Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   APRIL 2004             NUMBER 4

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

APRIL 2004


TREASON....Cicero (42 B.C.E.)

TOWARD A POLITICS OF HAPPINESS...Guest Editorial....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
WHEN SHOULD WE STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL?...Guest Editorial....Victor Hanson
SOME THOUGHTS....Bernard J. Shapiro (1952)
O LAND OF ZION...Poetry....Bernard J. Shapiro

SACROSANCT PLANS....Emanuel A. Winston

JUST DESSERTS....Yehuda Poch
THE FEAR FACTOR....Bret Stephens
CAUSES OF ARAB TERROR (with some nuance) + NEWS COMMENT....David Basch
THE ULTIMATE CHILD ABUSE - Child Bombers In The Service Of Palestinian Murder
CHEERING THE ENEMY....Jerusalem Post Editorial

ANTI-SEMITISM: Integral to European Culture....Manfred Gerstenfeld

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 © 2004 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)





A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.......Cicero, 42 B.C.E.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

I am mad as hell and I will tell you why. After 2000 years of statelessness, we Jews finally achieved a rebirth of our independence in our ancient homeland, Israel. After 56 years of struggle, sacrifice, blood and tears, Israel has defensible borders and the most powerful army in the Middle East. So what does Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon do?




The present Israeli government is leading its war-weary population,


Sharon and Olmert would like you to believe that peace, economic prosperity, and utopia await the people of Israel once the 'withdrawal' (retreat) from YESHA is implemented.

It just isn't so. Here is the more likely scenario:

1. After surrendering its strategic heartland, Israel will begin to be struck by katyushas randomly across the central coastal plain. In every case Arafat (or who ever controls the Arab population after he dies) will disclaim responsibility and the international community will show no sympathy for Israel's plight. Indeed, Israel will be condemned by the world when it attempts cross border retaliatory raids.

2. Terrorists will raid at will from Gaza and elsewhere in the new "Palestinian state."

3. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs will pour into Palestine through the border checkpoints.

4. Thousands of wells will be drilled on the Judean and Samarian hills by these Arabs, depriving Israel of 30% of its water supply.

5. The intifada (Oslo War), which started in 2000, will start again in earnest to drive the Jews from what is left of Israel. Israelis will continue to murdered, bombed, shot, knifed and stoned. Their bodies will be mutilated. Jewish blood will be very cheap again as in the time of the Nazis. In the meantime, the Palestinian military will get arms from the Arab countries and the West financed by United States, Europe and wealthy Arab countries. It will be Bosnia all over again, with only a matter of time before the last Jew is killed or expelled from Eretz Yisrael. The Arab old promise to "drive the Jews into the Sea" could be a sad reality.

6. A new intifada will be started among the Israeli Arabs. Why shouldn't they join the new Palestine with their fellow Arabs?

7. Having been so weakened by the above events, Israel agrees to withdraw from "Arab" areas of the 1949 borders.

8. The "so called" demilitarized Judean-Samarian hills protecting Israel's coastal concentration of population and industry around Tel Aviv, are occupied by Iranian, Jordanian, and Syrian troops. It takes 20 minutes to re-militarize this area.

9. Egypt, sensing Israeli blood, joins the Arab coalition for an all-out attack.

10. Israel is destroyed but does get a favorable obituary in the New York Times. The United Nations, however, condemns the deceased Jewish state for polluting the sacred land of Palestine with "filthy Zionist pig blood."

That sounds quite extreme and people keep telling me to tone down my rhetoric. "Don't be so strident", they tell me. It's good advice and maybe I would be more convincing if I didn't show so much passion in my writing. I'll do my best, but aren't you MAD also? Can any Jew, who understands history, not be anguished by the present course of events? This is a serious issue of life and death for our fellow Jews. And it is a deadly serious issue of survival for Israel. That's why I'm mad as hell. So don't ask me to be a nice Jewish boy.......

.....And while I am talking about why I am mad as hell, here are a few more things I am sick and tired of.


There are a few things that make my blood boil. Here is a list and the explanations:

1. I am sick and tired of the slowly escalating actions of the IDF to fight terrorism.

The slow escalation allows PA terrorism to become immune to Israel's strategy. It allows them to smuggle more guns, missiles, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles into PA territory. This is much the same as bacterial infections. If the antibiotic is not strong enough to eliminate it, then the disease will return in a much more virulent form. I would suggest that the IDF launch a massive offensive against the terrorists until victory.

2. I am sick and tired of the Israeli government's fear of collateral damage to the enemy.

The Arabs have no such qualms. In fact they target civilians in bestial suicide bombs. PA weapons factories, weapons storage depots and bomb making facilities should be blasted off the face of earth even if it causes civilian casualties. Remember that "he who is merciful to the cruel, will end up being cruel to the merciful."

3. I am sick and tired of Israeli PM Sharon's policy of restraint.

The adjustment to accepting the killing of Jews has become is an abomination. A Jew here or there murdered daily, pretty soon adds up to a lot dead and maimed Jews. I remember when the Al Aska terror on Israel began last September, The IDF general staff re-opened a file called "Operation Thorns" which could re-take the PA areas. They estimated Israeli dead at 300.

Since then there have been almost 1000 Jews killed which is more than three times the estimated combat deaths with no apparent consequence to Arafat's ability to inflict casualties on Israel. There is one extremely important variable. The PA has used the last three years to build bunkers, firing positions, smuggle in heavy weapons and missiles, create an underground arms industry and organize an army of 80,000. The defeat of PA now would certainly be more costly. And it will grow with time. There is a very short window of time to defeat the PA terrorists with minimal losses. Many political analysts and military experts agree that Israel must take decisive action now.

4. I am sick and tired of the US State Department urging Israel to show "restraint."

Despite the fact that the CIA knows exactly WHO (PA) is attacking WHOM (Israel) the State Department continues call for a stop to the "cycle of violence." Whenever Israel is attacked viciously, there is rush to tell Israel "to turn the other cheek".

5. I am sick and tired of Shimon Peres trying to arrange another meeting with Arafat.

He claims to be seeking a cease fire and a return to negotiations. Let me be honest with you. I don't want negotiations with Arafat, I want to crush him and his terrorist gang. Arafat has violated all the provisions of Oslo (which I opposed strongly as a pandora's box). He broke 69 cease fire agreements since 1993 and before that broke hundreds of agreements with Jordan, the UN, the Arab nations and Lebanon. Arafat broke every provision of the Oslo agreement including anti-Semitic incitement against Israel. I wrote in a press release published 11 days before Oslo was I signed on the White House lawn:

Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) September 2, 1993

Freeman Center says rush to embrace PLO is foolish and ultimately dangerous

'...nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel'

Asserting that the rush to embrace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is both foolish and ultimately dangerous, the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies has declared: "The pro-Israel community should react with extreme caution to the moves in Jerusalem to recognize the PLO."

According to the Freeman Center, the PLO instituted a reign of terror, rape and murder locally as well as attacks on Israel in the two Arab countries where it gained a kind of 'self rule.'"

Shapiro continued: "Despite the media hype surrounding these developments, let me make something very clear: A leopard does not change his spots. You can say a berachah (blessing) over a ham sandwich, but that doesn't make it kosher. And a deal with the PLO is like a dance on quicksand - before you realize it, you have sunk into the muck and slime."

6. I am sick and tired of the continued UN presence within the borders of Israel.

I's time to remove them and assert Israel's sovereignty. Israel should work to have the world withdraw its recognition of Arab refugee camps and refugees. It should condemn the hypocritical treatment of the Arab countries for exploiting these people for political purposes. Israel should declare in a strong voice that there are NO refugees. That status is not permanent and obviously should not apply to people living in the same place for 56 years.

7. I am sick and tired of the international boycott of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Israel should unilaterally announce to the nations of the world that all embassies MUST be in Jerusalem. Consulates may be in Tel Aviv or any place they want. Israel will no longer permit its eternal capital to be disrespected.

8. I am sick and tired that under both Labor and Likud governments, Arutz Sheva, Israel National Radio has not been fully legalized.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Arutz Sheva should not only be allowed establish facilities on land but also a television channel. I am also sick and tired of government television being controlled by the extreme left that doesn't represent the Israeli public. A lot of the time they represent the Arabs and not Israel's.

9. I am sick and tired of Israel's trying to be Mister Nice Guy to a hypocritical world.

Europeans are increasingly comparing Israel to the Nazis. Over half of all the resolutions of the UN since its founding have directed against Israel. At the recent conference on how to condemn Israel in Durban, South Africa, UN head Kofi Anan condemned Israel for existing. The Arab world openly plots the destruction of Israel.

10. I am sick and tired of Israel tolerating Moslem restrictions and desecrations on the Temple Mount.

The excuse that it would cause violence to exercise our rights there is absurd. Israel has the capability to enforce security. Virtually everything Israel wants do in the Land of Israel displeases the Arabs, who want us to leave. Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount and the destruction of Jewish antiquities by the Moslem waqf needs to be stopped immediately.

11. I am sick and tired of PA demonstrations of the fierceness of their terrorists and how they will destroy Israel.

Why not knock off a few of them during their demonstrations. Maybe they will be more circumspect.

I believe that we will defeat our current adversaries. We will succeed and survive from three sources of our strength: Love of Tanach (Torah), Love of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel, and Love of Am Yisrael (People of Israel).......In blood and fire was Israel born, and on a hot anvil was she forged. Her youth understood that life in the new Jewish homeland would require sacrifice. With stories of the stench of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz embedded deep in their psyches, the young Israeli soldiers fight with the firm conviction that there is still no alternative "ein brera."

To that I would like add something the American soldiers used to say during the heaviest fighting in Viet Nam. This is dedicated (slightly revised) to the brave IDF soldiers who face the enemy every day: Yeah though I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear no evil because the Almighty fights with me for the Restoration of Zion and for love of HIS people, Israel.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE and the Freemanlist.




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

If Sharon were to have Arafat killed—what a blessing! What would the Bush Administration do? Nothing! What would the democratic capitals of Europe do? Nothing! Of course Israel would be publicly denounced. Privately, however, President Bush and his European counterparts would breathe a sigh of relief. They know Arafat is an unspeakable villain, but they support his or the Palestinian cause because it serves their material interests in the Arab Middle East.

If Sharon were to have Arafat killed, what would Egypt, Arafat's patron do? Nothing! Which means the Arab-Islamic world would do nothing on behalf that murderer. So, given all these non-responses, what would happen if Sharon had Arafat killed?

First, a cleansing sense of justice would sweep over Israel.

Second, a struggle for power would ensue among Arafat's would-be successors. It would take a long time for any successor to establish himself or gain "legitimacy" among the Palestinian Arabs (and he too could suffer the fate of his predecessor). The instability that would follow Arafat's demise would prompt many Arabs to emigrate, as tens of thousands have already done. The prospect of a Palestinian state would fade.

Third, Israeli politics would be transformed. Labor would cease currying the support of Israel's Arab citizens via the appeal of "territory for peace".

Fourth, Shimon Peres would be relegated to the political wilderness, and Peace Now and post-Zionism would wither away.

Fifth, the Jewish population of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (Yesha) would multiply tremendously and bury the idea of a Palestinian state. Yesha would then be incorporated into the State of Israel, and the Temple Mount, at last, would be firmly in Jewish hands.

Sixth. Israel could then address its real problem: the Jewish character of the state. Once the territory for peace madness ceases to preoccupy Israel's government, the country will automatically move in the right direction.

What I am proposing is that Ariel Sharon retire from politics on a high note: that he inaugurate a politics of happiness by eliminating Israel's chief tormentor, Yasser Arafat.

[Kol Hakavod to Prof. Eidelberg. I loved this article. "From his computer to G-d's ear."]

Professor Paul Eidelberg is a member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




By Victor Hanson

The recent assassination of Sheik Saruman Yassin raises among some Americans the question at what point should we reconsider our rather blanket support for the Israelis and show a more even-handed attitude toward the Palestinians? The answer, it seems to me, should be assessed in cultural, economic, political, and social terms.

Well, we should no longer support Israel, when:

Mr. Sharon suspends all elections and plans a decade of unquestioned rule.

Mr. Sharon suspends all investigation about fiscal impropriety as his family members spend millions of Israeli aid money in Paris.

All Israeli television and newspapers are censored by the Likud party.

Israeli hit teams enter the West Bank with the precise intention of targeting and blowing up Arab women and children.

Preteen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

Israeli crowds rush into the street to dip their hands into the blood of their dead and march en masse chanting mass murder to the Palestinians.

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

Israeli school textbooks state that Arabs engage in blood sacrifice and ritual murders.

Mainstream Israeli politicians, without public rebuke, call for the destruction of Palestinians on the West Bank and the end to Arab society there.

Likud party members routinely lynch and execute their opponents without trial.

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the honor of the family.

Israeli mobs with impunity tear apart Palestinian policemen held in detention.

Israeli television broadcasts to the tune of patriotic music the last taped messages of Jewish suicide bombers who have slaughtered dozens of Arabs.

Jewish marchers parade in the streets with their children dressed up as suicide bombers, replete with plastic suicide-bombing vests.

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

Israeli militants murder a Jew by accident and then apologize on grounds that they though he was an Arab to the silence of Israeli society.

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children

Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks.

Bin Laden is a folk hero in Tel Aviv.

Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society.

Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered

Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein's supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.

So until then, I think most Americans can see the moral differences in the present struggle.

If the Palestinians wish to hold periodic and open elections, establish an independent judiciary, create a free press, arrest murderers, subject their treasury to public scrutiny, eschew suicide murdering, censure religious leaders who call for mass murder, embrace non-violent dissidents, extend equal rights to women, end honor killings, raise funds in the Arab world earmarked only to build water, sewer, transportation, and education infrastructure, and pledge that any Jews who choose to live in the West Bank will enjoy the same rights as Arabs in Israel, then they might find Americans equally divided over questions of land and peace.

But all that is a lot of ifs. And so for the present, Palestinian leaders shouldn't be too surprised that Americans increasingly find very little in their society that has much appeal to either our values or sympathy. If they continually assure us publicly that they are furious at Americans, then they should at least pause, reflect, and ask themselves why an overwhelming number of Americans, not Jewish, not residents of New York, not influenced by the media are growing far more furious with them.



Ha'aretz, March 21, 2004


By Uzi Landau

The heads of a delegation from the Republican Jewish Coalition who visited here last week appeared very upset when we met early Wednesday morning. "Explain why your government is surrendering to terror," one of them demanded of me, adding "there has never been such sympathy for Israel on Capitol Hill and understanding of its needs. There has not been any pressure by the administration on Israel. On the contrary. During Bush's years in office it was possible to win American support for a determined fight against terror, for preventive action. Someone on your side failed big when it comes to understanding the administration and Congress in Washington... You missed a rare opportunity to leverage the centers of support in post-9/11 America."

"And what is particularly strange is that we need to persuade you that your are making a mistake," said another member of the delegation, reporting on an Israeli minister, one of the most senior in the government, who lately met with leaders of the pro-Israel Christian camp and tried to persuade them of the logic so well-hidden behind the plan to unilaterally withdraw. "You are barking up the wrong tree," they told him, politely explaining that his position was simply unacceptable.

Israel's sworn friends are embarrassed, confused and find it difficult to deal with what they understand to be the country's feebleness. For years I have maintained close contact with senators, congressmen, administration officials and leading journalists (some of whom were student colleagues of mine at MIT in Boston), and with Jewish community leaders and leaders from the Christian camp - all Israel supporters and sympathizers. We discuss problems, the past and the future.

In recent months, I have been hearing a single, worrisome message: For decades, Israel was for them the Six Day War, the Entebbe rescue, and the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor - examples of the war on terror and standing up to pressure. Now it has become a paradigm of surrender to terror and pressure. The erosion in its credibility is deep and continuous, especially among our sworn allies. It is impossible to understand you, they tell me. After three years of blood-soaked terror to declare concessions without anything tangible in return? To give in to the megalomaniacal demands of Nasrallah, freeing masses of terrorists for one Elhanan Tennenbaum and the corpses of three soldiers? To promote a unilateral withdrawal, which really means rewarding the terror groups, without any political or security compensation?

Up until recently, those senators and representatives would have laid down on the fence for us, fought for whatever we defined as a red line. "We fought," they say "and you surrendered. You don't have any more red lines." Now they doubt our determination, our commitment to the war on terror, and they doubt the strategic judgment of the country's leaders.

They don't understand Washington in Israel. They hear Congressmen and think MKs. The truth is that the power of a senator, a representative, is much greater than any MK's. A Senate committee is not the same as a Knesset committee. Their authority has teeth. They can approve or disapprove a budget and legislation that would prevent the administration from executing a policy. In times of need, when administrations in Washington wanted to apply pressure on us, they struggled on our behalf. Often they succeeded. And now they are disappointed with us.

Our friends in America add that the officials conducting contacts with the American administration are novices who do not understand the system. They neglected the power bases friendly to Israel. They go to an America where the slogan is undying war against terror and speak of the fatigue of the Israeli public; the need to concede. Instead of forcefully demanding what Israel deserves, they knuckle under to Palestinian demands. Instead of speaking of Israeli justice, they present Israel as inferior - morally, politically and strategically. They want to be liked and win the opposite result. They speak good English, but don't understand American language.

"Never," say these friends, "has an Israeli government been so efficient at pulling the rug out from under the feet of its sworn supporters and strengthening its opponents in the U.S.

The writer is a minister in the Prime Minister's Office and responsible for the preparation of a strategic dialogue with the U.S.




By Bernard J. Shapiro (1952)

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

Shun him

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child.

Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep.

Awaken him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise.

Follow him.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

Look to the east to a land far away but near
To a land where prophets roam and warriors do battle
Where the river Jordan flows in mystic splendor
Where hopes are born and dreams are realized
I look to a land of struggle, blood and tears
The Land is my people, the mother of the Jew
O Land of Zion, my heart longs for you.

* * *

The soil of Zion is good beyond measure
It rewards those who care enough
To see its beauty and its grace
Past the sand and stones of neglect
The valleys blossom with the fruit of Eden
And the mountains are ablaze with color, they sparkle with the dew
O Land of Zion, my heart belongs to you.

* * *

I wandered far and searched the earth for peace
But only in Zion was my heart at rest
And only in Jerusalem was my soul free at last
To seek the meaning of the universe and all its mysteries
To ponder the rebirth of my people and our destiny
Here in the hills and valleys of Israel, my understanding grew
O Land of Zion, my true love is with you.

* * *

Written in Jerusalem in June of 1967 and first published in the
Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) on December 13, 1973




"best laid plans o' mice & men oft times go astray" by Robby Burns

By Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East analyst & commentator

Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon is insisting his Cabinet bless "His Plan" of evacuation, retreat and capitulation - without discussion, debate or dissent. Can you remember how Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres demanded of their Cabinets, the Knesset and the people to bless the now moribund Oslo plan, its predictable failure and trail of dead Jews? All of them wanted U.S. approval before submitting it to their own Cabinets in order to push their Plans through.

Why have America and the media pundits castigated the new President of Spain for his plan to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq and give Terror a victory? How does Sharon's Plans for gifting a victory to Terrorists differ from Spain's incoming Prime Minister the Socialist José Luis Rodrigues Zapatero and a large percentage of the Spanish people for capitulating to Al Qaeda Terror? In brief, there is no difference whatsoever when terror is rewarded.

This Plan can be merely the short circuiting of the synapses (electrical connections) in the brain going haywire, impairing judgement. The Oslo Gang should have been required to submit to psychiatric evaluation before and after Oslo for impaired judgement. Now, it's Sharon! Plans are not sacrosanct, they are often merely the thoughts of one man, consumed with the belief that only he knows best. Not all men are Albert Einstein (who actually failed math in grammar school). Most make mistakes, read the signs badly, some simply take bad advise or dream of their own glory and it is called "A Plan".

Sharon has been advised by his military and security Top Guns that his Plan is bad and that it will bring more terror. This advise came from his Intelligence people, Generals in the field, his own Party but - Sharon ignores them all.

It has now been reported that President Bush who started the pressure for withdrawal under his own "Road Map Plan" has now backed away from Sharon's Gaza withdrawal Plans - or so it seems. The President has heard the political message from his conservative Christian supporters who do not approve of Israel's divesting herself of what G-d has gifted, turned over to pagans. The meeting that Sharon expected when Bush would probably approve of his Plan had been canceled but may take place April 16th. (By the way, is it a coincidence that the Egypt's Mubarak and Yemen's Salah have joined forces to get the Arab League Summit convened on April 16th in Cairo? Mubarak meets with President Bush 4 days before Sharon does.

Christians, Jews and the American people do not seems to approve of pacifying terrorists. In addition, they have discovered that Arab Palestinians only exist because of wages received in Israel or from UNRWA (UN Refugee Works Association) donations, plus the world's donor fund - all of which will become President Bush's obligation as godfather of his Road Map Plan.

Of course, a Plan has many sides, depending on what side you wish to see.

Is Sharon's Plan contemplating the opening up a new front of attack for the Arab Palestinians of Gaza against advice of all his Generals and his Intelligence staff?

Which part of Sharon's Plan do you wish to see or want to see?

The Plan of one man can be simply wrong, based upon delusional planning.

There is the facet of American pressure (Bush's Road Map Plan) that, like all nations, has its personal interests. Those interests are both long-term oil and short-term elections. Thus the U.S. pressures Sharon to accommodate the Arab Palestinians for his own vested interests to create the impression that the Road Map Plan is succeeding.

Then, there is the facet that there may be a suitcase nuke (or two) in the hands of either the Arab Palestinians, Al Qaeda or Muslim Iran. This is a floating speculation which mirrors concerns in the U.S. who are worried about the same threat.

Another facet would be to take Israel out of the Arab job market by creating a border resulting in the Arab Palestinians reversing their migration back into Egypt, Jordan or simply returning to Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia or anywhere in the entire Arab world they migrated from. That natural border is, of course, the Jordan River!

A retreat based on Sharon's Plan would not only encourage the Arab Palestinians and associate Terror groups to increase attacks but, would reinvigorate the key attacking nations of Egypt, Syria, Iran to mount another full scale war against a perceptibly weakened State of Israel.

The Plan of retreating from Gaza would bring the hostile U.N. to a full boil to legislate through the Security Council - backed by the General Assembly - various world-wide punishments, especially embargoes, if Israel didn't retreat all the way back to her 1947 borders (called the "Auschwitz borders"). Sharon's Plan of Withdrawal would give impetus to the ever present Arab voting block to drag the U.N. into voting sanctions, with the E.U. cheering it on.

Sharon's Plan of withdrawal/retreat with the attendant televised tearing down of Jewish homes would give impetus to the ever-present Arab voting block to drag the U.N. into a frenzy of demanding further withdrawal/retreats. No nation will pay Israel the billions needed to relocate 8,000 citizens, pay for the huge infrastructure of homes, schools, businesses, farms etc, even though Sharon wants to please President Bush by turning over the Jews' homes, farms. factories, schools, and civic structures like synagogues (which will be turned into mosques) to the Arab Palestinians - denials notwithstanding.

Even the great Napoleon had Plans which gave him a 100 days of rule before his Plans collapsed. However, as a Great General, I doubt that he would have accepted the years of Arab Terror by 'turning the other cheek' or not fighting back, Napoleon also had a Plan because "he knew best" - which turned into his defeat at Waterloo.

Sadly, Prime Minister Sharon has lost the confidence of the nation, although he still maintains the strength of his office which controls his Cabinet and holds the purse strings of their portfolios. Clearly, Sharon in his mistaken state of mind with respect to retreating from Gaza, cannot be relied upon to have well thought-out Plans, despite unyielding counter-Plans by Arab Muslims to weaken and then remove non-Muslim Israel from the Middle East.

Even in his past, when he was, indeed, a great general he wanted to go it alone. In those days, he was in his middle age and his battle forecasts were excellent. Now, he only recalls the force of his past accomplishments but, the delusions of the elderly are a problem for political leaders faced with radical Islam gone fully ballistic. (Yes, we do grow old, the parts including the brain, don't work so well.) It's like the 80 year old who still believes he can drive a car safely only to run it into a crowd because his depth perception is wrong.)

What else has already gone haywire with Sharon's Plan?

Well, former PM Ehud Barak depended upon then President Clinton's promise for funding IF he evacuated Israel's safety zone in Lebanon. It never came. So, too, Bush is backing away from what Sharon thought would be funding for his withdrawal Plans. Bush doesn't seem too anxious to find several Billion dollars to pay for Sharon's uprooting and evacuation of 8,000 well-established pioneers in Gaza. Will Sharon go it alone as did Menachem Begin when he relinquished the entire Sinai to Egypt (as brokered by then President Jimmy Carter) after an investment of $17 Billion dollars and then refused to ask for what the small Jewish State could not afford from Carter?

Israel didn't get repaid for the land loss, the loss of 2 prime military bases, the oil fields which would have made Israel oil-independent, and the homes of those pioneers in the desert and in Yamit. Instead, Israel suffered all the losses including the $17 Billion debt. All Israel got was a cold peace, a hostile country on her border being loaded up with weapons courtesy of $2 Billion American tax-payers' dollars every year, about $60 Billion and rising, a gun-running smuggling operations from that country via underground tunnels and by ship - and the promise of further hostilities. But, why be surprised given that, after each Arab war against Israel, the Jewish State was expected to pay the price of victory, which was snatched away by the world's western nations trying to appease the Arabs for their lost Pride and Shame.

Now Sharon wants that hostile country, Egypt, to guard Gaza after Sharon retreats. Egypt has so far - publicly - refused but, it has been noted that Egypt is returning to an Islamic base as their Muslim Brotherhood increases in power. Women are starting to wear the hooded Burka and Islam is on the rise. I wonder what the Arabist U.S. State Department and those Presidents will do after having built Egypt into a military colossus, once it swings over to militant Islam?

What does this mean to Israel and Sharon's plan? Keep in mind that Egypt, through its promise for peace received $60 Billion in U.S. military aid and weapons' systems, making Egypt the military colossus of the Arab nations. Should Egypt go completely Islamic with its Muslim Brotherhood influencing its direction, Israel will again face Egypt in a Super War.

(Note! This does NOT include the deep penetration of Egypt's Intelligence at the highest levels - as reported by DEBKAfile March 26. (1) Documents seized in Iraq lead to staff generals and diplomats. This is the tip of the iceberg. (More in a later article.)

Once again Sharon's Plan is shortsighted and doesn't contemplate changes even as they are occurring in real time. Sharon must be removed from office immediately for the sake of Israel's sovereignty and security. His ability to have or make a Plan is long gone.

(Note! We just saw a spark of the old Sharon as he hit the arch-terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas.) Therefore, the question now is: Will Sharon now continue his head-long plunge into a withdrawal that would mean national suicide? (I think he will!)

General Shaul Mofaz has offered an explanation to the Cabinet as to why the withdrawal from Gaza will work. He has a "Plan" to weaken Hamas before Sharon implements his "Plan" of withdrawal. (Presumably, that includes the hit on Yassin.) Here is why "Plans" either don't work or the planner offers a Plan, knowing it won't work! Let's track the Mofaz vs. Hamas Plan.

Mofaz and Sharon both know that Hamas is not the only Terrorist organization in Gaza. They know that squeezing Hamas is like squeezing Jello. Each group works with other groups. Individuals change over as convenient. Striking Hamas is a good idea but Mofaz would only be able to strike a handful of leaders before the rest scatter and join other old established Terrorist groups funded and run by outside forces like Iran, Syria - even the Iraqis Ba'ath Party terrorists who U.S. troops have not been able to stamp out in Iraq. Then there will be new groups who will form out of the scattered Hamas/Al Aksa/Fatah/Hezb'Allah probably linking up with various Al Qaeda groups glad to take a guiding role. That's only a small segment of why Mofaz and Sharon's Plan will not work. Let's move on to bigger and better reasons.

Do you recall after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, American CIA and Special Forces trained what was called the "Mujahadin" (Islamic Holy warriors)? Muslims poured in voluntarily from all over the Arab world to enjoy fighting the Soviets for Islam and Allah. We not only trained them, we even used such Muslim personalities as the blind Sheik Oman Abdul Rachman (planner of the first 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center) to recruit young Islamists to train and fight Soviets in Afghanistan. The Plan seemed right at the time in the short view but, we did advance terrorist organizations' capabilities by light years.

The point I make is that Muslim "Jihadists" swarm, particularly when urged on by their Mullahs and religious clerics to join in the great war against the infidel - which includes Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims.

Presently, American troops are under attack from a swarm of Islamists coming into Iraq from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Chechnya and other Muslim countries. Even Muslims who are European are coming in to fight the infidel Americans. It's fun for them and gives their lives purpose when there is none.

Mofaz and Sharon know very well that once the Israeli troops leave Gaza, Muslim "Jihadists" will swarm into the vacated areas. We have already seen Hezb'Allah pour into the Lebanon area where PM Barak in a similar Plan, evacuated in an ignominious retreat.

Mofaz and Sharon know this as sure as day follows night. They know that the entire Arab Muslim Palestinian population has been trained to hate and even volunteer both themselves and their children for suicide/homicide missions. Many have undergone combat and military Terrorism since they went to nursery school and summer camp. Stamping out Hamas will leave no shortage of recruits. Gaza will fill up with terrorists as fast as Mofaz empties it of Hamas.


When Israeli troops are present, they keep the Terrorists' component gangs fragmented and prevent them from merging into a cohesive fighting force, with the advantage accruing to Israel and the Free West. When not, then the Terrorists grow exponentially to become a critical mass, then Israel and the Free West lose to catastrophic terrorism. Israel is a major deterrent force against terrorists using WMD (Weapons of Mass Death) and NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical assaults.

The same is true for the settlers' farms, villages, towns, cities and factories. As long as they are placed in strategic locations, the enemy is fragmented and cannot assemble into a fully operational force. Without settlements, the Terrorists can stop running and weld themselves into a fully armed fighting force.

I strongly urge Christians and Jews to notify President Bush of their displeasure with Sharon's divestment Plan!


1. "Clearing the Decks for Jimmy" [Mubarak] from DEBKA-Net-Weekly #150 updated by DEBKAfile 3/26/04

Emanual A. Winston is a member for hte Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



The Jerusalem Post, March 4, 2004


By Caroline Glick

Imagine the following scenario: In response to threats last summer by Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah to kidnap additional Israelis, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the IDF to strike at Hizbullah rocket launchers along the border, command and control assets in the Bekaa Valley and kill Hizbullah leaders.

After the initial strikes, Sharon announced that the campaign would continue until Nasrallah returned the bodies of murdered IDF soldiers Benny Avraham, Adi Avitan and Omar Sawayid and kidnapped Israeli drug dealer Elhanan Tannenbaum.

The IDF continued its operations, killing Hizbullah terrorists and destroying its bases while overflying Syrian military installations in Lebanon and Western Syria and besieging Nasrallah. Seeing that Israel was pursuing a plan to destroy his organization, Nasrallah returned the bodies and Tannenbaum through German mediators.

In the aftermath of the successful campaign, it was revealed that Sharon had a past relationship with Tannenbaum's father-in-law. Would anyone care?

The furor over Ma'ariv's revelation Wednesday that Sharon had business dealings with Shimon Cohen, Tannenbaum's father-in-law, 30 years ago has little to do with the fact of the matter. Rather, the reason the story resonates with the public is that it is a metaphor for how ill-conceived Sharon's decision to release more than 400 terrorists in exchange for a criminal was.

The story of the Sharon-Tannenbaum connection, which has dominated the public debate since Wednesday morning, does however serve a practical purpose. It illustrates two central problems with Israeli policymaking.

In the first instance, it demonstrates the vacuousness of the decision-making processes Sharon has adopted since taking office in 2001. These decisions, taken far away from government or public scrutiny, are made by Sharon and a few handpicked advisers without political or public critique and presented to us as a fait accompli.

Secondly, the Sharon-Tannenbaum affair lays bare the media's failure to foster public debate on either Sharon's policymaking mechanisms or the policies themselves before they are adopted. In the case of Sharon's insistence on releasing more than 400 terrorists in exchange for Tannenbaum, for instance, it is the security of all Israelis, not the prime minister's political career, that is the principal casualty of the deal.

Yet the media debate before the prisoner swap was approved by the cabinet was superficial at best. Its loudest criticism related to the deal's impact on securing information on missing IAF navigator Ron Arad. The question of how the deal would impact the security of Israeli citizens writ large was largely ignored.

Today, there are three government policies that are equally if not more vital than the prisoner swap to our national security that are also being carried out in the backrooms with little to no public debate. If we are to take any lessons from the Tannenbaum affair, it is to these issues that they should be applied.

First we have Sharon's intention to deploy Egyptian forces in the Gaza Strip after an IDF withdrawal.

According to news reports, Sharon has proposed to Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak that the Camp David Accord's security limitations on Egyptian forces along the border with Israel be significantly amended.

Today, the treaty provisions limit Egyptian forces to the western Sinai Peninsula and its forces are barred from deploying near the border with Israel.

Sharon now is pushing a plan under which Egypt would deploy thousands of security forces along the border and inside the Gaza Strip. The plan was presented to Mubarak last week by Labor Party leader Shimon Peres.

Speaking this week before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, CGS Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon told lawmakers that the IDF's General Staff is totally opposed to the notion of amending the Camp David Accord in this manner. Ya'alon explained that deploying Egyptian forces in the so-called Philadelphia corridor along the divided city of Rafah would enable Katyusha rockets to be smuggled into Gaza and Katyusha strikes on Ashkelon would force the IDF to launch large-scale ground operations in Gaza.

Of Egypt's gestures toward curbing weapon smuggling along the Rafah border to date, Ya'alon said, "I am not satisfied with the Egyptian action."

The plan to deploy the Egyptian military in Gaza represents a total renunciation of Israeli security doctrine for the past 48 years.

Since the 1956 Sinai Campaign, it has been Israel's policy to keep Egyptian forces away from the border. Israel went to war with Egypt in 1956 after Egypt failed to prevent and indeed sponsored terrorist attacks against Israel from the Gaza Strip. In 1967, it was the Egyptian military mobilization on the border that fomented regional war.

The entire rationale behind the separation-of-forces sections of the Camp David Accord was to prevent the eruption of war between Israel and Egypt by keeping Egyptian forces away from Gaza and Israeli population centers.

There has been no government discussion whatsoever of this radical proposal. Apparently the brainchild of Sharon, Peres and Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass, the policy was announced through leaks to the media. Sharon has yet to say anything about this proposal to the public although he is already negotiating it with the US and the Egyptians.

And indeed, there has been no public debate of the issue. All three television channels were granted interviews with Sharon on Wednesday night and not one of them asked him about this stunning departure from a military doctrine he himself was instrumental in shaping.

Will we only have a debate on this after Katyusha rockets rain down on Tel Aviv from Gaza or Egyptian troop movements again precipitate a war?

Then there is the issue of Iran's nuclear-weapons program.

Just this past weekend, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani threatened Israel again after signing military pacts with the Syrian and Lebanese governments. Speaking in Beirut, Shamkhani said that if Israel strikes Iranian nuclear sites, "I can promise you that Ariel Sharon, assuming he stays alive, will appear on television screens and announce that he regrets this folly. He will suffer and scream out in pain."

Israel's options regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons program are all bad. With the EU busy appeasing Teheran and the Bush administration divided between those advocating military strikes and those advocating adopting the European line, Israel stands more or less alone before the specter of nuclear holocaust. The Iranian leadership has said outright that it does not see its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent force, but rather intends to use it to annihilate Israel.

Israel can either preemptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities; pressure the US to take action against them from its forward bases in Iraq and Afghanistan; or do nothing. Today it would seem that Israel has chosen the third option.

No doubt discussion of this existential threat to the Jewish state should be conducted in secret. But has the cabinet been engaged? Have ministers demanded a presentation on the matter by the air force, military intelligence and the Mossad? Is the Knesset holding hearings on this subject? And while our leaders should make their decisions in private, where are the newspapers and the TV channels and Israel Radio in all of this? Where is a national debate on the threat of physical annihilation? Isn't it better to have this discussion now than after Teheran tests its first nuclear bomb?

Lastly, we have the US plan to democratize the Arab and Muslim world. In recent weeks, the Bush administration has begun to implement its Greater Middle East Initiative. The US has launched its Arabic satellite news station Al-Hurra and Radio Free Syria radio station in a bid to bring freedom and democracy to our Arab neighbors for the first time in their history.

What is happening is no less than a revolution, albeit a tentative one, in the way the US views its Middle East policy. If in the past, consecutive US administrations have swallowed the Arab propaganda line that no reforms of their dictatorships were possible until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved, today the Bush administration is rejecting this lie.

Speaking in Cairo this week, Undersecretary of State Mark Grossman said, "The effort for reform in Arab countries does not have to wait until there is a full peace." And what is Israel doing in the face of this welcome and courageous American policy? Our government is rejecting it, by deed if not by word.

By courting Mubarak while he leads the charge against the US initiative to bring freedom to the Arab world we are strengthening Mubarak and his authoritarian government that has made Egypt the epicenter of Arab anti-Semitism and the gravest conventional threat to Israeli security.

Sharon's newest adviser Peres was the first to work to scuttle Bush's June 24, 2002, call for democracy in Palestinian society when as foreign minister he created the fiction that a prime minister hand-picked by Arafat would mark the completion of regime change and democratization. Minister Natan Sharansky, who was instrumental in convincing the Bush administration to view democratization of the Arab world as a central aim of its Middle East policy, has been shut out of Sharon's foreign policy debate.

And where is the Israeli media? Aside from laconic reports of the American initiative, buried in the back pages of the newspapers and at the tail ends of news broadcasts, never to be repeated, there has been no media discussion of the strategic ramifications of the American initiative.

Rather than support Palestinian journalists who are taking to the streets in droves to protest physical assaults against their colleagues by PA security forces, our journalists went to Ramallah two weeks ago to eat lamb chops with Jibril Rajoub – the man who spearheaded the PA's campaign against freedom in the Palestinian press by torching newspapers and torturing journalists since 1994.

As the US launches the one policy that has a chance of bringing us long-term peace, our policymakers and media elites placate these dictators and woo their henchmen.

There is no doubt that the deal with Hizbullah that brought us Tannenbaum the drug dealer in exchange for 400 terrorists was a mistake. But the best way to rectify the situation is to learn our lessons. We have three tests before us. Our ministers and our media outlets must be called to order. It is time that they do their jobs.



Jerusalem Cloakroom #152


By Yoram Ettinger

March 30, 2004

President Bush (March 19, 2004): "Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations... No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands..." A withdrawal from Gaza would be inconsistent with President Bush's sound statement. It would defy post-Oslo Palestinian hate-education.

1. Systematic blunders damage Washington. Since 1993, two US and five Israeli Administrations have embraced the politically-correct "pragmatist" Oslo, Wye, Mitchell, Tenet, Zuni, Camp David II and the Road Map accords. They failed to advance a solution and undermined US prestige; they fueled an unprecedented wave of terrorism (1,400 Israelis murdered, which is proportionally equal to 70,000 Americans – 23 Twin Towers!), distancing Israelis and Palestinians farther from peace. Reluctant to learn from past errors, they're now introducing Unilateral Withdrawal.

2. From "Territory for Peace" to "Territory for Terrorism". Unilateral withdrawal is the offspring of the "pragmatic" territory for peace, which was followed by the "pragmatic" recognition of the PLO/PA and by the "pragmatic" tolerance of PA/PLO's hate-education (since 1993) and PA/PLO's systematically ruthless violation of all accords. A retreat from Gaza would exacerbate terrorism in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, as was the case with the prior retreats from Lebanon (2000) and from Gaza and 40% of Judea & Samaria (Oslo 1993).

3. Peace was achieved following WWII when the rogue Nazi regime (not just Hitler) was demolished, and Germany was forced to conceded territory to its intended victims, which reciprocated by peace. Peace has been undermined by the "Pragmatist" Oslo-Wye-Road Map, which legitimized the rogue Palestinian Authority, and forced the intended victim, Israel, to concede territory. It has thus rewarded regional terrorism, intensified regional violence and undermined regional moderation.

4. Deterrence-driven peace is the only possible peace in the violently unpredictable Mideast. It would be severely undermined if Palestinian terrorism would be rewarded.

5. Territory for peace assumes – illogically – that Israel (less than 0.2% of Arab territory) should concede its scarcest asset – territory, while the Arabs are expected to accord Israel that which they have never accorded to one another – compliance and peaceful coexistence. Would Israel be entitled to retrieve territory, when the Palestinians renege – once again – on peace?!

"Pragmatists" have sacrificed faith, tenacity, experience and realism on the alter of cynicism, vacillation, wishful-thinking and superficiality.


By MK Arieh Eldad

The proposed unilateral Israeli withdrawal of from the Gaza Strip is the newest (and arguably the most promising) victory awaiting the masters of terror. The fundamental tenet of the West's almost 3-year-old War on Terror is moral clarity - the courage of consistency. Such manifest principles shudder in humiliation by the anticipated Israeli pullout from Gaza. Once the sole battlefront in the Terror War, Israel has sorrowfully become only one of the many new war zones of this gruesome conflict.

The Jewish state continues to suffer as no other - however, a number of nations have come to experience the horrors of indiscriminate murder, the fear of sudden and unreserved violence and the mourning of fallen innocents.

Yet with no true examination, no attempt to look beyond the myth of rhetoric, the West continues to encourage Israeli capitulation to terror.

This must end for, if no other reason, than the defense of democracies throughout the world.

Sadly, Israel's greatest ally and the victim of one of the most depraved acts of terror, also seeks to have Israel give in to the terrorists in exchange for dreamy, tired and ill-conceived "peace plans" with the radicalized Arab-Islamic enemy. The "Bush Doctrine" defines capitulation to terror as a defeat, that those who aid the terrorists are as responsible and therefore as guilty as the terrorists.

With this faultless cognition, moral clarity demands that Israel be forbidden to capitulate to terror. And, with the unanticipatedoutcome of the Spanish elections and the conceivable loss of a staunch U.S. coalition partner, President Bush stated unequivocally:

"Any sign or weakness or retreat is a victory for the terrorists."

The partnership of nations who seek to do battle against terror must re-evaluate their automatic, and frankly, illogical, reactions to the Israeli-Arab conflict and understand that in the face of the bombing in Madrid, their future many hinge upon yet another terrorist victory.


In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. That war broke out after Egypt had poured large military forces into the Sinai, closed the Tiran Straits to Israeli shipping and concluded a joint plan, with Syria, for an attack on Israel. Twenty-two years later, as part of the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt and following the Camp David talks between Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat under the auspices of President Carter, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. However, Egypt declined to re-assume control of the Gaza Strip, which remained in Israel's possession.

After ruling Gaza for 37 years, Israel, in the wake of the 1993 Oslo Accords, handed over most of the area of the Strip to the Palestinian Authority. With all agreements signed, Israel held on to 20 flourishing communities in a small section of Gaza.

Until recently, it was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who took the position that Israel must continue to maintain and develop these Jewish communities under Israeli rule in perpetuity. More importantly, the prime minister frequently expressed the view that the very existence of these Israeli communities in Gaza was essential to the prevention of a takeover of Gaza by extremist terrorist groups and the resultant creation there of the biggest terrorist base in the world.

The Roadmap: Conditions unmet

The "Roadmap," based on President Bush's vision requires, first and primarily, the cessation of terror. The plan was never implemented, very simply because the terror not only continued, but increased. The leadership of the Palestinian Authority was fleeting and Yasser Arafat remained the Authority's strongman who, to this day, continues to rule the PA as a terrorist organization.

Israel rightfully continued to maintain that, unless and until there is a cessation to terror, the thought of territorial concessions was,in fact, out of the question and that action would be seen as a reward for violence.

In all, nearly 1,000 Israelis have been killed in terror attacks over the past three years. Suicide-killers have indiscriminately taken the lives of women and children in the streets of Israeli towns and cities.

Against this background of ongoing and ever increasing terror, came an astounding turnabout in the long-standing policy of Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon. In what is clearly an act of desperation, Mr. Sharon decided that Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and possibly from areas in Judea and Samaria.

The prime minister's proposal has all the signs of a man brought to the brink, frustrated by the outrageous behavior of the Palestinian Authority, its blatant flaunting of all civilized norms, its disregard of any legal agreements and the refusal of the world community to disqualify the PA as an entity with any standing. The prime minister would capitulate to the terrorists through despair and fatigue, uprooting dozens of Jewish communities, transferring their inhabitants in the thousands and redeploying to a new and dangerous line of defense. Such matters should not be left to the tired and depressed.

The lesson of Lebanon

It was Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the extremist Lebanese Muslim terror organization Hezbollah, who described Israel as "a spider-web state." A few years ago, when Israel was fighting in Lebanon, Nasrallah believed that if he just kept up Hezbollah's terrorist strikes against the Jewish state, it would eventually break and retreat. This, indeed, is what happened and, in the year 2000, Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory. That retreat, and the hastiness in which it was carried out, represented a tremendous victory for the Hezbollah, and gave living proof of the truth of Nasrallah's theory -the theory of terror.

The Palestinian Authority learned that lesson well.

Ariel Sharon's announcement of his intention to leave Gaza unilaterally in order to improve Israel's position and establish a new line of defense is decisive proof that terror pays. Such a move would indicate that Israel - at one time the very symbol of consistent refusal to surrender to terror and, in this sense, an example and model for the entire free world - was now signaling to all the terrorist organizations that terror pays. Israel, moreover,would become living proof that it is possible to overcome even a country enjoying overwhelming military superiority - if one simply persists in the mass killing of that country's citizens.

Should the terrorists' victory in Spain be topped off with the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the methodology will be set in stone. The threat to the lives of American and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase substantially, because Islamic terror will then have incontrovertible proof that all it need do is redouble its efforts and step up the slaughter in order to defeat the Western democracies. Such a victory for the terrorists in Gaza would be the opening signal for a worldwide terrorist offensive of unprecedented proportions.

The extremists will take over

It may be safely assumed that if the Israel Defense Forces evacuate Gaza, the most extreme terrorist groups will seize control of the area. Hamas, and perhaps Hezbollah as well, will gain sharply in strength, which will be understood in one way only: that they have succeeded in driving the Israelis out. A shot in the arm of this kind for the extremist organizations will, in effect, put an end to any prospect that a moderate Arab regime would ever take hold, carry out reforms, fight terror and realize President Bush's vision and the Roadmap.

Moreover, an Israeli surrender to terror, in the form of a unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip, would deal a severe blow to the courageous American resolve to fight terror everywhere. The United States would be compelled to invest billions of dollars, and possibly send tens of thousands of additional armed forces to the Middle East, to avert defeat in the War on Terror. The bold and noble effort to recreate the Middle East based on a democratic Iraq will forever be damaged. If the U.S. experiment is able to survive the proposed terror victory, countless years will be added to the task, not to mention the added blood and treasure of the already put-upon American people.

A new dimension has been added to the strategic alliance between Israel and the United States. In the world of fundamentalist Islam, Israel is called "the small Satan." In Muslim eyes, the small Satan's surrender to terror would surely pave the way for victory over "the great Satan" - the United States. For this reason, if for no other, the United States must to strengthen Israel's resolve and urge its leaders to stand firm against terror. The level heads in Washington must expose the defeatist policy proposed by Prime Minister Sharon as the ill-conceived byproduct of desperation and fatigue.


Professor Arieh Eldad, a brigadier-general (Reserves), has served in the past as chief medical officer of the Israel Defense Forces, and is a member of Israel's Knesset. His party, the National Union, is part of the coalition making up the Sharon government.




From Ralph Peters' new book, "When Devils Walk the Earth."

Chapter III.

Fighting Terror: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower:

1. Be feared!

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialog with terrorists, especially not with apocalyptic terrorists. You cannot win. You legitimize the terrorists by addressing them even through a third medium, and their extravagant claims will resound more successfully on their own home ground than anything you can say. Ignore absurd accusations, and never let the enemy's claims slow or sidetrack you. The terrorist wants you to react, and your best means of unbalancing him and his plan is to ignore his accusations.

7. Avoid planning creep. Within our vast bureaucratic system, too many voices compete for attention and innumerable agendas, often selfish and personal - intrude on any attempt to act decisively. Focus on the basic mission: the destruction of the terrorists with all the moral, intellectual and practical rigor you can bring to bear. All other issues, from future nation building, to alliance consensus, to humanitarian concerns are secondary.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knife point operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us the choice is always us.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion. Apocalyptic terrorists cite religion as a justification for attacking us; in turn, we cannot let them hide behind religious holidays, taboos, strictures or even sacred terrain. We must establish a consistent reputation for relentless pursuit and destruction of those who kill our citizens. Until we do this, our hesitation will continue to strengthen our enemy's ranks and his resolve.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a peace, a truce, or any pause in operations. One of the most difficult challenges in fighting terrorism on a global scale is the drag produced by nervous allies. We must be single-minded. The best thing we can do for our allies in the long-term is to be so resolute and so strong that they value their alliance with us all the more. We must recognize the innate strength of our position and stop allowing regional leaders with counterproductive local agendas to subdue or dilute our efforts.

15. Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible, to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

16. Do not worry about alienating already-hostile populations. --(ED ADDED, "OR ANTI-WAR SENATORS ASPIRING TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF OUR GREAT NATION.")

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people. Do not try to use reasonable arguments against him. Shame him publicly, in any way you can. Create doubt where you cannot excite support. Most apocalyptic terrorists, especially, come from cultures of male vanity. Disgrace them at every opportunity. Done successfully, this both degrades them in the eyes of their followers and supporters, and provokes the terrorist to respond, increasing his vulnerability.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances. Counter-terrorist operations must, above all, be relentless. This does not necessarily mean that military operations will be constantly underway sometimes it will be surveillance efforts, or deception plans, or operations by other agencies. But the overall effort must never pause for breath. We must be faster, more resolute, more resourceful and, ultimately, even more uncompromising than our enemies.

20. Never declare victory. Announce successes and milestones. But never give the terrorists a chance to embarrass you after a public pronouncement that the war is over.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backward to past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded as off-limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Begin with the study of the classical world, specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed!



The Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2004


By Michael Freund

The world was made a whole lot safer this past Monday, when Israeli helicopters eliminated Hamas arch-terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a pre-dawn strike in Gaza.

The removal of this villain, whose warped ideology brought about the deaths of hundreds of innocents, was a heroic and just act, one that should be celebrated as an important milestone in the global war on terror.

Despite his innocent demeanor, Yassin was a monster, an evil man hell-bent on sowing death and destruction. As head of Hamas, he spent the past decade disseminating hate, dispatching suicide bombers and targeting innocent Israeli men, women and children.

Don't fall prey to the media's attempts to label him a "spiritual leader." There is nothing spiritual about a mass murderer of Jews and there is nothing holy about someone who sent Palestinian children to detonate themselves as human bombs.Yassin was a menace both to Israel and the West. Under his tutelage, Hamas carried out some 425 terror attacks in just the past three and a half years, killing 377 Israelis and injuring more than 2,000 others.

He brazenly declared that "all Israeli people are targets" and insisted that, "All of Israel, Tel Aviv included, is occupied Palestine. So we're not actually targeting civilians."

Yassin rejected Israel's right to exist and repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Just three months ago, in a December 2003 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, he denied the possibility of coexistence, telling his interviewer that if the Jews insisted on having a country of their own, "They could set up a state in Europe."

Less than two years ago, shortly after Palestinian terrorists carried out a bomb attack at the Hebrew University, Yassin told the Italian daily Corriere Della Sera that, "Israel was born in violence and it will die in violence. The Jews have no right to the land of Palestine."

Yassin was an equal-opportunity hater, directing his venom not only at Israel, but also at the West. Last year, after the US invasion of Iraq had begun, he repeatedly called on the Iraqi people to carry out suicide attacks against British and American forces. At a March 28, 2003 rally in Gaza, Yassin urged Iraqis to "continue their jihad, and to use all possible means to achieve victory against the British and American enemies."

Though they would never admit it, the Palestinians themselves will also benefit from Yassin's demise, if only because he can no longer spread his poisonous and lethal philosophy among them.

BUT DESPITE his horrific record, much of the world was quick to condemn the killing of Yassin, with everyone from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Kofi Annan to the Japanese government coming down hard on Israel for having the nerve to defend itself.

But let them say what they wish, because it matters not one whit. The fact is that we can all take pride in this bold demonstration of sovereign Jewish power, in the ability of the State of Israel to hunt down and punish those who would follow in Hitler's footsteps.

Israel's critics must finally realize that the era of pogroms is over, that the Jew will no longer cower in fear from his adversaries, or seek protection from others. We have returned to the world stage, we have every right to defend ourselves, and that is what we shall do.

The long arm of Jewish justice took care of Sheikh Yassin, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon deserves nothing but praise for having the courage and the good sense to do so.

The elimination of Sheikh Yassin is on par with the capture of Saddam Hussein and the removal of Taliban leader Mullah Omar from power. It marks a turning point in the war on terror, the purging of yet another fanatical chieftain from the world stage.

And it also signifies Israel's determination, like that of Washington, to confront its enemies and take the war to their own backyards, if need be.

Let the cynics and naysayers grumble all they wish. There is never a "wrong" time to eliminate a killer of Jews, or to strike a forceful blow against terrorist thugs.

Whatever the diplomatic or security fallout might be, Israel has done the right thing, at the right time, and to the right person.

On Monday morning, shortly after Yassin was killed, his associate Ismail Haniyeh confirmed his death, telling reporters that he had always hoped to die as a martyr.

"This is the moment Sheikh Yassin dreamed about," he said.

This is one case, at least, where we can all be grateful that the Hamas leader's dream has finally come true, courtesy of the IDF.

The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.




By Steven Plaut

It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "War of Civilization". It is not. In fact, Middle East is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization. It is also considered chic to represent Middle East conflict as a "cycle of violence", and as something fundamentally symmetrical between Arab terrorists and Israeli soldiers. It is not. The shallow appeal to a supposed "cycle of violence" is nothing more than a manifestation of the laziness of those unwilling to invest the energy needed to understand the conflict, or by those motivated by things worse than laziness when it comes to Jews. And it has become even more fashionable to claim that Israel is causing the Palestinians to "suffer" by erecting its security fence. One does not know whether to laugh at such assertions or cry.

At the beginning of the Oslo "peace process", the PLO officially renounced terror and swore to resolve all conflict with Israel through peaceful negotiation. In exchange, the entire world followed the leadership of the Israeli Left and legitimized the PLO, rescuing it from its pariah status and its exile in Tunisia, while Israel allowed the PLO to manage and govern the bulk of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By the mid-1990s, some 95% of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were "liberated" from Israeli "occupation" and were ruled by the oppressive Palestinian Authority. The removal of Israeli occupation was the direct cause of the outbreak of the worst round of Palestinian barbarism in history. It has been repeated so endlessly and so mindlessly that Palestinian terror is a supposed consequence of Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza that the most glaring and obvious fact of all is being ignored by the entire world. Palestinian terrorism these past eleven years was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its REMOVAL!

As a result of Israel's offering to allow the PLO control over the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel's willingness to acquiesce in Palestinian statehood in the medium run, the PLO and its affiliates have murdered 1300 Israelis, most of them civilians and many of them children, since foreswearing the use of violence. Proportionate to population, this is like 22 September 11ths for the United States. The world has grown so accustomed to the daily news reports of Palestinian barbarism that most have lost their shock value.

Nevertheless, several points need to be re-emphasized.

First of all, the notion that the terror is coming from "renegade" organizations outside the PLO and which the PLO cannot control is little more than an insult to the world's collective intelligence. In recent months the bulk of the violence (including many of the suicide bombers) has come from the "Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades", from the Fat'h, and from the Tanzim. All of these are under the direct personal command and control of Yassir Arafat. Anyone who believes that Arafat is "really trying" to rein in the terror must also believe that Hitler was a passive innocent stooge and that Saddam never really controlled his Baath party. In any case, the "Hamas" and "Islamic Jihad" terrorists do not really differ much from the PLO terrorists. Like the Viet Cong, the terrorists switch identities throughout the day, and "joint" PLO-Hamas atrocities have been perpetrated. When the "Black September" organization was set up and controlled directly by the PLO in the 1970s, similar disingenuo us claims about the PLO's supposed lack of involvement in the plane hijackings were heard ( ).

Second, the barbarous depravity of Palestinian violence gets worse by the day. Palestinians have long used ambulances of the "Red Crescent", (the PLO's version of the Red Cross, directed by Arafat's own brother) to transport weapons and explosives and terrorists. The PLO then has the audacity to whine before the CNN crews and the world media that Israel is behaving in an "inhumane" manner when it stops ambulances at checkpoints and refuses to allow them to cross into Israel without inspection or delay. (The very idea that Palestinians can legitimately be denied automatic entitlement to free Israeli medical treatment is something the CNN and the NY Times have never quite brought themselves to contemplate. This is curious since, in the United States, non-citizens and even citizens have no such automatic entitlement to free medical care.)

In recent months, Palestinians have employed mothers of small children as suicide bombing murderers. Palestinians teenagers were last week apprehended on their way to carry out a bombing and mass murder (

Parents of Palestinian suicide bombers routinely proclaim their pride in the atrocities carried out by their offspring (see for example ), and Israel has been too cowardly to execute or even expel these family members as deterrent to future murderers. Arafat himself ( and the rest of the PLO openly celebrate the bombers, suicide murderers, and other terrorists ( ). Palestinian children as young as toddlers are marched about in pride with explosives belts attached to their waists. PLO-run TV and radio each day broadcast blood-curdling nazi-like propaganda that demonizes Jews and openly exhort Palestinians to murder Jewish civilians. While pregnant Palestinian mothers have yet to attach explosives to their bellies for the purpose of murdering Jews, and while Palestinian mothers have yet to hide bombs in the strollers of their infants, there can be little doubt that such things are now but a matter of time.

The PLO is doing everything it can to escalate the violence and turn it into an existential threat to the Jews. The Jerusalem Post recently reported (Feb 24, 04) that Israeli intelligence has turned up hard evidence that the PLO is seeking to construct chemical weapons of mass destruction. Palestinian terrorists have already experimented with lacing their terror bombs with poisons. The world media largely ignores the fact that the PLO operates a large military-industrial complex, many from out of North-Vietnamese-style underground tunnels. These have produced large numbers of ground-to-ground rockets. In 2003 alone the Palestinians fired 210 Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip into Jewish civilians areas. When Israel enters the Gaza Strip to demolish the tunnels into Gaza from Egypt, through which weapons and explosives are smuggled in to murder Israelis, it is accused of "inhumane behavior", the ISM International Solidarity Movement designer-jean pro-terrorists try to block t he Israeli bulldozers, while the US State Department never speaks out a word against these Egyptian tunnels.

There are other indications that the PLO is seeking to escalate the war and to threaten Israeli viability in other ways. While the PLO once held the world's Gold Metal for plane hijackings, it has abstained from such things since the beginning of its Oslo legitimization by the world ( ). Alan Dershowitz, among others, recently argued that the coddling of the PLO by Europe and much of the rest of the world when the hijackings began made
such things a world plague ( But all this is nothing compared to reports recently in Israel (Maariv, Feb 20, 2004) that Israeli intelligence has successfully foiled and stopped nine separate recent attempts by Palestinians to shoot down civilian airliners landing at Tel Aviv's Ben-Gurion airport. Even Hannuka itself is a celebration of the Jews benefitting only from eight miracles; so how long can Israel count on being rescued by such things?

Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea of how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the NY borough of Queens. (The Arab world insists that controlling territory from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf is insufficient for its appetites, but if only Israel agrees to place its neck in a strategic hangman's noose by turning over the West Bank to the PLO, then peace will prevail.) If Israel were to turn the West Bank over to complete PLO control, many of the landing routes into Tel Aviv airport would pass unavoidably over the Palestinian territories, making them hostages held by the very same terrorists who have already made nine recent attempts to fire should-held missiles at landing jetliners.

As late as 1985, PLO-controlled terrorists hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and tossed a wheelchair-confined American citizen into the sea, where he drowned. The US State Department has long suffered from repressed memory syndrome when it has come to the dozens of American citizens murdered by the PLO (see documentation at ). Instead the State Department insists on maintaining the most studied of "even-handedness" between terrorists and their victims, between barbarians and those defending themselves from barbarism (

Since the PLO has made it clear that it will do everything in its powers to increase the carnage and promote mass murder and atrocities, Israel's government led by Ariel Sharon was under pressure to do something to stop it. While at first resisting the idea of a security wall or fence as a solution, it eventually caved in to public pressure.

Let us put this fence into perspective. The massive opposition to Israel's erecting any security fence is coming from the very same people who have never had much to say about the mass murders of Israeli children and other civilians by the terrorists. The simple fact of the matter is that those screaming against Israel building a security fence, including Israel's own Far Leftists, simply want the mass murders of Israelis to continue and escalate. They are quite simply in favor of the atrocities and endorse the terror. They would oppose anything Israel would do to fight the terror, and have always opposed all anti-terror measures. They want Israel to capitulate to the terror, not fight it. There are few problems in the world that they do not think can be resolved through Israel being placed in clear and present existential danger

The International Court of Justice is attempting to put Israel on trial, allegedly for "oppressing Palestinians" with its security fence, because Israel is trying to prevent the mass murders of its civilians by the terrorist savages. The judges at the same ICJ sit comfortably behind a fence. Yes, they are protected by a security fence that keeps out the street urchins, the Euro-hooligans, and the radical protesting thugs. The same American liberal newspapers, which berate Israel for trying to protect its children through erecting a security fence, are published and written by journalists who often live in American gated communities or in buildings with security doormen. The same American Administration threatening to dock any expenses Israel allots to its security fence from the US aid package to Israel has never made similar threats towards Egypt for its operating the smuggling tunnels into Gaza. In short, it seems like the only folks not entitled to live behind a security fence are the Israelis.

The caterwauling against Israel's security fence is coming from those claiming that Israel is building it on "Palestinian lands", and these are the very same people who often also regard Tel Aviv and Haifa as "Palestinian lands". The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands". Even if they were, why should not Israel build its fence on such "Palestinian" lands? The same people insisting these are Palestinian lands never quite seem to come to terms with the notion that this is Palestinian terrorism that Israel is fighting. Were it not for the terrorism, there would be no need for any fence. As my teenagers would say, Like Duh!

Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood, the Palestinians forfeited any right to sovereignty over these territories they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror. True, Israeli governments in the 1990s nevertheless were naively and foolishly willing to allow the PLO to exercise control over these territories in exchange for peace. But Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange, not peace, so the foolhardy Oslo deal is now off and should never have been implemented.

The great irony is that the Security Fence is not really an effective solution to Palestinian barbarism and attacks on Israeli civilians at all. What exactly does Ariel Sharon think the PLO will do once it is behind the fence, take up quilting? The PLO is already routinely shooting mortars and rockets over the Gaza security fence into Jewish homes, with no serious Israeli retaliations. And the Security Wall is all to easy to dig under, climb over, blow holes in, and otherwise overcome, by Palestinian devoted to murdering Jews at random.

The only way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy the West Bank and Gaza in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II), and to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion. While the terror has partly subsided over the past few months, since the start of the construction of the fence, the real reason for this is the stepped-up campaign by Israel of assassinating Palestinians terrorist leaders, not erection of the fence itself.

While I have my strategic doubts about the fence, if Israel is going to build it at all, it should definitely NOT follow the lines of Israel's pre-1967 Green Line border. That would only reward the terrorists by signaling that Israel is acquiescing in acknowledging everything on the other side of the wall as somehow "Palestinian". If the past decade has taught us anything, it is that appeasement of terror simply breeds more terror.

Instead, Israel should erect security cages, not a security wall. Security cages would be rings of fences and walls around the large Palestinian cities. These would fence the Palestinians in, rather than fencing the Jews out. When the world bellyaches, Israel should simply respond: Look, people who behave like animals must be treated like animals and put behind cages until they learn to behave like humans. If the Palestinians ever abandon Islamofascism and nazi-like atrocities, then Israel may no longer need any fence. Meanwhile, like in the famous Gene Autry song, let the rest of the West Bank outside these cages be unfenced and free, open Israeli range. Let all of Israel be as safe as your typical American gated community.

Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli fences and checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis. As long as they persist, any "suffering" by Palestinians, like the suffering of Germans and Japanese in World War II, is their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, or for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens. The Palestinians and their apologists do not like Israel's Wall? Tough.

The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is ONLY a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity.

There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism.



Arutz Sheva, March 23, 2004


By Yehuda Poch

The best news to come out of Israel in a long time is this week's killing of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. In the last 3.5 years, Hamas has carried out 425 terrorist attacks in Israel, resulting in the deaths of 377 innocent people and the injuring of more than 2,000. As the overall head of this organization, Yassin bore overall responsibility for all these deaths and injuries.

For years, people have been able to complain that Palestinian terrorists kill Israelis and Jews with impunity. For years, the response of Israel's government has been half-hearted at best. And for years, terrorist groups like Hamas have responded to these half-hearted defensive measures with more and deadlier attacks.

As can be expected, reactions in the Israeli political sphere have been fast and furious. Everyone with a mouth or keyboard has been talking to anyone who would listen. And as expected, some of the reactions have been plain idiotic. Two examples will suffice to show just how morally bankrupt and steeped in the interests of our enemies the Israeli Left has become.

Yossi Beilin, who was elected last week to head the new left-wing extremist Yahad party, built on the ashes of Meretz, criticized Yassin's killing, which is no surprise. In the media reports, Beilin asked, "How many Israelis will have to pay with their lives for this act?" He said the assassination was a "horrendous mistake that will cost Israel heavily." He said that killing Yassin could spark a new cycle of violence, adding that the policy of targeted assassinations is neither legitimate nor effective.

We certainly don't need Yossi Beilin to tell us what every Israeli already sadly knows: that we can expect more terrorist attacks in the near future. Hamas has already proven that they can do this when a terrorist is killed. They have also proven that they need no such pretext to perpetrate such attacks. The double bombing at the Ashdod port last week did not follow the killing of a terrorist leader. Hamas' hatred for Jews and desire to destroy Israel are enough of a reason for them to perpetrate the most heinous of attacks. Yossi Beilin doesn't recognize this. He thinks Israeli measures aimed at exacting justice for spilled Jewish blood are "illegitimate".

What we do need Yossi Beilin for is to show just how blind and nonsensical some people can be. Since when is it illegitimate to kill terrorists? Yassin's own followers claim complete legitimacy when they kill Jews. They trumpet their "achievements" over any available airwave. They "claim responsibility" as if they are putting another notch in their stick, accumulating points in some macabre game of murder. But when Israel finally shows some responsibility to its citizens and kills off their supreme leader, all of a sudden it's not so "legitimate" according to Beilin.

The second reaction that deserves debunking came from Peace Now, long one of Israel's most stubborn nemeses. The killing of Yassin, according to Peace Now, will "turn all of us into Hamas' hostages. The only way to wipe out Hamas and other terror groups is through a diplomatic agreement."

So let's try to get this straight. By granting legitimacy to a terrorist organization intent on killing Israelis – one recognized around the world as a murderous band of terrorists – through some "diplomatic agreement", this would ensure Hamas' disappearance?

There is even historical precedent for this opinion. In 1993, when the PLO had all but disappeared from world view, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin – at Beilin's instigation – resuscitated that organization and gave them free entry to Israel and free weapons to begin killing Jews again. Over the next ten years, the PLO really did disappear. It morphed into the Palestinian Authority, which has in turn given Hamas free reign in Gaza and Judea and Samaria to continue killing Jews with greater frequency and severity.

Peace Now applauded that precedent when it occurred, and has continued championing its cause ever since. Now, they suggest that we reach a similar "diplomatic agreement" with Hamas. Perhaps this time, the result will be the strengthening of Islamic Jihad or some other murderous offshoot.

President George W. Bush had it right last week, when he said, "We are a nation at war and utopian ideals of 'justice' have proven deadly." What applies in the US certainly applies at least equally to Israel. Hamas is not an organization that we can or should reach "diplomatic agreements" with, or whose leaders should be left alive because of an Israeli drive for "legitimacy". Hamas is a band of murderers, and it is Israel's national responsibility to eliminate every one of them at the first opportunity.

Yossi Beilin, Peace Now, and all their followers should keep their mouths shut and let Israel get on with defending Israelis properly. Yassin should be just the beginning.

Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission of the author only.




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Admittedly, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi - the new head of Hamas - has a gripe. Israel has tried twice to kill him, and just after the recent "targeted killing" of his boss, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by Israel, Israeli officials announced that Rantisi was still on their "hit" list. Of course, when you think about what Rantisi has said in the past, "We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land. By G-D we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews." You can understand why Israel would want to eliminate the terrorist leader.

Immediately after the Israeli missile strike that killed Sheikh Yassin, Rantisi and other Hamas leaders threatened to retaliate against America, blaming it for supporting Israel. But a few days later, Rantisi backed down from the threat, saying Hamas would only be active in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria - the Gaza Strip, and Israel.

Now he's decided to enlarge the war. It's not good enough to wipe out Israel; he's after America too.

In a recent speech at the Islamic University in Gaza City, Rantisi said he was not surprised that the US had vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel's assassination of Hamas "spiritual leader" Sheikh Yassin.

"Bush is an enemy of God, an enemy of Islam, an enemy of Muslims," Rantisi explained. "America has announced a war against Allah, Sharon has announced a war against Allah. Allah announces a war against America, Bush and Sharon," he told the crowd of more than 5,000. The rally was the first public appearance by Rantisi, since the end of a three-day official mourning period for Yassin.

Rantisi seems to be following the line developed by his "spiritual leader" Yassin, who in the weeks and months before Israel's assassination of him, had increasingly begun speaking publicly about the "Global Jihad" in Bin Laden and al-Qaeda type terms. Although this wasn't new to Yassin, who back in February 2002 - before the war in Iraq - called on the international Islamic community to combat "American influence" on their countries via "Jihad".

"The war of God goes on against them and I see the beginning of victory starting from here in Palestine in the hands of the Izzedin al-Kassam Brigades - Hamas's military wing - and the Hamas movement," Rantisi said.

In the past, after a previous attempt on his life, Rantisi threatened that, "Now no one is immune, Hamas will target every man, woman, and child in Israel." As if they weren't already trying to kill everyone, with their indiscriminant suicide bombings? Now he's adding America to his list.

Dr. Rantisi also suggested the Arab world is letting down the Palestinians. "I want to tell the Arab leaders, you will be asked by God... about the blood of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin," he said. Rantisi told the Arab states, "The blood of Sheikh Yassin calls on you to close the [Israeli] embassies, the consulates, commercial offices. Boycott them, commercially, diplomatically and culturally and in security [contacts], and stop meeting killers like Sharon," he said. Rantisi said they only looked weak following the weekend postponement of an Arab League summit in a dispute over democratic reform proposals. "The time has come to be strong in facing America and the Zionists," Rantisi demanded.

The crowds, mostly dressed in the green colors of Hamas, cheered Rantisi's every word and pledged their support for him. Let's not forget that Dr. Rantisi first came to public attention in December 1992, when then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin "exiled" 400 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists to Marj az-Zuhour in Southern Lebanon. The international media at the time, portrayed their daily struggles, trying to drum up sympathy for their plight - combating the grueling cold, stranded with not sufficient food or medical supplies, etc - when in fact, they had gotten hold of cell phones, and made contact with Hezbollah operatives. For almost a year they got continuous Jihadist indoctrination, bomb making lessons, and practice in guerrilla warfare techniques - don't forget the unreported vacations to Beirut - thanks to Hezbollah. Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi - then political head of Hamas - gained international prominence at that time, as the group's spokesman. So, no one can doubt Rantisi's "Jihadist credentials".

Hezbollah - sponsored by Iran and Syria - has been involved in attacks worldwide against Jewish and Israeli targets. I might add, that they bombed the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and have sent many fighters to Iraq, as well.

Then you have the more recent case - in October 2003 - of three American security personnel killed in an American diplomatic convoy in Gaza. Anonymous callers to the media at the time claimed that an unknown group - the Popular Resistance Committees - was behind the attack. But, Israeli intelligence sources have discounted the calls and placed the blame on members of Arafat's Fatah.

Though the Palestinian Authority officially condemned the attack, the Palestine Satellite TV Channel - an official television station of the Palestinian Authority - carried a weekly live sermon from Sheikh Zaid Bin-Sultan Al Nuhayyan Mosque in Gaza. The imam told his audience, "The world will never enjoy security unless our children enjoy it here in Palestine. We hear statements by the little US President. We hear unfair and tyrannical statements in which he says Israel has the right to defend itself. These statements carry destruction for the United States itself. From here, we warn the American people that this President is dragging them to the abyss." He concluded, "O Lord, take vengeance on the Jews and their supporters. O Lord, take vengeance on the Jews and their allies..."

The Palestinian Authority hasn't yet adequately investigated the bombing.

And if you thought it was only Hamas who promotes anti-American Jihadist rhetoric, think again. The Palestinian Authority's highly controlled official media persistently incites hatred and violence against America and the West, besides Israel. They tell the Palestinian public, that several of the conflicts around the world - that involve Muslims and Arabs - are part of a war between civilizations, that the western world led by the United States is fighting against the Arab world and Islam. They inflame their people to support terror, because America "runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim." The Palestinians are repeatedly told they must lead the war against the West.

The official PA newspaper al-Hayyat al-Jadida, echoing Bin Laden terminology, insists there exists an "American-European-Russian alliance," pursuing Muslim/Arab subjugation. The Palestinians are at the forefront of the war that will, "shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo-imperialists, the thieves of natural resources, murderers of nations." US President Bush, in this "Global Jihad," is depicted not only as a leader of the "enemy United States," but also as the enemy of all civilization, the "Fuhrer of the globalization era." He's called a greater danger than Hitler, leading the world to destruction. "The new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age," while Hitler only left "tens of millions of dead."

So there you have it, the true "Axis of Evil," Iran, Syria, "Palestine," Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Arafat, Rantisi and Hamas. With the Palestinian Authority housing several terror gangs, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arafat's own Fatah sponsored al-Aksa Brigades and Tanzim, the DFLP, the PFLP, and others, "Palestine" has become another Afghanistan. Imagine what full Palestinian independence would mean for the world?

But, don't worry America, Hamas is at war with Israel too...

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis He is a member of the Board of Directors and a Research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2004/5764 Pasko



The Jerusalem Post, March 31, 2004


By Bret Stephens

Are Palestinians weeds? It would seem many people think they are. Following Israel's assassination early yesterday morning of Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of Hamas, the gist of international reaction was that the strike would bring new converts to the Islamist cause and incite a fresh wave of terrorist violence against Israel. In other words, Palestinians are weeds: Mowing them down, as it were, only has the effect of making them grow back stronger and faster.

There are moments (Monday morning was one of them) when I find myself tempted by the metaphor. As I write, my TV screen is filled with images of Palestinian mourners thronging the streets of Gaza, praising Yassin as a martyr and vowing deadly vengeance. This looks like the reaction of an emboldened people, not a frightened one. So what's the sense, in purely utilitarian terms, of further Israeli attacks? Alternatively, what's the sense of showing any restraint at all? If the weed metaphor is right, either Israel should sue for peace on whatever terms the Palestinians extend or it should resort to extreme measures like population transfer. Anything else just fruitlessly prolongs a cycle of violence.

But of course Palestinians aren't weeds. They're human. They think in terms of costs and benefits, they calculate the odds, they respond more or less rationally to incentives and disincentives. And what makes us afraid can also make them afraid.

This is a trite observation, but it's one Palestinians would rather have us forget. Over 42 months of conflict, their strategy has been to persuade Israelis that they, the Palestinians, are made of different stuff. Why else the suicide bombers? Not because of their proven capacity to kill civilians in greater numbers than any other weapon currently in the Palestinian arsenal. That's only a second-order effect. The deep logic of suicide bombing lies in the act of suicide itself. People who will readily die for their cause are, by definition, beyond deterrence. By showing that Israel's tanks and fighter jets are just so much scrap metal in the face of the Palestinians' superhuman determination, they aim to disarm Israel itself.

How does one respond to such a logic? It helps not to be fooled by it. Again, allow me to make the trite observation that Palestinians love their children too. To date, there has not been a single instance in which a Hamas leader sent one of his own sons or daughters on a suicide mission. I once interviewed a Hamas leader, since deceased, as he bounced his one-year-old girl on his knee. Contrary to myth, this was not a man who was afraid of nothing. Unsparing as he was with the lives of others, he was circumspect when it came to the lives of his own.

Indeed, when one looks closely at just who the suicide bombers are (or were), often they turn out to be society's outcasts. Take Reem Salah al-Rahashi, a mother of two, who in January murdered four Israeli soldiers at the Erez checkpoint on the Gaza-Israel border. In a prerecorded video, Rahashi said becoming a shaheed was her lifelong dream. Later it emerged she'd been caught in an extramarital affair, and that her husband and lover had arranged her "martyrdom operation" as an honorable way to settle the matter. It is with such people, not with themselves, that Palestinian leaders attempt to demonstrate their own fearlessness.

In the early months of the intifada, this macho pretense was sustained by the Israeli government's tacit decision not to target terrorist ringleaders, for fear such attacks would inspire massive retaliation. Yassin and his closest associates considered themselves immune from Israeli reprisals and operated in the open. What followed was the bloodiest terrorist onslaught in Israeli history, climaxing in a massacre at Netanya in March 2002. After that, Israel invaded the West Bank and began to target terrorist leaders more aggressively.

The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations, including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed unilaterally to a cease-fire.

In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about 700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business, not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian foot soldiers.

Now a few words about Yassin, the international reaction to his killing, and the likely result for Israel. It may be recalled that Israel released the good sheikh in 1997, after having sentenced him to life in prison, with the promise that he would never again promote terrorism. This was during the Oslo years, when serious people actually thought that such conciliatory gestures served the interests of peace. Today, that is beyond comprehension. At any rate, Yassin didn't keep his promise.

Meanwhile, assorted foreign ministers are in full throat against Israel. "All of us understand Israel's need to protect itself -- and it is fully entitled to do that -- against the terrorism that affects it, within international law," says British Foreign Minister Jack Straw. "But it is not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing."

It would be interesting to know exactly what, according to Mr. Straw, Israel is lawfully allowed to do in self-defense. Perhaps it would be as well if the minister also reminded the Palestinian Authority of its obligations, under the Road Map, to "undertake visible efforts
. . . to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning attacks on Israelis." But if Mr. Straw and his colleagues do not do so, it is not from an excess of respect for the Palestinians, but rather its lack. They will, after all, be viewing them merely as weeds, not as humans capable of acting in their own best interests.

Mr. Stephens is editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post.



(with some nuance)

By David Basch

Contrary to assumptions, the causes of Arab terror is not Arab weakness. It seems more likely that it is U.S. and Israeli weakness.

The Arabs reason that both the U.S. and Israel are very vulnerable concerning their vital interests. The U.S. stands on the verge of having public opinion turn against the government and force it to remove American forces from the Gulf. Similarly, Israel is vulnerable to public pressure to withdraw from the Israeli territories and capitulate to Arab designs. These designs are rooted in regional antagonisms that are larger than single states.

While the U.S. and Israel have vital reasons why theymust not give in to such pressures, the Arabs believe that terror can be used as the tipping force to influence the public to demand that their respective governments make such ruinous changes.

We all know about the Stockholm Syndrome, in which the fear and dread of the enemy drives persons to identify with the enemy. It is not hard to see that this is behind the enemy's terrorist weapon in these attacks (as exemplified recently by Spain).

Therefore, you might say, it is the very vulnerabilities that are the causes of Arab terror. As long as the enemy thinks that it can influence the U.S. and Israeli public (and others) through such pressures it will continue.

The answer to terror, then, is for both the U.S. and Israel to remove their vulnerabilities. The U.S. is answering this challenge by removing Arab governments that support terror and, especially, the Arab government that posed a strong challenge to the U.S. presence in the Gulf. The U.S. is working to create regimes that will not oppose this U.S. presence. While there is much to be done, this strengthening has to be put at the heart of counter terrorism efforts. For when there is nothing that the terrorism can accomplish against its victims, it will become unimportant and will dwindle. Israel, on the other hand, has not been so wise. Israel continues to insist on making herself vulnerable by ever strengthening the Arab enemy's hold on vital strategic territories. The continued weakening of Israel -- her economy ravaged by the costs of terrorism and the inordinate costs of mobilization to defend against it and her surrenders of lands to terrorists -- will ever pluck enemy efforts on. The Arabs want far more than a state. They want a state instead of Israel and will continue working toward that objective with every new advantage they gain. The solution, then, is for Israel to win her war against the Arab challenge as the U.S. needs to do to solidly secure its interests in the Gulf.

Apparently, these thoughts are too subtle for Israeli leaders who think that strengthening the Arab enemy will moderate him rather than urging him on. Perhapsthe Stockholm Syndrome is already too powerful a force on Israelis and their government so that they can only see a quixotic identification with the enemy's objectives of Israel's destruction as the source of ultimate relief.

It is about time someone in Israel wised up.

David Basch is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Comment on News:


By David Basch

The last thing Israel needs is some "hip shooter" that decides Israel's future according to his own narrow, technocratic considerations that have no relations to the ethos and ultimate challeges of his country. Sharon is no "big idea man" and his limited vision should not alone set the direction of the nation.

Such far-reaching policies that Sharon proposes are things that ought to be dealt with in depth and win the support of the major sectors of Israeli society before they are fixed in stone. The last time such hip shooting occurred, Israel saddled itself with a terrorist army brought over from Tunisia that may well have been at the cost of Israeli survival. Leftist alleged thinkers continue to throw "good Israel" after the "bad" to futilely rescue the mistaken thinking of the past that has been leading to Israel's disappearance.

Are the right wing parties incapable of finding a pro-Israel leader to represent the abiding interests of the nation? And I would avoid leaders like Netanyahu who will merely give Israel more of the leftist policies that serve "universalism" and not the interests of Israel in the particular -- a universalism that consistently leads the nation toward the cliff. Israel needs a change in government toward one that serves the essential interests of the Jewish state. The secular, truncated state that Sharon strives for that stupidly depends on a revolutionary Arab good will for Israel's survival cannot deliver a future for the nation.


**Israel Needs to Free Itself from the Gaza Strip, Sharon Says

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said today that he would form a new government if coalition parties objected to his plan to unilaterally disengage from the Gaza Strip and certain parts of the West Bank, THE JERUSALEM POST reported.



The Jerusalem Post, March 27, 2004


By Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook

The Western world sees Hamas as a terrorist organization seeking Israel's destruction, but treats the Palestinian Authority (PA) as a peace partner, either actual or potential, for Israel. The fact that Israel continues to seek contact with PA leaders heightens the clear distinction made between the PA and Hamas.

But the distance between Hamas and the PA has been shrinking for years. And the way the PA has responded to the killing of Yassin shows just how close the two groups actually are. The PA has gone far beyond its expected level of condemnation of the killing, and has eulogized Yassin as a leader representing all the Palestinian Authority.

PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, for example, told PA TV that just as "Yassin united the Palestinians in his life he united them again in his death." Yasser Arafat's official daily, Al Hayat Al Jadida, published a cartoon of a wheelchair shaped as a map of what the PA calls "Palestine" (which erases all of Israel) thereby stating graphically that Yassin and "Palestine" are one and the same.

In an unprecedented move, PA television ceased all regular programming for days, and except for brief news reports broadcast only slides of the Koran sung to mournful tunes. In the Arab world, this Koran broadcasting is usually reserved for the deaths of heads of state, as was done on Syrian TV after the death of Hafez Assad. That PA TV treated Yassin in this fashion demonstrates his elevated stature among PA leadership and PA society.

Anyone listening to PA leaders' pronouncements in Arabic over the years has recognized that there never was a meaningful ideological divide between the PA and Hamas. It is well understood, for example, that Hamas believes Islam demands Israel's destruction. As the Hamas charter states, "Palestine is an Islamic Wakf the liberation of Palestine is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere."

Less noted is that PA religious leaders have repeatedly made identical rulings. Even when the Oslo Accord appeared to be in its heyday, Yousuf Abu Sneinah, preacher of Al-Aksa Mosque, issued this ruling on PA TV: "The land of Palestine is a Wakf for all The liberation of Palestine is an obligation for the entire Islamic nation " (April 30, 1999).

The perception is that a difference between Hamas and the PA is that the latter, at least in principle, had given up using violence to reach its political goals. Yet it was Arafat who said in 1999, literally anticipating the current terror war: "The agreements won't liberate the land. Every centimeter needs struggle, and the land needs blood" (Al Hayat Al Jadida, January 25, 1999).

When Hamas started using suicide terrorists to kill Israelis in 1996, the PA condemned the killings in English. But in Arabic, PA leaders made it clear that there was no difference in attitude, only a division of labor.

Muhammad Dahlan, then head of Preventive Security in Gaza, said that the presence of Hamas "is important and essential in the cooperation in the building." Hani Alhasan, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, explained the role of Hamas: "Unity is in the nature of construction, and it is incumbent upon us to divide the work among the builders." (Al Ayyam, August 31, 1997).

As long ago as 1997, after the bombing at Tel Aviv's Apropos cafe, a member of the PA Legislative Council expressed his condolences to the family of the suicide bomber during a session of the Legislature, and "his words were interrupted by the applause of the members of the [PA Legislative] Council" (Al Hayat Al Jadida March 27, 1997). It should be stressed that all this cooperation was openly expressed in PA society long before the current terror war began in October 2000.

After starting the terror war, the PA completely erased any differences between the "builders" by creating its own suicide terror unit, the "Aksa Martyrs Brigade," which has committed numerous suicide terror attacks identical to those of Hamas.

IF THERE is any difference today between Hamas and the PA, it's in their attitudes toward temporary agreements with Israel.

While the Hamas charter states, "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad," the PA has argued that temporary agreements can be used to gain strategic territory from which to fight more easily for Israel's destruction.
Then PA minister Abdel Aziz Shahin explained this just months before the PA started the terror war: "The Oslo agreements [were] a foothold and not a permanent settlement, since war and struggle on the land is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land... The Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the '65 revolution..." – that is, the destruction of Israel (Al-Ayyam, May 30 2000).

Faisal Husseini called the Oslo Accords a "Trojan Horse... the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement, is just a temporary procedure... according to the higher strategy [Palestine is] 'from the river to the sea.'" (Al-Arabi – Egypt, June 24, 2001).

Today, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas both embrace the use of terror to fight Israel. The only meaningful difference between them is the acceptance or rejection of political process as a vehicle to destroy Israel.

Marcus is founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch. Crook is PMW's North American representative.



Arutz Sheva, March 25, 2004


Child Bombers In The Service Of Palestinian Murder

One of the two new Hamas co-leaders, Khaled Mashal, called two years ago for the training of child suicide bombers - and the program seems to be well underway. Yesterday, for the second time in a week, alert IDF soldiers discovered a young Arab boy from the Palestinian Authority wearing an explosives vest designed to kill him and as many Israelis as possible.

Yesterday afternoon, at the Hawara checkpoint near Shechem (Nablus) - in the area of Yitzhar and other Jewish communities - soldiers saw a boy approaching the checkpoint. Their suspicions aroused by the way he walked and carried himself, they immediately called out to him to stop and not to come near the soldiers. They told him to lift his shirt; he did so, revealing a gray vest packed with explosives. He held the switch in his hand, and could have detonated it at any given second. He appeared scared, and for 40 tense minutes the soldiers, with the aid of a robot and scissors, guided him in removing the vest.

Asked afterwards why he agreed to kill himself, he gave several explanations: "People don't like me," he said, adding that his schoolmates laughed at him for being short, that the Tanzim promised him 100 shekels for his mother and 72 virgins in Paradise. He said that his teacher taught him that waiting for him in Paradise were rivers of honey and wine and 72 virgins, and that "if I do good acts, I will sit there and enjoy." Those "good acts" include, apparently, murdering Israelis.

The boy said that his family does well financially and that he often listens to music over the internet. He said nothing about "conquest," "oppression" or "the killing of Sheikh Yassin" as being his motivation.

The boy's uncle said this morning that if he knew who sent his nephew to blow himself up, "I would shoot him in the head."

Some 60 PA figures have issued a public call for a "smart, non-violent intifada." Though they sharply condemn Israel's killing of Hamas arch-terrorist leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, they write in a PA newspaper today that PA elements should not be "dragged along" by what they call "Sharon's provocation," but should rather unite against Sharon's "government of terror."

Nine days ago, Palestinian terrorist elements were willing to sacrifice a 10-year-old boy whom they equipped, without his knowledge, with a bomb inside a bag. They promised him 5 shekels if he would give the bag to someone on the other side of the checkpoint - but planned to detonate the bomb by remote control if he was caught.

The IDF reported that more than 40 other minors who were involved in planning suicide bombings have been arrested by security forces since 2001. Twenty-two shootings and bombings were actually perpetrated by minors during this period.



The Jerusalem Post Editorial, March 26, 2004


On Tuesday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Hebrew University's Mount Scopus campus, where he was accosted by Arab students who demonstrated vehemently against the killing of Hamas chief Ahmed Yassin, shouting "We're all Ahmed Yassins."

They also called out: "With blood and fire we shall redeem you, oh shaheed [martyr]," and "Yassin – we follow your footsteps."

In a mass protest in Nazareth that day, participants also resorted to the "We're all Ahmed Yassins" chant, along with "There are a million Yassins." Loudspeakers blared a stirring Gaza hit song extolling Yassin as "the light of the sun" and "tomorrow's man." The scene in Nazareth's streets was difficult to distinguish from the streets of Gaza.

Nevertheless, the head of the Monitoring Committee of the Israeli Arab Leadership, Shawki Hatib, maintained that the demonstration wasn't called to mourn the arch-terrorist, but "to protest against the targeted killing" of one.

It takes a fair amount of self-deception to regard demonstrations featuring pro-Yassin slogans and awash with Hamas flags as walking the fine line that Hatib described. We feel that the worst we can do is sweep animosity under the rug or downplay the menacing chants and undisguised abuse hurled in Israel's collective face.

These demonstrations did not stop at protesting against an Israeli action – they celebrated a mass murderer of fellow Israeli citizens, including, of course, many Arabs.

Hatib and other speakers delivered inflammatory orations in which they lashed out at the IDF, its commanders, the government, and most of all Sharon. He was branded a fascist, racist, murderer, and child-killer. Hatib blamed him directly for "every drop of blood spilled in this region" – not Yassin.

Moreover, such emotional sendoffs cannot be recalled for any of the 1,000 Israeli victims of the Palestinian Authority's intifada in the past 42 months. These included many elderly people and babies in their strollers. The pictures of none of these innocent victims were never borne aloft in Arab demonstrations. No one ever remembered the wheelchairs or prams of Yassin's numerous victims. The demonstrators evinced unreserved empathy for terrorists and zero empathy for their victims.

This is crossing far beyond any redlines that even the most vibrant but non-suicidal democracy can countenance. Vociferously siding with those who would destroy Israel, while castigating Israel's self-defense, isn't something Israel should tolerate in the name of civil liberties.

If a line isn't drawn, these manifestations will only become worse. It would serve the interest of Israel's Arab citizens to realize that disloyalty will backfire. For years they've been claiming that their sole objective is to secure equality.

But by associating themselves with the state's enemies, they will inevitably generate even greater estrangement between themselves and mainstream Israelis than already exists, especially since the bloody riots of October 2000. If they crave ostracism, they can achieve it, but it'll be their own doing.

Increasingly, however, the inescapable impression is that none of the unrest is about standards of living. Israeli Arabs have it better than their brethren in any of the Arab states and that in itself is a point to ponder.

By following disastrous leaders and role models like Yassin, they can only trigger regression and backwardness.

It won't do to portray such flagrant displays of hostility to the state as stemming from economic need. Pouring funds into the Arab sector, as Ehud Barak sought to do, may be warranted, but could be perceived as appeasement absent a marked reversal of the trend toward radicalization.

The time has come for courageous Israeli politicians to tell it like it is and say openly that the problem isn't deprivation, but the "Palestinization" of Israeli Arabs. It would be grossly unfair to them not to emphasize the limitations of what Israel can put up with.

Nationalistic and religious extremism along with insidious anti-Israelism won't yield integration and acceptance. Any society cannot but treat those who applaud its would-be destroyers with suspicion and distrust. This has to be stated loudly and boldly. Failure to underscore the bounds of Israeli tolerance would be remiss and harmful both to Jews and Arabs.

For the sake of all communities, it must be stressed that even in a free land not everything goes.




By Joshua M. Rolnick

Imagine the following scenario. You are a student studying late one night in a study hall. Suddenly you hear a loud bang. Soon after, chaos breaks loose. At first you are bewildered. You run to the door to see what is going on. To your horror, you are in the line of fire of a terrorist's machine gun. Providentially for you, you are protected by a concrete doorpost. Many others are not as lucky.

There are no weapons in the study hall; therefore, you are unable to stop the terrorist from massacring your fellow students. The terrorist throws grenades into the room. You quickly run to a corner and pray to G-d that all of you will survive.

Moments later, you see a grenade land five feet from you. You stare at it for what seems like hours, not knowing when it will explode and end your life. Fearing the inevitability of disaster, you cover your head and pray once again. Abruptly it blows up. Sharp pain spreads throughout your body.

Suddenly, you are soaring through the air. When the helicopter arrives at Tel Hashomer Hospital you are rushed into the emergency room.

Your chest and your arms are in horrible pain. The doctors explain to you that you had been sprayed with shrapnel. You suffered hearing loss in both ears, and nerve damage to the left side of your body. Your arms took most of the damage, but one piece had hit the center of your chest. No exit wound was found. The doctors said that there was no shrapnel in your chest. They tell you, that miraculously it bounced off your sternum.

This conceivably sounds like a nightmare that could never transpire. My friend, Netanel Bluth, would probably have said the same thing. Unfortunately, it happened to him.

On March 7th 2002 a terrorist penetrated the community of Atzmona in Gush Katif. This hate filled individual waited for four hours, until the study hall was filled with students. He then went to the study hall, kicked down the door, threw at least five grenades, and started firing his automatic assault rifle. Twenty three students were injured. Five were killed. They sadly joined the 1,288 Jews brutally murdered because of the Oslo appeasement process.

On the anniversary of this act of terror my thoughts turn to my friend's suffering. I thank the Almighty for the miraculous recovery of Netanel.

Concurrently, my prayers turn to those who were not as fortunate. I understand that I will never truly comprehend the loss that terror victims and their families endure. I will, however, remember the five students murdered that evening, the 24th of Adar. They were Asher Marcus, Tal Kurtzvail, Eran Picard, Arik Robiak, and Ariel Zana, zichronam l'bracha. May their memories help me understand the horror generated by the appeasement of terrorists. At the same time, may I truly appreciate the enormity of the Jewish sacrifice for our holy land. It has been too precious for us to allow the abandonment of Gush Katif.

Joshua M. Rolnick is a tenth grade student who lives in Houston, Texas.



Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism Jerusalem

Center for Public Affairs No. 19 1 April 2004 / 10 Nissan 5764


By Manfred Gerstenfeld

* The resurgence of European anti-Semitism after the Holocaust suggests that it is integral to European culture.

* The European Union's attitude toward anti-Semitism is double-handed. With one hand, by its discriminatory anti-Israeli declarations, the EU plays the role of arsonist, fanning the flames of anti-Semitism. With the other, it also serves as fireman by trying, at the same time, to quench the flames of classic religious and ethnic anti-Semitism. France is paradigmatic of this attitude.

* New European anti-Semitism often originates from youth, which indicates that rather than an anti-Semitism of the past it is one of the future.

* A major change in EU policies is required to combat European anti-Semitism more effectively.

Integral to European Culture The regular resurgence of European anti-Semitism after the Holocaust suggests that it is integral to European culture. This should not be construed falsely to mean that all Europeans are anti-Semites. In a similar manner, classical ballet is an expression of European culture, yet many Europeans find it boring, decadent or disgusting. This does not negate, however, that ballet is integral to European culture and has been practiced as a performing art for a long time. It originated in Europe, developed over many years, and is widely taught as well as frequently discussed by the cultural elites and the major media.

European anti-Semitism can be said to have many similar characteristics. That many Europeans condemn, dislike or are indifferent to anti-Semitism does not contradict its role in European culture, as statements of European politicians, the media and leading intellectuals prove. Also, varying types of anti-Semitic feelings are expressed in polls. If one analyzed the statistics, the number of European anti-Semites would probably far exceed those who like classical ballet.

A phenomenon which develops intensely over a period of many centuries becomes deeply embedded in the societal mindset and behavior. The anti-Semitic wave of the last few years seems to prove that it is impossible to eradicate such a deep-seated irrational attitude.

In the words of UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks: "Let me state the point as simply as I can: anti-Semitism is alive, active and virulent in the year 2002, after more than half a century of Holocaust education, interfaith dialogue, United Nations' declarations, dozens of museums and memorials, hundreds of films, thousands of courses, and tens of thousands of books dedicated to exposing its evils; after the Stockholm Conference, after the creation of a National Holocaust Memorial Day, after 2,000 religious leaders came together in the United Nations in August 2000 to commit themselves to fight hatred and engender mutual respect.What more could have been done? What more could and can we do to fight anti-Semitism?"1

The oft-heard argument that post-war European anti-Semitism parallels developments in the Mid-East conflict is false. It appears in waves which do not necessarily correspond with developments in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and each wave is higher than the previous one.2 In the Arab world, anti-Jewish incitement continued in parallel with the Oslo process.

A Millennium of Violence The beginning of violent European anti-Semitism is often traced to the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century. Others claim it commenced in 1010 with organized mass murders of Jews in France, followed by massacres in areas which are now part of Germany.3 For almost a thousand years the multiple versions of religious anti-Semitism have been accompanied by other manifestations of hatred in political, economic and cultural spheres.

The ethnic, or "racist" variant of political Jew-hatred started at the end of the nineteenth century in Germany. At that time the term anti-Semitism first appeared. Fed also by the religious variety, this culminated in the genocide of the Holocaust.

After the Holocaust, anti-Semitism did not disappear. In the immediate post-war period, the democratic societies of Europe such as Norway, the Netherlands and several others discriminated against the Jews on many issues.4 Often the returning Jews were not welcome. Legislation and practice frequently favored those who possessed their stolen property while, at the same time, the war history was embellished.

Twentieth century Europe was a continent where a war criminal or a mass murderer had a better chance to survive than a Jewish child. The reason for this was two-fold: the murderous character of the Holocaust and the subsequent leniency of European democratic societies toward those who had murdered the Jews.5

Many classic anti-Semitic prejudices are currently widespread in European society, while new ones are rapidly developing. There are multiple forms of Jew-hatred among politicians, the media, cultural elites and especially in European Arab circles, among extreme rightists and the liberal left.

Modern media, such as television and the Internet, disseminate anti-Semitic writings and cartoons with great speed. There are more than 3,000 anti-Semitic websites.6 This gives the phenomenon an intensity and immediacy it did not have when the Nazis began spreading their propaganda. Recently, millions of people saw a Syrian-produced movie on television which inter alia showed a child's throat being cut. This was made to appear as though being done by a Jew, and using cinematic techniques, the image showed blood streaming into a matzah.7

New Anti-Semitism The most recent major version of anti-Semitism which has strengthened radically in the last few decades, targets Israel, the Jewish state. This variant of Jew-hatred is now commonly referred to as "new anti-Semitism." Its perpetrators often call themselves anti-Zionists. They aim to isolate Israel and present it - in the words of the Berlin Technical University's Center for Research on anti-Semitism - "as a state that is fundamentally negatively distinct from all others, which therefore has no right to exist."8

Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler characterized this by saying: "Traditional anti-Semitism denied Jews the right to live as equal members of society, but the new anti-Jewishness denies the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations."9

Former Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark defined it: "Criticism of Israel has become very similar to anti-Semitism. There exists in it a rejection of the Jewish people's right to express its identity in its state; and Israel isn't judged according to the same criteria that are applied to other countries. If anti-Semites once aspired to live in a world rid of Jews, today anti-Semitism's goal is apparently a world cleansed of the Jewish state."10

Anti-Semitism is an extreme form of hate which should not be confused with critique.11 Jews have been demonized for millennia and defined as the source of all evil. These recourses to ancient history are used to "point to an immutable negative Jewish character."12 Jews have also been discriminated against in many societies and simultaneously, double moral standards have been applied to them.

Societies made discriminatory laws for Jews too. When these laws were abolished later, de facto discrimination often remained. Over a long period of time Jews have been presented as being inhuman, and this has laid the ideological basis for their murder, culminating in the Holocaust. A similar defamatory approach is now being applied to Israel, aiming at its elimination as a Jewish state.

Liberal left anti-Semitism often connects with Arabic and extreme right-wing anti-Semitism. These often - but not always - act independently while working toward similar goals. For example, the French progressive weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, published an article in November 2001 which included a claim that Israeli soldiers rape Palestinian women at checkpoints so that the latter then will be killed by their families in "crimes of honor." The author, daughter of editor Jean Daniel, thus reiterated Palestinian hate propaganda. After protests, the paper was forced to admit the allegation was untrue, trying to belittle the importance of its false accusation.13

There are many discriminatory gradations on the left side of the political spectrum. British litigation lawyer Trevor Asserson shows the media's systematic anti-Israel bias in his analysis of the BBC's reporting on the Middle East. One can argue to what degree this defamation contains anti-Semitic elements, yet Asserson's conclusion that the distorted reporting creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism can thrive seems convincing.14

Differences between Anti-Semitism and Criticism It is often difficult to pinpoint the border between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Irwin Cotler has suggested some guidelines. He claims that critics of Israel become anti-Semites when:

1. They publicly call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. This is the case with the covenant of Palestinian terrorist groups (PLO and Hamas) and some militant Islamic legal rulings (fatawin), as well as the Iranian threat to annihilate Israel ("genocidal anti-Semitism").

2. They deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimize Israel as a state and attribute to Israel all the world's evil ("political anti-Semitism").

3. They Nazify Israel ("ideological anti-Semitism").

4. Israel is characterized as the perfidious enemy of Islam ("theological anti-Semitism").

5. Israel is attributed a mix of evil qualities by salon intellectuals and western elites ("cultural anti-Semitism").

6. They call for restrictions against those trading with Israel ("economic anti-Semitism").

7. They deny the Holocaust.

8. They carry out racist terrorism against Israel.

9. They single out Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena through denial of equality before the law.15

Religious Motifs against Israel A regularly growing list of anti-Semitic events and writings in Europe illustrates the development of these categories of new anti-Semitism. Religious anti-Semitic motifs were used in criticizing Israel by the Italian quality daily La Stampa. It published a cartoon - one of Europe's classics of new anti-Semitism - of the siege of the IDF on the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem showing an Israeli tank which turns on the infant Jesus who asks: "Surely, they don't want to kill me again."16

British daily The Independent published a second European classic of new anti-Semitism - a cartoon by Dave Brown showing Sharon as a child-eater. It should be pointed out that the libel that Jews use the blood of gentile children for religious purposes originated in England during the Middle Ages. In answer to protests, the UK press complaints commission cleared the cartoon. Thereafter it won the UK "Political Cartoon of the Year Award for 2003" of the Political Cartoon Society. The competition was held on November 25, 2003 at the Economist weekly and the award was presented to Brown by Labour MP and former Minister for Overseas Aid Claire Short.17

Presenting Jews as Nazis Comparisons between Jews and Nazis focus on Sharon and Hitler, as well as the Swastika and the Star of David. In December 2003, French comedian Dieudonne appeared on the state-owned France 3 television channel dressed as an ultra-Orthodox Jew, making the Hitler salute and shouting "Heil Israel."18

British poet and Oxford academic Tom Paulin told an Egyptian newspaper that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are "Nazis and racists...[who] should be shot dead."19 Portuguese Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, a communist, compared the blockaded Palestinian city of Ramallah to Auschwitz.20 When visiting Brazil he declared that the Jewish people no longer deserve sympathy for the suffering they endured during the Holocaust.21

In a cartoon, the Greek daily Ethnos, close to the socialist party Pasok, depicted two Jewish soldiers dressed as Nazis with Stars of David on their helmets, putting knives in Arabs. The accompanying text read: "Do not feel yourself guilty, my brother. We were not in Auschwitz and Dachau to suffer, but to learn."22 This one completes the selected trio of Europe's classic new anti-Semitic cartoons.

Applying Double Standards Cotler points to the United Nations as a paradigm of double standards practiced against Israel: "Despite the killing fields throughout the world, the UN Security Council sat from March to May 2002 in almost continuous session discussing a non-existent massacre in Jenin."23

He also mentions the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Spring 2002: "Forty percent of the resolutions passed were against one member state of the international community, Israel, while the major human rights violators in the world such as China and Iran enjoyed exculpatory immunity with no resolutions passed against them. This moral asymmetry not only prejudices Israel, but it further undermines the UN's integrity under whose auspices this occurs, and the authority of international human rights law in whose name these indictments are passed."24

Canadian political scientist Anne Bayefsky wrote about the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in September 2001: "It became a forum for racism... A large group of states sought to minimize or exclude references to the Holocaust, redefine or ignore anti-Semitism, and to isolate the state of Israel from the global community as a racist practitioner of apartheid and crimes against humanity."25

Cotler also referred to the Geneva Convention saying: "During more than 50 years after the Second World War atrocities continued. Among the best known are the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan and Sierra Leone. Despite these horrific breaches of the Geneva Convention, which was adopted in 1949, the contracting parties were never convened to discuss them. The only time this happened was in December 2001 when the contracting parties to the Convention gathered in Geneva to accuse Israel of human rights violations and breaches of the Convention."26

Many other examples can be given, such as that Israel's Magen David Adom (The Red Star of David) is excluded from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies.

Alan Dershowitz remarked on these double standards: "The Jewish people's right to self-determination is denied and Israel as a state is delegitimized. Among Western elites one finds seemingly respectable academics who call for the abolition of Israel and its substitution by a secular bi-national state. These authors know that this model has, for instance, in Lebanon and Yugoslavia been a recipe for mass murder and civil war."27

Anti-Semitism of the Future The discourse over the mingling of contemporary European values and anti-Semitism will probably develop in the coming years. In an interview, French philosopher Jean-Claude Milner, author of The Criminal Inclinations of Democratic Europe, said: "I think there is an autochthonous anti-Semitism in Europe which doesn't come from the past but from the future... Today we see an anti-Semitism which doesn't originate from old people, but from youth, and thus is not likely to disappear, but rather to become stronger... This is an actual problem. We are dealing with a modern anti-Semitism."28

Milner added that European anti-Judaism is linked to the affirmation of Europe itself. On the one hand, it starts to assert itself in the face of the United States. On the other hand, having realized its unity, it wants to present itself as a model for humanity. In his view, at the Anti-racism Conference in Durban, Europe and the Islamic world found themselves standing together on an anti-Jewish platform.29

The importance of Milner's words derive not only from his reputation, but also from the fact that he is a non-Jew. The ongoing delegitimization of Jews in Europe has caused a situation where Jews who make similar remarks are frequently accused of being biased by their ethnicity, irrespective of the quality of their arguments. In order to strengthen their credibility Jewish authors today often have to quote non-Jewish opinions.

An outspoken example of this discriminatory attitude occurred when the editor of the Observer, a British progressive weekly, allowed columnist Richard Ingrams to write: "I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it."30

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism The classical anti-Semitic motif of a Jewish conspiracy aiming to dominate the world reemerges in new forms. Josef Joffe, editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, comments that certain circles in Europe and the Arab world connect the hatred of America with hatred of the Jews. They maintain that the Jewish desire to rule the world is being realized today, mainly through the "American conquest."31

There are both important similarities and differences between European anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Alvin Rosenfeld encapsulated the similarities by saying: "Anti-Americanism functions in much the same way anti-Semitism has over the centuries - as a convenient focus for discontents of many different kinds and a ready-made explanation of internal weaknesses, disappointments, and failures. It is, in short, both fraudulent and counterproductive." As an example, Rosenfeld mentioned the leading German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, who in a 2002 interview in the Austrian journal Profil, named America and Israel as the only two countries today that struck him as being "rogue states."32

The thesis that Europe builds its identity from opposition to the United States has been indirectly confirmed by two of Europe's leading thinkers, Frenchman Jacques Derrida and German Jürgen Habermas, who wrote that the major anti-Iraq war demonstrations on February 15, 2003, in London, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin and Paris, might enter history books as the beginning of a pan-European public awareness.33

American political scientist Andrei Markovits analyzed the differences between European anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism: "While the two European prejudices overlap, there are also huge differences. Anti-Semitism has killed millions of people, while European anti-Americanism has only murdered a few. There were never any pogroms against Americans. Violence, as a rule, did not go further than the destruction of property and the burning of many American flags. There has never been a blood libel about Americans."34

Markovits relates to anti-Semitism as a tool of identity creation. In his view, anti-Americanism fulfils a similar role today: "Nobody knows what it means to be a European. It is unclear what Greeks and Swedes have in common... Anti-Americanism thus enables the Europeans to create a hitherto missing European identity that must emerge if the European project is to succeed." He also points out that Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are the only major icons shared by the European extreme left and far right, including neo-Nazis.35

Multiple Ways of Demonization In the three major forms of anti-Semitism the Jew is demonized as representing all evil. In "religious" anti-Semitism, the Jews - characterized as the devil or his associate - were blamed for killing Jesus who was presented as God's son. In "racist" anti-Semitism, the Jews were accused of poisoning the world with their behavior and ideas. Today, "new" anti-Semites present Israel as an evil state.

Once decision-makers are convinced that a person or a state embodies evil, then the next step is the "evil" to be segregated, subjugated, or even eliminated. In the Middle Ages Jews were exiled or confined to European ghettos and denied many rights the Christians enjoyed. Nazism aimed to eliminate the Jews, which led to the Holocaust. Its social anti-Semitism and delegitimization of the Jews set the stage for their physical destruction.

Anti-Semitism's Main Sources Contemporary European anti-Semitism flourishes within three major sectors of European society. The first of these sectors is the Arab and Islamic communities, large parts of which import from the Arab world the most virulent strain of anti-Semitism. These do not differentiate between Israelis and Jews. Their hate literature includes the nineteenth century forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which purports that all Jews conspire to rule the world. Other major sources of hatred spread by Arabs - including governments - propagate the libel that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make matzot.36

The second sector where anti-Semitism is rife consists of the extreme right and neo-Nazis. They mainly repeat the motifs propagated by Hitler's Germany, adding some new variants as well.

The third societal area with strong anti-Semitic expressions is the extreme left. Its argumentation was largely developed by the Soviet Union in the years after the 1967 Six Day War. This anti-Semitism - cloaked as anti-Zionism - accuses Israel of all the evils perpetrated by colonialist Europe. This propaganda is exceedingly evil because, as French linguist Georges-Elia Sarfati says, it attaches "the four major negative characteristics of Western history in the last century - Nazism, racism, colonialism and imperialism - to the State of Israel."37

Often, European critics of Israel take their cues from Israeli ones. Yet there is a fundamental difference. Even though there are anti-Semites and Jewish self-haters among the Israeli left, in Israel the domestic debate occurs within the context of a national cultural and political reality. In Europe it is transformed by a long embedded anti-Semitic heritage and, therefore, can and does generate physical violence.

Mainstream Anti-Semite Politicians Since the 1980s, several high level European politicians have made radical anti-Semitic declarations. In a public statement in 1982, Greek Socialist Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou compared Israelis to Nazis.38

No mainstream European politician in the 1980s went as far as Christian Democrat Giulio Andreotti, who has headed several Italian cabinets. At an inter-parliamentary conference in Geneva (April 7, 1984), as Italy's foreign minister he supported a motion presented by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The motion equated Zionism with racism, supported the boycotting of Israel, and defended the right of "the armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine" [i.e. terrorism]. Italy was the only western European country to vote with the Soviet bloc for this motion.39

In recent years such occurrences have become more widespread. In April 2002, Franco Cavalli spoke at a demonstration of the Swiss-Palestinian Society in Bern. He was then the parliamentary leader of the Social Democratic Party (SP), which is part of the Swiss government coalition. He claimed that Israel "very purposefully massacres an entire people" and undertakes "the systematic extermination of the Palestinians." At the meeting Israeli flags were torched.40

Senior members of the Greek Socialist Party often use Holocaust rhetoric to describe Israeli military actions.41 In March 2002, parliamentary speaker Apostolos Kaklamanis referred to the "genocide" of the Palestinians.42

Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament (UK) said at a meeting of the Palestinian solidarity campaign in January 2004, that she might consider becoming a suicide bomber if she lived in the Palestinian territories. In contrast to the above-mentioned cases, the Party distanced itself from her position and said "Jenny Tonge was expressing her personal views. The Liberal Democrats do not condone terrorism."43

Norbert Blum, a former German Christian Democrat minister, is reported to have spoken about Israel's destructive war against the Jews, using the Nazi expression "Vernichtungskrieg."

The Polls The campaign to demonize Israel in Europe has been accompanied by multiple manifestations of violence. This has been documented in various studies on European anti-Semitism. A major study, covering the first half of 2002, was undertaken by the Center for Research on Antisemitism for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). It concluded: "France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK witnessed rather serious anti-Semitic incidents such as numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and the vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). Fewer anti-Semitic attacks were reported from Denmark and Sweden."44

Many surveys also show how widespread European anti-Semitic prejudices are. A 2002 opinion poll, carried out on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League in five countries, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and The Netherlands, showed that one out of five respondents can be characterized as "most anti-Semitic."45 Twenty-nine percent believe Jews do not care what happens to anyone but themselves. Forty percent feel Jews have too much power in the business world and international financial markets. The majority perceive Jews as being more loyal to Israel than to their own country.46 An earlier survey dealt with France, Denmark, Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom and yielded broadly similar conclusions.47 However, the attitudes varied substantially among the ten countries researched in both surveys.

An Italian poll conducted in the fall of 2003 by Paola Merulla, showed that only 43 percent of Italians have sympathy for Israel. Seventeen percent of the population think it would be better if Israel didn't exist. In Italy, 51 percent thought the Jews, "besides having a different religion, have common social, cultural and political characteristics which are different from the rest of Italians." Twenty percent of the Italian population think Jews are not real Italians. Ten percent think Jews lie when they maintain that Nazism has murdered millions of Jews.48

A few months earlier, a poll of 2,000 young Italians (aged 14-18), sponsored by the umbrella organization of Italian Jewry under the auspices of Italy's president Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, showed substantial anti-Semitic stereotypes: "Nearly 35 percent of respondents agreed that 'the financial power in the world is mostly in the hands of Jews.' More than 17 percent believed that reports of the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust are 'exaggerated,' and 17.5 percent believed that Italian Jews should 'return' to Israel."49

Israel: A Threat to World Peace At the end of 2003 a Eurobarometer study - undertaken on behalf of the European Commission - found that more Europeans consider Israel a threat to world peace than any other country;50 i.e., even more so than those states which send terrorists abroad to kill European civilians, finance murderous organizations or have leaders calling for genocide.

This year, before Holocaust Day (January 27, 2004), another poll was released. It was conducted by the Ipso Research Institute for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera in Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany and Britain. Of those polled, 46 percent said that the Jews had a mentality and lifestyle different from other citizens, 40 percent felt that Jews in their country had a particular relationship with money and 35 percent believed that the Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and its persecutions of fifty years ago. In all countries, anti-Semitic sentiment paralleled anti-Israel sentiment.51

Another poll conducted by ICM just before Holocaust Day 2004 for The Jewish Chronicle, showed that almost 20 percent of Britons consider that a Jewish Prime Minister would be less acceptable than a non-Jewish one. This was relevant, as Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party, is the first Jew to lead a major political party in recent times. Fifteen percent perceived that the scale of the Holocaust had been exaggerated. Despite Holocaust education today, 19 percent of recent school-leavers also believed this.52

It is mistaken to think this phenomenon has emerged only in recent years and is specifically linked to the Palestinian uprising. German anti-Semitism researcher Wolfgang Benz quotes an earlier statement of the former chairman of the Jewish community in Zurich, Sigi Feigel, who said that many Swiss have dismissed Jews from the conceptual world of the "evil Jew" only conditionally. As soon as anything happens, these people return to their old concepts. Feigel said that Jews are still only "conditional Swiss," and that behind this is the assumption that they are first of all Jews, and secondly Swiss.53

Insights On the European left, different voices are heard only occasionally. An editorial in Le Monde commented on the Eurobarometer poll: "the results revealed, in any case, something extremely dangerous about the old continent."54

In November 2003, columnist Julie Burchill bid farewell to the readers of The Guardian as she moved to The Times. She said that while she liked the paper, there was one reason which made her feel less loyal to it over the past year: as a non-Jew she perceived its strong bias against Israel.

Commenting on the Eurobarometer poll, Burchill wrote: "If you take into account the theory that Jews are responsible for everything nasty in the history of the world, and also the recent EU survey that found 60 percent of Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world today (hmm, I must have missed all those rabbis telling their flocks to go out with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow up the nearest mosque), it's a short jump to reckoning that it was obviously a bloody good thing that the Nazis got rid of six million of the buggers. Perhaps this is why sales of Mein Kampf are so buoyant, from the Middle Eastern bazaars into the Edgware Road, and why The Protocols of the Elders of Zion could be found for sale at the recent Anti-racism Congress in Durban."55

Few European left-wing politicians are aware of how criticism of Israel has turned into anti-Semitism and where the borders lie. One of these is German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. At a conference entitled "Anti-Semitism Today - Comparing European Debates," organized by the Heinrich Boell Foundation, he said in the opening session: "The government of Israel may be criticized for its policies... but Israel's right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people cannot be denied."56

Ilka Schroeder, who left Fischer's Green party and is now an independent member of the European parliament wrote: "It is a well-known fact that parts of the EU funding to the Palestinian Authority (945 million Eurodollars from 2000 to 2003) were channeled to an undisclosed budget and that the PA has financed a terrorist war against Israel... Instead of preventing the use of EU money to kill citizens of Israel, the majority of the political establishment dreams of an 'international peace enforcement' against Israel, led or joined by the EU."57

"A European Disease" There is an inclination to attribute attacks on the Jews in Europe to marginal forces. This may be true for the physical violence and the most extreme remarks. Yet verbal anti-Semitism has crept into the mainstream as well. Speaking at a dinner given by the American Jewish Committee in Brussels, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Rockwell Schnabel, remarked that anti-Semitism in Europe is now almost as bad as it was in the 1930s, the decade in which Nazism came to power.58 To soften the impact a spokesmen at the U.S. embassy said later that his remarks were "neither a personal opinion of Ambassador Schnabel nor the view of the U.S. Government."59

A few days later at a EU conference on anti-Semitism in Brussels, Elie Wiesel called anti-Semitism a European disease and mentioned that European Jews had not asked him "should we leave?"60 but "when should we leave?" Fischer, the only minister of a European government present, also spoke about Jewish friends who told him, to his consternation, that they would soon leave Europe.61

Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky said at the conference that much of the criticism of Israel in recent years had become mixed with "demonization of Israel, double standards in attacking Israel and denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state."62 Shimon Samuels, Director for International Liaison of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that "Kalashnikov bullets, explosive belts and Al-Kassem missiles, purchased out of EU's... annual subsidy [to the Palestinian Authority], have killed over 900 Israelis and maimed thousands - this is anti-Semitism. EU-financed Palestinian media facilities - through satellite television and internet hate-sites - impact on Moslem communities in Europe to attack their Jewish neighbors. This is anti-Semitism."63

The EU's Double-handed Anti-Semitism An indicator of the failure of the European governments to adequately combat anti-Semitism is that Jews often have to hide their identities when they are in public. French Chief Rabbi Joseph Sitruk in a radio interview on November 2003, told French Jews to wear caps rather than kippas in order to avoid being attacked in the streets.64

Recently, the European Union has made some efforts to counteract anti-Semitism. Yet its frequent one-sided condemnations of Israel over the years are part of the incendiary efforts. In order to prove this in more detail, a systematic analysis of the declarations of EU foreign ministers over the past years would be necessary. In many condemnations of Israeli policy France is reported to have played a leading role.

The European Union's anti-Semitism can be described as double-handed. With one hand, by its inflammatory anti-Israeli declarations, the EU plays the role of arsonist. With the other, it also serves as "fireman" by trying, at the same time, to quench the flames of classic anti-Semitism. This will become clearer as events unfold.

One example of how European Union members back incitement occurred on April 15, 2002, when Sweden, Austria, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal supported a resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights which, in the words of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "endorsed Palestinian terrorism and accused Israel of carrying out 'mass killings' in the disputed territories."65

Such declarations have to be seen in the wider framework of the overall distorted attitude of Europe toward Israel. In an interview, Israeli Ambassador to Germany Shimon Stein said: "Israel hopes to normalize its relationship with Europe. Until now this relationship has not been normal. Relations are always used by Europeans as a threat. If Israel does what Europe wants, then we are rewarded. If there are differences of opinion, Israel is threatened with sanctions. In this way you don't treat a state which has an interest that Europe commits itself in the Middle East..." He added however, that the German government behaved differently.66

Sweden's Hypocrisy A typical example of European hypocrisy is the Swedish government of Goran Persson. On the one hand, he was the driving force in the start up of the initial project on Holocaust education which led to the Stockholm international forum on the Holocaust which convened in January 2000. On the other hand, he and in particular, several members of his government, have criticized Israel much more severely than terrorist states.

The hypocrisy of this criticism should also be viewed against the background of Sweden's non-existent record of prosecuting war criminals after the Second World War. Swedish perpetrators have never been investigated, although hundreds of Swedes were SS volunteers. (One of them served in the Treblinka extermination camp.) After 1944, leading Baltic war criminals found ready refuge in Sweden with the knowledge of the Swedish government. However, Swedish archives on these matters remain closed.67

A recent study on Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism in Sweden concluded that this variety "unlike anti-Semitism that traditionally finds expressions in Nazi circles - is not mentioned or in any way highlighted in the public debate. On the contrary, it is actively hushed up, excused or even denied in the media and by the political, academic and intellectual establishment."68

Political scientist, Yohanan Manor, has studied many Middle Eastern textbooks. He says that "the European Union has a heavy responsibility in the transformation of the Palestinian education system into a war machine against the Oslo process. This despite the fact that it had excellent cards to assure that Palestinian education should serve the process of peace and contribute to the permanence of the historical compromise concluded." He mentions that the European Union, despite the financial support it and its member countries give to the Palestinian Authority, has neglected its supervisory role of the textbooks.69

More recently, when it became clear that anti-Semitism was rife in Europe, and increasingly, voices were heard that European leaders had contributed to it, some European leaders went out of their way to also show a more positive attitude to Jews and occasionally, Israelis. In Austrian newspapers a photograph was published of Israel's Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger placing his hands in blessing on the inclined head of Thomas Klestil, the Austrian president. This took place at a meeting of rabbis organized by the Chabad movement. For this congress European Commission President Romano Prodi flew in from Brussels to participate in the dedication of the first Jewish teachers' academy in Vienna after the Holocaust.70

Chirac: A Paradigm of Ambivalence French President Jacques Chirac is a paradigm of European ambivalence toward the Jews. For years he denied the existence of anti-Semitism in France. This refutation of the facts frequently expressed by European personalities - another phenomenon which accompanies European anti-Semitism - merits detailed investigation.

At the end of 2003 Chirac suddenly turned around and said that France had to combat anti-Semitism. Another perspective on the president's personality was revealed by Israel Singer, chairman of the executive committee of the World Jewish Congress. He recalls how a few years earlier Chirac had told him Jews are the cause of anti-Semitism in France and everywhere else.71

Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles tells of a meeting with Chirac in May 2003: "We were then in Paris for a conference on anti-Semitism and the struggle for tolerance convened at UNESCO's international headquarters co-sponsored by this UN body and the SWC. The French President told us there was no anti-Semitism in France; it was some young hooligans who had attacked Jews. We replied that many French Jews - particularly in the Parisian suburbs and provinces - had told us different stories, and that anti-Semitism was rampant in France."

Chirac Invites a Would-be Mass Murderer "Chirac then mentioned a stop during his campaign for the presidency in spring 2002. He shook hands with a young man who said to him that he had just finished his undergraduate studies in France. Chirac asked him, 'Are you going to graduate school?' He replied, 'No, I'm going back to my country, Palestine,' adding, 'I'm going to kill Jews as soon as I get off the plane.'

"The president said he could not continue the conversation as there were many people wanting to shake his hand. He asked an aide to invite this would-be mass murderer for lunch at his residence in the Elysee Palace. When the young man came for lunch, he told the president he was not a member of an Islamic fundamentalist group. Chirac asked him, 'Why do you want to kill Jews?' He said, 'I'm not an Islamic fundamentalist, but the Jews have humiliated us.' Then Chirac said to our delegation, 'You see, it is not just fundamentalism. People do not take into account the humiliation of the Palestinians.'

"I replied, 'Mr. President, with the greatest of respect, I'm sure you would not deviate one single iota from the policies of Arik Sharon if it were French cafeterias, buses, or hotels which were bombed. Like Israel, you would order your army to go after the terrorists and use helicopters. Of course you have a right to do this, as you have a primary obligation to the security of your country's citizens. I think Palestinians are mainly humiliated by their despotic leaders who failed to accept the opportunity when Barak made them a generous peace offer. They did not take it because they wanted to destroy Israel.

"We also discussed France's role in Europe's refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organization, which they still refused to do at that time. We told him we thought their behavior was outrageous. It was a tough conversation, and in the end we agreed to disagree on all the major points. He said he would fight whole-heartedly to prevent anti-Semitism in France, but that it was not there.

"After we left the Elysee Palace we went to a reception at the home of Baron David de Rothschild. Two of our group missed the bus and took a cab. They wore skullcaps, and were right outside Baron de Rothschild's home when a few people started insulting them, saying things like, 'Get out of France, you Jews.' That was an 'eloquent' answer to Chirac's vain claim that there is no anti-Semitism in France."72

There is another important aspect to this story: Which leader of a democratic country invites a declared would-be murderer to lunch in his residence? One might add to this: Which president of a democracy attends the funeral of a mass murderer? When Syrian president Hafez el Assad - whose regime murdered 20,000 inhabitants, mainly civilians, after an uprising in the Syrian city of Hama - died in June 2000, Chirac was the only Western head of state to fly to Damascus.73

A French Turnabout The current worldwide wave of anti-Semitism shows that expressions of anti-Semitism which in the past may have been restricted to extremists, have now permeated European mainstream society. In France it may be more pronounced than elsewhere in Europe where it is, however, not less dangerous. French sociologist Shmuel Trigano says that while French Muslims are a major force in anti-Semitism, "Anti-Semitism exists in France, which has nothing to do with the Islamists. The new anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism, is very present in the extreme left and right, each of which collected 20 percent of the votes in the first round of the French presidential elections of 2002."74

There has been substantial denial of the existence of anti-Semitism by European leaders. In France - the country with the highest number of violent incidents - top politicians have maintained this position for a long time, trying to present the incidents as hooliganism. Only in November 2003, after yet another arson attack against a Jewish institution - a private school - did the official position change radically.

President Chirac announced extra measures of security in places of worship, severe punishment of anti-Semitic perpetrators and reinforced civic courses in French schools.75 He has repeated that statement a number of times since. Israeli President Moshe Katsav praised this commitment during a state visit to France in February 2004.76 French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged the true situation of anti-Semitism in France long before Chirac did, and has made substantial efforts to improve the security situation in France since he was appointed in June 2002. He told Katzav that nobody should have to hide his Jewish identity in France.77

What to Do? Recommendations for combating anti-Semitism are outlined in the major study mentioned above, prepared for the EUMC, in which a multitude of combined activities are recommended. These include the development of sound data and information about anti-Semitic phenomena which can be achieved by having state institutions monitor anti-Semitism in the individual EU states. At the same time, the civil society should undertake dialogues, while the media have "to be addressed to report about ethnic and cultural groups in a responsible way." In addition, a variety of actions on the political level are recommended, including legislation and educational steps.78

Other measures could also be added to this. Hate crimes should be severely punished and measures should be taken against pupils who make it impossible to teach the Holocaust in schools.

The central elements of Europe's anti-Semitism are so major and so manifold that it is clear that Jewish organizations can no longer limit themselves to protesting against individual cases of anti-Semitism. A more systematic "Europewatch" to monitor extreme politicians, institutions, media and intellectuals has to be undertaken. Attitudes toward the Jews have often been an indicator of the health of a society. European anti-Semitism must be watched closely as developments unfold. This is not only in the Jewish interest, but in the general interest of Western democracy. Making Europeans aware of this is a further important step in the battle against anti-Semitism.

* * *


1. Jonathan Sacks, "The New Anti-Semitism," Haaretz, September 8, 2002.
2. Simon Epstein, "Cyclical Patterns in Anti-Semitism: The Dynamics of Anti-Jewish Violence in Western Countries since the 1950s," Analysis of Current Trends in Anti-Semitism, no. 2 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University), 1993, p. 1.
3. Richard Landes, "What Happens when Jesus Doesn't Come: Jewish and Christian Relations in Apocalyptic Time," Terrorism and Political Violence, volume 14, Spring 2002 (London: Frank Cass, 2002).
4. Manfred Gerstenfeld, Europe's Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today's Anti-Semitism (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Yad Vashem, World Jewish Congress, 2003).
5. For an overview see Manfred Gerstenfeld, Europe's Crumbling Myths.
6. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Rabbi Abraham Cooper, "Anti-Semitism and Terrorism on the Internet: New Threats," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 9, June 1, 2003.
8. "Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union," drafted for the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) by the Center for Research on Antisemitism (ZFA) at Berlin Technical University, p. 17,
9. Robert Fife, "UN Promotes Systemic Hatred of Jews, MP Says," National Post, April 2, 2002.10. Yair Sheleg, "A World Cleansed of the Jewish State," Haaretz, April 18, 2002.
12. "Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union," p. 17.
13. Le Nouvel Observateur, November 8, 2001. [French]
14. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Trevor Asserson, "What Went Wrong at the BBC: A Public Monopoly Abusing its Charter Through Bias Against Israel," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 511, January 15, 2004.
16. La Stampa, April 3, 2002. [Italian]17.
18. AFP/Expatica quoted in JCPA, Daily Alert, December 5, 2003.
19. Giles Foden and John Mullan, "When Authors Take Sides," The Guardian, April 27, 2002.
20. AP, "Author compares Palestinian city to Nazi death camp," Miami Herald, March 27, 2002.
21. Anti-Defamation League Press Release, "Portuguese Nobel Laureate's Remarks on Jews and the Holocaust Are 'Incendiary and Offensive,'" October 15, 2003.
22. Ethnos, April 7, 2002. [Greek]
23. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Irwin Cotler in Europe's Crumbling Myths, p. 220.
24. Manfred Gerstenfeld interview with Irwin Cotler, p. 219.
25. Anne F. Bayefsky, "Terrorism and Racism: The Aftermath of Durban," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 468, December 16, 2001, JCPA.
26. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Irwin Cotler, in Europe's Crumbling Myths, p. 219.
27. Alan Dershowitz, The Case For Israel (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p. 198.
28. Claude Meyer interview with Jean-Claude Milner, Actualite Juive Hebdo, no. 823, December 11, 2003. [French]
29. Ibid.
30. Richard Ingrams, "I'm still on the train," The Observer, July 13, 2003.
31. Yair Sheleg, "Enemies, a Post-national Story," Haaretz, March 7, 2003.
32. Alvin H. Rosenfeld, Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: A New Frontier of Bigotry (New York: American Jewish Committee, 2003), p. 21.
33. Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, "Unsere Erneuerung," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 31, 2003. [German]
34. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Andrei S. Markovits, "European Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: Similarities and Differences," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 16, January 1, 2004.
35. Ibid.
36. Robert S. Wistrich, "Muslim Anti-Semitism," American Jewish Committee, 2002.
37. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Georges-Elia Sarfati, "Language as a Tool against Jews and Israel," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 17, February 1, 2004.
38. Daniel Perdurant, "Anti-Semitism in Contemporary Greek Society," Analysis of Current Trends in Anti-Semitism, No. 7 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1995), p. 10.
39. Maurizio Molinari, La Sinistra E Gli Ebrei In Italia: 1967-1993 (Milan: Corbaccio, 1995), p. 115. [Italian]
40. "Israel-Kritik oder Antisemitismus?" Neue Zurcher Zeitung, April 26, 2002. [German]
41. Simon Wiesenthal Center, "Twenty Months of Antisemitic Invective in Greece: March 2002-October 2003," October 14, 2003.
42. "Antisemitism Worldwide, 2002-3," Tel Aviv University Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism.
43. Tom Happold, "Tonge sacked over bombing comments," The Guardian, January 23, 2004.
44. "Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union," p. 6.
45. Anti-Defamation League Press Release, "ADL Survey of Five European Countries Finds one in Five Hold Strong Anti-Semitic Sentiments; Majority Believes Canard of Jewish Disloyalty" (New York), October 31, 2002.
46. "European Attitudes Toward Jews: A Five Country Survey," Anti-Defamation League, October 2002.
47. Ibid.
48. Renato Mannheimer, "E antisemita quasi un italiano su cinque," Corriere de la Sera, November 10, 2003. [Italian]
49. Ruth E. Gruber, "Poll shows Italian teens harbor racist and anti-Semitic attitudes," JTA, July 2, 2003.
50. European Commission, "Iraq and Peace in the World," Eurobarometer Survey, No. 151, November 2003.
51. "European poll: 46% Say Jews are 'Different,'" Haaretz, January 26, 2004.52. Stephen Bates, "One in Seven Britons Say Holocaust is Exaggerated," The Guardian, January 23, 2004.
53. Wolfgang Benz, Bilder vom Juden: Studien zum alltaglichen Antisemitismus (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2001) p. 105. [German]
54. Editorial, "L'Europe et Israël," Le Monde, November 5, 2003. [French]
55. Julie Burchill, "Good, Bad and Ugly," The Guardian, November 29, 2003.
56. Avirama Golan, "A Sprig of Hope on Europe's Left," Haaretz, February 3, 2004.
57. Ilka Schroeder, "Europe's Crocodile Tears," Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2004.
58. Reuters, "U.S. envoy: Anti-Semitism in Europe nearly as bad as in the 1930s,", February 13, 2004.
59. Elaine Sciolino, "Europeans and Americans Seek Answer to Anti-Semitism," New York Times, February 20, 2004.
60. Ibid.
61. Richard Herzinger, "Konferenz der Gutwilligen," Die Zeit, [German]
62. "Mainstream propaganda proof of anti-Semitism in EU: Israeli minister," EUbusiness, February 19, 2004.
63. "Against Antisemitism, for a Union of Diversity," Press Information, Simon Wiesenthal Center, February 19, 2004.
64. Philip Carmel, "Proposals on yarmulkes, Yom Kippur given mixed reaction by French Jews," JTA, December 14, 2003.
65. Simon Wiesenthal Center, Press Release, "SWC protests anti-Israel vote by France, Sweden, Austria, Spain, Belgium and Portugal at UN Commission on Human Rights," April 16, 2002.
66. Jacques Schuster, "In Europa gibt es Stimmen, die wir nicht mehr verstehen," Die Welt, November 19, 2003. [German]
67. Efraim Zuroff, "Sweden's Refusal to Prosecute Nazi War Criminals - 1986-2002," Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 2002, Vol. 14, Nos. 3 &4, pp. 85-119.
68. Mikael Tossavainen, "Det fornekade hatet - Antisemitism bland araber och muslimer i Sverige Forfattare," (Stockholm: Svenska Kommitten Mot Antisemitism, 2003), pp. 43-44. [Swedish]
69. Yohanan Manor, Les manuels scolaires palestiniens: une generation sacrifiee (Paris: Berg International Editeurs, 2003), p. 130ff. [French]
70. Ruth Ellen Gruber, "Vienna meetings show another way for community to approach the state," JTA, February 8, 2004.
71. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Israel Singer, "Restitution: the second round," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 14, November 2, 2003.
72. Interview with Marvin Hier to be published in Manfred Gerstenfeld's forthcoming book: American Jewry's Challenge: Addressing the New Century.
73. Joseph Fitchett, "In Paris, Official Discord on the Syrian Transition," International Herald Tribune,
74. Interview with Shmuel Trigano in Europe's Crumbling Myths, pp. 215-216.
75. John Tagliabue, "Chirac unveils policy against anti-Semitism," International Herald Tribune, November 18, 2003.
76. Philip Carmel, "In Israeli president's Paris visit emotional symbols for French Jews," JTA, February 19, 2004.
77. Greer Fay Cashman, Katsav's France visit a 'surprising' success," Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2004.
78. "Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union," pp. 11-13.

* * *

Manfred Gerstenfeld is Chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His latest book is Europe's Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today's Anti-Semitism (JCPA, Yad Vashem, WJC, 2003). Dore Gold and Manfred Gerstenfeld, Co-Publishers. Joel Fishman and Chaya Herskovic, Associate Editors. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-561-9281, Fax. 972-2-561-9112, Email: In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 USA, Tel. (410) 664-5222; Fax. (410) 664-1228. © Copyright. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1565-3676.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.



The Jerusalem Post, March 25, 2004

EYE ON THE MEDIA: What Media Bias?

By Bret Stephens

What is one to make of a panel of European and Israeli journalists discussing allegations of anti-Israel bias in the media when the panel itself skews sharply Left?

This was the scene Sunday evening at Tel Aviv University, at a conference jointly sponsored by the EU-Israel Forum, TAU, and the Chaim Herzog Institute. On stage: Avirama Golan of Haaretz, Ofer Shelach of Yedioth Aharonot, David Witzthum of Channel One, Andres Ortega of Spain's El Pais, Paul Gillespie of the Irish Times, Thomas Schmid of the Franfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, and Ewan MacAskill of the Guardian.

Missing from this company were two things. First, anyone who thinks something is gravely amiss with the way Israel is reported in Europe. And second, anyone who believes the policies of the current government are morally defensible. A conference about media bias became instead an instance of it.

Here's a sample of the evening's remarks:

Gillespie: "The idea there is a wave of anti-Semitism [in Europe] is simply mistaken."

Shelah: "We use this belief that the world is against us as a shield against thinking through some problems... We relate to Europe only as to whether they love us or not, and they better not love us otherwise that shield is gone."

Ortega: "I tend to think the policies of Mr. Sharon contribute to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment in Europe."

Golan: "I know for a fact that Israel's policy is wrong and since the day Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister the way Israel behaves and even speaks is at the lowest point."

Now, an international conference on the subject of media bias is not necessarily the occasion to make Israel's case or lecture the Europeans on the error of their ways. Nor is it an occasion to exclude the kinds of views represented above. But it is, one would think, an occasion to have a representative dialogue.

Why, for instance, was there nobody present from pro-Israel Bild? The paper is the largest circulation tabloid in Germany; surely it represents some meaningful corner of European opinion. And why no one associated with the Right in Israel? Shouldn't it have a voice at this table as well?

HERE'S WHAT I would have said, if I had been asked to join the panel.

"Mr. Gillespie, you're right. There has been no anti-Semitic wave in Europe, at least if by 'Europe' you mean to exclude Europe's Muslims, plus the one-in-five French voters who cast their ballots in 2002 for Jean-Marie Le Pen, plus the one-in-four Austrians who did so for Joerg Haider's party in 1999. But among Muslims and particularly Arabs, I'm sure you would agree there has been a wave of anti-Semitism: arson attacks on synagogues and day schools, physical assaults on visibly Jewish persons, and so on.

"Now, as to those Muslims in Europe, aren't they Europeans, too? In France, they're roughly 10% of the population. There are millions of Muslims in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain, Germany – many more Muslims than Jews. On current demographic trends – high Muslim birthrates; flat or declining birthrates in the rest of the population – the Muslim percentage is likely to double in the next decade or two. When that day comes, will you still exclude them from your definition of 'Europe'?

"Still, I agree that most Europeans are not anti-Semitic and abhor anti-Semitism. But what about anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism? Anti-Semitism concerns us all but the issue at this conference is the European attitude toward Israel, not toward the Jews. And here the picture from Europe, including the European press, is not good.

"When Europeans marched in their millions prior to the Iraq War, holding placards reading Zionism equals Nazism, clearly it indicated that Europe – the Europe of the Left, the Europe of this panel – has its problems with Israel. You and your colleague, Mr. Ortega, seem to think the name of that problem is Ariel Sharon. But then, was Europe really so much more sympathetic toward this country 30 years ago? In 1975, Idi Amin gave a speech to the UN General Assembly calling for 'the extinction of Israel as a state.' For this, he was warmly saluted by then Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, later elected president of Austria by a landslide.

"So let's be honest: Europe's problem with Israel long predates Sharon and it predates even the settlements, which hardly existed in 1975. I know this isn't apposite, quite, to the purposes of this discussion, but I think there's an element of deception, maybe self-deception, when European journalists like Mr. Ortega say it's all to do with Sharon or the settlements or this or that policy. It goes deeper.

"Still, let's talk about Sharon. The people at this table have pretty much made it plain they don't like him. Fine: that's a legitimate view, shared by many Israelis. But is Sharon another Milosevic, or another Hitler, as so many of the anti-war protestors insist? Isn't that a little far-fetched? I mean, when Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe visits Belgium and France and gets red carpet treatment from Guy Verhofstadt and Jacques Chirac, or when Syria's Bashar Assad gets the same at 10 Downing Street, where are the thousands of protestors then? What is it with this European fixation with Sharon over and above every other real or alleged rogue?

"I'm talking here about widespread European attitudes. These attitudes don't just come from nowhere. They are a response to what Europeans see on the TV news, hear on radio, read in the press. And what they see, hear and read is this: That Israel is wantonly aggressing against defenseless Palestinians; that the West Bank is becoming one giant Israeli condominium complex; that Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israeli repression, not the other way around.

"Now, I don't mean to say that the foreign media shouldn't report on settlements, house demolitions, checkpoints, the effects of the separation fence on Palestinian livelihoods and so on. But in Europe, it seems, that's all they see. When was the last time a European reporter checked in with an Israeli terror victim to see how well he's coping without a leg or an arm? Yes, it's happened: Der Spiegel, the German magazine, recently had a wonderfully sympathetic piece about Zaka, the group that picks up after terror attacks. But can the Europeans at this table honestly say Israeli suffering has been as extensively covered as Palestinian suffering?

"Then there is your overall approach to the conflict. Basically, the European media looks at Israel-Palestine as an occupation story. I know this because more than one senior European journalist has told me so. That's not necessarily the wrong prism through which to see things, but it's also not the only prism. You might also, conceivably, play this as a cycle of violence story, as much of the mainstream US media do. Or you might view the conflict as a function of the Arab world's abiding rejection of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Each captures a different aspect of reality, and each contributes to our overall understanding. But you choose to capture only one aspect, which happens to be the aspect favored by the Palestinians. This is a form of bias.

"A word to my Israeli colleagues. Each of you is entitled to your opinion. But your rights are also your responsibilities. Ms. Golan here has just told us that all she does 'is write against the settlements and against the occupation.' She's also just told us of her disgust when, reading Le Monde in Paris on the day following the terror attack on the Dolphinarium disco, she came across a cartoon showing a suicide bomber and a settler running at one another in an act of mutual extinction. Well, why should she be shocked? Mr. Gillespie here has just told us that he often takes his cues from Ms. Golan's own newspaper. If a man like Brian Whitaker of the Guardian calls settlers, without distinction, 'thieves and brigands,' maybe it's because Haaretz has done such a capable job convincing him that's what they are.

"As for Mr. Shelach, it seems your view comes down to this: Israel's perception of a hostile world is a kind of neurotic convenience for a country that won't come to grips with its responsibility for its problems. Maybe, but it seems to me a bit strange coming from a man who occupies a plum slot on Israel's biggest daily. If Israel is in such denial, why isn't that reflected in the mass media (and the down-market media to boot)? I've lived in five countries in my life: America, Mexico, Britain, Belgium and Israel. Among these, none is more self-critical, more existentially aware, more agonized by the choices before it than this one. If Mr. Shelach doesn't know this, he hasn't seen much of the world.

"The fact is, it's people like you, Mr. Shelach, who are in a kind of denial. Do you ever wonder why every second or third UN resolution aims against Israel? Why 56 countries boycott Israel? Why the world's moral energies, Europe's particularly, are consumed by the tragedies of Palestine, as if there aren't tragedies aplenty elsewhere? Are the crimes this country commits – even the imaginary crimes – proportionate to the fury they inspire? Were Sabra and Shatilla just like Guernica or Katyn, and was Jenin the Warsaw Ghetto? It would all sound preposterous if it weren't the reality Israel has so deeply internalized, indeed almost forgotten."

THAT'S MY little speech. It doesn't much matter to me that I or someone of like mind was not able to deliver it there, since the pedestal from which I now write reaches a wider audience. But mine isn't the only pedestal, much less the tallest, and it worries me that our European guests will return from their visit reassured that nothing's amiss with what they write. Much is amiss. If Israelis won't point it out to them, who will?




By Gary Rosenblatt

Jewish Week, March 19, 2004

It took a long time for the American Jewish community to focus on the Israel-Palestinian battles that have been playing out at universities around the country. But now that a number of communal organizations are working to bolster advocacy for Israel by helping students counteract pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel demonstrations the most serious threat to the Zionist cause is coming from the faculty.

There is no question that the impact of a respected professor framing the Mideast conflict in ways hostile to Israel is far more lasting, and insidious, than students holding an "End the Occupation" protest And a disproportionate number of university faculty members, including Jews, are more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and often hostile to Israel. There are numerous reports of professors questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel, in class, and students feeling too intimidated to challenge them, for fear of ridicule or reduced grades. The Jewish state is commonly perceived as a brutal occupier of the Palestinian people and stumbling block to Palestinian freedom and statehood. Too few students have the knowledge, or courage, to offer a counter view.

Ed Beck, president of the Susquehanna Institute in Harrisburg, Pa., notes that a history professor at Ohio State University proclaims that the State of Israel is based on "historical mythology." A professor at Vassar turned down a request to join a pro-Israel organization, saying he would not support any group that promotes a "low-grade war of genocide against the Palestinian people." And both of these men are Jews.

In an effort to address the increasing number of anti-Israel incidents and teachings on college campuses, Beck helped found a group in June 2002 called Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. The goal, Beck says, is to "educate, network and empower" faculty members to be "knowledgeable mentors and authoritative resources" for colleagues, students and others on campus. "Many pro-Israel professors are feeling isolated, threatened and intimidated" to speak out for Israel, according to Beck. "It's just not politically correct on college campuses today to be an advocate for Israel." Other professors, he said, "have problems" with the policies of the government in Jerusalem, and feel that supporting Israel is perceived as an endorsement of Ariel Sharon and George Bush, two highly unpopular figures on campuses. "If you support Israel, you are considered a right-wing extremist."

Several other faculty-initiated groups are working to balance the overwhelming pro-Palestinian support, particularly in how Mideast history and the Arab-Israeli conflict are taught. In a sense, Middle East studies have been hijacked, with most departments decidedly pro-Arab, in part because a number of prestigious chairs in the field are subsidized by Arab governments, organizations or individuals.

In response, Daniel Pipes, a scholar of Islam and a pro-Israel activist, has launched Campus Watch, a Web site that "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them," according to the site. Critics accuse Pipes of "McCarthyism" for naming professors he says are anti-Israel, but Pipes insists he has every right to challenge the writings and teachings of academics on the merit of their work. "Academic freedom does not mean the freedom from criticism," he asserts.

[Prof.] Andrew Marks at Columbia University, heads the International Academic Friends of Israel, an organization that seeks to counter academic boycotts against Israeli professors. And [Prof.] Mervin Verbit at the City University of New York, founded the Israel Studies Project almost two years ago. Its goal is to improve Israel's standing in academia by creating a board of highly respected professors, organizing academic conferences on the subject of the Mideast and developing models for curriculum.

Complicating this whole issue is the fact that there are few experts in Israel studies on the university level, and most of those in the field, including Israelis, are among the school of post-Zionists highly critical of Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians.

What is needed is a coordinated effort between pro-Israel faculty and the Jewish community to find a new means to educate college students about Israel. Mitchell Bard, chair of the faculty task force of the Israel on Campus Coalition, warns that "the ingrained anti-Israel bias in Middle East studies departments, and the perception that academic freedom is a license to teach almost anything about Israel, will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse." Bard is one of a handful of activists with academic credentials seeking to create a mentoring program, training student activists. He also would like to see funding for young scholars and visiting professors who defend the legitimacy of Israeli statehood, and for coordinated speakers programs on campus.

It is frustrating, if not impossible, to assess the degree of anti-Israel bias taught in the guise of history on our university campuses, but such is the reality. We must respond with a long-term strategy that will assure that the next generation of college students can learn the truth about Israel and its history.

(Gary Rosenblatt is editor and publisher of New York's Jewish Week.)




By Mike Evans

Why does the U.S. government not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital when, in fact, it has been the capital of Israel for 3,300 years? The 104th Congress passed public law 104-45--the Jerusalem Embassy Act--in 1995. This document officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Public Law 104-45 also allocates $25 million to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Why has this been postponed by a presidential waiver every six months since it was passed in Congress? The premise is that implementing the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, and recognizing one of the oldest capitals in the world, would cause a national security threat in the United States.

In 1988, I confronted Yasser Arafat at the 43rd General Assembly in Geneva concerning the fact that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. In an uncontrollable rage, Arafat began to scream, "Shut up! Shut up!" Arafat refused to sign documents at Camp David that would have met the vast majority of his demands. Why? He would have had to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arab bigots do not want the United States to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In doing so, it would constitute recognizing Israel's right to exist. These same bigots attacked Spain in an attempt to use terrorism as a weapon to force the Spanish government to pull out of the coalition in Iraq, and accept a doctrine of appeasement. It appears to have worked in Spain.

On Sept. 5, 1972, the entire world was shocked when one of the most despicable terrorism attacks in history took place at the Munich Olympics. Arab terrorists took hostage and then murdered 11 Israeli athletes in an attempt to blackmail the Israeli government into releasing 200 Arab prisoners. The terrorists who mounted the attack were, in fact, members of a PLO faction, Black September. Their murderous actions were approved, financed and celebrated by Yasser Arafat.

[T]he official website of the Athens 2004 Olympic games on Feb. 29, 2004, under "Palestine" stated that the capital was Jerusalem. How in the world can a country that doesn't exist have a capital? After receiving a great number of complaints, the website was changed to read, "The State of Israel is part of the continent of Europe."

The Egyptian-born Arafat has never stated in any document that he wanted West Jerusalem--it was always East Jerusalem (al-Quds). On the other hand, he has frequently said that the Palestinian flag would fly over all the churches and mosques of Jerusalem--referring to the entire city. In fact, the city of Jerusalem has never been the capital of an Arab state in the 1,400 years since the Quran was written, and is not directly mentioned in the Quran.

I am outraged that the Olympic committee recognized the capital of Cuba (Havana), the capital of North Korea (Pyongyang), and the capital of Iran (Tehran), but refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of our closest ally in the Middle East.

The second week of June, the Jerusalem Embassy Act will again be presented to [President] Bush. He has a choice either to sign a national security waiver, or allow it to be enacted into law. It is time for him to stand up to Arab bigots, and refuse to sign another waiver on the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Each time the national security waiver is signed, we are saying to terrorists and bigots, "You win." America needs the blessings of God more than favor with Arab bigots. Mr. Bush needs to send a signal to all the would-be Osamas that the party is over. No longer will America allow terrorists to threaten our nation into choosing political expediency over moral clarity.

If Rudolph Giuliani had the courage to say, "No, thank you," to an Arab sheik that wanted to create linkage between 9-11 and Israel, President Bush needs to have moral clarity to do the same.

(Michael D. Evans is the chairman of the board of the Corrie ten Boom Foundation in Holland.)




By Ariel Natan Pasko

When one listens to the chorus of hypocrites condemning Israel for killing Hamas top terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin; one can fully understand the prophecy of Bilam about the Jewish People (Numbers 23:9), "Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be counted among the nations." Which can also be rendered from the Hebrew, "It is a unique [in their history] people living apart, that doesn't consider [the opinions] of the nations." After listening to the hypocrisy of the nations lately, who can blame Israel for ignoring their criticism?

Let's see, immediately or soon thereof, the Vatican condemned killing Yassin, saying that lasting peace can never be reached by a show of force. Very Christian...Now we know why the Vatican didn't forcefully oppose the Nazis in World War II. The European Union issued a statement condemning Israel's "extra-judicial" assassination of Yassin, and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned Israel's assassination of Sheikh Yassin, as against "International Law". So did the French Foreign Ministry who condemning Israel's violation of International Law said, "Violence is never the answer," in a statement from Paris.

I didn't know that Yassin's terrorist behavior was law-abiding and legally protected.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Israel was "not entitled going for this kind of unlawful killing." He called Israel's action "unjustified" and "very unlikely to achieve its objectives," a comment echoed by several other leading EU officials who gathered for a meeting of EU foreign ministers, to deal with the problem of terror in the post-Spanish train-bombing era. "I don't believe Israel will benefit from the fact that this morning an 80-year-old [he was 68] in a wheelchair was the target of their assassination," Straw said. Notice Straw nicely sidesteps the issue that Yassin was the head of a terrorist group. Straw spoke to reporters about "Israel's paramount need to defend itself" against terrorists but if it wants to have "the full support of the international community, it needs to do so within the boundaries set by international law."

Doesn't International Law give a country the "Right to Self-Defense"?

The Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said the EU has long opposed "extra-judicial killings." He said that reviving the peace process wouldn't be any "easier when you have killings like that going on in Gaza." Equating Israeli self-defense to Hamas' activities he continued, "Terror and violence is not the way ahead."

The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer said he was "deeply concerned" about the possible repercussions of Yassin's assassination. I wish he would have been so concerned about the "repercussions" of 425 terrorist attacks Hamas carried out that killed at least 377 Israelis and wounded 2,076 in the last three and a half years, all of which were overseen by Sheikh Yassin.

Poland's Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz - whose country will join the EU on May 1 - said he recognizes Israel's right to defend itself, but that this is not the way to do it. "I understand that Israel defends its own country. However the picture of a wheelchair-bound person who was killed with a rocket is probably not the best way of promoting Israeli security."

Again the nations are ignoring the fact that this "wheelchair-bound person" was the leader of a bloody terrorist group. Brazil and Chile jumped at the opportunity to condemn Israel for the assassination of Yassin. So did New Zealand, who called it counterproductive to Middle East peace efforts. Japan condemned Israel's "reckless act" of killing Yassin, saying it "cannot be justified". And finally, Malaysia - home of the infamous Dr. Mahathir - said that Yassin's killing is Israeli "state terrorism" that will "only escalate further the cycle of deadly violence."

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi, condemned the attack, agreeing with Malaysia, that Israel engaged in "state terrorism." Asefi said the assassination, "would unveil the ugly and unpleasant face of them - the Israelis - before all the world's people."

Our Arab "peace partners" Egypt and Jordan didn't miss the chance to condemn us either.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in reaction to the assassination of Yassin, directed his country's representatives not to take part in activities in Israel, that the Knesset and Foreign Ministry planned, to mark 25 years since the signing of the peace agreement with Egypt. While the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher equated Israel with a "terror organization".

And, Jordanian Prime Minister Faisal Al Fayez said this "is another crime that is added to the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinian people, and forms a flagrant violation of all charters and norms." "We in the government," Al Fayez was quoted as saying, "condemn this ugly crime and affirm that such behavior would increase the cycle of violence and instability in the region, lead to more bloodshed and undermine the opportunities of achieving just and comprehensive peace that the region's peoples seek to achieve."

So much for "peace" with our "partners".

The Speaker of Kuwait's National Assembly, Jassem Al-Kharafi said, "the Arab and Islamic people would never forget the principles of struggle that Sheikh Yassin ingrained within the Palestinian ranks."

Sheikh Yassin was a true Arab hero.

Immediately after the killing, even the White House said it was "deeply troubled" by Israel's assassination of Yassin. But later, in US President George Bush's first public response to the assassination of Yassin, backtracking he said, "Israel has the right to defend herself from terror, and, as she does so, I hope she keeps consequences in mind."

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon justified the "targeted killing" of Sheikh Yassin. Yassin's ideology according to Sharon -speaking to the Likud Party parliamentary caucus - "was killing and murdering Jews, wherever they were, and the destruction of the State of Israel." Putting Yassin's assassination into a global context, Sharon said, "The war against terror has not ended and will continue day after day, everywhere. This is a difficult struggle that all the countries of the enlightened world must participate in. It is the natural right of the <BR!Jewish people, like that of all nations in the world that love life, to hunt down those who rise to destroy it."

So, when the 15-member United Nations Security Council met to debate the killing of Yassin - Arab ambassadors and the United States failed to agree on a statement criticizing Israel - Israel's UN ambassador Danny Gillerman - whose disgust at the world's hypocrisy was palpable - said in a speech to the council, "Not one resolution, not one presidential statement has been adopted by this Council to specifically denounce the deliberate massacre of our innocent civilians."

Gillerman said the council was coming to the defense of "a godfather of is the ultimate hypocrisy." He waved a 187-page dossier in exasperation, outlining the suicide bombings carried out by Hamas since September 2000. "These are not just pieces of paper. These are filled with names of real people, whose lives were cut short and extinguished by Sheikh Yassin and the followers of his murderous ideology," Gillerman said.

While the UN Security Council couldn't come to an agreement about criticizing Israel, the United National Human Rights Commission did. Approved by 31 votes in favor, 2 against (United States and Australia) and with 18 abstentions (including most nations of the European Union), a resolution condemning the assassination of Sheikh Yassin was passed. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and Zimbabwe - a group of human rights abusers - presented the draft resolution. In the text, the resolution firmly condemned, "the continuous human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian Territories" and in particular "the assassination of the Sheikh Ahmad Yassin," "in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The document, which line after line assumes a level of Israeli violence, that lead western nations to abstain, also criticises "the liquidation and assassination of politicians by the Israeli occupation forces in occupied Palestinian territories."

Israel, which is not part of the commission, criticized the special meeting, claiming through its Ambassador Yaakov Levy that for the first time in the history of the UN, a meeting was dedicated to the support and glorification of a leader of a terrorist organization.

And, if you thought that Yassin's "targeted killing" was an exclusively Israeli-Palestinian issue, think again. An Islamist website - the al-Ansar forum - published a statement claiming to come from an al-Qaeda-linked group - the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade - vowing revenge on the United States and its allies over Israel's assassination of the Hamas leader. "We tell Palestinians that Sheikh Yassin's blood was not spilt in vain and call on all legions of Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to avenge him by attacking the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies," said the statement.

The group, which aligns itself to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, claimed responsibility for the recent train bombings in Spain. That recent bombing sent all those condemnatory European Foreign Ministers into a tailspin, rushing to discuss how they can better protect their countries. Yet they deny the "right of self-defense" to Israel.

I understand that if the Spanish government would have known who was planning the train attack, but wasn't able to arrest the leaders, they wouldn't have "taken them out" as Israel has been doing in it's "targeted killings" of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist leaders? Hypocrites...Hypocrites...Hypocrites...

And, on the Pakistani-Indian border, Kashmiri Muslim terrorists belonging to the Lashkar e-Taiba - the Army of the Pure - reacted to the news of Yassin's assassination by threatening to attack Indians. The Lashkar e-Taiba communiqu? explained, "It is known Jews and Hindus are two sides of the same coin." I guess they're referring to Israel's warming relations with India. Lashkar e-Taiba, part of the Markaz Dawa Wal-Irshad, is a Wahabbi organization based in Pakistan. The Indian government claims the Lashkar terrorists are responsible for a series of massacres, including August 1-2, 2000 attacks, in which more than 100 people, mostly unarmed civilians, were murdered.

So, Jihadist elements worldwide are looking for excuses to attack their perceived enemies. They are using Israel's killing of Yassin to justify their war against the world. More hypocrisy...

The hypocrites have made much - in the past - of how Dr. Baruch Goldstein "gunned down" 29 worshippers in a "mosque" - the Cave of Machpela -in Hebron. And now, many Arabs and Muslims complained that Israel hit Sheikh Yassin, as he was leaving his mosque after morning prayers. Yet not long after the assassination, a rocket from Hamas landed near the N'vei Dekalim Synagogue in Gaza. Although there were no injuries, the synagogue was full of community residents attending their afternoon prayer service. The "Palestinian" hypocrites have no problem trying to kill Jews in synagogue while praying.

And what about the recent bombing of a synagogue in Turkey, during the Sabbath prayers, by Muslim terrorists, or, the ongoing Arab attacks against synagogues and Jewish community centers in France? Arab and Muslim hypocrites have no compunction in attacking Jewish houses of worship worldwide; there are too many examples to list.

The day after the assassination, a poll - which included Israeli Arabs - conducted by Maariv newspaper and "The New Wave" polling service, found that 61% of Israelis support the killing of Yassin. Also, 43% believe Israel should assassinate the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat.

But I think, a description of Gazan streets after news of the assassination hit reveals the true nature of the struggle between Israel and the "Palestinians". Cars drove through the streets blaring calls for revenge over loudspeakers. Some played recordings of Sheikh Yassin saying, "We chose this road, and will end with martyrdom or victory."

During the funeral for Yassin, many chanted replies to a question. "What is your movement? Hamas. Who is your leader? Yassin. What is your aim? To be killed."

I for one, pray, that they receive their wish as Yassin did, of "martyrdom". Israel hurry up and finish the job...

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis and is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2004/5764 Pasko