Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest" VOLUME 7 APRIL 1999 NUMBER 3

Will this be the last

Israel Independence Day?

Will Oslo, Wye and Serbia Prove

Fatal for Israel?

In this Issue:

Louis Rene Beres, Elyakim Ha'etzni, Dr. Aaron Lerner, Senator Connie Mack, Professor Eugene Narrett, Dr. Steven Plaut, Steve Rodan, Boris Shusteff, Mordechai Sones, Sergio Tezza & Emanuel A. Winston

................. And Much More Inside


APRIL 1999


NOTES FROM THE EDITOR: Israel, Serbia, Jerusalem & Lebanon....Editorial..... Bernard J. Shapiro 3





NATO'S BOMBING OF SERBIA....By Elyakim Ha'etzni 13





WHAT DO THE PARTIES STAND FOR.....Elyakim Ha'eztni 20






SNAKES AND LADDERS....Dr. Aaron Lerner 27

IMRA COMMENTARY FOR MARCH 4, 1999.....Dr. Aaron Lerner 29


BREAKING THE SPELL: Thoughts on Self-Respect And Survival....Eugene Narrett, PhD 31

SQUEEZING ISRAEL....Emanuel A. Winston 33

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN....Dr. Steven Plaut 35


SELLING AMERICA'S SECRETS.....Emanuel A. Winston 36



ISRAEL MUST LIVE....Eric Hoffer 44




Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro Published Monthly by the


P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661

Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016 E-Mail: freemanlist@aol.com

URL: http://www.freeman.org Free with Freeman Center membership


SUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1 year: USA $45, Outside USA: $50

(c) 1999 Bernard J. Shapiro




There is no substantive difference between NATO bombing Serbia in support of a Moslem terrorist group (KLA) seeking secession and NATO bombing Israel in support of a Moslem terrorist group (PLO) seeking secession. Think about that fact. The media distortion of the nature of the Serbian conflict parallels the media distortion in the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is something the pro-Israel community needs to consider carefully. I have included in this issue five excellent articles on the Kosovo conflict. It is very important that you understand what is happening despite the overwhelmingly biased news media.


[Arutz Sheva News Service -- March 15, 1999]


The Palestinians have demands not only on eastern Jerusalem, but on the western part as well. Palestinian Authority senior Abu Allah declared three days ago that the PA will insist on discussing western Jerusalem in the final-status negotiations. Arutz-7 correspondent Haggai Huberman reports that Abu Allah, who appeared before a gathering of the Fatah Youth movement, said he was speaking in the name of Yasser Arafat. Abu Allah also cited the recent European Union letter implying that Israel has no sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem.

Editor's Note: If you have confidence in the Israeli government defending Israeli interests in Jerusalem and elsewhere, here is a partial list of its broken promises:

1. No negotiations with the PLO (Rabin)

2. No PLO state (Rabin)

3. No withdrawal from the Golan (Rabin)

4. If Oslo doesn't work we will just end it (Rabin)

5. Orient House (PA Foreign Ministry) will be shut down (Netanyahu)

6. We will build Har Homa (Netanyahu)

7. We will demand extradition of PA murderers (Netanyahu)

8. We will demand PA reciprocity before continuing the Wye Accord (Netanyahu)

9. We will force the PA police and security forces out of Jerusalem (Netanyahu)

10. We will permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount (Netanyahu)


In your rush to criticize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, you seem to have forgotten the following:

Your ancestors lived in caves and had not yet mastered the art of language at the time King David made Jerusaelm Israel's capital.


The Freeman Center believes that retaliation for Hizbullah attacks against the IDF and SLA in southern Lebanon, should be disproportionate. We believe that both Syrian and Lebanese infrastructure targets should be destroyed. We believe that the level of pain inflicted upon those that would kill Israelis should be so great as to inhibit such actions.

Israel has lost all deterrence in Lebanon (and also with the PA). That deterrence can only be regained by a policy of massive out of proportion retaliation for every attack on its forces. Israel must achieve a situation whereby its enemies will think twice or three times before authorizing an attack.

Civilians giving cover to the Hizbullah should be forced from the area. And this should be done without guilt or remorse. All agreements with international bodies concerning the activities of the IDF should be renounced. Full freedom of action must be reestablished.

We further believe that placing Israeli soldiers in a "no win" situation is terribly destructive of morale and jeopardizes the IDF's order of battle. The IDF was never intended to be a static defensive army. Rapid, unconventional aggressive responses to attacks is the natural order of things.

...............Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

B"H [March 22, 1999, Nachliel, Israel]



The Threat, Analysis, and Ramifications
of Official Response

By Mordechai Sones

First strike: Surprise assault to which the victim is unable to mount counterattack because attacker has destroyed or pre-empted his retaliatory capacity.

SUMMARY: In the past nine months, the author has concentrated on an independent assessment of the actual PA military capability in Yesha. In the course of this focused study, reports began to surface that the PA military is acquiring the specialized equipment and commando units, and is training militia for an overnight first strike against the yishuvim.

The three major sources of information indicating the possibility of a first strike have been as follows:

1) Eyewitness reports from a network of Yesha residents concerned about security;

2) Briefings, statements and leaks from IDF officials, Moetzet Yesha, and the Prime Minister's office, dealing with reports of a first strike capability;

3) Independent assessment by a military professional with expertise in first strike operations.

Indicators of such a first strike include the existence of 122 confirmed or suspected armored vehicles in PA hands, frequent rehearsals for night attack in the vicinity of the Yishuvim, and specialized gathering of critical intelligence by Arab day laborers on the yishuvim. The number of armored vehicles indicates a capability for an overnight first strike on about 40 yishuvim. The actions and statements of the IDF may indicate an official willingness to conduct a sudden "humanitarian" evacuation of an additional thirty or forty yishuvim shortly after an Arab first strike. Thus in one quick blow, approximately 2/3 of the yishuvim could be taken off the map:

1) Arab Militia Training in Judea and Samaria:

Recent Events & Actions by PA: Starting in late 1997, widespread night fire around outlying yishuvim began. Later, in July through September of 1998, daytime fire also occurred. In October the firing tapered off to solely nighttime firing.

High-up PA officials announced that "we have succeeded in providing military training to thousands" for an attack against yishuvim.1 [Footnote: 1) Marwan al-Barghuthi, Fatah head in Judea and Samaria; quoted in Amman al-Dustur, August 19, 1998.]

Observations and Analysis of PA Gunfire by Visiting Military Advisor: In November and December of 1998, a visiting military advisor traveling throughout Yesha analyzed the pattern of firing taking place. He noticed a burst of initial small arms fire from a number of weapons, followed by ten minutes of sporadic shooting. According to the advisor, this pattern of fire corresponds to the shooting that normally takes place during training for a final assault on an objective at night. Although the final assault portion is what is being heard, he added, this may actually be the final few minutes that would conclude two to six hours of silent approach to an objective under the cover of darkness.

Observations and Analysis of PA Training by Lt. Col. (res.) Yigal ben-David, Dec. 6, 1998:

"The invasion into Ariel yesterday, Shabbat, with the support of the Palestinian Authority, is without doubt part of a general plan to strike at the yishuvim, this time as a "dry-run" exercise. I have no doubt that these issues are known to you [Defense Minister Yitzchak Mordechai] and to the IDF. Their "police" forces (the name which is still stubbornly used to describe their army) comprise several divisions which include a number of battalions which are training to conquer yishuvim in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza."


A simultaneous night or pre-dawn attack would present Yesha with a fait accompli of 40 fallen yishuvim by sunrise.

Official Response:

When yishuv residents reported the widespread instances of PA weapons fire, the IDF claimed that these were Arab "weddings."

2) Arab Commando Forces Already in Position:

Recent Events & Actions by PA: There is confirmation of a 300 man Arab commando force in Shechem, and a report of a commando unit (Force 17) based in Hevron. There are indicators that there are other commando units being organized in additional locations as well.


Existing Arab commando units may spearhead much larger less trained PA armed militias in a surprise assault on Yishuvim.


The first overt military action taken as part of the Soviet first strikes on Prague (68), Kabul (79), and Vilna (91) was Soviet commandos breaking down the door and taking over the control tower of the main airport at 11PM to open the way for troop entry and air landings of more commandos. In all three cases the Soviet commando mission included the seizure of key leaders and the elimination of communications, striking at the nerve center to paralyze the targeted military structure. There are indicators that such targets on yishuvim are being identified - see section #4 on Arab labor below.

Official Response:

Utilizing information provided by the author, residents of a yishuv near Shechem in late November 1998 confronted IDF Shomron Area Brigade Commander Col. Yehuda Shaked with the existence of PA commando units and PA armored personnel carriers. The Brigade Commander, unprepared to be asked tough, informed questions in front of a town meeting, attempted to double talk his way out of admitting this threat ("But the BTR-152's are just trucks.Yes, the PA has them, but not here - somewhere else"). Rather than answering directly regarding the 300 commandos in Shechem, the Colonel was more interested in ascertaining the source who leaked the information. In the end, Shaked stammering unraveled for all to see - letting the residents of that community understand that the IDF may be wilfully suppressing information having life and death relevance to them.

3) PA Armored Vehicles:

Recent Events & Actions by PA:

The PA currently has acquired 14 mechanized BRDM2 platoons (42 BRDM2's), 50 BTR-152 armored personnel carriers, and a platoon of 30 flatbed trucks which have been reported transporting tracked armored vehicles.

Twenty-five BTR-152's with 12.7mm machine guns mounted on them arrived into the PA from Egypt in 1996, and 25 more were reported arriving in 1997.


Because the IDF limits yishuv self defense to small arms, the growing armor vehicle capability of the PA would render the assault troops it carries invulnerable to yishuv defenders. The IDF gate guards do not have anything stop these vehicles. The standard sliding gates for all yishuvim would buckle under the impact of such armored vehicles.

For a more detailed explanation of yishuv vulnerability to Arab armored personnel carriers, see addendum: "Arab Armored Vehicles in Yesha: The Threat".


The PA armored vehicle force is not capable of challenging the IDF, but would be unstoppable in a first strike on yishuvim. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that that is their purpose.

Official Responses:

The most significant official response is the IDF refusal to provide anti-tank weapons for yishuv self defense. So far as we can tell, not a single anti-tank weapon has been provided to any of the IDF gate guard contingents assigned to the yishuvim.

Although the IDF spokesman in December 1998 would admit to 42 BRDM2s only in Gaza, IDF documents as far back as 1996 identified 6 BRDM2s in Ramallah.

On December 9, 1998, the author contacted Moetzet Yesha for their assessment of the PA armored vehicle threat. They claimed to know nothing of PA armored vehicles, and referred the author to Michael Freund in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office who, according to Moetzet Yesha, is their contact for such issues. Mr. Freund also claimed to have no knowledge of PA armored vehicles, and would only discuss the illegal numbers of PA forces. Although Oslo allows the PA 42 BRDM2s, Moetzet Yesha and the Prime Minister's office still would not admit their existence.2 [Footnote: 2) In this author's opinion, the era during which Jewish settlement activity led by Moetzet Yesha in and of itself constituted an essential contribution to Israeli security ended with the establishment of an Arab army in Yesha. Under these new circumstances, it is urgent that the simple steps needed to prevent an Arab first strike be taken immediately in order to restore the yishuvim to their previous status of military assets to the State of Israel. It would therefore not be appropriate to sacrifice security concerns with the assumption that greater numbers of Jewish Yesha residents will somehow "make up" for the flaws in current official Israeli policy vis-a-vis the threat of Arab first strike capability. Moetzet Yesha, which has done valuable work in the areas of settlement activity and real estate development, has sometimes overlooked vital security problems in what may be an attempt to deflect embarrassment away from the current government for the sake of protecting the status quo.] Apparently, Moetzet Yesha and the Prime Minister's office were either intent on suppressing information about PA armored vehicles or were so out of touch that they were not aware of the 42 light armored vehicles authorized by Oslo.3 [Footnote: 3) Questioned later by Yesha supporters about his downplaying of the PA military threat, a Moetzet Yesha official explained that he was concerned over the need to protect real estate values in Yesha. However, in this authors opinion, the best boost to real estate values in Yesha would be to expose and counter the threat, not to sweep it under the carpet.]

IDF Response to Ma'ariv Report of Armored Vehicles:

About ten days later, Ma'ariv ran an expose' of the PA armored forces (Dec 18`98). The IDF Spokesman tried to downplay some of the vehicles identified in the article and denied the existence of others. But the IDF Spokesman did not even address the most serious alleged armored threat: the fifty BTR-152 armored vehicles. Yet according to the aforementioned IDF documents, the IDF knew about BTR-152 vehicles in PA hands since 1996.

4) Arab Laborers on Yishuvim Detected Performing Intelligence Functions for Surprise First Strike:

Recent Events & Actions by PA:

Files in the Orient House and other locations contain topographical, logistic, military, and population information on every yishuv in Yesha. Arab laborers have been observed noting the homes of gun owners and potential leaders in each yishuv. Presumably, these reports are also going into the files of Orient House and would be the key documents used by the Arab commandos spearheading an assault.


The above mentioned intelligence gathering procedures would give the Arab commandos the information they need to paralyze yishuv defenses within minutes of smashing through the gates.


Yishuv residents, concerned about the security of their families, frequently discuss the presence of numerous Arab laborers on yishuvim.

Possible Arab Laborer Role in Day Assault:

During the day in several outlying, small yishuvim, most of the men who are armed are away at work and the Jewish population consists of women and children. Of those left behind during the day, few have weapons except for IDF guards with M16 rifles at the gate. Due to the flawed gate and perimeter security of yishuvim, Arab laborers would have no problem smuggling arms and ammunition inside. They could then easily overcome the two gate guards, take the arms room, and use the women and children as hostages. (Some yishuvim have banned Arab laborers, but the vast majority have not.)

Possible Arab Laborer Role in Night Assault:

The yishuv residents would be asleep. PA militia around the yishuvim can be mobilized under the cover of darkness to bring their manpower advantage to bear. Armored vehicles approaching the yishuvim would be harder to detect, since the night-vision equipment in PA hands would allow them to approach the yishuvim without using headlights. The Arab laborers, knowledgeable of yishuv streets and buildings, would be attached to lead elements of the assault forces, directing them to vital targets in the yishuv. Vital targets include the arms room. Alarm systems, buildings with communications equipment, and the homes of key leaders and gun owners.

Possible PA Decision for Night Assault:

Given the aforementioned PA night assault training and equipment, a decision for a night assault may be currently in effect.

Official Response:

IDF countermeasures on laborers are badly misdirected or nonexistent. Some yishuvim even have Arab guards "guarding" the Arab workers. In many yishuvim, the IDF relies on ineffective "window dressing" security measures to give an illusion of security when in reality there is none. The author photographed and videotaped dozens of illegal Arab laborers freely entering holes in fences of yishuvim from nearby Arab settlements under PA jurisdiction, while IDF guards put on a show of checking magnetic ID cards at the main gates.

Additionally, thousands of illegal Arab laborers daily circumvent IDF roadblocks utilizing dirt roads in places such as Kiryat Sefer, Bet Lechem, Tzurif, Kalkilya, Ramot, and tens of others. This way, weapons could be smuggled back and forth from Gaza to Judea and Samaria and also into Israel within the green line.

When confronted with this problem by the author, IDF Benjamin Area Brigade Commander Col. Yossi Hayman admitted that the State of Israel needs those illegal laborers because of a shortage of manpower. He then said that he considers the IDF roadblocks which the dirt roads circumvent to be "like doors without walls", and that "the IDF simply does not have the means to deal with the problem."

Officials in charge of security frequently point out that their priority is to provide the local Jewish residents with the "feeling of security." The creation of the "feeling of security" has replaced authentic security, which has apparently gone by the wayside.

5) Overall Analysis:

Lt. Col. (res.) Yigal ben-David's Assessment of IDF Policy; Dec. 6, 1998:

"The current state of affairs spells out an abandonment of the yishuvim by the defense establishment and plays into the hands of the Palestinian Authority and its plans. I assume that you [Minister of Defense Yitzchak Mordechai] are aware of this dire situation."

A Possible PA Approach:

Politically, the PA forces would probably be directed to hold back from a massacre of the Jewish residents. Their orders would likely be to hold the residents under gunpoint until "humanitarian" IDF truck convoys arrive to evacuate them after daylight. However, even assuming that such discipline could be imposed upon the PA army forces, the larger armed civilian militias may not heed such constraints.

Netanyahu's Four Part Security Policy for Yesha:

For three years, the Netanyahu government maintained four policies toward yishuv security. Taken together, the four policies present a pattern which could indicate an official policy that would not protect the yishuvim effectively against a PA first strike assault:

a) Denial of anti-tank weapons to Yishuvim.

b) While occasionally publicizing information about the emerging PA threat, there seems to be a pattern of official suppression of information about the PA's specific first strike capabilities; e.g. armored forces, commando units, and night attack training.

c) Pressuring mayors associated with Moezet Yesha and the civilian military liaisons ("Ravshatzim") to downplay the threat and hinder Yishuv residents from taking remedial self-defense steps on their own initiative.

d) Insistence on an obsolete anti-terrorist scenario. The obsolete scenario calls for a Yishuv self-defense sufficient to overcome several terrorists holding hostages inside a Yishuv. Therefore, the scenario becomes the basis to equip and train Yishuv self-defense forces at a minimal level which leaves them vulnerable to the real scenario which the IDF refuses to use - an attack by PA militia and/or armor. The inappropriate IDF scenario provides a doctrinal basis to deny vital anti-tank weapons to Yishuv self-defense. It also limits Yishuv self defense forces to a small size and allows only a handful of small arms. Most importantly, the ammunition provided under the scenario is enough for several minutes of combat and would not withstand a PA ground assault for long, even without armored vehicles.

The IDF's insistence on the obsolete scenario makes no sense in terms of actual PA military capabilities but it makes sense if the intention is to keep Yishuvim vulnerable. So far, the apparent deception has succeeded because the public is not experienced at analyzing scenarios and finds it easier to give the Netanyahu government and the IDF the benefit of the doubt.


The Threat: Armored vehicles are a particular threat to the yishuvim because they can easily smash their way through yishuv gates. The armored vehicles could roam within the yishuvim because the IDF has withheld anti-armor weapons from yishuv stockpiles. The IDF also appears to be withholding information about Arab armored vehicles in Yesha.


The Soviet BTR-152 armored troop carrier was produced from 1950 to 1960, and has appeared in many variants and seen action on many fronts, including the Middle East and Afghanistan. The BTR-152 in Palestinian hands has a mount for the 12.7mm D.Sh.K. heavy machine gun. It has a 6x6 wheel drive configuration. It can hold 2 crew members (driver + commander) and 17 fighters. The BTR-152 is equipped with night vision equipment for the driver. It weighs 8950 kg and can travel at a speed of 75 km/h. It's power-to-weight ratio is 12.29 hp/1000kg making it capable of taking down the gates of any yishuv.


The BRDM-2 is a fully armored, four-wheel-drive, amphibious reconnaissance vehicle. It has two-pairs of belly wheels and a centralized tire pressure regulation system for increased cross-country capability. The BRDM-2 has a box-like hull with a boat-shaped bow. The engine is mounted in the vehicle rear and there is a small conical turret mounted on the hull above the belly wheels. The driver sits at the front of the hull on the left with the vehicle commander to his right. To enter the vehicle, the crew must climb through two roof hatches. The hull, which is constructed of welded steel, provides the crew with protection from small arms and shell splinters. The turret, which is very similar to that of the BTR-60PB and Czechoslovak OT-64, is located in the center of the vehicle and is armed with a 14.5-mm KPVT machine gun with a 7.62mm PKT machine gun. On either side of the hull adjacent to the crew position, there is a firing port. Immediately behind the firing port are three vision blocks which protrude from the outside of the hull, giving some vision to the front and rear of the vehicle. The belly-wheels are chain driven and are lowered by the driver and give the BRDM-2 improved cross-country performance and the ability to cross ditches. The driver can adjust the tire pressure on all four tires or individual tires while the vehicle is in motion to adjust to the ground conditions. The BRDM-2 is fully amphibious. It is propelled in the water by a single water jet at the rear of the hull. The vehicle has an over-pressure NBC system. The BRDM-2 is equipped with infrared driving and search lights, a radio and an inertial land navigation system. At the front of the vehicle is a winch which has 30m of cable and has a maximum load of 4000-kg. Other armored vehicles residents should learn to recognize because the PA army may have them already or can easily get them from countries supporting the PA, such as Egypt or others: Tracked vehicles or Half-tracks: White M2 Half-track; BTR-50, PT-76, BMP

Wheeled armored personnel carriers: BTR-62.-60, OT


Machine guns given to Yishuvim are inferior to those in PA hands, giving PA forces standoff capability of close to a kilometer (The point may be moot, though, as the IDF is in the process of removing even the existing machine guns from some yishuv weapons rooms. Additionally, the IDF provides most yishuvim with only approximately 20 minutes of ammunition for a heavy combat situation.) The standoff capability means that even if the yishuvim were able to detect early warning indicators of a first strike and shoulder arms accordingly, they would still be unable to defend themselves.

MAXIMUM RANGE including targets in defilade MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE aimed direct fire 7.62mm Browning M1919A4 (0.3 - "Efes Shalosh" (Yesha) 1.475 km 1.1 km 12.7mm D.SH.K. or Gurianov (PA) 2 km to 3 km 1.5 km PA range advantage over Yesha 525 to 1525 meters 400 meters The penetrating power or force of the 12.7mm is roughly three times greater than that of the 7.62mm when compared in accordance with the physics equation (power equals mass times velocity squared).


The danger to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is reaching its peak. The flood of arms and ammunition that has secretly been smuggled to PA forces for years is finally public knowledge. PA actions indicate they may be gearing up for a war after the Israeli elections. New evidence indicates that the PA has at least 122 armored vehicles. But the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) does not yet allow a single anti-armor weapon for Yishuv self-defense.

The fate of 180,000 men, women, and children in Yesha hangs in the balance. Tied up with their fate is the potential loss of Israel's historical heartland and defensible borders along the Jordan river. Jews and friends of Israel have yet to act. Some logically assume that the IDF and the Netanyahu government would not ignore such a threat. Others do not yet fully grasp Yesha's strategic and economic role in Israel's survival.

A campaign to avert the threat has begun. This fall, Mordechai Sones, a tour guide living in Samaria, began pressing the Netanyahu government to avert the danger through public talks, Internet updates, and media appearances in Israel and the U.S.Meanwhile, Sones' supporters created ECID, a US-based non-profit to help out.

Sones' awareness campaign has four methods:

1) Uncover more facts about PA preparations for war;

2) Uncover more facts about the inadequacy of the IDF's response;

3) Identify steps Yesha residents can take on their own to improve their odds;

4) Draft legislation to enable Israelis to debate and change policy.

Sones needs more help for the many hurdles ahead. This dangerous moment may also contain an opportunity. As the fatal flaws of Camp David/Madrid/Oslo/Wye become clear, the door to a constructive alternative and an authentic Mideast peace may open. Can you help today? In the US, make out checks to "ECID". Send to ECID, P.O.B. 32833, Baltimore, MD. 21282-2833. In Israel, send checks to Mordechai Sones directly - Yishuv Nachliel, D.N. Modi'in, 71938. To ask questions or volunteer call Sones in Israel at 972-8-924-0365.



By Eugene Narrett, PhD

NATO in Kosovo: "the lie becomes truth." Another warning for Israel. The signal features of the New World Order described by George Orwell in his prescient novel, 1984 are the re-writing and forgetting of history overseen and demanded by the State as the price of each subject's survival. Acquiescence to a society organized around chronic war in which last year's enemy becomes this year's 'eternal' friend is achieved by media made a branch of government, the Ministry of Newspeak. No other news sources are permitted. Books have been burned or sequestered. Memory is the ultimate "thought-crime." Each person must practice "double think," the conscious denial and suppression of thoughts and knowledge that contradict the State's official lies.

Complementing the distortion of the present and forgetting of the past is a steady stream of propaganda droning out of televisions and loudspeakers identifying and demonizing the enemy du jour. All workers must gather for a "daily hate" that displaces thought by emotion, makes hysteria habitual and allows employers and sensitivity trainers to observe and punish inadequate zealotry and conformity. The result is that "the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." This process is in high gear domestically in the official promotion of multi-culturalism and is being applied to the Balkans and Israel with lessons every individual in the West must learn if its life is to remain worth living. NATO-American policy in the Balkans, and its presentation of that policy in the media expresses the most destructive features of our culture of forgetting. Abrogated laws, hubris in the name of compassion, aggression in the name of peace and, above all, relentless dishonesty reflect a society on the brink of collapse into manufactured crises, mass hysteria and tyranny.

Mr. Clinton says he wants peace through war, and has attacked a nation that is no threat to America or to any of its neighbors. The conflict in Kosovo has arisen because Slobodan Milosevic (like Joseph Tito before him) failed to secure Yugoslavia's border with Albania. The resulting strife helped each of them centralize power. Worse than the deliberate obscuring of facts about the history of this conflict is that NATO's attack has silenced the democratic critics of Milosevic and caused all Serbians (and increasingly, all Slavs) to rally to the defense of their embattled nation.

From 1960-90 Tito turned a blind eye as an influx of Albanians drove Serbs from Kosovo. The immigration was pushed by the Stalinist regime of Enver Hoxha that had reduced Albania to current penury and made it a pariah among nations. Since Hoxha, Albania has lacked government in any real sense. The main powers there have been the Saudis and Iranians. Its economy has consisted of arms and drug smuggling and a series of ruinous pyramid schemes and lotteries. This sordid history is available but ignored by major western media and governments who have abandoned national interests for a global agenda that finds ready allies in radical and expansionist Islam.

The claims of "genocide" used to rationalize bombing Yugoslavia drain that term of meaning. Three thousand casualties (1/3 of them Serbs) in a year is not genocide. A low level civil war and ongoing border dispute is not genocide. Milosevic is a petty despot who sold out the Serbs in Bosnia but there are dozens of regimes in the world far more brutal than his has ever been or sought to be. If violent oppression of civilians is America's new criterion for aggression, we should bomb China for their longstanding occupation of Tibet and assault on Tibetan religion. NATO should attack Sudan whose Muslim government for twenty years has warred on, enslaved and sold the Christian and pagan population in the south of that nation. The deaths exceeding a million people (and include an American ambassador murdered by agents of the Islamic government). Muslims from Sudan to Cameroon control the world's slave trade. One thought this was a primary concern for Mr. Clinton who barnstormed through Africa a year ago apologizing to dictators, though America halted its slave trade in 1819.

By the criteria applied to Serbia, there are dozens of nations we ought to attack. One is Indonesia, where rioting organized by the Muslim government has led to the murder of tens of thousands of Christians and ethnic Chinese in recent years. (Yet that nation has provided millions in campaign funds to the current Administration). Perhaps NATO should present an ultimatum to Tony Blair and Great Britain: let the Catholics in Ulster secede or London gets bombed. Demand Spain let the Basques secede or NATO toasts Madrid. Inform Turkey it must cede its southeastern territory to the resident Kurdish population with whom it is engaged in a bloody war over autonomy. Why not dictate that India cede Kashmir to the Muslims? Only the complete forgetting of history can accept the rationale for vilifying and bombing the Serbs. While this madly politicized and murderous policy unfolds, it appears that the Administration ignored a chance to support an insurrection against Saddam Hussein by Shiites in southern Iraq early in March. Agents of Saddam murdered the chief Shiite cleric, the generals of two Iraqi army corps were executed and several towns put to the torch in an abortive rising that desperately needed American assistance. Western leaders now prefer to create and manage rather than resolve crises, much less resolve them justly and peacefully.

With poetic justice that will bear dangerous fruits, Clinton's policy is tearing NATO apart. The Greeks are incensed that their own problems with illegal Albanian immigrants are ignored and their efforts to control their own border made to seem illegal. Mr. Clinton has made some remarks that have dangerously heightened tensions between Greece and Turkey. Battalions of Polish, Slovak, Rumanian and Ukrainian volunteers are headed to Serbia, incensed at the contempt of Western governments for Slavs. Perhaps most disturbingly, NATO's attack is driving Ukraine back toward nuclear re-armament and re-union with Russia.

On March 25-6, Italy's government nearly collapsed in disagreements about the bombing campaign. The Italians do not share Clinton's faked compassion for Albanians boatloads of which Italy has been turning away for years. Italy fears the fate of Serbia. France and Germany privately worry about their own large population of Muslims who demand social welfare benefits but refuse to assimilate. Balkanization of a nation is no joke. It means constant war.

Hungary and Poland, brand new members of NATO fear speaking out but Hungarians must be terrified at once again becoming a frontline state in Central Europe confronting an expansive Islam, utterly intolerant of other religions. The Poles fear an aroused Russia. Behind the scenes, the Germans anxiously watch the virtually indefensible Polish border with Belarus. The point is not pity for the Germans who forfeit sympathy by again sending planes to bomb Yugoslavia and dictating surrender to Israel. Rather, the point is that Europe is being fractured and military hot spots proliferating. Violence in Kosovo has increased, tensions in Macedonia are escalating rapidly and NATO's bombing has failed even in its stated objectives. Perhaps chaos was the point.

The US-NATO aggression on behalf of rebels funded by the Saudis and Iran also is ironic since European intelligence knows that the KLA is active in smuggling heroin from Syria and Turkey into Europe. It should alarm everyone that Clinton now talks of arming the KLA, including an air force. At the same time he speaks hypocritically of "defusing a powder keg at the heart of Europe." In truth, he is pouring gasoline on a fire.

The Clinton administration again has trampled the Constitutional limits on war making. Moral obtuseness and hypocrisy extend to its unconcern that Egyptian and Palestinian media now openly refer to Jews as "the seed of Satan" and publish articles reporting as "fact" Jews kill Christian children and use the blood for matzo. Unconcerned by these danger signs, Hillary Clinton tours North Africa boosting an Arab Reich in Judea while Arafat's lieutenants openly demand a return to the UN borders of 1947 when Israel was to consist of three tiny, barely contiguous parcels of land. From Berlin to Rome, the European Union dictates surrender to the Jews. Just as Hitler often did, they grieve for "the poor Arabs." Things fall apart; words lose their meanings. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

At the gruesome finale of Othello, a horrified onlooker exclaims, "confusion now hath made its masterpiece!" Mr. Clinton is plunging Europe into chaos and war. He is enflaming the most violent and aggressive factions in the Muslim world and making de facto alliance with them. The cold war is returning and may get hot. China demands favored trade status and increases oppression of its people. No one has time or energy to attend to the treacherous transfer of nuclear technologies to China or to the looming indictment of Bill Clinton on 12 additional counts of rape, sexual assault and coercion of witnesses. The media will not allow such matters to distract the statesman who in the name of "PEACE" is plunging Europe into a new Dark Age and setting the stage for the slaughter of Jews in Israel.

Assessing the social and political habits already in 1948 dominating the post-War world, Orwell's vision of the future was "a boot stamping on a human face, forever." The media-driven hysterics of spurious compassion, the signature feature of what Barbara Amiel calls the "Statist matriarchy" has brought the boot down on Serbia just as it has already crushed the American family, education system and Constitution. Israel is next because Israel is the model of discrete nationhood with fixed borders and of law established firmly in memory and transcendent truths. Hebrew teaches that manliness (zachar) is the core of memory (zicharon) and there are no qualities the Modern State more relentlessly roots out. It reminds one of Joseph Conrad's words at the very center of Heart of Darkness, his 1901 disquisition on the authoritarian idealism that would displace Scriptural teaching and deform our century. "Reckless without hardihood, greedy without audacity, cruel without cunning, there was not an atom of foresight or serious intention in the lot of them."

The leaders of the New Age are as feckless as they are fierce, as cynical as they are self-righteous. They believe in nothing and they will bequeath nothing but tyranny and violence to a world they are reducing to an impoverished village, a new primitivism marked by the image of a boot crushing a human face. Do not wonder then that today's pioneers of revolutionary progress and virtue sponsor the KLA and Arafat.


Eugene Narrett, PhD teaches at Boston University.



By Elyakim Ha'etzni

One cannot escape a grim sense of foreboding in view of N.A.T.O.'s bombing of Serbia. The similarity is all too clear between the diktat of Wye and the diktat of Rambouillet, between N.A.T.O.'s demand to amputate the province of Kosovo from Yugoslavia and transform it into an Albanian Muslim state, and Europe's demand with American backing to sever Jerusalem and Yesha from Israel to transform them into a Muslim Palestinian state.

Only the blind fail to perceive that Kosovo is but a general rehearsal for what we can expect if we refuse to concede Jerusalem to Arafat: if we won't be smitten with "Tomahawk" missiles then at the very least we will be subjected to brutal economic pressure.

Both Israel and Yugoslavia suffer from a hostile world press. Therefore we will not be able to judge what is transpiring in Serbia without presenting to the reader a number of facts that the world and Israeli press has chosen to conceal and distort. In 1974 Kosovo was awarded autonomy. A process of "ethnic cleansing" ensued forthwith against the Serb minority and nearly half a million Serbs were forced out. On the other hand Albanians crossed over from Albania in the hundreds of thousands and as a result of these two processes the remaining Serb population in Kosovo numbered only ten percent. Of course one cannot justify atrocities committed by any side and the Serbs' hands are definitely unclean. However the Croats and Bosnians also committed acts of murder and expulsion against the Serbs and the final accord of the Bosnian War was the "ethnic cleansing" of 200,000 Serbs from the Krajina district.

The war in Kosovo was not initiated by the Serbs but by a Muslim underground army enjoying international Islamic support in the form of weaponry and volunteers. Apparently it is precisely the N.A.T.O. assault which is currently goading the Serbs into acts of repression and expulsion--unpardonable in themselves--against the Albanians. The latter however would not have brought matters to such extremes had they not counted on a blank check endorsed by the Americans and Europeans. This syndrome is quite familiar in our locale as well.

During the Second World War the Croats created a Nazi state which extended over Bosnia as well, a state which massacred Serbs and Jews. The Bosnian Muslims were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Hussayni. A Muslim S.S. division ("Hanjar"the dagger) murdered Jews. The Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia initiated a rebellion against the Germans in which 1.7 million, 11% of the total population lost their lives. The Partisans captured vast areas of territory, pinned down thirty Nazi divisions which were severely disabled, disarmed six Italian divisions and became an army a quarter million strong. Yugoslavia was the only European country which liberated itself. Had the Americans studied this history, it is doubtful that they could have assumed that by aerial bombardments a la "Desert Fox" which did not faze Saddam Hussein, they could subdue the Serbs. This is especially true given Milosevic's agreement to restore Albanian autonomy, he was only adamant against allowing the introduction of 30,000 N.A.T.O. troops into his country. Who would have acted otherwise?

The Serbs stood in the path of the Turkish conquest of Europe. They were vanquished in their capital of Kosovo in 1389. From then on their dream of a restored national freedom was situated and centered upon Kosovo, which constituted a national and religious unifying symbol. The Muslims constitute the majority in Kosovo, but Kosovo was never an independent Muslim state.In contradistinction a plan for a "Greater Albania" exists encompassing Albania, Kosovo, and the sizable Albanian minority in Macedonia.

The Serbs who call Kosovo "Our Jerusalem" wish to see us as an example. Will we, who viewed Zion and Jerusalem as a national symbol long before the Serbian saga, prove able to learn from the Serbs the meaning of national unity and resolve? True, opposition exists to Milosevic, the Communist, but on the issue of Kosovo the people are united.

Clinton justifies the bombing as necessary for saving the people of Kosovo from Serb repression. He owes an explanation why he has not bombed China on behalf of the persecuted Tibetans. Why haven't cruise missiles appeared over Khartoum to save the Christians in Southern Sudan 2.5 million of whom were butchered by the Moslems? Why didn't the U.S. establish a Shiite state in Southern Iraq or a Kurdish state in the North following the Gulf War? Instead, on the basis of cold political calculations, it elected to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq even under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why is territorial integrity good for Iraq and not for Yugoslavia? Why doesn't Clinton arrange autonomy for the Kurds in Turkey, a N.A.T.O. member?

Clinton lords over us in the name of "international law". The U.N. charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state which has not committed aggression against another state and the issue of Kosovo is an internal dispute! The Rambouillet "Agreement" which Milosevic was ordered to sign under the threat of bombing constitutes a violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention, the Treaty on Treaties, which prohibits the use of force to coerce a state into signing.

The bombing of Serbia is also an obtuse action. American experts have already seriously criticized the adhesion of Eastern European States to N.A.T.O. (Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and shortly Estonia) as a superfluous provocation, as it brings the western military alliance closer to the borders of Russia. Additionally the U.S. and Europe have backed the Croatians and the Bosnian Moslems against the Serbs, the historic proteges of the Russians. In response, Russia which in the Gulf War still backed the U.S. against Iraq, has begun returning to a policy of confrontation in the Middle East, to arm Syria and Iran and back Saddam Hussein. The bombing of Serbia presently, without U.N. legitimation is the last straw in a process which threatens the reimposition of an iron curtain. For what purpose pray tell.

Is it to introduce Islam to Europe? Hasn't the U.S. absorbed the bitter lesson of Afghanistan where it supported the Islamic fundamentalists and Taliban. From there the deadly stinger anti-aircraft missiles which the U.S. gave out so generously disseminated becoming a menace to global aviation. Afghanistan also begot the Bin-Laden terrorists who blew up America's embassies.

The U.S.A., which erred grievously in Vietnam, in Beirut, in Somalia, in Iran, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, now errs in Kosovo. Everywhere the U.S. has left devastation in her wake, but it continues to pontificate on what is good for us as if we were errant school children.It would appear that spiritually as well, we have become a bananna republic, if despite the menacing shadow which the Kosovo Affair casts over us, Israel's academia and political world applaud and follow the U.S.A. blindly.

At the time, we sent aid to Moslem Bosnia and absorbed Bosnian refugees, because Yossi Sarid so willed it. It is time that a Public Committee for Serbia arose to aid Serbian victims. Such a committee would represent a token of gratitude from our people to a people who fought the Nazis more than any other people.


Elyakim Ha'etzni is an attorney and Jewish activist who lives in Kiryat Araba.




By Steve Rodan

[March 24, 1999] To most in the West, the fighting in Kosovo is the result of an oppressive Yugoslav regime that seeks to quell independence for an Albanian majority in the province. But quietly European defense and diplomatic representatives regard the Kosovo rebellion as a success of radical Islamic states, such as Iran, and groups such as that of Osama Bin Laden.

As they see it, Kosovo has become the latest and most significant arena for radical Islamic states and groups that seek to widen their influence in Europe. Nobody argues that Islamic elements fomented the conflicts in the Balkans. But they say Iran, Saudi Arabia and some of their terrorist beneficiaries have exploited the fighting to establish a sphere of influence that spans from Greece to the Austrian border.

Islamic groups as far away as Pakistan have called for support of the fighters in Kosovo. "The type of cruel and oppressive tactics followed by Serb aggressors in Kosovo and the Balkans is a declaration of war against humanity and the whole Muslim Ummah," the Jamaat Islami, Pakistan, said in a recent statement.

That realization, the diplomats and defense sources say, is why European leaders are increasingly hesitant in approving NATO strikes against Yugoslavia.

"The gap between the public political rhetoric and the private professional discussions is huge," a European defense official said. "Europe is beginning to realize that Kosovo is not just about a rebellion. It's about a growing Iranian attempt to support and dominate movements in states in Europe."

Reuven Paz, who teaches at Haifa University, is regarded as one of Israel's leading researchers of radical Islamic movements, particularly Hamas. He says Iran and Saudi Arabia view the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia as that pitting Islam against Christianity.

"All of the Sunni Muslim groups as well as Iran are making lots of propaganda for Kosovo and see it as a symbol," Paz said. "As Europe tries to unite, there could be a lot more unity between the Muslims on the margins of Europe.There is potential that this unity could be used in a hostile way."

Western intelligence sources as well as diplomats said the major supporter of the Kosovo Liberation Army has been Iran and Islamic radicals. They said the Iranian influence began during the Yugoslav civil war in which thousands of Islamic fighters, called mujahadeen, were brought from Afghanistan to help Bosnian forces.

With the establishment of an independent republic, Iran quickly gained control of the government in Sarajevo. The mujahadeen, up to 7,000 of them, were allowed to stay and many of them married local Muslim women. Iran moved it with financial aid to the Muslim government that amounted to tens of millions of dollars annually.

By the mid-1990s, Iranian agents established a base in Albania, which has not had a central government in nearly a decade. Iranian Revolutionary Guards provided weapons, money and training to Kosovo rebels. Iranian and Saudi representatives launched charities and banks. From Albania, Iranian agents moved to Kosovo. In Prizren, Iranian envoys formed a society funded by the Iranian Culture Center in Belgrade and sent groups of Kosovars to Iran to study militant Islam.

By 1998, Iran was smuggling in weapons and fighters, the sources said. Commando units entered Kosovo last May to help the KLA. These units were comprised of Albanians, Bosnians, Egyptians, Macedonians and Saudis. By August, the Saudis were ordered to leave the units and Riyad, strapped financially, reduced financial support to the KLA.

"It's clear that this is an issue on the Islamic agenda," says Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute of Counterterrorism, based in Herzliya, Israel. "This phenomenon is marked by waves. First, the mujahadeen were in Afghanistan. Then the war ended and they had nothing to do. The Kosovo arena for them is both ideological and a source of employment."

The weapons and money have been smuggled from both Albania and Bosnia. In December, Croatian authorities said they seized close to $1 million of weapons brought from Bosnia that was headed for Kosovo. The route for smuggling, regional diplomats say, has been the Adriatic Sea.

Other weapons were smuggled in cargo shipments classified as humanitarian aid. One such shipment was uncovered by Croatian police in the port of Split in September. Several tons of weapons and ammunition were stored in crates marked humanitarian aid. Yugoslav authorities say the weapons include rifles, mortars and communications systems made in the United States and Israel.

Today, says the Federation of American Scientists, a prominent group of researchers which often consults U.S. administrations, the KLA contains 1,000 mercenaries from Albania, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia and Yemen. KLA training camps are in four Albanian cities under the influence of former Albanian President Sali Berisha.

Yugoslav officials say the KLA's goal is to sever Kosovo from Yugoslavia and merge it with Albania. But Western strategists go further. They say an Islamic Kosovo could serve as a bridge for an Iranian sphere of influence that would soon join Albania in the east to Bosnia in the west. They say Macedonia, which also contains a significant Muslim population, would soon succumb to Iranian control.

The argument is echoed by KLA representatives themselves in their arguments for Muslim support. At the Islamabad conference, a KLA envoy, according to a report by the London-based monthly Filistin al-Muslimah, "explained the geographical and strategic importance of Kosovo in the connection between the Islamic centers of Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia."

Quietly, the Iranian element in Kosovo is being discussed in Washington, particularly in Congress. Analysts have warned that U.S. troops in Kosovo under the NATO umbrella would be more vulnerable than ever as Islamic agents would smuggle weapons and people from Bosnia and Albania.

"At this point, however, nobody is really listening," a congressional analyst says. "The Belgrade government and Milosevic, in particular, has been so clumsy in dealing with Kosovo that all the real issues have been lost. Everybody is talking about Milosevic as the evil man of Europe as if his removal solves everything."

The concern of European strategists is that an Iranian sphere of influence would do greater damage to such Western countries as Britain, France and Germany. France has about two million Muslims, most of them poor and alienated. Britain has about 1.5 million.

"The United States might not realize it, but many European countries have serious minority problems," a Central European diplomat says. "Once these minorities feel that they can obtain the support of NATO, we could see flare-ups everywhere. Nobody really knows the answer to Kosovo but many of us feel that giving the KLA an air force is the worst solution possible."



By Sergio Tezza

The beginning of NATO's bombing raids on Yugoslavia and the explanations of the rationale behind the military strike given by the politicians and their spokespersons, must give us pause.

We have been hearing words as "peace agreement", "aggression", "refugees" and "human rights violations". Conspicuously absent are words as "secession", "military uprising", "sovereignty", "defence of territorial integrity" and many others. Let's examine the said words first, and let's relegate what's left unsaid to the end. An agreement exists when two or more parties achieve a position that is acceptable to all the parties in question.

The Kossovo province "peace agreement" is NONEXISTENT and was always nonexistent, since one of the two fighting parties (the Serbs) never agreed to, or signed any document, containing the proposals that the other party (the Albanians) is alleged to have considered acceptable. So, since an agreement never existed, and we hear all the media using that term, are we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Aggression occurs when one party attacks another while unprovoked (1).

The almost total "ethnic cleansing" between 1974 and 1989 of over half a million Serbs from a region as the Kossovo province, the historic heart (2) of the Serbian People, is not something that can be defined as an "act of goodwill" on the part of the Muslim Albanians to their Christian Serb neighbors.The constitution of a full-fledged armed force (not exactly a guerrilla force, given the state of the arts German military equipment they use) -called terrorists by the Serbs and freedom-fighters by the Albanians-, a force that is responsible for the killing of uncounted -and often unmentioned- Serb civilians and policemen, can maybe satisfy the definition of provocation.

It sounds rather strange, moreover, to hear the political echelon and the military commanders of a "defensive" military alliance speak about "aggression", while leading a massive military attack against one of the two warring parties (on the side of the "guerrilla"), within the territory of a sovereign state whose army is party to the fighting.

So, if the word aggression is used in a very "slanted" way, and we hear it and read it used that way all over the media, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Refugees are autochthonous populations expelled from their land.Hundreds of thousands of Serbs who populated the Kossovo province for tens of generations have been forced to leave the Kossovo province in the last twenty five years because of political persecution and physical attacks. In the meantime, especially since the demise of the Albanian Maoist regime of Henver Hoxa, hundreds of thousands of Albanians have crossed over the Yugoslavian border, changing the ethnic balance within the Kossovo province (3). So, since we are hearing and reading the word "refugee" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Human rights include the right to live safely -IN PEACETIME- without being targeted with discrimination, expulsion, job loss, physical aggression, because of one's belonging to a group rather than another.

The Serbs had their human rights clearly violated during peacetime between 1974-1989, when the Albanians had autonomy in Kossovo. The autonomy of the Kossovo province was rescinded by the Yugoslavian Government, Serbian rights to employment and residence became again possible, and then a military insurgency against Yugoslavia started, with the support of part of the Albanian populations, who became active part of the fighting against the Serbian population, Police and Army, and subject to military reprisals.So, since we are hearing and reading "victims of human rights abuses" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?

Meanwhile, where did the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state go, all of a sudden, since it has been used until now to justify military non intervention to stop the massacres in Algeria (over 400,000 dead, mostly civilians), the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi (over one million slaughtered), the massacres of Christians in Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan (over a million killed or displaced), the slaughter of Chinese in Indonesia, etc., etc., etc.???

Where did the principle (no value judgement expressed about its validity) of opposing secessions and promoting the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, used to justified Saddam Hussein's permanence in power and the non help to Kurds in Northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey and to Shiites in Southern Iraq... where did it all of a sudden go??? Why aren't Ms. Albright & Co. in Europe telling us why it does not apply to Yugoslavia?

I would like, last but not least, to point out that no comparison can be made with a situation in which one armed part attacks an unarmed part who has no way to defend itself. NO DISGUSTING COMPARISON WITH PRE WW-II NAZI GERMANY CAN BE ALLOWED AND TOLERATED. The Jews were not attacking, terrorizing, unarmed Germans and threatening their territorial integrity with armed movements of secession (independence?). Clinton's disgusting use of the Holocaust as a consequence of a precedent of inaction and appeasement should be protested by all decent people. It is disgusting that someone might use the Shoah (4) as a cover for serving one's political and economic interest with the Arab world, by helping those who were allied with the Nazis during WW-II (Muslims and Croats in Yugoslavia).

This is a DIRTY WAR is an expression that we probably won't hear or read too often about the NATO attack against Yugoslavia.


(1) Israel attacked Egypt militarily in June 1967, but certainly not unprovoked (Egyptian blocking of the Red Sea at the Tiran Strait, massive military mobilization at Israel's borders after general military draft). Israel was certainly not the aggressor.

(2) [Kossovo is in the Yugoslavian national anthem and is the focus of Yugoslavian Independence Day, the day having been picked on the anniversary of Serbia's historic defeat to the invading Muslim Turks, of whom the so called "ethnic Albanians" are the descendants]

(3) Striking similarities exist with the situation in the Land of Israel, where Arab populations coming from outside settled in the course of the 20th Century in what had been almost a desert, and had been set aside by the League of Nations to become again the "homeland" of the People of Israel (previously expelled from there); all that while Jews were "de facto" and "de iure" kept forcibly out by the British. The Arab illegal immigrants from Syria, Hejaz (Saudi Arabia), Egypt, Sudan, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Morocco, etc. in many cases "expelled by massacre" entire Jewish communities (i.e. the Jews of Hebron in 1929) who had lived there for millennia, and then became " the refugees" by excellence for the hypocritical world media after they left or were expelled at the birth of the State of Israel.

(4) See the many references to Israel as today's nazis, in relation to their conflict with the Arabs, while it was exactly the Arabs who were allied with the nazis and ACTIVELY participated in the designing and execution of the "final solution" also through their then chief butcher the Jerusalem Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, uncle of today's butcher Arafat.

"...For the sake of Zion I shall not hold my peace. And for the sake of Jerusalem I shall not rest.

Until her righteousness shine like a star. And her salvation like a burning torch..." Yeshayahu/Isaiah 62:1



1. The EU and the US seem to have down a Good Cop - Bad Cop routine to help the PLO. The Eurocrats openly push for Palestinian statehood now, while the US can pretend to be neutral and compromising and get the PLO their Reichlet. Haaretz Mar 25 reports that the deal between the Yanks and the Eurotrash is a formal deal.

2. The Center Party now has a platform and the differences between its and that of Meretz are hard to find. Both favor Palestinian statehood. Neither rule out some PLO "capital" in Jerusalem. Both favor territorial "compromise" on the Golan. The main differences seem to be that the Centrists have not said what they think of gay marriage or legalizing pot.

3. The Lefties are marching out in solidarity with convicted crook Arie Deri of SHAS. Haim Ramon is running a one-Lemming clemency campaign for Deri, and he has been now joined by Generalissimo Amnon Shahak, second in command in the Center Party junta, and Leftoid ex-general Shlomo Lahat, ex-mayor of Tel Aviv from the "Liberal" Party (back then).

4. If it is in English on the web site, someone should post Ari Shavit's piece from Haaretz Mar. 25. Shavit is almost the only Haaretz columnist who is willing to criticize the Left once in a while. Today he suggests that the Left come out of the closet and reveal the almost-deal that Yossi Beilin almost finalized with the PLO's Abu-Mazin on the "final status" accord (not to be confused with the Final Solution). It is worth reading his whole piece, but among other things he points out the Beilin-Abu-Mazin agreement says that 92% of the "territories" would go to the Reichlet, but never clarify if the PLO would renounce claims to remaining Israel in the Green Line, it accepts the Palestinians' "right of return" but without making it clear if they can "return" to Green Line Israel in its 1949 borders. Shavit says we know what Israel would give under that deal but not what it would get. (Well, actually we DO know.)

5. In the past Michael Eitan was one of the few courageous Likudniks, although he pretty much sold out to Netanyahu and became one of the Wye's Men of Chelm. But now he is showing some backbone and denouncing Deri as a figure of organized crime and Netanyahu is having a conniption cause he wants SHAS in the coalition after the election.

6. In all the story of Serbia and Kosovo, there is one strange aspect that NO ONE has mentioned. In every OTHER international conflict, you can find press and Op-ED pieces supporting the unpopular side. Even supporting Saddam, the Taliban, North Koreans, Iran - all have their apologists in the Washington Post and NY Times.

Incredibly, as far as I can see there are NO pro-Serb minority opinion pieces being printed at ALL in the Western press or on TV. I find this strange. Especially since the Serbs DO have a position worth hearing and one I at least find quite persuasive. The entire world seems to accept with understanding the idea that the Turks are entirely justified in suppressing Kurd separatism in Turkey and even using a bit of brutality to do so. So why are the Serbs not similarly entitled? The Kosovars have FAR LESS legitimate claims to independence or even autonomy than the Kurds. There are many more Kurds and the Kurds have no homeland anywhere. The Kosovar Albanians have Albania just a few clicks away and anyone wishing to be an Albanian Zionist can move there. (They have not done so cause Albania has a Stone Age economy but since when is THAT justification for Kosovar separatism?) True the Serbs are brutal, but all of ex-Yugoslavia is a brutal Third World place, and it is not even clear the Serbs are more brutal than the Croats and Bosnians. And since when does brutality eliminate the legitimacy of an otherwise legitimate cause?

The Kosovars are a Moslem minority uncomfortable within the Serbian rump-Yugoslavia. But as such they resemble Kashmir, and no one is dropping cruise missiles on India. We accept the idea that nations may use force to prevent break-away separatists of ethnic minorities (Turkish Kurds, Kashmiris, the US Civil War, Catholic enclaves in Ulster, Corsica, Basques, Bretons, etc.). In all these areas force and even brutality have been used.

The Serbs already gave up Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia (which has lots of Albanians of its own) and Bosnia, even though Bosnia is swimming with Serbs. If Bosnia has the right to secede from Yugoslavia, why do not Bosnian Serbs have the right to separatism and independence from Bosnia?

Well try this one on for size. The only reason the NATO and US politicians are suddenly so gung ho to bomb Serbia and Montenegro (which is to Serbia as Kiryat Arba is to Israel) is that they are trying to suck up to the Moslem countries. That is why Kashmir is a non-issue (Moslems there oppressed by nice Third World non-whites, unlike them Christian Serbs). The Albanians (including Kosovars) and Bosnians are Moslem and so the West MUST posture in favor of their separatist struggle, just like with the Palestinians. Else how would everyone know how progressive we are?



By Elyakim Ha'etzni

It is the unanimous opinion in Israel that these elections will decide
the future of Yesha, the Golan and Jerusalem.

This being so, one would expect all political parties to submit a clear, specific, picture as to the party's beliefs, intentions and plans with regard to such crucial matters. Unbelievably, this is not so in the case of the three big parties, who - jointly or severally - are to form the next government. The agenda of the extreme Left, Meretz and the Arab parties, is clear: A Palestinian state, the surrender of the entire Golan - down to the Kinnereth, the delivery of at least 90% of Yesha to the Palestinians, combined with the ethnic cleansing of almost all of the two hundred thousand Jews living in Judea-Samaria Gaza.

On the other side of the political spectrum the new party of the Right is also unequivocal: Not one more inch in Yesha, no retreat whatsoever from the Golan, no Palestinian state, the settlements to be developed on a grand scale.

But neither Meretz nor Cherut-Moledeth-Tekumah will be at the helm of the state in June 1999. But what is the message of the three big Oslo parties - Labour, Center and Likud and their political satellites - Shass, N.R.P. (Mafdal) and the Charedim? We never get a straight answer. Take the Golan. Netanyahu and Likud hint that they will accept a compromise, leaving in Israel's hands parts of Mount Hermon and some strategic heights. All the rest, which is perhaps 90% of the territory, to be evacuated. What is to happen with the Jewish villages, with the city of Katzrin, the industry, the agriculture, 20,000 human beings? Not a word, not a whisper.

Labour and Barak use Rabin's formula : As large as the dimensions of Peace - will be the dimensions of the land given back. This means - but does not explicitly say - all of the Golan. But does it include the shores of the Kinnereth and the El Hamma hot springs, which were parts of the Palestinian Mandate, and only later taken from us by force? Will the Syrians get a claim to the waters of the Kinnereth? Here too: Not a word, not a whisper.

Only one thing is known. In secret negotiations which took place some months ago between Netanyahu and Barak, in an attempt to iron out a common platform for a government of National Unity, both gentlemen very quickly reached a common formula dealing with the fate of the Golan. The "Third Way" party, whose sole orientation is the preservation of the Golan, published these days a challenge, demanding to bring to light the protocols of these Netanyahu-Barak deliberations, for the electorate to know, what they are voting for. The answer is silence.

As to Yesha - Judea, Samaria and Gaza - Netanyahu is bound by Oslo and Wye, and yet - the most important questions are still left open: Will the delivery of land resume after the elections, also the release of terrorists with "blood on their hands", although - as we all know - Arafat is still in breach of his undertakings? Will Netanyahu endorse a Palestinian state, albeit under conditions, such as demilitarization, etc., or is his opposition to Palestinian statehood unconditional?

How far is Netanyahu ready to go in surrendering land in Yesha? 60%? 70%? Will Netanyahu uproot settlements by force? Or will he abandon them to the tender mercies of the Palestinian terrorist dictatorship?

Is it conceivable that Netanyahu expects the so called "National Camp" to go to the polls without getting an answer to such elementary questions? Facing Arafat's plan to declare a Palestinian state, Barak too is silent. People guess that he will give his consent. But isn't it our right to get a clear answer? As to the extent of Labour's intended retreat from Yesha, a murky formula is used: Most settlers, although not most settlements, will remain under Israeli rule.

Question: Most settlers sit in a small numbers of townships - Ma'ale Adumim Har- Adar, Giv'at Ze'ev and Beitar, all close to Jerusalem, then Alfei Menashe near Kfar Saba, Kiriat Sefer close to Modi'in on the Green Line and so, too, Oranith. If the rest goes to Arafat - does it mean the relinquishment of 90% of the territory, some hundred and twenty settlements? And what will happen to them? Forceful eviction by the army, style Yamit? Incorporation in the Palestinian state?

The voter is called upon to decide on these questions , but he is not entitled to know.

We are left with the "Party of the Center", headed by Yitzchak Mordechai, which is famous for the vagueness of its formulations. They have not managed, yet, to write down a common party-platform. All they are saying is that they intend to create an atmosphere of "harmony and reconciliation". But how? And what is their specific stand as to the above mentioned life-and-death questions? Here, too, there are no answers.

But there are indications. The intimacy between Yitzchak Mordechai and Arafat's establishment is so deep, that according to Ma'ariv, quoting Associated Press, he did not hesitate to give them a friendly advice: Put a leash on terrorism, lest Netanyahu make political capital out of it. A.P. claims that Mordecai actually achieved an "understanding" with the P.L.O. to this effect. The implication of this is far-reaching . First, this is an admission, that terror, like a tap, can be opened and closed by Arafat, serving his political needs. A tap running blood.

Secondly, that Mordechai knows this and is ready to live with it. Finally, that Mordechai speaks and acts as if he and Arafat regard the downfall of Netanyahu as a common interest. Another indication as to Mordechai's orientation is his attack against Barak in the Arab Israeli weekly, "Kul il Arab". There he claims - I quote - that Barak "is not able and does not have the tools to negotiate with the Arabs honourably and sincerely". That Barak "opposed the Oslo agreements, drawing criticism from Rabin". That Barak "is the one who initiated the expulsion into the Lebanon of 400 Hamas men", while he, Mordechai, then Commanding General of the North "opposed this".

It is one and the same pattern : Here Mordechai invites the Israeli Arabs to join him against Barak. Further, Mordechai, accuses Netanyahu of freezing the implementation of Wye - thereby making negotiations with Syria impossible. This implies, that Arafat carried out his part in the Wye agreement faithfully and that Netanyahu's "lack of reciprocity" claim is untrue. This position of Mordechai is scandalous, because he himself voted in the government to discontinue Wye for the reasons given by Netanyahu.

Lastly, Mordechai, in his speech before the convention of his party, had this to say: (I quote): "Once I head a broad government, I shall be able to take harder, more difficult decisions". This is the most ominous indication of them all, because "difficult decisions" in Israel's political slang means cutting into the flesh until the bone.

It seems, that between the three of them, Mordechai - who calls himself "Center" - is the most extreme Left. But with him, too, we must make inferences, he does not tell us in a straightforward manner what his real platform is.

Such a short period before the elections the time has come for the nation to say to all three big parties: Don't insult our intelligence, don't treat us like voting cattle, give us the truth!


Elyakim Ha'etzni is an attorney and activist for the undiminished right of Israel to YESHA. 


Arutz Sheva News Service -- Friday, Mar. 12, 1999 / Adar 25, 5759


Representatives of three nationalist-camp parties - Moledet, Tekumah, and Herut - initialized a unity agreement early this morning, and expressed the hope that their joint efforts will be able to have an influence on the next government. The list of the candidates on the new list will be as follows:

Benny Begin - Herut;

Rehavam Ze'evi - Moledet;

Chanan Porat - Tekumah;

Michael Kleiner - Herut;

Rabbi Benny Elon - Moledet;

Tzvi Hendel - Tekumah;

Uri Ariel - Tekumah;

Moshe Peled - Moledet;

Yossi Ben-Aharon, representing Herut, will apparently be allocated the ninth place, and Benny Katzover will likely represent the Tekumah faction in the tenth spot. The name of the new party will be decided at a later date.

The list was approved by Tekumah's advisory rabbis - Rabbi Zalman Melamed, Rabbi Dov Lior, and Rabbi Chaim Shteiner, three of the most senior students of former Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapira. Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated the new group on its formation, which he said will prevent the splintering of the right-wing. Expressions of support for the new list were heard from various right-wing grass-roots organizations, such as Women in Green and Gamla Shall Not Fall Again. "Congratulations!", wrote Women in Green. "Now we can start working - together - and with the help of G-d, together we will win at least 15 Knesset seats!"




Washington [March 3, 1999] U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) tonight condemned the Palestinian leadership for failing to abandon the incitement of hatred, persecution and terrorism toward Israel and called President Clinton's current policy towards the Middle East "foolish appeasement." Mack said:

"How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who maintain the right of obliteration, the feeling of hatred, or with people who harbor the dream of one day destroying another people?

"Peace is a matter of the heart. I believe in the depths of every person's heart is a desire to live in peace. But what I saw which was the outcome of Palestinian Authority rule convinced me that hearts and minds are set on other goals. The Palestinian leadership does not want peace - they want, first their own state, which they can control with total power. Then they want to use that state to eliminate the State of Israel.

"Let's be clear. The peace process, to be meaningful, must be about more than rules and laws and lines on maps. We can reach a short-term agreement on these points. But if the Palestinian leadership fails to abandon incitement of hatred, persecution, and terrorism, then we are all dreaming - only dreaming. And our President's behavior must be labeled "foolish appeasement."

"Today, the Israeli people are exhausted by fifty years of violence against their homes and families - of sending their sons and daughters into the army - and they dream of a promised "peace now." This is our hope and our dream. But we must not get confused. History is replete with examples of compromises which bring terror and destroy dreams.

"In the United States, many people seem to think that if we do not confront these obstacles to peace, and if we look the other way, then we will be able to come to an agreement. The reality, however, is just the opposite. If we don't acknowledge the attitudes and acts of those at the peace table, then the peace process is over already and we just won't admit it. In other words, the surest way to kill the peace process is to avoid confrontation, to fear upsetting a belligerent force, and to avoid addressing incitement, violence, persecution and terrorism. The only way to keep the peace process alive is to focus on truth, freedom, security and justice.

"The United States must demonstrate principled leadership and end the appeasement that perpetuates the cycle of violence....We should do three things: First, we should insist upon the strict adherence to Oslo and the reciprocity codified at Wye. Second, we should stop paying Arafat. And third, we must aggressively seek the bringing of Palestinian terrorists who kill American citizens.

"These are very basic principles. Now is the time for a return to our principled stand that the only way to truly attain peace is to support freedom, democracy, and justice and oppose the cycle of hatred. We must face tyranny and oppression where it exists, condemn it, and stand up for peace - real peace based on security, freedom and a change of heart."



By Louis Rene Beres

Some subjects should be approached with fear and trembling. One such subject concerns nuclear war in the Middle East. Because the impending creation of a state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel will heighten this prospect considerably, ongoing Arab militarization in that unsteady region should be viewed with a unique kind of apprehension.

Architects of the Oslo Agreements suggest, of course, that a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem will substantially reduce the risk of another major war in the Middle East. After all, we are told, this problem of stateless Palestinians is the source of all other problems between Israel and the Arabs. Once we have "justice" for Palestinians, the argument proceeds, Arab governments and Iran will begin to create area-wide stability and comprehensive peace settlements. Harmony shall then reign, more or less triumphantly, from the Mediterranean and Red Seas to the Persian Gulf.

But as we should have learned by now, especially from recurring Arab violations of a "peace process," the conventional Oslo wisdom is unwise. For the most part, Iranian and Arab state inclinations to war against Israel have absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinians. Even if Israel were to make all unilateral Oslo concessions, and continue to adhere to unreciprocated agreements, these belligerent inclinations would continue, especially from Syria, Iraq and Libya as well as for Iran and Egypt. Indeed, as Israel will soon coexist with a new state of Palestine, the Jewish state's vulnerability to armed attack by hostile neighbors will increase markedly. And if this diminished safety is accompanied by the spread of unconventional weapons to hostile states, which now seems inevitable, Israel could find itself confronting not only war, but genocide.

Why? Most importantly, the new state of Palestine will preoccupy Israeli military forces to a much greater extent - much, much greater - than did the intifada. Even if it were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the region, a takeover accomplished either directly or by insurgent surrogates, Palestine would inevitably become a favored launching-point for renewed (possibly even unconventional) terrorism against Israel. Various promises notwithstanding, Islamic insurgents would continue to celebrate violence against Israel as the essence of "national liberation."

Recognizing an "improved" configuration of forces vis-a-vis Israel, a larger number of enemy states would calculate that they now confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary. Further, they would understand that a coordinated effort by certain countries that possess or are in the process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could possibly endanger Israel's very survival. Taken together with the fact that global support for Israel is always fickle, and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of Palestine will tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively. In view of this incontestable assessment, it is more than a little ironic that certain prominent Israelis, including even former Prime Minister Peres, are currently lobbying for a Palestinian state.

The full strategic implications for Israel of an independent Palestine should now be carefully appraised. If, in the end, such independence becomes the cause of a nuclear war in the region, everyone, Palestinians as well as Jews, will lose. But how, exactly, would a nuclear war begin in the reconfigured Middle East? One possibility would be by Arab or Iranian first strikes against Israel. These strikes could be nuclear (although this would likely be several years away) or nonnuclear. In either scenario, Israel - especially if it feels perilously close to defeat - might resort to nuclear retaliation.

Alternatively, Israel, believing that substantial enemy attack -chemical, biological, conventional, or nuclear - is imminent, could decide to preempt. If, as we might expect, this preemption were entirely nonnuclear, it could still fail to prevent the anticipated attack against Israel. Here, Israeli nuclear weapons, having failed in their mission to support conventional preemption by deterring enemy retaliation, might also have to be used for purposes of nuclear warfighting. Israel has much to fear, more - perhaps - than any other state on the face of the earth. Threatened by a growing number of adversaries with ballistic missiles and with a corollary interest in nuclear warheads, Jerusalem knows that transformation of Judea/Samaria and Gaza into Palestine could provide its enemies with the means and the incentives to destroy the Jewish State once and for all. Deprived of essential "strategic depth," Israel could become seriously vulnerable to total defeat. Anguished by a possible end to the Third Temple Commonwealth, the nation's leaders would begin to think seriously about nuclear weapons as a last resort (the so-called "Samson Option"). It follows that however disturbing and problematic Israel's control of what remains of Judea/Samaria may be for the Arabs and for Iran, and however costly recovery of already surrendered "West Bank" lands would be for the Jewish State, the emergence of Palestinian statehood should be viewed with altogether grave concern. Otherwise, Palestine, looking first very much like Lebanon, could wind up as Armageddon, a metamorphosis that would favor neither Israeli nor Palestinian.


LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D. Princeton) is the author of SECURITY OR ARMAGEDDON: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR STRATEGY (Lexington Books, 1986) and many other major books and articles on nuclear weapons and nuclear war. His work is well-known to Israel's military and intelligence communities.



(Territorial Sacrifice)

By Boris Shusteff

On March 15 former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in The Jerusalem Post that "Israel, without a peace process, is a nation with no wind in its sails." The problem is that he forgot to mention that the violent gusts of this "wind" drive the Israeli boat closer and closer to the fatal rapids of an extremely dangerous impassable mountain river.

He forgot to mention the truth that the so-called "peace process" has nothing in common with real peace. As Senator Connie Mack said on March 3, in his speech in the US Senate, "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace. They want, first, their own state which they can control with total power. Then they want to use that state to eliminate the State of Israel."

How often has the word "peace" been invoked in Jewish history to cover up the tragedies? Saying that they are achieving peace the Jewish leaders sent thousands of Jews to their death. These "peace" sacrifices were intended for the common good. On September 4, 1942 Mordecai Chaim Rumkowski, chairman of the Judenrat of the Lodz Ghetto delivered a speech to the Ghetto inhabitants. He said:

"The taking of the sick from the hospitals caught me completely by surprise. And I give you the best proof there is of this: I had my own nearest and dearest among them, and I could do nothing for them. I thought that that would be the end of it, that after that they'd leave us in peace, the peace for which I have always worked, which has been my goal."

How familiar are Rumkowski's explanations. Aren't the Israeli leaders working for peace now? Isn't peace their goal? Rumkowski brought the mantra of peace into his speech in order to prepare the miserable Jews of the Lodz Ghetto for a new sacrifice. He told them:

"In my old age I must stretch out my hands and beg: brothers and sisters, hand them over to me! Fathers and mothers, give me your children! I understand you, mothers; I see your tears, all right. I must tell you a secret: they requested twenty-four thousand victims I succeeded in reducing the number to twenty thousand, but only on the condition that these would be children below the age of ten. Since the children and the aged together equal only some thirteen thousand souls, the gap will have to be filled with the sick. I beg: Give into my hands the victims, so that we can avoid having further victims, and a population of a hundred thousand Jews can be preserved. So they promised me: if we deliver our victims by ourselves, there will be peace"

It appears that Rumkowski believed in "peace" till the final moment. When the order was given to liquidate the entire ghetto, the remains of this "hundred thousand," he pleaded with the Jews "to go to the trains in an orderly fashion. Those who came voluntarily could bring luggage, those who did not were to be rounded up by the Jewish police."

Hasn't Israel already made enough sacrifices for peace? Isn't more than 300 murdered Jews and thousands of maimed and wounded Jews a sufficient price? Why this desire to extend "Oslo?" Why does Netanyahu want to resume the "peace process" after the elections?

We cannot run away from the facts made clear as a result of Israel's surrender of territory. However, it does not mean that we have to acquiesce with them. Israel does not have to allow the creation of another Palestinian state to comply with the desires of Arafat and his supporters in the European Union and American administration. It is time for Israel to try to rectify the terrible consequences of the agreement that has brought more than forty thousand armed enemies, who are extremely well prepared for war, into the Jewish state's back yard.

The Israeli government must stop acting like a Judenrat. It cannot just think how to provide adequate food and shelter, heat, medicine, and work to the Israeli "ghetto" population. The leaders of the Jewish state must demonstrate to the world that they are strong enough to preserve Jewish honor and dignity. They should make it clear to everybody that Eretz Yisrael is the land of the Jewish people, that it belongs to the Jewish people and that it is to be settled by the Jewish people.

The approaching deadline of May 4, 1999 is the beacon of Israel's survival. On that day the Jewish state must declare that it is free of any obligation towards the Palestinian Authority and immediately annex the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). Netanyahu should stop talking and should prepare to act. Instead of warning Arafat that Israel "will respond aggressively" if the PLO "unilaterally declare a state with Jerusalem as its capital," he should prepare the Israeli public for his "aggressive" move.

There is nothing that Israel can talk about with Arafat and the PLO. Arafat's intentions are well known. They completely contradict Israel's interests. Netanyahu's March 14 statement that "the Palestinians have lowered their expectations since I came into office," is the continuation of a policy of self-deception. On October 30, 1998 Achmed Tibi, a major political adviser to Arafat, in an interview with Yedi'ot Aharonot presented this "lowered" expectations in the following way:

"I am putting everything on the table so that in the future the Israelis will not be able to say that we lied to them. Our final aim is a state within the 1967 borders, no less than that. All the agreements are aimed at reaching that target. The Israelis must know our position and understand it."

When Rumkowski wanted the Jews of the Lodz ghetto to sacrifice their children for "peace" he said, "I must perform this difficult and bloody operation - I must cut off limbs in order to save the body itself! I must take children because, if not, others may be taken as well." In today's situation this "cutting off limbs in order to save the body" represents the complete surrender of Yesha. This means sacrificing almost 200,000 Jews living there. After all, maybe "if we deliver our victims by ourselves, there will be peace?" Only one should remember that the body cannot be saved when the heart is no longer inside it, and Yesha contains the heart of Eretz Yisrael.

On April 22,1998 Emuna Elon wrote in Israel's daily newspaper Yedi'ot Aharonot, "The entire history of the State of Israel revolves around a land dispute. Our fallen soldiers have all been the victims of a century-old land dispute. This is what the entire Israeli-Arab conflict boils down to." This simple truth, although very uncomfortable for many Israelis, should determine the policy of the Israeli government. The peace experiment with the Palestinian Arabs has failed miserably. The Palestinian Arabs have used these five years to feverishly arm themselves and prepare for a military confrontation. The armed conflict cannot be prevented, and the cutting off of limbs will delay it only for a short period. The question is whether Israel is ready for this conflict or not. Will she will be able to use her overwhelming military superiority? Will she commit herself to a victory or will she put her soldiers in a precarious position as she did in Lebanon?

Raul Hilberg wrote in the book The Destruction of the European Jews, that "Preventative attack, armed resistance and revenge are almost completely absent in two thousand years of Jewish ghetto history Both perpetrators and victims drew upon their age-old experience in dealing with the each other. The Germans did it with success. The Jews did it with disaster." It is a must for Israel to draw upon her previous experience in dealing with the Arabs. The alternative is to go to the trains in an orderly fashion. [03/16/99]


1. Quotes from Rumkowski's speech are from Michael Berenbaum's book Witness to the Holocaust.

2. Unless indicated otherwise, the translations of the Jewish press are from I & G News


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

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely

on private contributions which are fully tax deductible.


Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post on March 30, 1999


By Aaron Lerner

Theoretical ladders may play well with some of the Israeli electorate that seeks simple solutions to difficult problems. How did the philosopher get out of the slippery pit? He asserted that there was a ladder and climbed out.

These days such theoretical ladders abound. The European Union justified its declaration reaffirming "the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state" by asserting that the EU "is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state would be the best guarantee of Israel's security." But the EU has no grounds to assume that such a state would be either democratic or peaceful.

As Yossi Sarid, an ardent supporter of a Palestinian state, declared (Ha'aretz March 23, 1995) "We have to recognize that the elections in the region are not democratic but I have not taken it upon myself to change the traditional Arab society."

Palestinians also don't share the EU's illusions about democracy. In late January, the Center for Palestine Research and Studies survey of Palestinian adults found only 35.5% rating the status of democracy and human rights under the Palestinian Authority (PA) as "good" or "better" (in contrast, 64.2% gave Israel that score).

As for "peaceful?" The situation among PA security forces has gotten so out of hand that LAW - the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human rights and the Environment, called last week for the PA to disarm its security forces and issue weapons only to a "limited number of properly trained personnel" and then only "on occasions where such force is warranted.

"The carriage and ownership of firearms," LAW notes, "should be made illegal." Yes, many tens of thousands of weapons are out there. In March of 1995, then US secretary of state Warren Christopher demanded that Yasser Arafat immediately seize all private weapons inside the autonomy. At the time, according to Arafat's own report to the US, there were some 26,000 illegal weapons in the Gaza Strip alone. Nothing happened then and nothing has happened since.

THE EU assertion that the Palestinian state would be "peaceful" also assumes that the Arab-Israeli conflict would be resolved with the declaration of the Palestinian state. But that is not in the cards. Last Sunday, PA Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Shaath's interview in Le Monde wheeled out a favorite ladder of Oslo supporters, when he mentioned discussions he held with Yossi Beilin about declaring a Palestinian state with a land swap of no more than 5% of the West Bank which has Israeli settlements, for Israeli territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip. But as Shaath explained to Le Monde reporter Mouna Naim, the most difficult issues - including Jerusalem - would be left unresolved.

With the February CPRS poll finding 91.3% of Palestinians rejecting Jerusalem remaining Israel's unified capital and only 3.3% preferring the Israeli Left's proposal of having the Old City under joint sovereignty and the remainder of east Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty, the die is cast for conflict. So much for Beilin's ladder.

Perhaps the most prominent theoretical ladder this week was the Central Party platform. Sure the platform calls for "defendable borders, strengthening [Israel's] defense-technology strength, setting security arrangements that would foil the possibility of a surprise attack on Israel and a heavy price to states that would consider returning to the cycle of war." (Paragraph 9).

Yet for all those platitudes, the platform clearly has complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights in mind, mentioning "territorial compromise" for both parties and "no return to the 1967 lines" only within the context of final status with the Palestinians.

Ironically, the very week that Yitzhak Mordechai outlined a philosophy that relies on Israel's defense-technology edge to compensate for the withdrawal to less defendable borders, the Pentagon announced the F-16 sale to Israel with American, rather than the more appropriate Israeli ELTA radar. As defense minister, Mordechai failed to parlay his status as Clinton's favorite to include the ELTA radar in the package rather than the same US radar that the United Arab Emirates will be getting.

Last year the Israel Air Force's (IAF) fallback position, if it was stuck with American radar, was that the IAF should at least get its operating codes so that its key could be changed to prevent others from jamming it. Israel couldn't even achieve that minimum demand.

If Mordechai believes Israel should sacrifice strategic territory to satisfy the Arabs, yet declines to follow through on insisting, in practice, that the Jewish state retain its technological edge over America's Arab arms clients, I can only wonder what theoretical ladder he has left.

Such theoretical ladders may play well with some of the Israeli electorate that seeks simple solutions to difficult problems. But the State of Israel doesn't just deserve - its long-term survival requires - a direction firmly grounded in reality. Otherwise we will find ourselves stuck in an ever deepening pit.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Aaron Lerner is director of Independent Media Review and Analysis.


4 March, 1999

By Dr. Aaron Lerner

This evening I have only one comment to make and while it is obvious it bears repeating: It is impossible to relieve pressure by bending to it. Israel's reaction today to the situation in Lebanon will set the pattern for Arab - Israeli relations on every front.

Ehud Barak has bluntly stated that the way to get safely out of Lebanon is to start negotiating Israel's withdrawal from the Golan. And what happens if the negotiations fail? Or even stall? As Labor MK Ori Orr put it, the people killed in Lebanon didn't die defending Israel's presence in Lebanon. They died in the war for the Golan.

You know it, I know it, Barak knows it and, most important of all, President Assad knows it: If the Jewish State doesn't have the stomach for casualties in Lebanon - and I don't for a minute minimize the gravity of the losses and the terrible strain and tension involved in maintaining our position there - and reacts to the situation not by repositioning for purposes of efficiency but rather withdraws from fear - then the best way to advance the interests of the Arabs at any stage of the negotiations is through renewed violence.

The 'Four Mothers' pushing us out of Lebanon will then push to leave the West Bank and Gaza. And it won't stop there. Because once the pattern is set, once the weakness is shown, only a fool would not continue to exploit it. And the Arabs are not fools. The mothers will push us out of the Golan and out of east Jerusalem. And when terrorists strike inside Israel to 'advance' negotiations over the return of refugees to Jaffa and Haifa, the mothers will press for the floodgates to be open.

And when terrorists strike again because too many Jews are immigrating to Israel, the mothers will demand that the gates be closed. And when terrorists insist that the only solution is a Palestinian state from the river to the sea, the mothers, hoping that this finally will bring 'peace in our time' will press for this one last concession.

And it won't be the last.

I have a message for Binyamin Netanyahu: Stop running after the polls. The public is confused and shifting attitudes like quicksand. If you think that you can win the game by convincing the public that you are everything for everyone you are doomed to failure.

Your only chance in the 2nd round is to stand up and tell the truth. Don't tell the public that you are confident you can cut a deal with Syria without leaving the Golan. Tell them that you have red lines. That's right. Red Lines. And they aren't arbitrary or simply a matter of ideology. These red lines are a matter of reality. Tell us that you will make every effort to cut a deal with Syria, and Arafat, and the Lebanese (if there is someone to talk to there) but your red lines are real. You won't make a deal at any price.

Tell us to our faces that, at the end of the day we may find that the Syrians or Arafat make demands that simply cannot be accepted. Have the respect for the intelligence of the Israeli public to state that you cannot guarantee peace in our time or a deal with one of our neighbors in 12 weeks or 12 months.

Demographers tell us that for every identifiable Jew in the world today there are a large number of people carrying Jewish genes. Those others come from families that decided to take the easy route and convert - hiding and ultimately melting into their surroundings. We are here today because for two thousand years our forefathers had red lines and kept to them. And it wasn't easy.

I met last week with a group from America and someone asked me if Israel would ever reach the point that would longer need a standing army. I asked her when she thought the US or Australia would be in such a position.

Our situation is not unique.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Israel is Sparta. Just that we're not in Paradise. And the sooner the politicians are honest about this painful reality the better off we all will be.


Dr. Aaron Lerner is the Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-9-7411645 E-mail: imra@netvision.net.il




Arutz Sheva News Service -- Thursday, March 11, 1999 / Adar 23, 5759


Israel does not intend to accept the European Union's stand regarding Jerusalem. Israel received a message from the EU saying that it does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. Rejecting an Israeli demand that EU representatives refrain from visiting the Orient House in eastern Jerusalem, a letter written by the German Ambassador states that Jerusalem is a "corpus separatum [separate body];" the letter does not differentiate between eastern and western Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded that Jerusalem is "not a separate body, but rather the heart and soul of the Nation of IsraelJerusalem will remain united and under Israeli sovereignty forever." Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon said that negotiations are underway with the European Union over this issue. "Our government has no intention of making any concessions whatsoever regarding the status of Jerusalem," Sharon said today. "Under my direction, and in complete coordination with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, an urgent letter has been sent to all the foreign embassies in Israel, in which I explained that this statement contradicts all of the agreements, and is in complete opposition with the stance of the government. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish nation for 3000 years now, the capital of the State of Israel for 50 years, and will remain so for eternity." [Editor's Note: Israel should remind the Europeans that they were living in caves and had not yet mastered the art of language when King David made Jerusalem his capital.]


Breaking the Spell:

Thoughts On Self-Respect
And Survival

By Eugene Narrett

The February 08 death and subsequent glorification of King Hussein of Jordan focuses several key deceits about the Middle East purveyed by the world's ruling political culture, including its Israeli nodal points. Hussein has been all but deified as man of compassion and peace, a visionary statesman and "Israel's best friend in the Middle East." Such bromides are the customary anesthetic of diplomacy and indicate to those still awake that major illusion building is underway. The problem that most concerns those who recognize Israel's life-giving and renewing purpose in the world is the degree to which its politicians, its ostensible leaders are complicit in these dangerous illusions. The long-term beatification of Hussein and defining "Jordan" as a friend and savior highlight the self-deceptions by which Israel colludes in its own destruction. These tendencies also raise questions about why Israel does so and whether this must continue.

King Hussein was a petty despot, an adroitly self-serving pawn of the mighty of the earth. One would never know this from the flatulent eulogy by Prime Minister Netanyahu who called Hussein "a historic figure, one of the giants of the 20th century an apostle of good will and maker of peace with Israel." As several commentators observed, Hussein presided over a lavish and hedonistic court while most of his subjects suffered grinding poverty. As for "good will" and "peace," in 1967, he called on his subjects to "kill Jews wherever you find them. Kill them with your hands, with your nails, with your teeth." He ordered his troops to murder Jewish civilians between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. This "loyal friend" of Israel oversaw the destruction of 56 synagogues in Jerusalem, the desecration of Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives and of Jewish holy sites in Hebron during Jordan's imperial occupation between 1952-67. Hussein acquiesced in violence against Jews attempting to pray at the Western Wall. Jordan-occupied Judea and Samaria served as a base for terrorist attacks on Jewish civilians in the 1950s as do the PA areas today.

This hosting of terrorist groups perhaps made the accolades Hussein received from Israeli media and politicians particularly offensive and inapt. "The people of Israel will never forget his visit to the bereaved families of Beit Shemesh," intoned Mr. Netanyahu. Indeed, Jews should remember how Hussein prompted the slaughter of the seven schoolgirls at Naharayim with a vitriolic letter a few days prior, condemning Israeli "intransigence." Translating that slaughter into praise for Hussein's "spirit of reconciliation" epitomized the suicidal style of Israel's approach to the Arabs. As did Netanyahu in his eulogy, in spring 1997 many Israelis lauded Hussein as a peacemaker and man of grace and compassion. The ugly truth is recorded in pictures of Hussein grinning into cameras in the homes of bereaved Jewish families whom he exploited for photo-ops dutifully disseminated by the global media and transformed into "history" and "proof" of his "devotion to peace and reconciliation." It is not only shameless politicians toadying to the global establishment, not only a leftwing media at war with its own nation and people's history and culture that can explain the gruesome phenomena of Hussein's undeserved popularity. But let us defer that issue to the end of this essay.

Prime Minister Netanyahu cited Hussein as "the creator of modern Jordan." Despite quibbles about what "modern Jordan" is, the fact is that the two main creators of the pseudo-state of Jordan have been, firstly, the imperial administration of Great Britain and, secondly, the governments of Israel itself. In this age of television, forgetting and the de-construction of history few know that "Jordan" was created in 1921. Within a year of formally receiving the mandate of Palestine from the League of Nations for the purposes of creating "a Jewish national home," Britain severed "Transjordan" from Israel and banned Jews from buying or reclaiming their land there. Israeli politicians from Yossi Sarid to Benny Begin accept the expulsion of Jews from Morocco to Pakistan while insisting that Arabs devoted to the destruction of Israel vote for the Knesset. They accept that Arabs can live throughout Israel while Jordan and parts of (or all) Judea and Samaria can be cleansed of Jews. The same media-political-judicial establishment that accepts the exclusion of Jews from Arab countries prevents Jews from praying on the Temple Mount. Observing this creed, it is natural that they sanctify King Hussein.

The "good will" of Hussein is a lie; the state of Jordan is an historic imposture. So is Syria, a product of Franco-British squabbling and intrigues during the First War and at Versailles. The name of Asad's fiefdom implies the ancient empire of Assyria, but that state was based on the Tigris in what now is northern Iraq, another of the pseudo-nations (like Lebanon and Saudi Arabia) hatched by "the peace to end all peace." The only nation amid this region with any historic, cultural and religious legitimacy is the one that the Arabs and the powers of the world seek to destroy, - Israel. Indeed, they wish to destroy it because of this legitimacy. Israel's nationhood is a pattern for all distinct nations (all 70 of them) and this makes it obnoxious to the ambitions of those who tear people from their history to establish and rule a global state. The global technocrats hate and fear Israel even more because it testifies to the authority of a Power whose moral code rebukes Babel, Darwinians, relativists and Amalek. The potential (and promise) that Israel will awake to be what it is meant to be terrifies the powers that mean to put themselves in God's place.

In retrospect, the wars of 1967 and '73 can be seen for the failures they were. Through faith, courage and grace Israel stepped to the door of its destiny and its 'leaders' turned it away. (A nation whose leadership cannot face down a Henry Kissinger, James Baker or Madeline Albright will not live). The events of 1970 in Jordan may show even more clearly the grotesque strategic errors that have led Israel to mortal crisis. In that year the Palestinians (a non-nation whose very name is an imperialist imposture by Emperor Hadrian in 137 CE) sought to overthrow Hussein and seize Jordan for themselves. Syria sent armed forces to assist in re-establishing the "Southern Syria" of Hellenistic and Roman times. This was a perfect opportunity for Israel to do right by itself in the name regional stability. A leadership interested in reclaiming its patrimony and weakening its mortal enemies would have let Syria become enmeshed in the Hashemite vs. Palestinian fracas then entered decisively to smash and subdue them. Most of the lands of Menashe, Gad and Reuben then could have been reclaimed and subsequently populated and farmed by those to whom they belong. Let this be a lesson for next time.

How Hussein must have laughed in astonishment as Israel's 'leaders' rushed to solve his Palestinian problem for him. Instead of them driving him back to Saudi Arabia, he watched Israel embrace the Palestinians in an act of suicidal harlotry. It is to be hoped that this mania will exhaust itself before destroying the Land. Even some otherwise acute observers of Israel's situation now speak as if its main task is to shore up the Hashemite Kingdom. Whether this "mixed multitude" state is ruled from Ramallah or Amman it remains a theft of Promised Land, an ally of Baghdad and a mortal danger to Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu is a man of rhetoric, of words rather than deeds. But one of his current campaign slogans, "a strong leader for a strong people" focuses the core issue of Israeli survival: whether self-contempt will smother promise, honor, uprightness and life. The main point is no longer that Netanyahu is a master of confusion and disenchantment; that is settled. The issue is that this utterly sane and self-respecting appeal to strength elicits howls of reproach from all the usual suspects. As David Wilder noted, many in Israel prefer Jewish men who are weak, ashamed and mediocre. Such Israelis worship Hussein, accept or approve the treachery of Ezer Weizman and would be appalled by the Prophet Samuel's dispatch of Agag.

Hatred of one's own strength, grace and history is a form of decay and suicide and the essential issue is whether Jews take the Torah seriously. Will they worship modernism, liberalism and feminism, or will they choose the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The British Foreign Ministry betrayed the mandate; they have betrayed many peoples, including their own, but it is fruitless now to hate or fear them or Paris, Moscow, Washington, Cairo or Damascus. All the other nations of the world have indeterminate borders leading to endless dispute. Israel's borders are clear and finite, "from the Sea of Reeds to the Western Sea, and from the [Arabian] wilderness to the [Euphrates] River" (Exodus 23:31; and Genesis 15:18). 'Realists' who mask their terror by claiming this goal is impractical scurry to buy the privilege of Israel's armed forces to train in Turkey and seek to placate Arafat by calibrating how far to retreat from the hills that are Israel's innermost heartland and last line of physical defense. What has this realism wrought in thirty years? The deification of King Hussein, a Nobel for Arafat and a nation in which Jews can neither worship on Har HaBayit nor drive to work or school in Judea without wondering if they will be murdered on the way. The preaching of helplessness and shame has fattened the heart of too many among the people. Their ears and heavy and their eyes are sealed. Must it again be until the cities are uninhabited and the Land desolate?

The reclamation of Israel's heritage and rights cannot be accomplished overnight (one cannot presume a miracle, only act so as to merit one). But Jews must set their sights and steps on the paths leading upward. The path of moral relativism and "realism" has led to the State's President shaking hands with Marxist murderers of Jewish children (as he previously gloated over the charm and tactical skill of Anwar Sadat, a fan of Hitler) and to an Arab army already in the hills. No one reading these lines may live to see the Temple rebuilt and a Kingdom of righteousness established in the center of the Earth, but we must at least begin to "pave the road" and to "remove the obstacles from the path" marked out for Israel. "Behold, I send My angel before you to protect you on the way and to lead you to the place I have prepared for you" said Hashem at Sinai (Shemot 23:26-33). "Little by little shall I drive them away from you till you become fruitful and make the Land your heritage." Israel will be what it is meant to be or it will be destroyed by those allowed to be "pins in its eyes and thorns in its sides." As for the "peace process," it is as Moshe said with his last words, "your foes will try to deceive you, but you shall trample their haughty ones." Wake up, Israel! Assert your claim. Stand up and live!


Eugene Narrett is a Professor of English who teaches at Boston University.



By Emanuel A. Winston

Israel is being squeezed from all sides. Regrettably, a series of Israeli Prime Ministers have succumbed to the pressure, namely, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu. We are all aware of the pressure in the North to withdraw from the protective Security Zone in Lebanon, bringing Hezb'Allah terror attacks right up to Israel's Northern cities. Here the pressure comes from both within Israel and without. The Players are the Israeli Left (Labor), Syria, the US and the EU. Each, for its own reasons, wants Israel out of the Security Zone. The European Union (those nations who delivered their Jews to the Germans) have just issued a dictum wherein they state that the city of Jerusalem is "occupied territory". This is in sync with the older demand of Rome that Jerusalem be internationalized.

Consider the added pressure on Israel to ignore Arafat's non-compliance with his Olso/Hebron/Wye agreements and assist the Labor party back into office so it can accelerate an unreciprocated withdrawal.

In the South something else seems to be on the agenda. It appears that Egypt is re-thinking its agreed border adjustments in the Sinai - particularly in the region of Eilat. Previously, the Egyptians agreed to the final border which stopped at Taba. Now Egypt has started to quietly speak about an Egyptian land bridge around the tip of the Gulf of Aqaba which would take in Eilat. It's unlikely the Israelis would agree to giving up an important port and a prime tourist city like Eilat. However, there appears more in the mix than merely forcing Israel into further withdrawals to gain more land.

It looks to me that, under US direction, a program is and has been in operation for Egypt to "save" Saudi Arabia from a possible invasion by Iraq, Syria and/or Iran. The concept would be that Egypt, using a land bridge around the tip of the Aqaba waterway, would occupy Saudi Arabia to "protect" the oil fields. Of course, once there, it is unlikely that they would ever leave. Much the same as when America agreed that Syria could occupy Lebanon and now will never leave.

Israel would have to agree to either gift a land bridge to Egypt - or allow free passage of the Egyptian Army. Israel is always a sucker for almost any US-brokered agreement, usually followed by breaking of that agreement by the Arab partner with no US objections . It is hard to predict what Israel's leaders will do since they are not known for their long-range vision nor their ability to protect the nation's patrimony.

If Israel is pressured by US Arabists to cede land or free passage to Egypt, they will have a long term problem. At the moment, the Sinai was supposed to be de-militarized according to the Camp David Accords. That was breached long ago when the Egyptians moved military equipment and missiles into the Sinai. When the Israelis complained to the US about Egypt's breach in agreements, offering conclusive proof, they were at first ignored and then told to shut up.

Why would Israel agree to allow Egypt, one of the largest and well-armed armies, to occupy Saudi Arabia for any reason? Even if US Arabists promised the world to Israel for them to allow this to happen, it would still be a bad deal. If you look at a map, you can see that Israel would be facing a deadly threat from the Arabian Peninsula if it were in Egyptian control.

As it stands, Saudi Arabia is no significant threat to Israel nor is Israel a threat to the Saudis. In a way, Israel provides a significant threat to invaders from the North - such as Syria, Iraq and Iran. Israel, for its own protection and interests could very well join the Saudis in repelling hostile forces. Regrettably, American Arabists in the White House and State Department have been operating on the philosophy that a weak Israel would appease the Arab nations and allow our US forces in - because the Arab countries were so grateful. But, the Arabs do not want US soldiers (unbelievers in Islam) on their soil. They want our equipment and in dire emergencies, as happened in Kuwait, they will accept our blood payment, allowing American troops to save them.

The land bridge concept is not new. Syria, through the US, pressed Israel to cede part of the Port of Haifa and the Jezreel Valley for better access to the Mediterranean. This, of course, did not come to pass, just as a land bridge for Egypt is unlikely to come to happen. The Palestinians also want land bridges to their various enclaves. The idea promulgated within the Arab manipulative mind-set is that, Israel can be truncated by slicing off land in the North - South - and Center of the country. What's left can be further divided by the so-called "safe passage land corridors". As is said in the wisdom of the street: Israel will be sliced, diced and schmised (slang for smashed).

As for trusting Egypt, it's still the same unreliable nation it always was. It's Government-controlled newspapers are full of anti-Semitic articles and vicious cartoons. It has been piling up arms, with US taxpayers picking up the tab, ($1.2 Billion of US aid each year since 1979). Now, Secretary of Defense Cohen agreed to sell Egypt $3.2 Billion in advanced arms, to include: 24 advanced F16 fighter jets for a total of 220 F16s; 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks in addition to 555 previously sold; and a full 8 unit battery of ground-to-air Patriot missiles now, plus 32 Patriot 3 model missiles.Exactly who is Egypt's enemy? Who is Egypt arming against? Libya - Sudan - anyone? Egypt is on the verge of going Islamic which would make it a dangerous military force threatening (only) Israel. Now Mr. Cohen, who will pay for Mr. Clinton's $3.2 Billion tax payers' dollars gift to Egypt?


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst & commentator and research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



By Dr. Steven Plaut

1. "The Palestinians have an inalienable right to self-determination." --- Europe, March 1999

"The Sudeten Germans have an inalienable right to self-determination. --- Europe, September 1938

"A Palestinian state will ensure the security of Israel." --- Europe, March 1999

"Sudeten self-determination will ensure the security of Czechoslovakia and peace of Europe."

--- Europe, September 1938

2. The good news is that American officials are acknowledging that Israel does indeed have the right not to withdraw from any more territory under Wye until the Palestinian Authority fulfills an obligation or two. (Haaretz Mar 28, 1999) The bad news is that the US is trying to keep this position completely secret for now so as not to help Netanyahu get re-elected. (Same article).

3. The PLO's official rep at the UN has revealed the PLO's position on where peace boundaries should run (Haaretz Mar 28, 1999). They should be the 1947 boundaries for Palestine. Huh? you say? Israel did not exist or HAVE any boundaries in 1947. Rather the whole point, would not you say? Well, actually what the PLO seems to mean is the 1947 PROPOSED division based on the UN partition resolution the Arabs trashed. Which would give the Palestinians half the Negev and most of the Galilee for their Reichlet. This is their minimal demand. A complete Israeli removal from Jerusalem goes without saying.

4. The Palestinian Authority now has its own statistical authority, which reports that there are 63,000 minors employed in child labor in the Palestinian Reichlet territories. Remember when bleeding heart liberuhs and do-gooders cared about child labor? No longer - now they only care about Israel's "economic exploitation" of the Palestinians.

5. Ever since Goobers Carter, US Democrats have run on platforms promising to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. But now the Rapist from Pennsylvania Avenue says such a move would mean severe national security endangerment of the United States. You know, unlike providing China with military secrets in exchange for campaign contributions. (Haaretz Mar 28, 99)

6. Haaretz pink flamingo columnist Gideon Levy can barely control his emotions. The anti-Zionist Levy is practically having public orgasms, what with Azmi Bashara running as an Arab contender for Prime Minister on a platform of destroying Israel. And even better, Arafat's gynecologist friend, the man who has gone where no man has gone before, Dr. Ahmed Yah-Habibi Tibi, will be merging his own list with Bashara's. Get out the party hats.

7. Usually the Likud is willing to do whatever it takes to help the Labor Party get elected, but this is even too much for the Likud. These days the Likud is trying to pull off the largest act of public larceny in Israeli history and transfer tens of billions of dollars of lands to kibbutzim who do not own them and never paid for them, this as part of Sheriff Lobo Arik Sharon's program of land reform in Israel. All of which would no doubt gladden the hearts of some pioneering kibbutz yuppies. But the number of kibbutzniks who vote Likud can be counted on one paw. Meanwhile the Sharon program has enraged Israelis across the political board, from the Keshet activist group of Sephardic Osloids to the greens. In response to this rage, Sharon has frozen the plan for a month. Even Haaretz, friend of the kibbutzim, has come out against the larceny.


Dr. Steven Plaut teaches business at the University of Haifa



By Emanuel A. Winston

No, I'm not referring to Wen Ho Lee, presently under investigation for allegedly stealing nuclear secrets for China from the laboratory where he worked at Los Alamos, New Mexico. I'm talking about American officials involved in initiating those technology transfers, in effect, betraying America by subverting national security.

I am speaking about Presidents, Vice Presidents, Secretaries of Defense, the State Department, Intelligence Agencies and, of course, the research and manufacturing companies who actually handled the innumerable transfers of technology.(1)

President Clinton is once again stonewalling by refusing to release a 700 page report prepared by Rep. Christopher Cox and his bi-partisan Investigative Congressional Committee. In a prior article I opined that it was unlikely the truth would come out but, if it did, it would be deeply censored or redacted by the White House to protect the guilty.

If Clinton and other Presidents bought political gain and cash for their betrayal of the nation, then they surely must be brought to trial. Never mind that Congress and the nation is exhausted from the recent impeachment hearings and the year's media feeding frenzy run-up to those hearings. This is not about zippers and sexual satisfaction, this is about living and dying. It's about miniature nuclear bombs (so-called "suitcase nukes") three feet long that can be hand-carried into your city. This is about government officials deciding on their own to buy favor with radical nations who want extended range missiles capable of carrying NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and/or Chemical) warheads. This is about research facilities that virtually invite spying with the knowledge and benign overview of a truly corrupt President.

The investigation should start at three points:

1. The beginning (approval of technology transfer by high Government officials);

2. At the middle (use of Government bureaucrats to set up transfer with the purchasing nations);

3. And the end (where US manufacturers and their research staffs actually trained foreign personnel in addition to assisting to set up production facilities in these foreign nations).

Think of how many US technicians would have to go to these other nations to insure manufacturing quality and the set up of test procedures. Then, there would be the foreign scientists and technicians who would have to come to the US in order to be pre-trained. Here the State Department would have to arrange with Customs for entry into the US and then on to the restricted factories.

Presently, the media is concentrating on Wen Ho Lee, the Taiwanese born scientist at Los Alamos. But, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Lees, from lots of different countries, easily sponging up US developed weapons' technology. In the early 1980's, I wrote about a highly probable transfer of missile technology to China - who then sold Saudi Arabia a nuclear-capable missile system. It was clear that, without sophisticated outside help, China could not deliver a high quality, debugged system acceptable to Saudi Arabia. At that time in the '80s, Caspar Weinberger was Secretary of Defense and George Bush was Vice President (formerly DCIA, Director of the CIA). Here such bodies as the House Intelligence Committee never bothered to even look into the matter.

For many years Congress has been warned that a Shadow Government had firmly established itself in Washington - and that it continued to operate and grow, regardless of successive changes in the Administration, and without the oversight of Congress.

Certain agencies always remained constant, such as the State Department, Intelligence Agencies, to include, the CIA, NSA (National Security Agency), NI (Naval Intelligence), and more. While Presidents appointed new heads of these agencies and departments, the working (and controlling) staff remained, as did the status quo pro-Arab, pro-selling weapons-for-profit mind-set. In effect, the bureau's bureaucrat's recommended and often created America's foreign policy. If a particular President or Defense Secretary agreed with the philosophy of this Shadow Government, they became part of the scheme. If they did not, they were by-passed or tricked through conveniently manipulated intelligence reports or skewed political advice.

This is why today we are seeing signs of increased political decay and corruption in the highest office of Government. They have been able to keep a lid on the stink for years but, finally, it's beginning to leak out. There will, of course, be every effort to deny; destroy evidence; threaten potential witnesses. Each scheme first starts with the planning of "Credible Deniability" should the illegal operation become public.

Congress will be pressured to either drop the matter (too hot) or create a facade of superficial hearings to protect their own. This should be a bi-partisan, very public investigation but one can already see some Congressmen circling the wagons to protect the President and their own political future.

Do not be too surprised to see the guilty begin to hide their activities by blaming other interests and/or nations. Who could forget the plan to blame Israel when US officials were illegally shipping weapons during the Iran-Contra affair. This was exposed by Col. Oliver North during the hearings.

I anticipate some false accusations to surface to take the heat off the President. The White House was well-aware that an investigation by the bi-partisan House Committee chaired by Christopher Cox was well underway. Now was the time to start erasing the trail by floating stories that: It wasn't our government but rather other nations who were to blame.

There was the usual running accusation floated in the WASHINGTON TIMES Jan. 27 and the WASHINGTON POST Jan. 29 that Israel was involved in the development of the Nautilus defensive weapons systems - which employs lasers in the intercept of Katyusha missiles and that Israel had transferred this secret anti-missile technology to China. Israel denied the accusation but the NEW YORK TIMES had already made it a front page crusade. The US frequently uses Israel's innovative skills in joint development projects.

This is the usual State Department pressuring Israel and Israel's supporters, especially in Congress, just to soften them up prior to a major push to get Israel to agree to some self-destructive action. But, this accusation appeared exactly 13 weeks before May 4 - the expected date of Arafat's announcement that Palestine is a State.

Clearly, this was a typical State Department/CIA media manipulation, designed to blur the trail leading back to the White House, while concurrently putting Israel on the defensive. There are lots of rocks to turn over. China is, of course, only the most recent, but what about our assisting transfer of catastrophic weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War. What about our covert assistance to Syria? America's entire Middle East foreign policy and weapons' transfers have never, I repeat, never been seriously studied by Congress - with the exception of Rep. Christopher Cox's bi-partisan Congressional Committee - whose mandate will soon expire. And they seems to have dealt with only the China syndrome leaks of technology. (Possibly, more, but because the 700 page report is still classified and probably will never see daylight, who really knows?)

What about our policy to provide the Russians and China with Super Computers we knew were to be transferred to their military research facilities? Even now, Madame Albright, speaking for Clinton, demands US policies on China ignore its espionage and reward China with Free Trade. (2)

These transfers were approved by Presidents and assisted by our researchers and cloaked over by our Intelligence Agencies. It would appear that everyone was in on the deal, except Congress and the American people. It seems obvious that money coming from China, Asia, and the Middle East to a political slush fund called: campaign contributions, plays a role in this hustle. Clearly, we Americans has been betrayed by our own. Perhaps Congress will for once do its job thoroughly...but, I doubt it. There are too many forces arrayed against individuals who are at risk. If Presidents and former Presidents, CEO's of corporations must go to jail for treason, then, so be it. We must clean up the White House and all the Agencies connected to its power supply. Belief in the Government has sunk so low that decent men find they are out of place in Washington. For once, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress, do your job vigorously. Clean house and, above all, scrub the White House from its dirty gray to a once sparkling white. We have the right to be proud of our Government.


1. "Technology Transfer: CIA Tells Part of Story - Part 4" 2/14/99 by Emanuel Winston "Treason At the Highest Levels: An Untold Story - Part 3" 1/6/99 by Emanuel Winston

"White House Skirts Congress on Exports - Part 2" by Emanuel Winston

"Illegal Transfer of US Missile Technology to China - Part 1" by Emanuel Winston "Clinton Administration Blacklists Israel" by Emanuel Winston 7/9/98

2. "Albright Defends Policies on China as GOP Attacks" by Eric Schmitt NEW YORK TIMES 3/11/99


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst & commentator and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



By Emanuel A. Winston

I accuse most of the nations of this planet with the crime of warring against the Jews from time immemorial. The charges against the world's nations and peoples range from passive bias to Genocide and everything in between. Teaching hatred against the Jewish people was a bed-rock tenet of the Christian Church and later adopted by the Muslims. (I exclude our good friends, the righteous gentiles from this article.)

Psychologists would call it "fratricide" or "patricide", given that the Jewish religion gave birth to both. Killing off their own parents (root stock) would, in the pursuit of mystical religion, allow each of them to claim the inherited estate of the Jews...namely, the Jews' Covenant with G-d. If, however, the Jews' historic lineage could be absorbed through conversion by either Christianity or Islam, then they could strengthen their claim to be the correct and only heir to G-d's Covenant with the Jewish people. In effect, G-d would be petitioned with a fait accompli which He could not refuse...or so they believe.

Through the centuries the people of most nations were saturated with the pernicious teachings that the Jews committed "deicide" by being instrumental in killing the Jewish J..sus. This charge caught the imagination of the people who raged goaded with frequent stoking by the Church. Later, in the 7th century, Mohammed had his vision that Islam was the only way to G-d's heaven and they, too, adopted conversion by the sword. The problem was the Jews could not and would not give up their Covenant with G-d, to be submerged into other religions. G-d had told the Jews: "Thou shall not have any G-d's before Me."

As the Jews trekked through the centuries, they were assaulted from all sides. They had what everyone wanted but no one could catch it in their hands. Army after army tried to capture the spirit by assaulting and conquering Jerusalem and the land that was "Holy" by G-d's Covenant with the Jews. In the end, all the conquering armies had were bricks and mortar. The elusive spirit of G-d could not be caught and held hostage.

Naturally, during these invasions the Jews were slaughtered in "His" name as proclaimed during the Crusades. The acts and goals of the Crusades never really terminated but merely changed form. Sometimes in such nations as Poland, Russia, Croatia, the taught bias would have the village priest inciting the villagers to conduct a pogrom in the Jewish quarter. (Jews were made to live separately in ghettos.)

Other forms of the continuing Crusades included the Inquisition, with Jews burned at the stake or forced to convert; Chmielnicki's massacres; various expulsions, confiscations, murders; peaking in Hitler's assault on European Jewry with the cooperation of the nations he conquered. Hitler's "Solution to the Jewish Question" was merely an extension of the Crusades, now followed by the Arabs assault - supported by the same European nations. The hunt goes on as the anti-Semitic nations once again are in full cry as they stalk the Jewish nation.

In this, even the Allies who were fighting Hitler's armies, cooperated by refusing to attempt rescue, bomb the gas factories and crematories or the rail tracks leading to them. The Allies refused to feed, house or clothe Jewish refugees escaping the slaughter - or to allow them refuge in the Jewish homeland: Palestine. The European nations not only turned in their Jews but then fell on the spoils of what the Jews left behind, gold, bank accounts, insurance policies. Such high minded nations as France rounded up French Jews for transport to the killing camps while confiscating their apartments, art work and whatever assets they could lay their hands on. Even the supposedly "neutral" and "civilized" Swiss were exposed as embezzling the deposits of their Jewish clients and having been exposed, they threatened a racheting up of violent anti-Semitism in reprisal. Additional historic scandals continue to be exposed. American corpora elements of the American government having engaged in the War against the Jews. (3) True, in the early formation of our nation, the anti-Jewish bias was minimal but the seeds of that bias would be planted by European immigrants and Church leaders. Those seeds would one day take deep root and, with full maturity blossoming during Hitler's WWII Holocaust killing 6 million Jews, including 1 1/2 million children. Here we find such institutions as the US State Department with the Dulles brothers (John Foster and Allen) in close working arrangements with the Germans, before, after and during the War. Meetings of the Free World, led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt at Evian and Bermuda where our President led the nations in refusing to rescue, clothe and feed Jewish refugees.

The cover explanation offered to the Press was that it would be better to win the war first and then mount a rescue of the Jews who were left. The problem was that such nations as England and America had an estimated count from eyewitnesses of the monumental daily slaughter of Jews. When General Dwight D. (Ike) Eisenhower was shown on movie newsreels, walking through the gates of the death camps, with the emaciated bodies strewn around, he expressed amazement. The problem was that Eisenhower, like Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin...all knew from the earliest days, about the Hitler's plan called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" which was officially planned in the Wannsee Conference in Germany. Later, as the grisly killings began to increase in volume, the Allies along with an informed Press denied that this slaughter was going on, with the media telling its readers that these were "unconfirmed reports".

After the War from 1945 until the State of Israel was declared in 1948, the British, in deferrence to their Arab client states, once again arrested and imprisoned the remnant of Jews trying to escape the graveyards of Europe to get to Palestine, the Jewish Homeland by vote of the League of Nations and the US Congress. When six Arab armies threatened to wipe out the fledgling State of Israel, the Free World did nothing or worse. They even embargoed the sale of weapons to Jews so the 1947 'error' of the United Nations in voting for the establishment of the Jewish State could be corrected.

They, the nations, thought it would all be over in a week and they could continue building their commercial relationships with the Arab nations. All were mightily surprised when this small, poorly armed new/old nation defeated six well-armed Arab armies.

The Arabs, to save face, claimed then as they would in the future, that American armies entered the war. The Jews had not defeated them...it was the Americans. Aand so the Arab's vaunted, testicle-driven macho pride was restored. The Arabs went on to conduct six wars, all of which they lost on the field of battle. Imagine the consequences to Israel if the Arabs had won even one war!

No longer able to defeat the Jews with armaments, they enlisted the West, who were deeply connected to and dependent on Middle East oil and the profitable markets its black gold offered to supply. So, they reverted to demographic and political warfare. Israel was to be reduced mile by mile until her critical mass was so truncated that she would be an easy target for a future coalition of Arab States to win in one final assault. Unfortunately, naive Leftist Jews were too easily recruited to assist in their own destruction.

Part of this reduction in size included flooding the lands with a hostile Arab population who would then cry to the world that it needed even more land for their growing population. In all of this, such nations as France, the Soviet Union, England, most of Europe and the Arabists in the American government supported their claim. Never in the history of these nations was an aggressor nation given back land when they gambled by attacking an enemy and lost. But, this is what was demanded of the Jews. However, things have a way of coming full circle.

The terrible weapons we Americans and Europeans (including Russia and China) sold to the Arabs are coming back to haunt us. While appeasing Arab business interests, we, the "humane" Western world, didn't seem to care when we were advised that these weapons would be used on the Jewish State. Now there is great concern that NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) mounted on missiles also sold by the US can hit our cities. Vice President Gore stood before the TV cameras, holding a paper bag, telling us that the biological substance that could fill that small bag was powerful enough to kill every man, woman and child on this planet. We, the so-called civilized world used our high technology to develop nation-killing poisons and sell them to such killers as Saddam of Iraq and Assad of Syria.

This is what we, the thinking civilized world, had sold to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Hafez al Assad of Syria, and the Ayatollahs of Iran. Belatedly, we are now concerned that the VX poison sold to Saddam by Russia could be sprinkled as dust or as an aerosol from a high building in any of our cities. A single dot of VX can kill a person in minutes and in terrible agony.

Our American Presidents approved the sale or transfer of technology for weapons of mass destruction, thinking that these terrible weapons would stay in the Middle East, with only the Jewish State at risk. However, now we know that, for profit, our President Clinton actually facilitated the transfer of the improved missile technology to China so these city busting nukes and chemicals can actually reach our shores.

The Biblical phrase of "casting your bread upon the waters" seem applicable to the poisons given over to the enemies of the Jews which can float on a world wide wind back to us and the Europeans.

There is a quotation from Deuteronomy 32:43 which Jews read in the Morning Prayers which seems appropriate to mention. We start by honoring those Jews who were martyred: "As it is written in the Torah of Moses, the man of G-d: 'O nations, sing the praises of His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants, bring retribution upon His foes, and placate the land - His people'. And by Your servants the Prophets, it is written as follows: 'I will cleanse [the nations of their wrongdoings,] but for [shedding of Jewish] blood I will not cleanse them; the Lord dwells in Zion'. (Joel 4:21) And further, it is said: 'He will render judgement upon the nations and they will be filled with corpses'. (Psalms 110:6-7).


1. "German Historian: US Companies Had Extensive Nazi Ties" Reuters CHICAGO TRIBUNE 1/14/99

2. "The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law & Genocide in the 20th Century" by Christopher Simpson Grove Press, NY 1993

3. "The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People: 1920-1992" by John Loftus & Mark Aarons St. Martin's Press NY 1994


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst and commentator and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.


It is highly recommended that Israeli diplomats study this article carefully.


By Boris Shusteff

The current helplessness of the Israeli leaders and their inability to counter incessant Arab propaganda has put the Jewish state in an absolutely desperate situation. While the leaders of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) almost hourly drum their plans to create another Palestinian state into the heads of naive westerners, the Israeli leaders have plunged into arithmetical calculations, desperately trying to count how many times Arafat and the PLO have violated this or that agreement.

Nobody is going to pay any attention to Israel's declaration that the PA's initiative for convening the February 9, 1999 emergency session of the UN General Assembly "is a twofold violation of the Oslo Accords." Many people, on the other hand, will be convinced that legitimate legislation exists which supports the establishment of another Palestinian state. The PLO leaders juggle UN Resolutions such that the hypnotized spectators are positive that these Resolutions really support the claims of the Palestinian Arabs.

The Israeli leaders are making an unforgivable mistake by not insuring that the Resolutions are presented in their context. When the Arabs time and again repeat that, according to Resolution 242, Israel must withdraw from "all occupied territories," uninformed listeners believe them, since Israeli counter-propaganda is nonexistent on this issue.

In his book, In the "Face of the Nations," Yosef Tekoah, Former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, presents important facts related to the exact text of Resolution 242. On November 17, 1969, Mr. Michael Stewart, British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was asked in the Parliament, "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 resolution? Does it mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the last war?" Stewart replied, "No, sir.

That is not the phrase used in the resolution. The resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. Those words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."

Tekoah also quoted George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, at the time of the adoption of Resolution 242, who said in January 1970, "I formulated the Security Council resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied and not from 'the" territory, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."

Professor Eugene V. Rostow, United States Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs at the time of the adoption of Resolution 242, stated that repeated attempts to amend "the text of resolution by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the armistice demarcation Lines."

The same kind of metamorphosis is happening with Resolution 181. For almost half a year it has been constantly invoked by different PA leaders. On December 21, 1998, Ahmad Quray, the chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council, wrote a big article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayah Al-Jadidah, entitled "4 May 1999 and the Political and Legal Dimensions of the Proclamation of the Palestinian State." Quray referred to Resolution 181 twice. At the beginning of the article he wrote that the "Palestinian people's legal right [is] founded on the clear and explicit provisions of international jurisprudence These international provisions and stipulations are backed and reinforced by the United Nations resolutions. Foremost among these [is] Resolution181."

He returned to this issue again at the end of the article, saying:

"The United Nations approved the establishment of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel in the Partition Resolution [UNSC Resolution 181 of 1947, which divided British mandated Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state]. This means that the legitimacy of the existence of the state of Israel is contingent on and congruent with the establishment of the state of Palestine."

The uninformed reader, before taking Quray's words at their face value, should first examine the text of the document itself. Part I, A, article 3 of the Resolution declares that the Independent Arab and Jewish States "shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than October 1, 1948."

While the Jews met the deadline the Arabs disregarded this main provision of the Resolution and thus forfeited their right to another independent Arab state. Moreover, they attempted to "alter the settlement envisaged by this resolution by force." By acting this way they clearly violated the Resolution, which defined these kinds of acts as "a breach of peace and an act of aggression."

However, Israel has a much better argument that she can use to discourage the Arabs from even mentioning Resolution 181. The Arabs should be fought on their own turf. This can be done with the help of the unspoken authority of all Muslims Prophet Muhammad. There was an episode in the Prophet's life when he demonstrated what should happen in a situation when one rejects terms of an agreement and then wants to accept them.

Adil Salahi, a devoted Muslim, described this episode in his book "Muhammad: Man and Prophet." Following is a synopsis of the episode. Muhammad wanted to expel the Jews of the An-Nadheer tribe from Medina. The terms of his ultimatum to them "allowed the Jews to carry with them all the belongings and to appoint agents to look after their farms and orchards." While the Jews were preparing for the evacuation they received a message from Abdulah ibn Ubbai, who "promised them support, saying that he had 2,000 men who are ready to fight with them." The chief of the An-Nadheer tribe, excited by the support "sent a message to the Prophet: 'We are not prepared to evacuate our homes. We will resist any attempt to evacuate us. '" The Prophet and his forces encircled the Jewish quarter. The An-Nadheer tribe waited for support in vain. "The besieged Jews grew restless and scared. They sent word to the Prophet that they were willing to evacuate under the original terms." Now comes the apotheosis of the story. Adil Salahi writes:

"The Prophet answered their message, stating that they could not have the same terms he originally offered them. Had they evacuated in peace, they would have spared themselves any trouble. But the fact that they were willing to join forces with others against the Prophet and the Muslims meant that they would do the same whenever a new opportunity presented itself."

And the Prophet established the new terms. The Jews were allowed to "leave the Medina with their women and children. Each of them could have a camel load of his belongings but no arms. Their farms and lands were to be given up. Thus they carried whatever they could on their camels and took their women and children and left for Khaibar, a city of Jewish concentration in Arabia."

Salahi wrote in the dedication to the book, that 'loving the Prophet Muhammad could only be demonstrated by following his teachings." The time has come for the Arabs to demonstrate their love for Muhammad and to accept the situation that they have created for themselves. The Arabs could not have the same terms they were originally offered by UN Resolution 181. Had they established their state in peace, they would have spared themselves any trouble. But the fact that they joined forces against the Jews and Israel meant that they would do the same whenever a new opportunity presented itself.

Thus if the Arabs really want peace and love their Prophet they shall carry whatever they can and take their women and children and leave for Jordan or any other place of Arab concentration in Arabia. This way, Arabia will be for the Arabs and Judea will be for the Jews.[ 02/12/98]


Boris Shusteff is an engineer in upstate New York. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. (Quotes from Ahmad Quray's article are from I & G News)



(Freeman Center price in parenthesis, postage & handling (U.S. only) $2 first book + $1 each additional book).

THE MURDER OF YITZHAK RABIN by Barry Chamish ...Feral House... $12.95

THE KORAN AND THE KAFIR (Islam and the Infidel) by A. Ghosh $7.95

PEACE NOW: Blueprint For National Suicide By Dan Nimrod, 1984, Dawn Publishers $10.00

EYE ON THE MEDIA by David Bar-Illan $14.95

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine By Joan Peters.

Harper & Row (pa) $16.95 (12.95)

ISLAM, THE ARAB NATIONAL MOVEMENT... Anwar Shaikh...The Principality Pub. $7.95


THE WRATH OF ALLAH...Robert E. Burns $12.95 ($10)


WHY BE JEWISH....Rabbi Meir Kahane $8.95

THEY MUST GO ....Rabbi Meir Kahane $14.95

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely on private contributions which are fully tax deductible.


VISIT THE FREEMAN WEB SITE: http://www.freeman.org

* * * * * * * *


Click here to subscribe, and here to see the list archives.


"The primary purpose of the Freeman Center is to improve Israel's ability to survive in a hostile world. This will be accomplished through research into the military and strategic issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the dissemination of that information to the community. Essential to Israel's survival, is the preservation of its present secure borders including Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. We will seek to improve Israel's image in this country as well as counteract Arab propaganda in the community and on college campuses. In pursuit of these goals we intend to maximize solidarity with Israel among the community and combat media bias. We will also work to strengthen Jewish communities in the Diaspora and help ensure their survival."


THE MACCABEAN is totally independent. It may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it will never be silent. Where the safety and security of Israel are concerned, we will bring you the truth no matter how harsh the reality. With Freeman Center membership you receive THE MACCABEAN free each month. If you are concerned with the threats to Israel's survival and wish to play a role in defense of Eretz Yisrael Hashlama (The Land of Israel in its present defensible borders) please join with us at the Freeman Center. Through our publications, speakers and other educational activities we will make you better informed and more effective in the battles ahead.........Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor




_______I would like to join the Freeman Center ($65 for U.S.A. $85 overseas) includes subscription to THE MACCABEAN.

_______I would like to subscribe to the THE MACCABEAN ($45 per yr. USA, $50 overseas)

Enclosed is my check to the Freeman Center for $________a tax deductible contribution

Mail to: The Freeman Center, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661