were warmed up on the runways to hit Iraq's mobile SCUD launchers. But, when he later asked Bush, Baker and Powell for the promised loan guarantees for war damages and absorption of one million incoming Soviet Jews, all the Administration's promises evaporated until Israel accommodated the State Department for Yassir Arafat.

Later, after they drove PM Shamir out of office by interfering with the Israeli elections, they replaced him with a more accommodating Yitzhak Rabin with Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin on their way to creating the failed Oslo experiment. Only then were the loan guarantees granted.

Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon has kept his promise of restraint but, he only received delays when he asked President George Bush, Jr. for the promised loan guarantees, funds to offset damages from the 29 months of Arab Palestinian Terror attacks and defensive preparations for the possible and probable attack by a megalomaniac Saddam Hussein in his last throes of dictatorship with WMD (Weapons of Mass Death) at his disposal.

So, dear Jews of Israel, you have been ordered not to make a fuss and to die quietly. You remember how to do that - just like you did when you waited for the "International Community" to come to your rescue 60 years ago. No bombing of the death camps, the crematoria, the rail-lines to the death camps. The Conferences of the "International Community" in Bermuda and Evian where the leading nations among the Allies decided it would be better NOT to rescue, feed or clothe Jewish victims until after Germany was defeated.

Yes, indeed, we Jews had better be more careful this time - lest we irritate the "International Community". We must be very careful NOT to defend ourselves and our country just in case we "forfeit" their support.

So, how about it President Bush? Play fair with the Israelis because now you know you cannot buy the loyalty or affection of the U.N., E.U., France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, or Arafat's Arab Palestinians - no matter how much you push Israel to the wall.

Remember only the British and the Israelis stepped up immediately next to the American troops when it counted. Let America treat an ally and a friends with the honor and respect they deserve. They are small but, they have proven their fighting spirit against overwhelming forces and now America faces the same.


1. "U.S. Military Plugs Israel into Real-Time War Monitoring - Unprecedented access to command intelligence aims to keep IDF out of Iraq conflict" by Nathan Guttman HA'ARETZ English Edition March 4, 2003


Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




By Lee Underwood

Editor, Tzemach News Service

The most important thing coming out of Washington in the past few weeks has been the seeming constant proclamations regarding the establishment of a so-called 'Palestinian' state in the midst of Israel. The annunciations are coming from both the U.S. State Department and, especially, the White House. Why, all of a sudden, in the midst of all the talk of a war with Iraq, is the Bush administration is pushing for a so-called 'Palestinian' state in the midst of Israel. The reasons seem to be varied, according to different "sources". At this point it is really anybody's guess. Some believe that it is all a ploy to appease the Arabs and that Bush does not really mean it. Others are saying that Bush has sold-out Israel to the Arabs for Saddam Hussein. With almost strange and eerie foresight, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon addressed the situation on 5 October 2001, a few days after President Bush declared that "the idea of a 'Palestinian' state has always been part of a vision." Sharon compared the U.S.'s actions with those of European democracies in 1938, when the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia was sacrificed to appease Adolf Hitler. At the time, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared that the agreement had achieved "peace in our time"; in 1939, Germany invaded Poland, starting World War II. "Do not try to appease the Arabs on our backs," Sharon said. "We will be unable to accept that. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia, Israel will fight terrorism."

If it really is a ploy, and Bush never means to carry through on the promise (he has made it a "personal commitment"), then the United States is in for some of the worst terrorism to ever come forth. It is one thing for the U.S. to renege on promises of aid to Turkey and other small nations. It is, however, another thing to break a promise made to Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and others that may be involved. The wrath brought on by these nations and the terrorist organizations supported by them will make what happened on 11 September 2001 pale by comparison. It is hard to believe that Bush is that lacking in intelligence.

However, the idea of the U.S. selling-out Israel does not seem that far-fetched, given the history of U.S.-Israel relations. Contrary to popular belief, the relationship between the two countries has been anything other than 'friendly'. Just a few examples include the U.S. arms embargo against Israel in 1948 following the attack by neighboring Arab nations against the newly founded state; the U.S. guarantee to protect against a future Egyptian closing of the Straits of Tiran that was later "lost" when Israel invoked the guarantee in May 1967; the USS Liberty, a U.S. spy ship sent to collect information for the Egyptians regarding the military weaknesses of Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967; the delay of a promised arms shipment by one week during which Israeli casualties exceeded 1,0000 during the Yom Kippur War in 1973; the intervention of the Reagan administration as Israel was preparing to remove the PLO from Lebanon and take care of Yasir Arafat once and for all.

And now, the United States, under the direction of George W. Bush, has decided that Israel must stop building in Yesha (Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) and give up land for the establishment of an Arab terrorist state in its midst. Speaking with reporters following a meeting with bipartisan Congressional leaders 2 October, President Bush affirmed, "The idea of a 'Palestinian' state has always been part of a vision, so long as the right to Israel to exist is respected." With those words, President Bush moved U.S.-Middle East diplomacy into an entirely new arena. (It was reported by the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers that the Bush Administration was poised to launch a new Middle East initiative at the UN General Assembly in September, before the terrorist attack on the U.S.)

Actually, the idea of 'Palestinian' statehood has not always been a part of the United States' vision for Arab-Israeli peace. Indeed, President Reagan specifically rejected statehood in 1982. More generally, the thrust of U.S. diplomacy has been to focus on process rather than preferred outcomes, i.e., how peace should be made rather than what that peace should look like.

The procedure being used at this time is called the "Road Map". The scheme has been devised by the Quartet, comprised of the U.S., European Union, Russian Federation, and United Nations. The original "Road Map" was submitted on 15 October 2002. It basically was derived from the 24 June 2002 speech of U.S. President Bush. It called for a so-called 'Palestinian' state to be established by 2005. The latest version of the Road Map is due when Arafat officially swears-in a Prime Minister for the Palestinian Authority.

If a so-called 'Palestinian' state were to be established in Yesha would it mean the destruction of the state of Israel? The nation of Israel would be reduced to a narrow strip of land varying in width from 9 miles to 22 miles surrounded by their sworn enemies on three sides and the Mediterranean Sea on the other. The odds would not look good for the tiny nation in this situation. But, again, would it mean the end of Israel?

The uniqueness of Israel is that it is the only nation that G-d, the Creator of all things, has chosen as His own. It is the only nation to which G-d gave His Law, the living oracles. It is the only nation which He has declared that He will dwell in the midst of for all eternity. It is also the only nation that He gave to dwell in the midst of the Land of Israel, "And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates" Exodus 23:31. The covenant between the G-d of Israel and the people of Israel regarding the Land of Israel is an eternal one. While G-d may have judged Israel and driven her from the Land 2,500 years ago, there was always a promise that He would regather her back to the Land. (See: Isaiah 10.20-22; 37;12-13; 37.31-32; Jeremiah 16.14-16; 23.3; 29.14; 32.37-38 31.10; Ezekiel 11.16-17; 34.13; Micah 2.12-13; among others.)

G-d declared through the prophet Jeremiah, "Thus says the L-rd, who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; the L-rd of hosts is His name: 'If this fixed order departs from before Me,' declares the L-rd, 'then the offspring of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever.' Thus says the L-rd, 'If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done,' declares the L-rd" Jeremiah 31:35-37.

The nations are deceived in that they look at Israel and measure its strength according to its physical size and outward abilities. However, the memory of the Six-Day War still lingers in the consciousness of all the nations. This may be what the L-rd meant when, speaking through Zechariah, He declared, "In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:6). That is exactly why the United States has tried to make sure that Israel stays out of a war with Saddam Hussein. G-d would grant Israel a mighty - and quick - victory, taking the glory from the U.S. and giving it to the G-d of Israel.

The idea being put forth by world leaders concerning Israel should not surprise those who search the Scriptures for the truth of G-d's word. G-d Himself declared that He would bring the nations against Israel (Ezekiel 38 & 39) in order to judge them for what they have done to His people (Joel 3.1-2;14-16). Micah puts it very concisely, "As in the days when you came out from the land of Egypt, I will show you miracles. Nations will see and be ashamed of all their might. They will put their hand on their mouth, their ears will be deaf. They will lick the dust like a serpent, like reptiles of the earth. They will come trembling out of their fortresses; to the L-rd our G-d they will come in dread, and they will be afraid before Thee" (Micah 7:15-17).

Will there be a so-called 'Palestinian' state in the midst of Israel? I believe it depends on G-d and His judgment of the nations. If so, will it mean the destruction of Israel? Not according to G-d. That is the only word we can trust in. In the meantime, let us rejoice for the Creator of the Universe - the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - is redeeming and will keep His people, Israel.




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

While the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" volunteer to fight alongside their Iraqi kinsmen and Saddam Hussein, President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair repeatedly proclaim their commitment—even their "personal" commitment—to a Palestinian state.

Apparently, it matters not to Bush and Blair that these "Palestinians" are fighting against American and British soldiers. More important than the lives of these soldiers, or so it seems, is the dogma of a Palestinian state. Even if the Palestinians kill American and British soldiers, these Sunni Muslim allies of Saddam Hussein deserve a sovereign and independent state!

In the meantime, the Sharon Government says nothing and does nothing while the PLO-Palestinian Authority sends Fatah terrorists to Iraq to kill American and British soldiers. This mindless coalition government, which includes Avigdor Lieberman's ersatz National Union Party and Effi Eitam's insipid National Religious Party, refrains from exposing the absurdity of a Palestinian state when Palestinians not only cheer Saddam vis-a-vis the Anglo-American forces, but also urge him to bomb Tel Aviv!

What is more, this inane and feckless government persists in negotiating with the Palestinians as if they were reconstructed democrats. Notice how the Sharon Government has sanctified or sanitized Abu Mazen, the PLO's number two terrorist leader, as a "moderate." What makes this Holocaust denier a "moderate" is that he would kill only Jews living beyond the "Green Lines," whereas Yasser Arafat would kill Jews anywhere and everywhere. In any event, this moderate terrorist, having been appointed the Palestinian Authority's prime minister, is to be prime minister Sharon's traveling companion along the road to a Palestinian state.

Of course, with the war going on in Iraq, Mr. Sharon does not want to cause any waves by pointing to the absurdity of Bush and Blair calling for a Palestinian state while Palestinians terrorists are killing American and British soldiers. But is it not more than absurd for the Sharon Government to negotiate with the declared enemies of the United States and Great Britain?

On the other hand, having appeased the PLO-Palestinian Authority, and having minimized the horror of Palestinian terrorism against Israel, it is poetic justice that the U.S. and the U.K. should now be the victims of such terrorism in Iraq. Notice that while the Bush administration has warned Syria not to send volunteers to help Saddam, it has not issued a similar warning to the Palestinian Authority. Perhaps President Bush does not want to lend credence to the preposterous idea that the United States is waging war against Saddam Hussein for the sake of Israel. But surely Israel's prime minister could safely denounce the Palestinian Arabs for fighting alongside Saddam's forces. If Mr. Sharon did so, surely it would further solidify American support for Israel on the one hand, while turning more Americans against the Palestinians and a Palestinian state on the other.

Even if it were not politically discreet for Sharon to denounce the Palestinians for fighting against American and British soldiers, could he not prompt the leaders of his coalition partners—Avigdor Lieberman and Effi Eitam—to utter such denunciation?

Lacking in this government is not only wisdom. We should never forget that one of the wisest of men, Socrates, held that courage is a precondition of wisdom. This is what is most lacking in the Government of Israel.



The Jerusalem Post, March 20, 2003


By Michael Freund

Did the President really say what I think he said?

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden this past Friday, with a clearly delighted Colin Powell at his side, George W. Bush went ahead and used the "O" word, as in "occupied", when describing Israel's heartland of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

In laying out his vision for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Bush said that, "as progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end", with the implication being that Jewish housing construction somehow inhibits Middle Eastern harmony.

With the United States poised to liberate Baghdad, the President's use of the "O" word might seem to be a matter of secondary importance, as the entire region will soon undergo a fundamental transformation of historic proportions. America is about to reshuffle the Arab deck, with far-reaching consequences for nearly every country involved.

But with all the uncertainty regarding precisely what will emerge in the post-Saddam era, there is one issue about which there should be little doubt. Once the Iraqis get walloped, Russia, Europe and the Arab world will intensify their criticism, seeking to force Bush to "balance" his liberation of Iraq with independence for the Palestinians.

In fact, such pressure is already starting to mount. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, Bush's Friday statement came as "a result of pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair." Blair, the Times noted, has been demanding that the White House adopt the roadmap leading to a Palestinian state so as "to quell the anger throughout the Arab world over the Bush administration's perceived focus on Iraq."

Hence, the President's reference to the "occupied territories", and his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, should not be written off lightly. Rather, it is just a small taste of what is yet to come.

To be fair, the White House's stance on Judea, Samaria and Gaza is hardly new. American presidents have long been vocally opposed to the expansion of Jewish communities in the territories, even as they remained inexplicably silent about the illegal growth of neighboring Arab villages.

But Bush is not just any American president. Unlike his predecessors, he has pushed Yasser Arafat into a corner, courageously stood up to Saddam Hussein, underlined the need for democratization of the Arab world and launched a far-reaching global war on terror. It may sound clichéd, but he is by far "the best friend Israel has had in the White House" in a good long time.

And that is what makes his latest remarks so puzzling.

For, as a number of recent stories in the US press have made amply clear, Bush is a religious man who takes his Christian faith seriously. And yet, if Jesus were alive today, the US State Department would likely criticize him for being a Jewish settler and an obstacle to peace.

After all, according to the New Testament, Jesus was a Jew born in Bethlehem, which is south of Jerusalem in what Colin Powell considers the "occupied territory" of Judea. His parents were Jews who undoubtedly prayed at a local Bethlehem synagogue, learned Torah at a local study-hall, and bought food at the local kosher marketplace. Thus, they were Jewish settlers in every respect.

Needless to say, the New Testament itself contains no mention of the word "Palestine" or "Palestinians", for the simple reason that they did not exist. All told, in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the terms "Judah" or "Judea" appear 877 times, and "Samaria" is used on 123 occasions. There is no reference to phrases such as the "West Bank" or "occupied territories", as Islam had not yet even come into being.

It is therefore hard to understand why the President would consent to pressure Israel to turn over Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the Palestinians, for he would appear to be acting contrary to what his own hallowed text would seem to demonstrate, namely that these areas belong to the Jewish people and no one else.

The same goes for Israel's capital, where many of the events in the Christian bible, such as the last supper on Mount Zion, the denunciation in the Garden of Gethsemane and the crucifixion on Golgotha are all described as having taken place in Jerusalem - in Roman-occupied Jewish Jerusalem, that is. Hence, Christians who accept Palestinian demands to Jerusalem are essentially denying the validity of their own traditions.

It is imperative, then, that American Christian supporters of Israel launch an all-out effort to remind President Bush of these facts, and to counter the pressure he is coming under from the likes of Tony Blair and Colin Powell.

Bush is an honest and decent man, who is true to himself and to his belief system. But he is facing enormous pressure to mollify the Arabs at the expense of the Jewish state, and will therefore need a great deal of public backing behind him if he is to stand up against such pressure.

Since Bush is a man of faith, Christian supporters of Israel should appeal to him using a faith-based approach, pointing out that the New Testament he professes to believe in provides ample evidence that places such as Bethlehem and Hebron have nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel.

Of course, as a Jew, I personally look to the Torah for validation of my people's unbreakable connection to the Land of Israel and exclusive rights to it. As far as I am concerned, the views of the Prophets take precedence over those of Colin Powell any day.

Once the war in Iraq is over, though, President Bush will likely have to make a choice between the two. Now is the time for American Christians to speak out and remind him that when it comes to politics versus prophecy, the man of faith must ultimately follow his heart.


The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.



The Jewish Community of Hebron, March 31, 2003


by David Wilder


Tomorrow afternoon we will gather for a memorial service, standing at the entrance to the Avraham Avinu neighborhood, at the foot of the Abu Sneneh hills. This Friday will mark the second anniversary of the killing, in cold blood, of ten month old Shalhevet Pass. Shalhevet was murdered after one of Arafat's terrorist cronies ordered that 'a Jew has to be killed in Hebron.' Shalhevet's murderer, stationed on the Abu Sneneh hills, lined up Shalhevet's head in his scope and pulled the trigger. The bullet that killed the baby also penetrated her father's legs, injuring him. That same bullet also put a hole in the sweater of another child, playing in a sandbox, a few meters away from Shalhevet and her parents. Another little-known fact is that a terrorist bullet skinned the finger of a 2 and a half year old girl ten minutes earlier.

In the past two years, since Shalhevet was shot and killed, has anything changed? Yesterday there was another suicide bombing in Netanya. In the Hebron region, 25 people have been murdered in the past four months. In other words, nothing has changed. The terrorists are still terrorists, Israelis are still dying at their hands, and the Oslo War is continuing in full force.

Actually, that is not entirely true. There have been changes. Ariel Sharon is Prime Minister, backed by an overwhelming majority of the Israeli populace. The Knesset is, by far and away, the most right-wing legislative body ever elected in Israel. And ironically, this government is giving full backing to creation of a Palestinian terror state.

Today Israel media, both radio and newspapers, are reporting renewed American pressure on Israel to begin implementation of the 'road map.' According to the Ma'ariv newspaper, the Bush administration is demanding: 1) Israel must double the monthly financial allotment to the Palestinian authority; 2) Israel must return VIP travel passes to Palestinian leaders; 3) Israel must ease roadblocks within the Palestinian Authority and between the PA and Israel; 4) Israel must enforce a 'true evacuation' of 'illegal outposts' (otherwise known as 'hilltop communities') in Yesha; 5) Israel must freeze all building in Yesha.

Note that the American government is demanding that Israel transfer between fifty to sixty million shekels that's over ten million dollars a month to the PA. And quoting Ma'ariv, The Americans are especially critical about construction in Har Homa (in south Jerusalem), in Hebron, in Ras el Amud, in the vicinity of Rachel's tomb, and in the areas connecting Jerusalem to Ma'ale Adumim.

These demands were enumerated to Israel's Foreign Minister, Sylvan Shalom, who is presently in the United States. It should also be noted that Israeli compliance with these demands is being tied to American financial assistance, billions of dollars, to Israel.

Israel is expected to comply with these demands as Abu Mazen begins his term as Prime Minister of the PA. In addition, Israel radio reported that Israel must fulfill these demands in order to 'improve America's image with the Arabs states.'

But now I have to tell you a secret what is really bothering me. The fact that the US is pressuring Israel is nothing new. They've been doing it for years. The fact that they are holding money over our heads, or perhaps better put, are strangling us with dollars, is nothing new. They've been doing it for years. The fact that the U.S. backs a Palestinian state, well, what can I say, Sharon is also backing a Palestinian state, and the cream of the crop of the Israeli right is sitting together with him in his government, giving tacit legitimacy Sharon's policies. The fact that implementation of the 'road map' is seemingly a 'given' despite the fact that the plan has not been discussed or approved by the Israeli cabinet is nothing new. Prime Ministers tend to do whatever they want, with or without government authorization.

So, what's bothering me? Let's take a look at some headlines. Today, on CNN: Secretary of State cautions Syria, Iran. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that the United States would demand that nations that have supported terrorism take responsibility. Powell singled out Syria and Iran, calling on the former to take a stronger stance against terrorism and the latter to stop its quest for weapons of mass destruction. The New York Times, today, Iraqi general says 4,000 volunteered for suicide attacks from 23 countries, against American forces. Ha'aretz newspaper today, Islamic Jihad: Netanya cafe bomb a 'gift' to the Iraqis. Ha'aretz newspaper yesterday, The Palestinian street is proud of Saddam Hussein's staying power and points to the similarity between events in Iraq and the Palestinian Struggle. The adjoining picture shows an Arab in Gaza with wearing a headband with a picture of a smiling Saddam. The caption: A demonstrator at a rally in the Gaza Strip Hamas and Islamic Jihad call on the Iraqis to adopt the methods of sacrifice of the intifada, meaning suicide bombing. Danny Rubinstein writes, The longer the fighting in Iraq goes on, and the more the Iraqi resistance shows itself to be tenacious, the greater the feeling of pride among the Palestinian public and the spite it feels for the Americans.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Palestinians in Jenin have named the city's central plaza Na'mani Square, after the Iraqi officer who carried out the first suicide bombing against American troops in Iraq.

Now, can anyone please explain to me how, how, how how is it possible that the Bush administration is giving full backing to a so-called 'people' who are supporting America's sworn enemy? And let's not forget that the U.S. has documented proof connecting Saddam to Usama bin Laden. In other words, whoever supports Saddam, supports the murderer of thousands of Americans on 9/11. How is it possible that the Americans, in the middle of a war, are granting a gift to the backers of a regime, loaded with mass-extermination weapons, which is torturing and killing allied POWs?

And what about Israel? Israelis are walking around carrying gas masks. The threat of biological or chemical scud attacks is still very real. Yet Israeli support of American policy in Iraq is absolute and unwavering.

It looks like George Bush, allied with Tony Blair, has contracted an old English disease: The appeasement or perhaps, in this case, better called the 'appeacement virus'. Americans beware: Appeacement is contagious and leads to fatal illnesses, such as world wars.

With blessings from Hebron,

This is David Wilder




By Irving Kett, Colonel (Ret.) U.S. Army


During World War II, I served as a soldier in the U.S. Army.

Most of the military training camps were in the South and a high percentage of the training cadre were Southerners. As a youngster, born and raised in New York City, I was shocked at the intensity of anti-Semitism that I was suddenly confronted with. Of course I was aware of the widespread hatred of Jews that had been prevalent for many years, but in my own immediate surroundings, I was somewhat sheltered from the most blatant physical and verbal manifestations.

Everybody was aware that the United States reluctantly entered World War II only in response to the December 7th Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As a matter of fact the United States may possibly never have become involved in the European conflict had Germany not immediately ordered her navy to attack all U.S. shipping on December 8th and formally declared war on the United States three days later on December 11, 1941. Nevertheless, most soldiers remained convinced that they were forced into a war that could only benefit the Jews. My WW II experiences were in the enlisted ranks and I saw combat in the Pacific Theater. I am certain, however, that U.S. troops in the European Theater were no different in their prejudices and opinions. For a multitude of reasons I elected to remain in the U.S. Army for many years after WW II. Eventually I became an officer after the Korean Conflict and retired as a senior colonel. While the widespread expressions of Jew-hatred lessened in the United States and in the armed forces after World War II and especially with the establishment of the State of Israel, those early experiences never left my psyche nor my appreciation of likelihood of their recurrence under propitious economic or political circumstances.


Anti-Semitism in the United States had witnessed numerous cycles of high and low points since the founding of the country. One of my grandfathers landed in Boston from Europe in the 1880's. A sign that he frequently was confronted with at hotels and restaurants was NO JEWS AND DOGS ALLOWED. A particularly severe manifestation occurred after World War I which culminated in the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 was mainly enacted to restrict the entrance of Jews into the United States. The U.S. industrialist, Henry Ford, spent millions of dollars popularizing the proven, fraudulent anti-Semitic tract, THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, in the 1920's.

Social discrimination against Jews became the norm in U.S. society soon after the Civil War. By 1900 Jewish university students were barred from membership in many fraternities and sororities. Appointment to faculty positions became increasingly difficult for Jews to obtain. Certain professions were especially treacherous for Jews, particularly engineering and the teaching of English literature for which Jews were deemed to be unfit by virtue of race. By 1920, however, Jewish quotas became commonplace in most of the more prestigious colleges and universities so as to curtail the number of Jewish students. The situation in academia did not change until some time after the end of WW II.

American anti-Semitism climbed to very high levels by the late 1930's and continued a very steep rise in the first half of the 1940s. According to the leading pollster of that era, Elmo Roper, it reached its historic peak in 1944. In the Spring 1942 issue of the PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY the sociologist, David Riesman, described anti-Semitic sentiment in the United States at that time as being "slightly below the boiling point." In the decade before Pearl Harbor, there were reputed to be more than one hundred active organizations whose mission was to spew anti-Semitic hate propaganda throughout United States society. As a teenager I remember listening every Sunday afternoon to one of the leading purveyors of Jew-hatred on nationwide radio from Royal Oak, Michigan, by a Catholic priest, named Father Charles E. Coughlin, who commanded a following of millions. I recall attacks on Jews in Yorkville, a section of Manhattan, by gangs from Fritz Kuhn's, German-American Bund. Some of these organizations were disbanded when the United States entered the War but others took their place under somewhat different guises. During World War II, the anti-Jewish hatreds that had been sown and nurtured for many years developed into very bitter fruit which had devastating results especially for European Jewry. One of the reasons that American Jews maintained such a low profile during the War years, even when reports of the mass extermination of European Jewry could no longer be doubted, was the real fear that existed in the American Jewish community of pogroms and official anti-Semitism.

Other surveys reported in leading U.S. publications such as TIME magazine, AMERICAN MERCURY, and the NEW YORK TIMES reported that from the summer of 1940 until the end of WW II, 15 to 24 percent of respondents to polls considered Jews to be "a menace to America." These and numerous other publications reported that Jews were considered to be a greater threat to the security and welfare of the United States than Negroes (at that time a despised and downtrodden group), or even Japanese or Germans with whom America was at war in a life and death struggle. Anti-Semitism was also no stranger in the halls of the U.S. Congress. So vicious were the attacks on Jews that on one occasion it resulted in the death of a Jewish congressman from New York, Michael Edelstein. The latter arose to challenge the Nazi-like attack on Jews by Representative John Rankin, Democrat of Mississippi. Edelstein became so emotional at Rankin's diatribe that he collapsed and died of a heart attack.

In the middle of World War II, the British were anxious to secure American public opinion support for their cruel policy of thwarting hapless Jewish refugees, desperately attempting to reach safety in Palestine. They sent a pro-Arab propagandist, Freya Stark, on a lecture tour to build support for British policies. By then, Hitler's "final solution" for European Jewry was taking place and sufficiently documented. Miss Stark, a Christian, was impressed by the widespread intensity of Jew-hatred that she discovered among educated, wealthy Americans.

A prominent Protestant American clergyman, Dr. L. M. Birkhead, expressed shock and astonishment at the extent of vicious anti-Semitism that he encountered, not only among extremist groups, but in the "best circles" during his travels through middle America in 1943. He concluded that these respectable circles would not personally engage in violence against Jews but neither would they oppose it. In its annual review, the following year, the American Civil Liberties Union described race tensions in the United States as "explosive and potentially dangerous." In a letter to a Jewish publication during World War II, a Jewish serviceman wrote the following: "I am the only Jewish boy in this detachment. I am confronted with anti-Semitism on all sides."

The same contempt for Jews pervaded the American military officer corps. Weather permitting, from 1943 till the end of the War, thousands of American and British bombers pounded Germany, day and night. The German railway system was a prime target. Yet they could not spare a single aircraft to bomb the railroads leading to the death camps, despite the urgent entreaties of Jewish leaders, and even a request by the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill.

For almost a hundred years after the end of the American Civil War in 1865 that freed the slaves, blacks served as a partial buffer for American Jews. So long as native hatred was directed primarily at the blacks and only secondarily at Jews, the latter felt more secure. After World War II the civil rights movement developed in the United States to give full equality to the blacks. The Jews were in the forefront of that struggle for at least fifty years prior. Wealthy Jews helped found and financed the leading black organizations such as the Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Jews remained the most active element in the white community fighting for black equality. There is a cynical cliche' to the effect that no good deed ever goes unpunished. If that expression merits any validity, the Jews in the United States have justly deserved their punishment at the hands of the black community.

Early on, black militants resented substantial Jewish participation in the civil rights movement. They felt that many of the Jews involved were patronizing in their attitudes, especially those with leftist ideologies. In truth a considerable number of Jewish communists and other assorted radical leftists considered that it was their duty to enlighten the feckless blacks. The result has been that the black community today is probably the most anti-Semitic element on the American scene aside from Moslems. As a matter of fact, a surprisingly large number of blacks are converts to Islam. The anti-Semitism in the black community is fraught with danger for Jews, since much of it is emanating from upper class, educated blacks, who are in competition with Jews for positions and in business, than from the black ghetto dwellers. One of the ugliest incidents of black anti-Semitism took place in the New York City educational system in the 1970's, when blacks violently forced out long-tenured Jewish teachers and administrators. Since the 1960's, black militants have posed a significant anti-Semitic threat to Jews. Not only in the school systems, but also in a few industries and unions. Blacks are successfully challenging the merit system in education, in civil service, and industry that had made possible many Jewish accomplishments.

For about the first twenty five years after the Holocaust, Jews in the United States began to feel increasingly secure. The first discernible crack in this armor of invulnerability against anti-Semitism arose from the blacks in the 1960's. This was soon reinforced, however, in the 1970's by a resurgence of global anti-Semitism because of the enmity of the Arab/Moslem world toward Israel and Zionism. The Arabs found the black community to be willing allies against Israel and the Jews. This contagion now also seems to be infecting another large and rapidly growing racial minority in the United States, the Latinos. The active, coordinated participation of these groups is especially evident on university campuses in their often violent attacks on Israel, Zionism, and Jews.

As the conflict with Israel grows in intensity, an ever increasing number of American Jews see hostility to Israel as the reflection of the new anti-Semitism. While the majority of Jews in the United States are still apparently unaware of or else pay no attention to these potentially ominous trends, a not insignificant number are growing apprehensive, especially among the older population. Professor Steven M. Cohen of the Hebrew University's Melton Center for Jewish Education recently conducted an extensive study of United States Jewry on the subject of anti-Semitism. He concluded that, "American Jews continue to feel vulnerable - as Jews."


The situation of the Jews in Europe after World War I cannot be evaluated as an entity. Certainly the status of the Jews in Eastern Europe was vastly inferior to that of the Jews in Western Europe, with variations from country to country. Generally speaking, the Jews in Western Europe fared similarly to the Jews in the United States. The prominence of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution ignited powerful anti-Semitic forces on both sides of the Atlantic. Probably in no nation, however, did the Jews feel as secure or do as well as those in Germany during the 1920's.

The ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA's section on Germany pointed out that between 1921 to 1927, 44.8% of all Jewish marriages were to a Gentile spouse. In Germany, particularly in those days, danger seemed remote. The Weimar Republic was a liberal state in which Jews were free to rise to the top, and many did so, especially in the sciences, in the arts, in business, and in the media. The Jews of Germany were rapidly becoming totally assimilated. They felt themselves to be thoroughly German. The ablest Jews loved Germany because it was the best place in the world to live and to work in. Germany had by far the best educational system. As a nation it was to achieve universal adult literacy. Between 1870 and 1933 German universities were the finest in virtually every discipline. Between 1870 and 1914 it emerged as the most powerful nation in the world and Jews were an integral part of that success. The question that probably still defies a satisfactory explanation is how this highly civilized nation turned with such violent, organized brutality on the Jews?

I cannot help but compare American Jews today with the German Jews in the heyday of the Weimar Republic. Jews in Imperial Germany could not possibly imagine that modern Germany might actually persecute her Jewish citizens. From the perspective of the time they were correct. Germany then was probably the most staid, law-abiding country in the world. The incredulous confidence that the German Jews had in Germany was exquisitely portrayed in Katherine Anne Porter's stupendous novel, SHIP OF FOOLS. But as a result of World War I, when proud Germany was defeated, humbled, and economically ruined, the Jews were singled out for special treatment. Their oppression began fifteen years after Germany's military surrender in 1918.

Sidney Hook was a political science professor of great distinction at New York University. In 1980 he wrote a superb best-seller, OUT OF STEP, in which he analyzed the reasons that caused him to break with the putative liberal establishment and join the ranks of the neo-conservatives. Needless to say that Professor Hook has been demonized by the purveyors of political correctness to this day, long after his death. In OUT OF STEP, Sidney Hook described a visit to Europe as a young man in the late 1920's. As part of that trip, Hook spent several months in Berlin. What particularly impressed him was how much less anti-Semitism he encountered in Berlin than in his native New York City with its huge Jewish population. That observation was made less than five years before Adolf Hitler became the dictator of Germany.

Few people today can envision the persecution of the Jews in the United States. Contemporary America is a strong, pluralistic society, with a long democratic tradition, where the rule of law is more jealously guarded than in any polity in human history. Yet not many decades ago, Jews in the United States had every reason to feel deeply insecure and highly vulnerable. Subconsciously, many Jews in the United States are again being awakened to that realization. What must never be totally excluded is the possibility, that at some future moment in history the United States also might experience a national catastrophe comparable in scope to that sustained by Imperial Germany in the second decade of the twentieth century. Under the pressure of such unfathomable circumstances, might not similar reactions occur? The search for someone to blame, might again lead to the Jews, Western civilization's universal scapegoat. Such a possibility possesses the potential of awakening dormant anti-Semitic tendencies. Many people, perhaps even unconsciously, harbor latent anti-Semitic tendencies. The United States commitment to Israel today is viewed by masses of people as an albatross around the necks of those who are searching for a peaceful modus vivendi with the Arabs and the Moslems in the Middle East. A comparable feeling was particularly strong in Great Britain in the appeasement years, prior to the outbreak of hostilities in World War II. It fostered powerful anti-Jewish sentiments.


In April 1920, the first of many Arab riots against the Yishuv, as the Jewish community was referred to prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, took place. The chief instigator was Haj (Muhammad) Amin Al-Husseni. The British sentenced him to ten years in prison, but released him the next year. From that point on until 1948 many hundreds of Jews were killed and thousands wounded by Arab attacks. An important development took place in 1921 that reverberates in Israel to this day. Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew and an ardent Zionist, was the first British High Commissioner (1920-1925) Palestine. Sir Samuel appointed Haj Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (1921-1937). It was an attempt by Sir Samuel to appease Arab nationalism and to preserve the balance of power between fiercely rival Arab families. Husseini was a violent anti-Zionist and as history further evidenced intensely hated Jews. He also orchestrated the murderous attacks on Jews in 1929 and then in 1936.

The Grand Mufti became an international figure and a rallying point for the Arabs of the Middle East and fascists around the world. At that point in time he had a valid claim to have been instrumental in killing more Jews than anyone else. In effect he organized the first Jihad or holy war against the Jews, directed from his sanctuary in the Haram esh-Sharif. He endeavored to make and succeeded in making Palestine and opposition to Zionism not merely an all-Arab affair but a Pan-Islamic one. He also organized the systematic destruction of those elements in Arab society who wanted to cooperate with the Jews of the Yishuv for the benefit of both peoples. Yasser Arafat, the Mufti's relative and spiritual heir, carried out an identical ruthless policy against those Arabs who wanted to cooperate with the Jews of Israel.

In 1937, the Grand Mufti's violence reached such a crescendo that he had to escape from Palestine and found sanctuary in Lebanon, where he was welcomed by the French. In 1941 he helped organize a revolt of the Arabs in Iraq against the British with the encouragement of the Germans. When that failed, the Grand Mufti made his way to Berlin, where he remained from 1941 until the end of World War II as the guest of Adolf Hitler. While in Berlin he broadcast propaganda on behalf of the Nazis to the entire Middle East. He organized the Moslems in Albania and Kosovo for the German war effort on the Eastern Front and against the Jews. He constantly encouraged the Nazi death machine to exterminate the Jews of Europe at a faster pace. The Mufti surpassed even Adolf Hitler in his hatred for Jews.

At the 1946/47 Nurenberg War Trials, Adolf Hitler's deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, testified that "the Mufti was one of the instigators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan."

After the War, the former Grand Mufti managed to escape from Europe and ensconced himself in Cairo. From there he continued to encourage the Arab assault on the Yishuv. A common historical thread exists between the assault on the Yishuv by the Arabs and the continuing Arab war of terror against the Jews of Israel: the Grand Mufti and Yasser Arafat of the PLO. The two mountebanks are related. The goal of Arafat is to complete the extermination of the Jews begun by Hitler with the active complicity of his relative, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Arabs make no effort to obfuscate their intentions. Even as supposedly great an Arab friend of the Jews as Anwar Sadat of Egypt stated in 1954, when he was the editor of al-Ahram, Egypt's leading newspaper, that the only thing he had against Hitler was that he did not kill all the Jews.

The medieval charge that Jews drink the blood of Moslem children and bake Passover matzos with it, has periodically surfaced in the Arab world since the famous Damascus Affair of 1840. The current Syrian Minister of Defense, Mustafa Tlas published an Arab best seller in 1983 entitled, THE MATZAH OF ZION. Mr. Tlas "proved" the veracity of the medieval blood libel. A few years ago the Egyptian mass circulation daily, al-Ahram, an organ of the Egyptian Government, reported the "truth" of that accusation against the Jews. The president of the United States during World War I, Woodrow Wilson, made an interesting observation about blind hatred. Mr Wilson said that ideas that logic did not put into the minds of people, logic cannot remove. The irrational blood libel has continued to stalk the Jewish People for almost a thousand years. The Arabs are making use of it in the twenty first century.


For several decades after the end of World War II and the Holocaust, anti-Semitism seemed, at long last, to have become a spent force in the more enlightened places in the world. Except for Russia and the Arabs, all indicators pointed to a drastic decline in antagonism toward the Jews. Yet as subsequent events rapidly unfolded, the world's longest hatred seems to only have been in a somnolent state eager for the next arousal. The two identifiable factors that seem to have become the main contributors to the latest anti-Semitic outbreaks have been the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Moslem attack on the United States on September 11th 2001.

The only difference between the previous anti-Semitism and the current manifestations is that the principal menace is now from the so-called political left (the red-fascists) rather than the identified political right (the brown-fascists). In every Western European country, shocking reports are emanating of anti-Semitic expressions and acts reminiscent of the tragic days in the 1930s and 40s. It is as rife in France today as it was a century ago at the time of the Dreyfus Affair. It is again resurgent in Austria and Germany, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian states, Great Britain, and Eastern Europe.

The current wave of anti-Semitism is qualitatively different from the incitement against Jews by the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in the 19th century and the fascist variety in the 20th century. The new anti-Semitism of the present era is the product of a combination of hatred of Jews emanating from fanatic fundamentalist religious Islam and the radical atheistic left. By placing terrorists on the same moral plane as their victims, the left denies the Jewish people in Israel even the moral right of self-defense.

A piece recently appeared in the LONDON SPECTATOR by Petronella Wyatt who wrote, "Since September 11th anti-Semitism and its open expression has become respectable at London dinner tables." Ms. Wyatt further recounts being told by a liberal member of the House of Lords, "the Jews have been asking for it, and now, thank God, we can say what we think at last." The British Government has instituted an embargo of military equipment ordered by Israel. The British ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Cole, commented at a recent high-level conference in Berlin that "we can all think of times in history when the use of terrorism has been justified." Of course he was referring to Arafat's terror war against Israel. Recently Prime Minister Tony Blair invited the Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad to London where he was accorded red-carpet treatment. Assad is undeniably one of the world's leading supporters of terrorism which for years has been directed primarily against Israel. Mr. Blair equates the need to remove the threat of Iraq's Saddam Hussein with the moral imperative of compelling Israel to acquiesce to Arab demands which would in effect destroy the country. The British novelist, A.N. Wilson, in an article in the LONDON EVENING STANDARD on October 22nd 2000, admitted to coming to the "reluctant" conclusion that the Jews of Israel do not have a right to exist as a nation.

Oriana Fallaci, a 73 year old Italian leftist journalist of surprisingly moral persuasion, wrote a brilliant expose' in 2002 on the latest wave of anti-Semitism that is sweeping Western Europe. In France the authorities sought, unsuccessfully, to ban her best-selling book, THE RAGE AND THE PRIDE, because it was offensive to Islam. I take the liberty of quoting from her recent article, I STAND WITH ISRAEL: I STAND WITH THE JEWS:

"I find it shameful that state-run television stations in Italy contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones. I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.

"I find it shameful that they are on the side of the very ones who inaugurated terrorism, killing us on airplanes, in airports, at the Olympics, and who today entertain themselves by killing western journalists. By shooting them, by abducting them, cutting their throats , decapitating them. (There's someone in Italy who, since tha appearance of THE RAGE AND THE PRIDE, would like to do the same to me. Citing verses of the Koran, he exhorts his 'brothers' in the mosques and the Islamic Community to chastize me in the name of Allah. To kill me. Or rather to die with me. Since he is someone who speaks English well, I'll respond to him in English: 'F*** you.')

"I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new Nazism that is more grim and revolting because it is conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders, progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics, or rather Christians, and who have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth. I have often had disagreements with the Israelis, and in the past I have defended the Palestinians a great deal. Maybe more than they deserved. But I stand with Israel. I stand with the Jews. I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let themselves be exterminated a second time. I am disgusted by the anti-Semitism of many Italians, of many Europeans, I am ashamed of this shame that dishonors my Country and Europe. At best, it is not a community of States, but a pit of Pontius Pilates. And even if all the inhabitants of this planet were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so."


Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an eloquent and forceful speaker, was the United States ambassador to the U.N. at the time that Zionism was equated with racism in 1975, despite the strong opposition of the United States. The resolution accusing Israel with racism passed overwhelmingly in the General Assembly. A few years later, in 1981, Dr. Jeane Kirkpatrick was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Dr. Kirkpatrick stated that she was shocked at the depth and intensity of anti-Semitism that she encountered at the United Nations.

Israel holds about one-thousandth of the world's population. Yet despite the massacres that keep recurring in Africa involving millions of people, the destruction of the country of Tibet by the Chinese, the bloody conflict on the Indian subcontinent over Kashmir, the slaughters that have been and are still ongoing in Indonesia and the Phillippines, fully three quarters of all resolutions passed at the United Nations in the last thirty five years involved the condemnation of Israel, the lone beacon of democracy and Western values in the entire Middle East.

The United Nations has become the leading forum for lending legitimacy to hatred of the Jews and the war against Israel. This world-wide assault is not directed against the behavior of the Jews or Israel, but against their very existence. Anti-Semitism today is a stronger force in world affairs than it has been since it went into a temporary eclipse with the liberation of the Nazi extermination camps in 1945. The United Nations, supposedly the embodiment of the cruel lessons learned from World War II, is now in the forefront in the war against the Jewish State, founded in good measure by the survivors of that war. This new crisis confronting the Jews of the world is developing into the second and possibly the final phase of Hitler's "final solution of the Jewish problem."

A new, virulent, globalized hatred of the Jews has emerged fostered by the Arabs and their Europeans sycophants, which has turned the United Nations into their prime instrument of hatred. There has emerged a new Nazi-type animus which singles out Israel and the Jewish people not only for discriminatory treatment in the family of nations but for specific targeted terrorist assault. This present genocidal anti-Semitism openly advocates the destruction of Israel and the eradication of all Jews from the face of the earth.

The current propaganda campaign reached a crescendo at the United Nations sponsored anti-Racism Conference in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. The leading defamers were the Arab governments, including those few with whom Israel has signed peace treaties such as Egypt, supported and abetted by other Muslim countries and a considerable number of supposedly "leftist, progressive, human rights" Western NGOs. Terms such as Nazi, Holocaust, and ethnic cleansing have been subsumed by the Jewish defamers, against the principal victims of these crimes, the Jews. Arguments used by the Arabs and their European sycophants are similar in nature to the universal Holocaust deniers. The immoral leftists, in their assault on Israel, have stooped so low as to make common cause with societies that indulge in turning beheadings and amputations into public spectacles; the mutilation of young girls' genitalia and the stoning to death of women for so-called "immoral behavior."

The use of the United Nations for the moral undermining of Israel is not a trivial matter. Their aim is the total isolation of Israel to the point that Israel may one day have to stand alone against overwhelmingly powerful forces. Such a situation is not at all inconceivable. Jews and people of goodwill the world over must recognize the essential fragility of Israel's existence and the interrelationship between Israel's survival and the continuity of the Jewish people. The result can be the greatest catastrophe in all the tragic annals of Jewish history.


There is little doubt that the present United States Administration under President George W. Bush, is the most supportive of Israel of any U.S. Government. It is not difficult to imagine the dire consequences to Israel and to the Jewish people that the loss of this support would mean. Yet it is important to realize that large segments of the U.S. population are extremely hostile to Israel and by extension to Jews. These largely Third World groups also happen to be the most rapidly growing segment in the American population. The only real friends that the Jews have in the United States, at the moment, are the fundamentalist Christian groups, who for reasons of morality and/ or theology, constitute the foundation of the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy. For the most part, the supporters of Israel are in the Republican Party, while the Democratic Party is increasingly being taken over and controlled by radical leftists (including many Jews) and Third World oriented groups who are viscerally pro-Arab and anti-Semitic. Nowhere is this dangerous constellation of forces more in evidence than in academia - on the campuses, among faculty and administration, and students.

A similar situation was evident during the halcyon days of the liberal Weimar Republic in the 1920s. At that time the Nazi Party flourished on the university campuses of Germany, while the Party did poorly at the polls. A shockingly comparable perspective has been developing on U.S. college and university campuses from coast to coast. The virus of Jew-hatred is spreading to the elites of the United States and cannot be expected to remain confined solely to Europe. At some point we should be prepared to see societal attitudes toward Jews, as well as U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, adversely affected by what is currently taking place on U.S. campuses. Realistically, the United States has more important interests in the Middle East than Israel or even Israel's survival. Before the Camp David Accords, while in possession of the Sinai Peninsula, Israel was a far more dominant and strategically significant Middle East power. Two serious, negative consequences for Israel stemmed from the 1978 Camp David Accords. One, Israel gradually descended to the status of a banana republic, dependent upon the constant largess of the United States, both economically and militarily. Two, Egypt has become a much more powerful country militarily as a result of U.S. assistance and has replaced Israel as America's most important ally in the Middle East.

These past three years have been a particularly difficult time for Jewish students on American college and university campuses. There has been a sharp rise in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic demonstrations, posters, flyers, and speeches across North America. Many Jewish students report an extremely difficult atmosphere faced by any supporter of Israel. Numerous ugly incidents are increasingly being reported. A growing and very disturbing phenomenon is the appearance of an annual Anti-Zionist Week on many campuses with the support of the university administrations. Jonathan Berg, a 21-year-old senior at the University of California, San Diego, complained that "a great deal of very, very anti-Semitic stuff being passed around," from faked

Talmudic quotations saying that it is acceptable for Jewish males to violate any non-Jewish female over the age of three, to quotes from that infamous, century-old hoax, THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION.

At the University of Chicago, Jewish students felt compelled to form a coalition designed to hold the school's administration responsible for what it described as an atmosphere of intimidation and hate for Jewish students. The group noted a corresponding increase in anti-Semitic incidents on the campus as violence escalated in the Middle East. They cited the example of a visibly Jewish student walking one evening on the campus when a car drove up besides him and they screamed at him, "Death to the Jews. Hitler should have finished you all off when he had the chance."

"These incidents are symptomatic of an increasingly alarming problem for Jewish students at the University of Chicago," the group wrote. "Jews are being mistreated and intimidated on campus. In the University of Chicago, anti-Semitism has been made acceptable, even fashionable, by a long process of academic delegitimizing of Israel and Judaism. Outbursts against other religions and ethnicities, including Islam, are not considered acceptable, and they occur much more rarely. Complicity in this delegitimizing are professors, students, administrators, and a host of institutional practices."

The most widely publicized anti-Semitic incident reported from academia occurred at the California State University, San Francisco. A near pogrom against Jewish student took place on May 7th 2002. It was described by Professor Laurie Zoloth, director of the Jewish Studies Program. She had attended the campus Hillel's Peace in the Middle East Rally along with several hundred students, faculty, and members of the Jewish community. Arab supporters descended on a group of 50 students who stayed behind to clean up and to conduct a prayer service, after singing Hebrew songs and hearing speeches in support of Israel.

"They screamed at us to 'go back to Russia' and they screamed that they would kill us all, and other terrible things," Prof. Zoloth wrote in her May 8th e-mail.

"As the counter demonstrators poured into the plaza screaming at the Jews to 'Get out or we'll kill you' and 'Hitler didn't finish the job,' I turned to the police and to every administrator I could find and asked them to remove the counter-demonstrators from the plaza, to maintain the separation of 100 feet that we had been promised. The police told me that they had been told not to arrest anyone, and that if they did 'it would start a riot.' I told them that it was already a riot."

Prof. Zoloth continued, "This is not civic discourse, this is not free speech, this is the Weimar Republic with brown shirts it cannot control." As she noted in her e-mail, the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American atmosphere that has pervaded the campus extends far beyond the scope of one protest that spun out of control.

"After nearly seven years as director of Jewish Studies, and after nearly two decades of life here as a student, faculty member and wife of the Hillel rabbi, after years of patient work and difficult discourse, I am saddened to see the San Francisco State University return to its notoriety as a place that teaches anti-Semitism, hatred for America, and hatred, above all else, for the Jewish State of Israel, a state that I cherish," Professor Zoloth wrote.


An intriguing phenomenon is clearly evident in American society. Precisely in those circles in which Jews are most in evidence, the antipathy toward Israel and toward Jews are the most strongly expressed. The principle bastions of the politically correct, left-wing causes - academia and the media, where Jews are greatly over-represented, are among the most virulent hotbeds of Israel bashing.

At the other end of the political spectrum, the strongest support for Israel comes precisely from those quarters where Jews have traditionally felt the least comfortable. It is obviously no coincidence that the United States is both Israel's most unambiguous champion and concomitantly the most Christian country in the world. The foundation of that defense of Israel does not come from those areas of society where deculturated Jews are the cultural icons but rather from those places that boast of few Jews and those few are generally traditional Jews who are proud of their heritage.

The current wave of anti-Semitism is devoid of all reason and morality. An unholy alliance has arisen between the world-wide radical leftists who include many academics and so-called "progressive intellectuals" who are particularly strong in Western Europe and fundamentalist Arab. They pose a seminal danger to the existence of both Israel and Jews the same way that Hitler's Germany did. While we Jews find ourselves once more in the unwilling role of the miners' canary for Western civilization, these same powerful forces also threaten to destroy Western democratic, liberal values as Hitler attempted to do seventy years ago when he became the dictator of Germany.

The Holocaust did not happen in a vacuum. It was preceded by an intense propaganda campaign of the kind that we are witnessing at this very time. Jew-haters demonstrated in the streets, on the campuses, inflaming passions and carrying ugly signs and caricatures of Jews, exactly as it is happening in many places in the world today. They wrote inflammatory articles and sermons in their places of worship. The portrait that they painted of the Jews was so fiendish that it became permissible, yes even desirable, to kill the Jews in all sorts of unthinkable ways in order to rid the world of this terrible Jewish scourge.

The uncomfortable shades of reality that, I believe, are contained in this article will probably make for disturbing reading for many of the all too comfortable Diaspora Jews, especially in the United States. There are times, however, when we all need to face the truth of one's situation, unpleasant as that may be.


"Abandonment of the Jews - America and the Holocaust 1941-1945" , David S. Wyman, Pantheon Books, 1984.
"A History of the Jews", Paul Johnson, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1987.
"Modern Times", Paul Johnson, 1983, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1983.
"Out of Step", Sidney Hook, Simon and Shuster, Inc., 1980.
"Ship of Fools", Katherine Anne Porter, Little, Brown and Company, 1945.
"The Siege - The Saga of Israel and Zionism", Conor Cruise O'Brien, Simon and Shuster, Inc., 1986.
"The Story of Judaism", Bernard J. Bamberger, The Union of American Jewish Congregations, 1964.
"World of Our Fathers", Irving Howe, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976.
Articles derived from e-mail and the internet.

Irving Kett
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Professor of Civil Engineering, California State University





By Abbey Gewirtz

In the crisis facing America and the world today, there is one clear and absolute fact which, in my opinion, cannot be ignored or misunderstood by anyone who claims to be an honest, moral and compassionate human being of any racial, ethnic or religious persuasion.

This simple and undeniable fact is that any call to disarm Sadaam Hussein, without removing him from power, is a failure and travesty of justice of the highest order. Every government, every political leader, every religious organization, every peacenik and protester knows two inescapable truths which are:

1) Within a few months or years even, the U.N. inspectors would leave, the troops would go home, and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be replaced by even more sophisticated toxins, biological and nuclear agents. Sadaam would funnel these to various terrorist organizations with no paper trail providing him with complete deniability in the event that these WMD were to be used against the U.S., England, Israel or others.

2) If Sadaam Hussein were to be left in power, as all these "peace loving" organizations and their members would have it, he would continue to terrorize and brutalize his own people through despicable acts of rape, crucifixion, dismemberment, disembowelment and other unspeakable methods of killing which have been thoroughly documented.

There is no denying this scenario, yet all those who protest and chant the mantra of "give peace a chance and let the inspectors do their jobs", delude themselves to this present and future horror for the Iraqi people and the rest of the world. They, deliberately, cast a blind eye to it in their zeal to criticize a decent American president who wants nothing more than security for the people he has sworn to protect as well as all other freedom loving people against this scourge, the "Butcher of Baghdad" for the past, all too long, 30 years.

This is an obscene myopia on their part that should never be forgotten or forgiven. Without a regime change in Iraq, these uncaring hypocrites would have future Iraqi and Israeli blood on their hands. Yes, Israeli blood as well, because Sadaam rewards terrorists in Hamas, Hizbollah and others, $25.000 for each terrorist act that kills innocent Israeli men, women, and children. So, by all means, " let the inspectors do their jobs" and let the killers continue to do their job as well!

It is with all this in mind that I apologize to the memory of the courageous French writer, Emile Zola (an exquisite irony, don't you think?) who braved anti-Semitism in France 100 years ago to bring a Jewish French officer back from the hell of Devil's Island.


J'accuse Jacques Chirac, the government of France, and the French people, for their perfidious betrayal of the United States and the over 200,000 American soldiers, airmen and sailors who gave their lives to free France after they cravenly caved in and surrendered to the Germans in World War II after only seven weeks of resistance! The beaches and cemeteries of Normandy cry out in anguish and disbelief at this French treachery and ingratitude.

J'accuse Jacques Chirac, the government of France, and the French people, for this same betrayal of tens of thousands of British and Polish airmen and soldiers who fought and died to save France and the free world at Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. They gave their lives willingly while history records that the Vichy government and over 50% of the French people actually collaborated with the Nazis during the entire war!

J'accuse Jacques Chirac and the government of France, for willingly and despicably selling Sadaam nuclear reactors and materials 25 years ago despite the fact that they knew his plans for the future nuclear weapons that those reactors would produce.

J'accuse these French politicians and their "elitist" and "enlightened" populace of supplying Iraq with the nuclear scientists and contractors to design and build these reactors which Israel fortunately destroyed preemptively at Osirak in 1982, despite the world's outcry and clamor. It was only years later that the free world expressed gratitude for Israel's prescient action.

J'accuse Gerhard Schroeder and the government of Germany for the outright betrayal of the United States, the country which protected them from Russian domination for more than 40 years after W.W.II. The same country that, under our Marshall plan, rebuilt the cities, industries, hospitals, and infrastucture that rewove the fabric of a free and prosperous new Germany. It was, and always will be "Deutschland uber alles!"

J'accuse Valery Putin and the Russian government of betraying the sincere friendship and trust of a decent and honorable American president who offered genuine aid to help Russia recover its economy and place in a modern post cold war world. But what should we have expected from the home of the Gulags?

J'accuse the countless secular and religious groups in America and the world for their strong support to "disarm Hussein, but don't replace him." They, along with their worldwide peaceniks and anti-war protestors, care not the slightest bit for the continuing suffering of their fellow human beings in Iraq. I include in this deluded gathering diverse clueless groups such as certain Catholic, Protestant and Jewish organizations and their followers. They are driven only by their hatred of George W. Bush and all Republican and Conservative political leaders and thinkers. They are so brazen in their destructive purpose that they think they can fool the rest of us when they claim " but we support our troops!" They do not, they never did and they never will! Instead, ironically enough, they join in the shameful and seditious words once espoused by their beloved and disgraced guru, Bill Clinton, who once was quoted as saying, " I loathe the military!"

J'accuse every so called women's rights organizations for never marching or working for the human rights of Iraqi women and girls or, protesting Saddam Hussein against them. They are hypocrites and have no credibility.

J'accuse all the so called environmental organizations for never protesting Hussein's ruination of the ecological environment when he set the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze after the Gulf war, and his present threats to set ablaze 1500 oil fields in the event Iraq is invaded.

J'accuse the UN member states who supported Hussein over the last 12 years during 17 fruitless resolutions.

J'accuse Hans Blix and Kofi Annan for knowingly giving time, aid, and support to the "Butcher of Baghdad" in their craven desire to maintain their UN positions.

J'accuse Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for deliberately undermining a caring and honorable Republican president as he sends our military forces off to protect our security and values, as well as bringing freedom to an oppressed people. Jimmy Carter, a failed president, who claims to be a deeply religious man, should reread the book of Exodus in order to learn about slavery, oppression and the ultimate joy of freedom from a tyrannical ruler. How ironic that he won the Nobel Peace Prize although he gave two nuclear reactors to North Korea.

J'accuse major Democratic leaders like Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi for their vicious and politically motivated continuing criticism of the President at this time of world crisis.

J'accuse Jewish Democrats and liberal senators such as Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin and Charles Schumer for their callous and politically motivated betrayal of our president as he seeks to protect us and Israel against Saddam's threats to wipe out the Jewish state and threaten America in the near future.

J'accuse, finally, and most sadly, all of my liberal fellow Jews here in America who have so quickly and conveniently forgotten the six million victims of the Holocaust who bravely clung to life and prayed to G-d that someone, anyone would come to liberate and save them from hell and death. If these Jewish peaceniks and anti-war protestors who chant "let the inspectors do their job" were alive in the 1930's, they would surely have also supported "disarming Hitler" instead of getting rid of him. Surely Anne Frank and millions of her fellow victims would have understood the liberal reasoning and peaceful motivation of these fellow Jews! Never mind that the trains, of course, would have kept bringing Jews and others to their deaths in the concentration camps. Never mind that this is the same message today, 60 years later, that they are giving to the hundreds and hundreds of innocent Jewish victims' families in Israel who have been murdered in part because of the nearly 15 million dollars given to "martyrs" families by Saddam Hussein. Have they learned nothing in 60 years? How sad, how tragic is the perfidy of their deeds!

So much for these Jewish people being "a light unto the nations". The Talmud teaches us that: "save even one life, it is as if you save the entire world." In the Torah, G-d commands Moses to tell the Jewish people to "choose life." But come on, let's be frank, aren't the constitutional rights of all these Jewish peaceniks to protest more important than our Torah, our Talmud and our centuries old tradition for the sanctity of all human life?

Maybe it is truly the time for the coming of the Messiah, if for no other reason than to save us from these misguided, hypocritical and callous protestors for "peace and justice".

"Do not make a mockery of justice for it is one of the three pillars of the world. Why? Because our sages teach us that the world stands on three things: on justice, on truth, and on peace. Know then that if you pervert justice you shake the foundation of the world... for justice is one of its pillars.

Rabban Simeon Ben Gamliel
Deuteronomy Rabbah Chapter 5, section 1.




by Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The deadly flower of Jewicide is once again budding and ready to bloom. It is a slow growing plant so that, to Jews, its growth is hardly perceptible or, at least, not so troubling in each stage that it cannot be adjusted to.

Our ability to adapt has even given rise to songs as in the musical "Candide" by Leonard Bernstein: "I am so easily assimilated". Recall, for example, how the Jews of Germany slowly, so slowly accepted the deterioration of their status as citizens until they were thrust into a lifestyle that dehumanized them. It did not happen all at once. "So what if we have to wear a yellow arm-band with a Jewish star." "So what if Jewish professors were denied teaching status or their classes boycotted by the Hitler Youth." Each step down was absorbed and acclimated to.

Having been religiously harassed throughout the centuries, we Jews developed psychological defense mechanisms to preserve our dignity, if not, our sanity. Jewish leadership invariably cautioned silence or the pretense that the deadly flower of Jewicide was not about to fully blossom. Their call to action invariably arrived too late or not at all.

Jews are desperately gullible, wishing to believe any gesture of friendship, always hoping that the handshake will be honored - as we honored it. We Jews, even as we get on trains to death camps and even as we walk into the gas showers , we desperately want to believe the assuring words, the friendly smiles, the classical music - up to the very minutes. We know in our hearts that the words and smiles are false but, we dismiss our suspicions and we always pay the ultimate price.

All of this is happening again - now. The Jews of Israel, the Jews of America and South America, the Jews of Europe are first beginning to express concern. Regrettably, if our past is any indication of our people's future, our level of concern ought to be reaching an alarming peak. Instead, it seems as if in today's Jewish world, both leaders and the Jewish people are "adapting" to a threat which could sadly herald our extinction.

Arnold Toynbee, the great historian, expressed professional surprise that the Jewish civilization had not yet gone the way of the Roman Empire or other now extinct civilizations. The word: "Anti-Semitism" has passed into the common lexicon and no longer implies the threat it once did. However, it is time to find a new expression which more accurately and immediately expressed our peril - like the word I coined: "Jewicide".

Jewicide can be viewed through the lens of Genocide, Homicide and Suicide because it is all these things. There are those Jews who will immediately drop into state of denial. "Nothing unusual is happening", they will tell you. Similarly, our adversaries will also adopt 'denial', telling us and themselves that they have no designs on our lives, our civilization, our religion or the epicenter of our roots, Israel. Everyone is in agreement that all is well, except a few trouble makers that "Shrei Gevalt" (Scream to G-d).

Some Jews retain their long term national memory of our unique history and have sensitized antennae which are tuned to those slow moving danger signals. We observe that deadly flower of Jewicide budding, with a few blossoms starting to spring open.

What are some of these signals which the Jewish leadership stare at with benign neglect? Without any attempt to list them in order of importance or timeliness consider the congregation of nations in the United Nations representing over 5 Billion people.

When was the last time Israel was given a vote of confidence, let alone the benefit of the doubt on any issue in the U.N.? With some very few exceptions, the U.N., either in their Security Council or their General Assembly votes to condemn Israel, mostly driven by the block of Arab nations. For some Jews, this is a trivial matter which they believe will pass away in time. For others, we realize that the votes and permanent hostility are cumulative and building toward a crisis for Israel and for Jews world-wide.

The E.U. (European Union) has a general consensus that the 7 wars** launched by the Arab nations had merit. Somehow, in judging Israel and her irritating stubbornness at staying alive by not losing one war the Arabs have initiated, we see a transformation in the practice of Jewicide. Most of the European nations did their very best to assist Hitler in his crusade of Genocide of the Jewish people. Now they have joined Islam's Crusade against Israel, ignoring the reality that Islam also seeks their demise and/or conversion globally.

There was a general opinion that, after the Holocaust murdered 6 million Jews, leaving approximately 15 million Jews spread thinly over the planet, the Jewish people were finished as a civilization. Even the token gesture of partitioning a Jewish State for the embarrassing remnants of the Holocaust was not anticipated to survive the massive assault promised by all Arab/Muslim nations.

This partition by the U.N. occurred after 70% of the designated homeland for the Jewish people as set forth in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was cut off at the Jordan River by Winston Churchill to appease Abdullah who came from the Arabian Peninsula to threaten French-controlled Lebanon. Israel was scheduled for elimination by those who reluctantly voted for her partition and the Arab/Muslim nations pledged to insure her occupation.

The survival of the Jewish State of Israel in the face of overwhelming Arab numbers, well-armed by the West and the other Arab/Muslim nations, shocked the Europeans as well as the Arabists in the U.S. State Department. Israel was not on anyone's schedule to survive more than a few months after its declaration of Independent Statehood on May 14, 1948. Except for the Jews and Bible-believing Christians, no one was pleased that the Jews had beaten 7 Arab armies***, armed and backed by the Europeans.

Even the United States, under President Harry Truman, embargoed arms to Israel, anticipating his political troubles caused by recognizing Israel's Statehood, would be solved by the Arab Legions.

Presently, a deadly flower is rising, called the "Road Map" offered by the "Quartet"( the U.S. State Department, the U.N., the E.U. and Russia). They took what President Bush promised the Arabs in June 2002, revised it, took away any requirements for compliance by the Arab Palestinians and placed all the onerous restrictions upon Israel. Now the "Quartet" refuses to accept Israel's objections to the dismantling of her sovereignty and security.

No one, except most of the Jewish leadership in Israel and America, is under any illusion that either the Arab Palestinians or the Arab/Muslim nations have given up their long-term, oft-stated plans to liquidate the Jewish State and occupy the land of Israel for Islam. However, in the interim and according to Islamic custom, any agreement may be offered to their adversary until the Muslims have gained sufficient strength and resources to re-engage the enemy.

The radical Left in Israel, having observed their failed plan of Oslo - which assumed pacification of the Arab Palestinians - cling to their failure with a desperation born out of the fear of personal irrelevancy, stupidity and uselessness. They have joined the "Quartet", hoping that the earlier failure of Oslo could be erased by the extraordinary pressure exerted by the "Quartet". (Note! While the title "Quartet" connotes a certain harmony and 'bon ami', the fact is that the "Quartet" now seems to represent most of the hostile nations of this planet - as are embodied in the United Nations.)

What to do?

The remaining Jews of this world may have to abruptly awaken and not be so accommodating. There is a time to be angry; there is a time to use civil disobedience; and there is a time not to be so ready to calmly adjust to plans thrust upon us.

We must recognize that there are plans in the works to placate the Muslim/Arabs by offering the Arab Palestinians a State in the heartland of the Jewish State of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital. How can anyone hypothesize that a democratic Arab state can be established where none exists presently anywhere in the entire Arab world?

Most Jewish academics, joining the majority of the political Left in academia, are willing to take the risk - in the name of the Jewish State. The risk being that - another Arab Palestinian State West of the Jordan River would instantly become a safe haven for most of the world's Islamic Terrorist organizations, in addition to maintaining close operational connections to the Terrorist-supporting Arab/Muslim countries of Iran, Syria and Iraq (if it is left in one piece after Operation Iraqi Freedom).

At this time the Jewish leadership in Israel is going along with the idea that other nations have the right to arrange the future of the Jewish State and challenge her survival as well as her sovereignty. There is a certain pretense that Israel is an equal and willing partner rather than that she is actually being herded along by the U.S. State Department with affirmative statements by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Jews as a minority in most host nations, have learned to keep a low profile and not protest too much. A key question now, given the lessons of accepting the creeping debasement in the past with such disastrous results (as in the Holocaust), are we doing it again? Or, rather, are they doing it again?

Words of the past like "scape-goating" are loaded with meaning for the Jews but are often ignored. Throughout history, Jews have been blamed for failed wars, for bubonic plague, for economies that go into hyper-inflation where bushels of Deutschmarks could not buy a loaf of bread. The Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations have taught that Jews successful in medicine, business, trade of any sort, succeed because they are in league with the devil. By demonizing the Jews, it makes it possible for them to annihilate Jews without being bothered by their consciences. This also squares the circle of having a Jewish son of G-d as their god while eliminating his family and the roots of his existence.

March 31st, we heard that very gentle and intelligent lady, Condelezza Rice, speaking for President Bush, tell a Jewish audience at the annual AIPAC (American-Israel Political Action Committee) Policy Conference that they (the Bush Administration) has a plan to pacify the Arab Palestinians and bring peace to the region. While I admire Condelezza Rice, I am astounded by her "Chutzpah" (Nerve) in assuring a beleaguered nation that we (the Bush Administration) have found a solution to Arab/Muslim belligerency to the Jewish State of Israel which challenges the existence of Jews and their Covenant with a G-d who make no mistakes in His Judgement.

Ms. Rice said at the same time that 4000 Arab Palestinians volunteered as Homicide Bombers against American troops in Iraq. Even as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell were warning Syria to cease arming Saddam's Iraq, they were promising the Israeli people that Arabs would keep a peace via signed agreements.

Even as both Rice and Powell were offering assurances to the AIPAC assembly, it was reported that Israel's visiting Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom was informed by President Bush that the American government does not intend to make any changes in the "Road Map" plan as drafted by the U.S. State Department. That means that Sharon's 100+ revisions will be ignored and the Plan will be non-negotiable - denials notwithstanding. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, all promises and assurances made to the Jewish State are virtually worthless from the onset.

President Bush has warned the American people that a mix of Arab Terrorists planted in the United States in "sleeper Terror cells" may very well unleash Terror with WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). This and much more have been the record of unremitting hostility against America and Israel. I am sure that Condelezza Rice and President Bush believe that they have a solution to erase an age-old hatred. But, they are naive or we are to accept their beliefs.

Meetings to decide the fate of the Jewish people have occurred with disturbing frequency over the centuries. Usually the 'judges' did not have the best interests of the Jews in mind. From the destruction of both Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to Church fathers re-arranging the lives of Jews, to the aristocracy of Spain expelling their Jews, through pogroms in Russia, descending to the depths in Hitler's Wannsee Conference where the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was decided to eliminate all the Jews of Europe and the world once it was conquered by the Nazis' Third Reich. In all of the above, the confiscation of all assets, all properties, cancellations of all debts owed to the Jews - accompanied the local Jewicide - throughout history. History can be instructive if you remember it and apply the lessons.

With all good intentions of the Bush Administration, to offer another plan for a "Jewish solution" flies in the face of an almost unbroken history of Jewicide. Putting Israel into the hands of European and Arab/Muslims, relying on their future good will and their firmly established track record for breaking all agreements with Jews or the Jewish nation does not inspire confidence (to say the least).

For the first time in ages, Jews have their destiny in their own hands in their own land. So far, they have succeeded in protecting themselves from surrounding hostile Muslim/Arab nations who have usually been supported by European nations with financially vested interests.

The proposed "Road Map" from President Bush, modified by the "Quartet", is designed to place the safety of Jews and Israel into other hands, with a confidence-building overview by America or monitors from the E.U. or NATO. The sad fact is that, once this process is in motion, all good intentions aside, America cannot prevent the Arab/Muslim nations nor the Arab Palestinians from attacking Israel from a stable operational base called the New State of Palestine.

Israeli leadership, with support from World Jewry, should politely refuse with a very firm "NO! Thank You!". Nor should the Jewish establishment in America wait quietly before they firmly impress on the Bush Administration and the "Quartet" that they will aggressively resist using Israel as payment to the Arab/Muslim nations for this necessary war to remove Saddam and his WMD (Weapons of Mass Death).

The historical experiment in Jewicide must be stopped NOW and NEVER AGAIN be accepted by the Jewish people. If we again wait to "Shrei Gevalt", perhaps we deserve everything intended for us.

###**7 Wars of Arab/Muslim Aggression: 1948 (War of Independence), 1956 (Sinai Campaign), 1967 (Six Days War), 1970-71(War of Attrition), 1973 (Yom Kippur War), 1982 (War to Prevent PLO Attack from Lebanon), 1991 (Saddam's First Persian Gulf War).

*** 7 Arab armies who attacked Israel the day after she declared Independence: May 14, 1948: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iraq. Sources: "Diplomacy by Other Means" by Thomas Friedman NEW YORK TIMES & "Battleground: Facts & Fantasy in Palestine" by Samuel Katz Bantam/Steimatsky 1973





by Jim Krane, AP Technology Writer

[With thanks to]

The Bush administration has made clear it wants Israel to stay out of an Iraq war so as not to provoke Arab and Muslim countries assisting the United States. But that won't stop Israel's weaponry and arms technology from being used against Iraqis.

After decades of U.S. military aid and defense cooperation, the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel -- from the Army's Hunter drones to the targeting systems on the U.S. Marines' Harrier jets to the fuel tanks on its F-15 fighters.

"We'll be shooting down some (French) Mirage 3s, I think, if the Iraqis ever come up. We may shoot them with an Israeli missile, from a U.S. warplane," said Joel Johnson, spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association, a Washington-based industry lobby.

It would be hard to find a modern military that manages without technology developed by the Jewish state's feisty industry. Israel emerged last year as the world's No. 3 arms and military services exporter -- ahead of even Russia's massive arms industry, according to Jane's Defense Weekly.

That Israel's weaponry has found a place inside the mighty U.S. military points to the country's engineering prowess -- and its status as a favorite ally, said Yiftah Shapir of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

The U.S.-Israeli friendship "helps to a certain extent, but when it comes to commercial competition, these sentiments are put aside," Shapir said. "These are highly advanced and the price is highly competitive."

Iraqi forces might be on the receiving end of Israeli technology in several scenarios.

A B-52 bomber could fire Popeye air-to-surface missiles -- dubbed AGM-142 by the U.S. Air Force -- at ground targets. The precision-guided Popeyes were designed by Rafael, a company partially owned by the government of Israel.

Israeli-designed Hunter unmanned aerial vehicles are in the service of the U.S. Army, and its cousin, the Pioneer, is being used by the U.S. Marines to scout Iraqi defenses. Both originated in the design labs of Israel Aircraft Industries, the country's largest private company.

The Hunter dropped anti-tank munitions in recent U.S. tests, and could be used alongside the Air Force's armed Predator missile-firing drone in a ground attack role.

Some of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicles are guided by on-board computers supplied by a subsidiary of Israel's Elbit Systems, Shapir said. U.S. troops riding in the Bradleys might also be protected by armor from Rafael, said Lova Drori, Rafael's director of international marketing.

Rafael is also the designer of the Litening Targeting Pods used to fire precision weapons from the Marines' AV-8B Harrier jet, as well as F-15s and F-16s flown by the Air Force Reserves and Army National Guard, Drori said.

Israel also makes or designs multiple rocket launchers, mortars, laser target designators for the Army's Comanche helicopter and other components, Shapir said.

Much of the equipment is manufactured in the United States by subsidiaries of Israeli companies, or through joint ventures with U.S. weapons manufacturers.

According to Jane's, Israel made more than $3.5 billion in arms sales last year, roughly equal to Russia's massive arms export industry. Only the United States and Britain sold more, Jane's reported.

Other sources don't factor in Israel's exports of services -- such as upgrades to tanks and fighter aircraft -- and rank Israel as a smaller exporter. London's International Institute for Strategic Studies called Israel the world's No. 5 arms exporter last year.

Besides the United States, Israel's top customers include Turkey, India, Brazil, Canada and Germany. China used to be a major client, but Israel backed off after protests from the United States, Shapir and others said.



18 March 2003


by IDF Spokesperson

Against the rising threat to Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBMs), carrying various types of warheads, Israel Aircraft Industries' MLM Division with its partners developed an effective, powerful and modular defense system. Utilizing the uniquely effective ARROW II interceptor, the system detects, intercepts and destroys incoming TBMs and provides a large defended footprint, allowing the protection of important strategic assets, as well as civilian population centers.

How did the Arrow Missile Program Develop?

The story of the Arrow Weapons System (AWS) began on March 23rd 1983 when US president Reagan delivered his "Star Wars" speech presenting to the world his vision of a defensive wall that would give the citizens of the free world a defense against Ballistic Missiles.

In 1984 the US Defense Department created a body called the SDIO. The SDIO's job was to administrate the Star Wars activity.

In 1985, the US offered Israel to join the initiative.

In 1986 an understanding was signed between the governments of Israel and the US which defined the principles of development that were to come. During the discussions that took place, it was decided that the Arrow system suited Israeli defense needs. The project was unveiled in 1988. In addition, it was decided that the US would fund 80% of the project.

Dov Raviv head of the Israel Aircraft Industries MLM Divisionand the father of the Arrow Missile program supervised the development with creativity and leadership. He ensured that the technology that went into the arrow was State of the Art.

The Arrow had a shaky start and early faults in the system were common. Despite this, it was possible within two years to overcome the problems and test launch the first ever Arrow missile in August 1990. The missile crashed during take off. There were many people who thought the project unnecessary and wasteful, but their doubts about the Arrow disappeared in 1991 during the Gulf War when they discovered that the threat of missiles was no myth, but harsh reality. In the next two tests, errors were discovered in the planning of the thermal defense system characterizing hypersonic missiles which had lead to all previous failures of the system. In September 1992 a successful Arrow missile test was carried out in which one arrow missile was deployed, and in 1993 two tests were carried out with almost total success.

In the summer of 1994 field photographers filmed a historic test launch in which an arrow missile destroyed its target for the first time. This proved that the original concept was working.

Due to several successful tests, the original Arrow missile completed its task as a technological breakthrough. Later, it was to be used as a target missile only. In the series of tests that followed, the capability of the arrow was increased to become a hypersonic missile, proving Israel's technological capabilities. This was a maximal result achieved in minimal time.

The new model dubbed "Arrow 2" had two stages and a wider range. It was capable of reaching heights above those of the earth's atmosphere, and could be launched from a portable launcher with short response time. In addition it had several other special features which showed how technologically advanced it was.

Between 1995-2000 ten test launches of the arrow missile were carried out which included the launch of a missile (flyout).

A number of tests were performed to examine the system: Nine out of 10 of these tests were successful. Soldiers in the Arrow missile unit carried out the last tests. The last test, which took place on The 5th of Jan 2003, was especially rewarding because the missile was launched under special flight conditions. The test examined how the Arrow could intercept 4 missiles simultaneously, as well as a simulation of a barrage of enemy missiles.

The chain of successful tests was extraordinary. They cannot assure 100% success, however they go a long way to add a feeling of security and belief in the Arrow missile system.

In the end of 1997 the IAF announced that it had created a special team which would be in charge of the first Arrow missile battery. In November 1998 a rollout ceremony took place in which the head of Israel's Aircraft Industry handed over the Arrow missile System to the Defense ministry.

In September 2000 the arrow system radar identified a scud launching facility in Syria, and in 2001 it discovered another.

The Arrow missile became operational in October 2000. In January 2000 The Israel Air Force industry and Boeing signed a deal in which it was agreed that they would both help to manufacture the arrow. During 2002 the framework for the Arrow missile 2 was laid down.

Today many countries possess ballistic missiles, and many of these countries either possess or are seeking to develop unconventional weapons. This condition, coupled with the unpredictability of potential adversaries, presents a serious threat to population centers, and high value assets. ARROW Weapon System is the first operational ATBM system in the world being developed specifically to defend against Theater Ballistic Missiles.

For more information on the Arrow:



FRIENDS OF THE CIA - The Palestinian Militias

By Jim Hoagland

With CIA friends like these... who needs enemies?

This is the same CIA which, during the Clinton years, trained the Arab snipers who then killed dozens of Israelis; the same CIA who gave advanced listening and communication equipment to Arafat's forces; the same CIA (Tenet) who made sure that Pollard rots in jail (Tenet threatened to resign in the event of Pollard's liberation); and the same CIA that now Bush wants once again involved in shoving another "peace process" (read: "piece-by-piece process", where the pieces are Jewish body parts and pieces of OUR land) down Israel's throat, as a payback for being the only ones in this area to fully support the US against Iraq.

I guess, once again, after the Iraq war, as Sabra and Shatila teach, Jews must be the scapegoat for the fact that Christians kill Muslims...

On a visit to Washington a year ago, Palestinian security chief Jibril Rajoub proudly showed off an armor-plated limousine that he said the Central Intelligence Agency "always provides me when I am here." Last week on the West Bank, Rajoub was running for his life from Israeli troops seeking to eliminate the territory's "terrorist infrastructure."

The CIA helped Rajoub make his way out of his fire-gutted compound in Beitunia and arrange the surrender of dozens of his operatives as Ariel Sharon's siege intensified. The American agents were doing what comes naturally in their profession -- protecting assets, however troublesome those assets may become for others.

Rajoub's plight points up the exposed position into which U.S. intelligence officers -- and U.S. policy -- have been dragged in the new Israeli-Palestinian war. The Palestinian militias that the CIA has been building up under presidential order are the primary recipients of Sharon's wrath and firepower. Sharon intends to conquer, or destroy, what the CIA hath wrought on the West Bank.

The Bush administration now faces an acute dilemma in unraveling the confusion and complexities created by U.S. intelligence taking on responsibilities that are deeply operational and political. Operating under an intelligence "finding" signed by President Clinton, the CIA has helped train and equip Yasser Arafat's security forces.

And the CIA in one form or another became publicly involved in the grooming of Rajoub and other security commanders as potential leaders in the post-Arafat era. Instead of objectively sorting through and analyzing the looming succession struggle for Washington, agents on the ground have horses in the race.

Mixing espionage and political duties is always dangerous. It tends to produce short-term successes (providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein, obtaining funding for the contras) and long-term liabilities for U.S. foreign policy (ditto). CIA Director George Tenet presumably recognized the dangers when he initially resisted this role for his agency. Sharon's assault on the militias shows why Tenet should have stood his ground.

The Israeli prime minister twists the knife in the corpse of a failed U.S. policy that began in late 1998, worked well in 1999 and then died in 2001 when the Palestinian Preventive Security force abandoned meaningful cooperation with the Israelis. When Sharon, or President Bush, speaks of Arafat's failure to "control terrorism," it is this default of the security services and police that they have in mind.

Sharon's message to Rajoub, Mohammed Dahlan, Marwan Barghouti and Arafat's other lieutenants is clear: Take on the suicide bombers and leaders of Hamas or face destruction for being useless, complicit or both. You are the "infrastructure" that must be uprooted.

So far the Palestinians continue to hesitate, presumably out of the same fear or ambition that caused them, as Arafat's intifada intensified, to stop halting would-be suicide bombers and other terrorists or tipping off the Israelis. When Rajoub agreed on Tuesday through the CIA to give up his compound at Beitunia after running out of food and ammunition, he immediately came under attack from Hamas for allowing a half-dozen of its "warriors" to fall into Israeli hands and for being "an American agent."

There is a giant Catch-22 at the heart of the Faustian bargain that Israel, the United States and the Palestinian Authority struck as part of the Wye Plantation accords of 1998. While CIA support brings resources and power to the recipient, the agency's visible embrace can also be used to discredit both a person and a cause in the eyes of many Arabs, not just the killers of Hamas.

U.S. interests can also be compromised by arrangements dominated by the agency's covert skills of finding "assets" that can be bought, manipulated or coerced into doing the agency's bidding. This is hardly the definition of reliable allies who are likely to promote American democratic principles in the political arena.

Ironically, it was Binyamin Netanyahu, then Israel's prime minister, who insisted at the Wye meeting that the CIA deepen its engagement with the Palestinian security forces, which became more heavily armed through the deal. This was to ensure that they carried out the unspoken responsibility Arafat accepted in the 1993 Oslo accords: The Palestinians would eliminate the terrorist threat in the areas the Israelis agreed to leave, without much concern by Washington or Jerusalem over methods.

But means do influence ends. The security arrangements were contaminated by the corruption, authoritarianism and weakness that Arafat and his lieutenants practiced on their own people -- who end up paying a terrible price for the failures of the CIA's friends in their midst.



The Boston Globe, March 30, 2003


By Jeff Jacoby

In exchange for a withdrawal of US and British troops, Saddam Hussein sends word that he is prepared to share some of his power with a senior member of his Baathist inner circle. Instead of maintaining absolute control over the Iraqi state, Saddam agrees to name Tariq Aziz his official deputy. The job will carry some limited authority, such as the right to appoint cabinet members without Saddam's prior approval. But Aziz will hold office at Saddam's pleasure. He will not be in control of the country's foreign or military affairs, and the Iraqi security forces will continue to take their orders from Saddam.

Sound like a good deal? Like the kind of democratic "regime change" that George W. Bush and Tony Blair would gladly embrace? Of course it doesn't. Any arrangement that left Saddam or his henchmen in control would be an ignominious defeat for the allies and a shameful betrayal of the Iraqi people. Whatever else regime change in Baghdad entails, at a minimum it must sweep the dictator and his accomplices from power.

Why should it do any less in Ramallah?

In a signal address last June, Bush called for a radical transformation of the Palestinian Authority. "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership," he said, vowing that the United States would not support statehood for the Palestinians until they had "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," and had built "a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." It was a demand for regime change in all but name, and its meaning was crystal-clear: Yasser Arafat and his accomplices had to be swept from power.

Yet when Arafat recently named Mahmoud Abbas -- his longtime confederate in the Fatah and PLO terrorist organizations -- as the new Palestinian prime minister, the Bush administration was all smiles. "We respond favorably to it," beamed Secretary of State Colin Powell. "This, I think, is a positive step forward." National Security Assistant Condoleeza Rice said Abbas would be welcome at the White House. Neither seemed to care that Arafat remained firmly in place atop the Palestinian Authority, that Abbas's new powers would be sharply limited, or that a PA headed by Arafat and Abbas was the furthest thing imaginable from "new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

The press was upbeat, too. Abbas, reported Ibrahim Hazboun in a widely reprinted AP story, "is a veteran advocate of peace with Israel and the most outspoken critic of the 29-month-old uprising." A few days later, his colleague Karin Laub identified the new prime minister as a "pragmatist and moderate," describing his appointment as "the first real promise of ending the bloody Israeli-Palestinian deadlock."

But Abbas is no more a "moderate" than Tariq Aziz, and notwithstanding his reputation as an "advocate of peace," he calls openly for violence against Jews.

Stories about Abbas routinely mention that he is known by the nom de guerre "Abu Mazen." Few if any remark on the anomaly of a supposed peacemaker using a nom de guerre. Fewer still have noted that as recently as four weeks ago, Abbas made it clear that he does *not* support an end to the terror war against Israel.

Discussing the PLO's recent terror summit in Cairo with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Abbas told the Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat on March 3, "We didn't talk about a break in the armed struggle.... It is our right to resist. The intifada must continue and it is the right of the Palestinian people to resist and use all possible means." His only caveat was that terrorism should be confined to the disputed territories -- Gaza, the West Bank, and eastern Jerusalem. Such is the nature of Abbas's "moderation."

At Camp David in 2000, Abbas was among those who pressed Arafat to reject Israel's comprehensive peace proposal, notes political scientist Dan Schueftan, a former advisor to Yitzhak Rabin. Palestinians should have no regrets about refusing Israel's offer of 95 percent of the land, Abbas has since said, "because 95 percent is not 100 percent." He insists not only that Israel surrender every inch of land occupied in self-defense in 1967 -- including the Old City of Jerusalem and its Jewish holy sites -- but also that millions of Palestinians be given an unlimited right of immigration into Israel proper. Of course, that would spell the end of the Jewish state -- just what Fatah and the PLO have sought for 40 years.

In the 1980s, Abbas wrote a book suggesting that the Nazi Holocaust had been wildly exaggerated. Zionist propaganda had inflated the number of Jewish murder victims to 6 million, he claimed -- the true figure might well be "only a few hundred thousand." What's more, he wrote, the Nazi slaughter had been carried out with the help of Zionist leaders, who colluded in persecuting Europe's Jews in order to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. Whether Abbas still believes these grotesqueries is unclear.

But this much is very clear: An inflexible radical who supports terrorism is neither a moderate nor an advocate of peace -- even if he does speak good English and wear well-tailored suits. A lifelong accomplice of Yasser Arafat is not an exemplar of democracy and tolerance. A Palestinian Authority ruled by the same aging terrorists who have ruled it from the start -- albeit with a slight shift of powers and portfolios -- is not a "new and different Palestinian leadership."

As the Afghans deserved better than Mullah Omar and his Taliban thugs, as Iraqis deserve better than Saddam and the Baathist SS, so the Palestinians deserve better than Arafat and Abbas. President Bush was firm on that point last June. This is no time to go wobbly.


Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.




by Boris Shusteff

The utter helplessness of the pro-Israel informational campaign is stunning. It appears that not only Israel's supporters but Israel as well has resigned herself to the thought that it is impossible to fight against outrageous anti-Israeli falsehoods and inaccuracies due to their sheer magnitude. As a result, the truth of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been deeply buried under an avalanche of fabrications, hypocrisy, insincerity and falsifications.

The main blame for this must be squarely put on Jewish shoulders. The Jews, famous for their analytical and research capabilities, become inexplicably lazy and unable to counter the outpouring of lies even when the refutation is on the surface. Nothing demonstrates this better than two recent developments that highlighted just how absurdly ineffective Israel's PR has been.

On March 25 British Foreign Minister Jack Straw told the BBC World Service that he "understood Arab concern" about what he described as "injustice against the Palestinians." He said,

"There is a real concern too that the West has been guilty of double standards -- on the one hand saying the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq must be implemented; on the other hand, sometimes appearing rather quixotic over the implementation of resolutions about Israel and Palestine."

Israel's reaction to Straw's statement was ridiculously toothless. As reported by Arutz-7, Jerusalem's officials said, "It is regrettable that no distinction is made in Europe between a bloodthirsty dictator who threatens the entire world, and a democratic country that is dealing with the worst wave of terrorism in the world."

Israel missed the forest for the trees. Israeli officials inexcusably left unanswered the brunt of Straw's attack - the more than transparent accusation that Israel is ignoring UN resolutions. This false accusation is a continually restated Arab position, and by not confronting it Israel adds scores of points to Arab credibility, which is, in reality, nothing more than a card-house of lies.

The most interesting thing is that Israel does not have to reinvent the wheel. The "double standards" accusation was perfectly refuted on February 17, 1998, during a Worldnet interview by then American Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk. This is what he said:

"I know that there are a lot of people in the Arab world who feel that there is some double standard being applied here... As I've said before, the Security Council resolutions in the case of Iraq are mandatory. They demand that Iraq comply... and sanctions are applied in order to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the Security Council resolutions. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are Security Council resolutions that govern the settlement of that conflict. Those are 242 and 338. And those resolutions... provide for negotiations. They are not mandatory, they are not self-implementing. They lay out the principles that should govern peace negotiations -- direct negotiations between Israel and its neighbors."

On April 3, 1998, Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs' position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-'Arabi, grudgingly confirmed the validity of Indyk's statement, when she answered the question - "What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?" She said, "I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are DIFFERENT, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, THE RESOLUTIONS PASSED AGAINST ISRAEL ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE CHARTER" [emphasis added].

While it is hard to believe that somehow Indyk's and Hjelm-Wallen's statements escaped the radar screens of Israeli Public Relations officials, it is even more unbearable to watch the impotence of Israeli PR directed against Abu Mazen. It appears that everyone who writes about Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), the soon-to-be Palestinian Prime Minister, is capable to bring forth only two discrediting facts from his biography. According to one of them Abu Mazen wrote in his doctoral thesis in 1960 that "the Holocaust was invented by the Jews so as to arouse the compassion of the world" and that "the figure of six million Jews murdered by the Nazis was a false one."

The second fact pertains to Abu Mazen's statement from his interview given to the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper on March 3, in which he said that "if the Israelis came and settled themselves on your land, it would be in your right to defend yourself using any means necessary." As was explained by several commentators, Abu Mazen's comments "justify the continuation of the armed struggle against Israeli civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." They also imply that Israeli residents of these regions are legitimate targets.

However, the aforementioned facts are only partially helpful in unmasking one of Arafat's closest allies. In order to better understand the magnitude of the threat posed by Abu Mazen one must realize that he, together with Arafat and Farouk Qadoumi, make up the only three still-living so-called "founding fathers" of Fatah. Arafat always used Abu Mazen to create an image of a "peaceful" Fatah. From the very beginning of Abu Mazen's career as a professional ideologue-terrorist he was assigned to lead the dialogue with the Israeli left. It was always his responsibility to calm their fears and he had tremendous success at this task during the negotiations that led to Oslo.

Abu Mazen, a wolf in sheep's clothing, developed a political strategy to be used during the "peace stage" and explained it in his 1998 book Racial and Religious Polarization in Israel,

"There is no doubt that the war [with Israel] was essential and that it might be essential [again] in the future. However, since the current stage is the stage of peace, this process must be exhausted... All that is required from us is to bring the Israelis to the absolute conviction that we Arabs really want peace, because such conviction will deepen the dispute in Israeli society and bring the Israelis down from their tanks and out of their fortresses."

Abu Mazen is very honest. Israelis must be "ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED" that the Arabs "really want peace." He does not say that there will be peace; on the contrary, the war "might be essential in the future," but at today's "stage of peace" it is important to give the Israelis a sense of security and peace in order to bring them "out of their fortresses." It is this pragmatic approach of exhausting the peace process, which drives all of Abu Mazen's actions and speeches. He bluntly explained on March 3, "We didn't talk about a break in the armed struggle. We talked about a break in the militarization of the Intifada. Armed struggle requires conditions and possibilities that are not here with us in Palestine... Therefore, military activity, in light of these conditions, is not efficient."

It is not that Abu Mazen is against "military activity". The only reason that he calls for a "break in the armed struggle" is its INEFFICIENCY. He said in December 2002 talking to the heads of the Popular Councils of the Gaza strip refugee camps that the Intifada complicated the situation and did not allow the Palestinians "to complete our way for full realization... of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, ending the occupation and the settlements, and solving the Palestinian refugee problem in accordance with Resolution 194" (1).

Abu Mazen, more than anyone else among the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, demands that Israel accept the "right of return." It is because the recently-touted Saudi plan (referred to as the "Arab Initiative") includes the right of return - the anathema for the Jewish state - that Abu Mazen is so excited about it. He explained,

"The Arab summit convened and ratified the initiative that includes the refugee problem. This initiative was among the most successful initiatives that have arisen in modern history... With the 'Arab Initiative,' we managed to base the right of refugees in principle" (1).

Being an ideologue deeply versed in international politics, Abu Mazen, well aware of Intifada's failure, tries to salvage as much favorable international public opinion as possible. As he said in Gaza,

"If we stop now, we will be able to continue conveying [a message] to the world that we were massacred and destroyed, that this is a crime that must be stopped, and that we want peace - and then anyone who believes in genuine peace will stand by our side. In this framework, I want to point out that for the first time, the world has begun to talk about a Palestinian state. And this is something that has not been said before..." (1).

It is quite possible that, in the current situation, Abu Mazen sincerely favors the non-military approach to dealing with Israel. However, this does not make him less dangerous. One must recall that prior to the Oslo process, it was very difficult for the Arabs to exercise their "military option." In the 25 years prior to the inexcusable Oslo blunder, Arab terrorist activity "only" took the lives of 440 Jews, i.e. on average less than 1.5 persons per month. In comparison, during the 29 months since the beginning of the second Intifada on September 29, 2000, 731 Israelis have been killed, which is more than 25 per month on average, or an increase of 1,667% (!). And during some of these "peaceful" Oslo months over 100 Jews were brutally murdered by the Arabs.

It is by bringing the Arabs closer to Israel, and by implanting Arafat, Abu Mazen and their ilk in Judea, Samaria and Gaza that Israel created conditions in which it became possible to kill so many Jews. By not exposing Abu Mazen's real image, Israeli commentators and politicians are playing in tune with his intentions to "deepen the dispute in Israeli society and bring the Israelis down from their tanks and out of their fortresses." One need not be a prophet to predict what will happen after that. 03/29/03


1. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Special Dispatch #449. December 15, 2002.


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



27 March 2003


By Louis Rene Beres

Until now, fears of a nuclear war in the Middle East have generally focussed on Iraq. Yet, when the current war against Saddam Hussein is concluded, it is highly unlikely that Iraq will be in any position to acquire nuclear weapons. A new Arab state of "Palestine," on the other hand, would have decidedly serious implications for certain regional resorts to nuclear conflict. Newly endowed with a so-called "Prime Minister," this state, although itself non-nuclear, would greatly heighten the prospect of catastrophic nuclear war in the area.

If all goes well for the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush will feel compelled to reward Arab state allies and supporters with a dedicated American effort to create a Palestinian state. This state, tied closely to a broad spectrum of terrorist groups and flanking 70 percent of Israel's population, would utterly eliminate Israel's remaining strategic depth. With limited capacity to defend an already fragile land and facing a new enemy country resolutely committed to Israel's annihilation, Jerusalem would have to undertake even more stringent methods of counterterrorism and self-defense against aggression. Various new forms of preemption, known under international law as anticipatory self-defense, would be unavoidable. Significantly, a strong emphasis on preemption has now become the recognizable core of President Bush's national security policy for the United States.

Several ironies must also be noted. Above all, offering Palestine as a reward for collaborative opposition to Iraq would merely exchange one terror state for another. Additionally, the nuclear risks associated with a new state of Palestine would derive not from this state directly - which would assuredly be non-nuclear - but from (1) other Arab/Islamic states (including Iran) that could exploit Israel's new strategic vulnerabilities; and/or (2) Israel's own attempts to preempt such enemy exploitations.

Because the creation of a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel would raise the area risk of nuclear war considerably, this very politicized measure should now be viewed with real apprehension. Indeed, its creation could even bring an Islamic "Final Solution" to the region. After all, every Arab map of the Middle East already excludes Israel. Cartographically, Israel has already been destroyed.

Architects of the Oslo Agreements had suggested all along that a "Two-State Solution" to the Palestinian problem would surely reduce the risk of another major war in the Middle East. After all, they had always maintained, the problem of stateless Palestinians is THE source of all problems between Israel and the Arabs. Once we have "justice" for Palestinians, the argument proceeded, Arab governments and Iran could begin to create area-wide stability and comprehensive peace settlements. Harmony would then reign, more or less triumphantly, from the Mediterranean and Red Seas to the Persian Gulf.

But as we should have learned by now, especially from recurring Arab violations of the "peace process," the conventional Oslo wisdom was always unwise. For the most part, Iranian and Arab state inclinations to war against Israel have had absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinians. Even if Israel had continued to make all unilateral Oslo concessions, and had continued to adhere to unreciprocated agreements, these irremediably belligerent inclinations would have endured, especially from Syria, Iraq and Libya as well as from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

If Israel should soon face a new state of Palestine, the Jewish state's vulnerability to armed attack by hostile neighbors will increase markedly. If this diminished safety is accompanied by the spread of unconventional weapons to certain hostile states, which now seems certain, Israel could find itself confronting not only war, but genocide. It is also clear that Israel's own nuclear infrastructures will become increasingly vulnerable to surprise attack from Palestinian territories.

A new state of Palestine would preoccupy Israeli military forces to a much greater extent than does the current "intifada". Even if it were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the region, a takeover accomplished either directly or by insurgent surrogates, Palestine would surely become a favored launching-point for unconventional terrorism against Israel. Various promises notwithstanding, Islamic insurgents would continue to celebrate frenzied violence against Israel's women and children as the essence of "national liberation." Drawing upon fierce Palestinian hatreds of America, a state of Palestine would also provide a sympathetic host to various terrorist enemies of the United States. This would include Al Qaeda, which already has close ties to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah.

Recognizing an "improved" configuration of forces vis-a-vis Israel, a larger number of Islamic enemy states would calculate that they now confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary. Further, they would understand that a coordinated effort by certain countries that possess or are in the process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could possibly endanger Israel's very survival. Taken together with the fact that global support for Israel is always weak and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of Palestine would tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively. It is unlikely that Israel could physically survive next to a Palestinian state, a state that always defines itself as extending "from the Sea to the River." It is also unlikely that Palestine would prevent its territory from being used as a base of expanded Islamic terrorist operations against the United States - operations that could even involve weapons of mass destruction.

The full strategic implications of an independent Palestine should now be carefully considered. Israel has much to fear, more than any other state on the face of the earth. The people of Israel, not the people of "Palestine," are the only ones who could soon face organized extermination. As for the United States, it too will incur substantially increased levels of insecurity following establishment of a Palestinian state. It follows that President Bush should now consider carefully that an exchange of Iraq for "Palestine" would be foolishly shortsighted and very dangerous. A Faustian bargain, it could wind up engulfing both Israel and the United States in yet another cauldron of war and terrorism.


LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D. Princeton, 1971), is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science, Purdue University. He is the author of SECURITY OR ARMAGEDDON: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR STRATEGY (Lexington Books, 1986) and many other major books and articles on nuclear weapons and nuclear war. His work on strategic matters is well-known to Israel's prime minister and to its military and intelligence communities.

Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments