SECURITY FENCES AND LOGICAL FALLACIES....Bernard J. Shapiro
CLOSING DOWN THE UN - UN Massacre...Guest Editorial.....Irwin N. Graulich
WHERE IS AMERICAN JEWRY?...Guest Editorial....Michael Freund
SO WHAT GOOD IS THE PA?...Guest Editorial....Ryan Jones
ROAD MAP TO WHERE?...Guest Editorial....Israel H. Asper
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT - MUST READ
THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, by Serge Trifkovic....Reviewed by Paul Eidelberg
TRANSFER: A MORAL DISCOURSE (Three Parts)....Boris Shusteff
THE ROAD MAP TO PEACE - QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS....Louis Rene Beres
ROAD MAPS TO ISRAEL'S DESTRUCTION
PRISONER RELEASE FROM HELL.....Ariel Natan Pasko
WHY A "SUCCESSFUL" ROAD MAP WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR ISRAEL....Louis Rene Beres
US State Department Middle East Policy That Operates Without US Congressional Authorization and Without Public Awareness....David Bedein
HAPPY HUDNA!....Michael Freund
WOULD BUSH RELEASE HIS "PRISONERS?"....Arlene Peck
ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
SECURITY FENCES AND LOGICAL FALLACIES
By Bernard J. Shapiro
[Author's Note: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has followed former PM Ehud Barak, who in turn followed the lead of former PM's Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in suggesting a separation wall between Israel and the Arabs. It is not a new idea and as far back as 1995, I explained why it won't work. Here is an update of that article.]
The idea of separation has much appeal to an Israeli population feeling threatened daily by hostile Arabs, who since September 2000 have waged a murderous terror campaign against them. The Israeli government has already begun construction of a security fence consisting of a concrete wall and hi-tech devices between Israel and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. The goal is to reduce the risk of terrorist violence, especially homicide bombing. Some 200 kilometers of the security fence have already been built. In addition to barriers, Arab access into Israel is restricted to ten or more crossings points. The border would be heavily patrolled by Israeli soldiers and border police. Cost estimates range from $1-2 billion.
For many reasons this is the wrong approach to security. It is worth repeating a story I wrote, which appeared in an article entitled, DETERRENCE OR DHIMMIZATION (THE MACCABEAN, January 1995): Back in 1965, in a small meeting room in Tel Aviv, former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave a pep talk to a group of RAFI (Rishimat Poalai Israel) volunteers, myself included. At that time, RAFI, a breakaway faction of the Mapai Party, included such notables as former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and former Defense Minister Shimon Peres. Peres and Dayan had been considered the "hawks" of Mapai and it was no accident that in the 1965 election they supported a strong defense and security policy.
Dayan was always interesting to listen to, but this talk was something special and we paid attention to every word. "The essence of Israel's security in this region (Middle East) is deterrence," he said. "When we formed the State in 1948-9, we were very weak. The Arab States had planes, tanks, heavy artillery and many more soldiers than us. We had very little heavy military equipment. In the period 1949-55, we absorbed almost a million immigrants. Tent cities sprung up all over the country. We were totally disorganized. Had the Arabs mounted another major invasion, we could have lost. We devised a solution to this problem. It was deterrence. Think about being lost in a forest and surrounded by hostile animals. If you light a torch, boldly approach them showing no fear -- they will retreat. But, if you show fear -- they will attack and you are lost. We used this principle to save Israel during those early years. Every time we were attacked, we retaliated ten fold. We showed daring and penetrated deep within their borders to attack our targets. We were fearless, brave, and even a bit bloodthirsty. You know the result. The Arabs were afraid and never mounted a coordinated military campaign against us. Deterrence worked. By 1956 when we invaded Sinai, the Israel Defense Force was not just strong, it was invincible."
The story above was not told just for nostalgia. The lesson is extremely important for the survival of Israel today. Unfortunately Israelis are daily witnessing the consequences of sixteen years of declining deterrence vis a vis its Arab population. In 1987, the intifada presented Israel with a new challenge. It was a new kind of war, but with the same aim of driving the Israelis out of their country. The Israelis fought the intifada with many handicaps, not the least of which were their own rules of conduct. Israeli soldiers failed to cope with attacks by teenage Arab boys. In the course of several years, the Arabs learned that the soldiers would not aggressively retaliate for their attacks. They became emboldened. The Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza showed great fortitude, enduring thousands of attacks and still tripling their numbers. The serious security failure developed as Arabs became accustomed to attacking Jews and Israeli soldiers. By trying to remain humane in the face of massive attacks, Israel allowed and emboldened the Arabs to more and more attacks. These attacks grew more and more deadly including homicide bombers in the large cities of Israel like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, and Netanya. Throwing concrete boulders, Molotov cocktails, and then using firearms at Israelis became the norm of behavior among the Arabs. Progressing rapidly to mines and bombs - human and other. The Israeli government allowed its citizens to be attacked solely because they were Jews. In no other country of the world would such a policy be tolerated.
During the Persian Gulf War Israel allowed Iraq to fire 39 Scud missiles into its major cities without retaliating. This was a major blow to Israeli deterrence in the Middle East. The Oslo Appeasement Agreement of 1993 resurrected a terrorist gang and brought it into the heart of Israel. It then pursued a policy of terror and propaganda to become a fraudulent competitor for the rights to Eretz Yisrael. Of course their goal was never "peace" or a two state solution, but to replace Israel with Palestine "from the river to the sea."
A couple of years ago two reserve officers of the Israel Defense Forces made a wrong turn and ended up in the center of Ramallah, an Arab city. They sought safety in a PA police station. The PA turned them over to a vicious mob of Arabs, murder in their eyes, who beat them to death. Their bodies were mutilated and the Arabs cheered at the bloody hands of the murderers. Deterrence had vanished.
While the Jews may not have been afraid like the man in the forest, the affect of multiple restrictions on the Israeli right of self defense had the same result. That result was to increase the bloodlust of the Arab population and to multiply the Jewish casualties. For Israelis to seek security behind a security fence is a total reversal of the traditional policy of deterrence. From the days of Orde Wingate during the Arab riots of 1936-9, Israeli military strategists have always emphasized the doctrine of striking the enemy deep within his territory. Retaliation, deep penetration raids were the hallmark of the IDF. To return to a siege mentality hiding behind electrified ghetto walls would be the beginning of the end of Israeli independence. No barrier whether the Great wall of China, the Bar Lev Line or the Maginot Line can resist a determined enemy willing to risk money and lives to breach it.
Today, there is a great deal of political opposition to the security fence from the US State Department, President George W. Bush and the Arabs (who oppose anything that might aid Israeli security). My opposition is based on two factors: (1) It is a fallacious security concept and (2) It might be used as way to divide and abandon parts of the Jewish Homeland.
A security fence means nothing in the face of a determined enemy with rockets and mortars. Israel has an enemy willing to sacrifice its youth as human bombs to breach the fence. A fence can easily be dug under with the sophisticated equipment presently being used in Gaza to smuggle weapons.
The so called Road Map is a continuation of Israel's retreat from a policy of deterrence, expression of its sovereign right to military self defense and preemption.
In conclusion, I believe that the only way for Israel and her beleaguered citizens to achieve security, both personal and national, is by reasserting those traditional methods of combat that will re-establish deterrence in the minds of the Arab enemy.
Bernard J. Shapiro is executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE. He is also editor of its daily email broadcast service, freemanlist, of news, political and strategic analysis on Israel and the Middle East.
[Parts of this article were published in the Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) on April 5, 1995 and in the April 1995 issue of THE MACCABEAN.]
Jewish Indianapolis, July 25, 2003
CLOSING DOWN THE UN - UN Massacre
by Irwin N. Graulich
The United Nations was born with a severe mental disorder and soul deformity.
Despite many therapeutic attempts to correct its problems, this desperate organization has led itself into 21st century obsolescence.
Since the end of the Cold War, the cereal box shaped building on First Avenue in New York City has poisoned the world with numerous vile resolutions, mostly initiated by the large number of third world dictatorships.
While Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, UN representatives were dining in New York's finest restaurants.
When China eliminated Tibet from the face of the earth, those same UN reps were shopping in Bloomingdale's with their wives and girlfriends.
As Sudan murdered over one million Black Christians for not becoming Muslim, most of the UN ambassadors were at Broadway shows or escorting hookers around Manhattan.
The only time that UN officials were truly busy working was when Israel tried to protect its citizens from invading armies and suicide bombers. The pseudo-peacemakers at the United Nations went as far as jumping all over an extremely ethical and necessary military action in Jenin to prove their touching concern for "all human life."
Thank God the government of Israel did not sanction these proceedings, because this group of UN investigators (sic) would have uncovered a massacre in virtually every synagogue in Brooklyn.
The uselessness and evil of the UN should have been apparent from the outset.
Since Great Britain's division of the Mandated area in 1921, the land was divided into two very unequal parts. The larger portion called Transjordan, which was the area "separated and closed to Jewish settlement," and the much smaller portion remaining "for a Jewish homeland."
The natural borders of the Jewish nation of Palestine contained virtual straight lines on its eastern border, north and south of the Dead Sea.
This is absolute fact and history, except in the hands of Arab and Palestinian propaganda machines whose talents would make Joseph Goebbels proud.
However, Jews were naive and foolish, even back in the 1920's, never complaining about the fact that a serious portion of Transjordan, now called Jordan, was actually part of historic Israel.
Without a homeland or central power base, there were no serious Jewish groups to mount any protest or legal assault against this obvious injustice.
The first UN massacre began early in its life.
In 1947, they inherited the task of fulfilling the British Mandate.
Instead of taking the high road with the morally correct solution, the partition of 20 years prior, the self-righteous "geniuses" at the UN came up with a rather sophisticated solution for destroying the surviving Jews who had not been cremated in concentration camps.
Purposely or not, they simply excised a heart-shaped portion right out of the already tiny, developing Jewish state.
This piece of real estate known as Judea and Samaria was given to an Arab population, the majority of whom came to the area because Jews had created great opportunities.
The fact that there were already 20 Arab states who could absorb thosepeople who did not wish to live in a Jewish state was irrelevant to the "high priests" of the UN.
The West Bank is a fraudulent concept.
Wells Fargo, Bank of America and California First National Bancorp are the true West Banks.
And yet much of the world continues to say, "Let us be fair and make the West Bank Judenrein--completely free of Jews."
The fact that Israel contains over 1 million Arab citizens is irrelevant.
The fact that every Arab country threw out its Jews and confiscated all their property is totally disregarded.
The fact that this entire area and much of present Jordan was biblical Israel has been entirely forgotten.
The only thing that socialist Europe, amoral Scandinavia and many other jealous, American-hating countries believe is, "Let's keep the Muslim world happy so that perhaps they will not murder us."
This concept, known as the Stockholm Syndrome, forces the victim to identify with evil causes so that perhaps they will be loved and not killed.
World consensus in 2003 is a recipe for disaster.
We do not need the likes of Libya, Iran, Cuba and North Korea voting on morality and decency.
America, Israel and a relatively few other moral nations are the dams that are holding back the evil waters of the world.
After all, it was UN-less America who perhaps saved the entire Middle East and the world by destroying the Baathe National Socialist (Nazi) Party in Iraq.
No thanks to the UN, 2 brutal mass torturers, Uday and Qusay Hussein, are now at room temperature, while the murdering of civilians and threats to other nations has stopped.
The only way that the United Nations can contribute to the betterment of the world is by closing its doors and becoming a much needed homeless shelter in Manhattan.
IRWIN N. GRAULICH - is a regular contributor to JewishIndy. He is a well known motivational speaker on morality, ethics, Judaism, religion and political issues. He is President and CEO of Bloch Graulich Whelan Inc., a leading corporate communications, marketing and branding company located in New York City. Irwin considers himself a multi-denominational, serious Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jew.
He can be reached at email@example.com.
The Jerusalem Post, July 23, 2003
WHERE IS AMERICAN JEWRY?
By Michael Freund
If all goes according to plan, an unrepentant Holocaust-denier will be driven up to the White House this Friday, emerge from his chauffeur-driven limousine, and receive a warm and hearty welcome from the leader of the Free World.
He will walk the halls where men such as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan once stood, and proceed to hold an official meeting with the President of the United States, with all the honor and distinction such an event necessarily confers.
He will not be grilled about his assertions that the Jews "inflated" the numbers of the Holocaust's victims, and he is unlikely to be asked about his denial of the existence of gas chambers at places such as Auschwitz.
Instead, this man who saw fit to compare Zionism with Nazism, who did not hesitate to ridicule the memory of those who were murdered, will be accorded all the respect and admiration that his hosts can muster.
Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen's visit to the White House this Friday will therefore mark the moral low point in George W. Bush's Presidency. That such a person would be welcomed in the Oval Office, and at the president's invitation, no less, is an astonishing act both of moral insensitivity and political cynicism.
For, despite having ample opportunity, Abu Mazen has never repudiated the views he expressed in his 1982 doctoral thesis on the Holocaust, written at Moscow's Oriental College and later published under the title, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and the Zionist Movement".
The closest he came to doing so was in an interview with Maariv, when he said that he had written such things because "we were at war with Israel," as though that might possibly explain his fabrication of history. While asserting that he would not make such claims today, Abu Mazen nonetheless failed to acknowledge that his entire thesis was based on petty falsehoods and hateful deceit.
Presumably, because he stands by what he wrote.
And for that reason alone, Abu Mazen's visit to the White House should have provoked a storm of protest. No US president would dare play host to the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, nor would he usher in to his office a proponent of apartheid. American Jewish organizations should be up in arms over this affront to the memory of the Holocaust and its victims.
But there is no storm, and there is unlikely to be much of any protest. For all their talk of combating anti-Semitism and safeguarding the lessons of the Holocaust, most American Jewish groups are staying remarkably silent on this particular issue.
Take, for example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group headquartered in New York.
On March 19, 2003, the ADL issued a statement regarding the proposed appointment of Abu Mazen as Palestinian Prime Minister. Not only did the statement fail to mention his record of Holocaust denial, it did not even call upon the Palestinian leader to repudiate it or retract it. Instead, the group which bills itself as "the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism" described Abu Mazen's elevation to his new post as a step which "offers hope" that the Palestinian Authority will reform itself.
Since when does the dubious expectation for internal Palestinian political reform trump the need to preserve the memory of the Holocaust?
Then there is the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which issued a statement on May 9 regarding the creation of the post of Palestinian Prime Minister. Once again, there was no mention of Abu Mazen's repugnant world-view, nor of his refusal to acknowledge the German slaughter of the Jews.
The only thing which the defenders of Jewish pride and honor at the AJC saw fit to say was that, "To be a credible and responsible partner, the new Palestinian Prime Minister must hold a position of real authority."
Management advice. That's the best they could come up with at the American Jewish Committee.
Even the vaunted American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC, has shied away from the issue.
In a March 17 article entitled "Yes, Prime Minister", which appeared in the organization's bulletin Near East Report, AIPAC ignored Abu Mazen's track record on the Holocaust and instead opined that his "appointment could lead to positive developments".
Only two major Jewish organizations, the Zionist Organization of America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have been true to their mandates and to their calling and pointed out the need for Abu Mazen to make amends for his remarks.
[Freeman Center Editor's Note: There are several other organizations that have been in the forefront of the telling the truth about Abbas and the PA as well as the suicidal nature of Oslo/Road Map. TheyFreeman Center For Strategic Studies, Americans For A Safe Israel and Amchai.]
As Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center said in a May 29 release, "It is time for Prime Minister Abu Mazen to publicly denounce Holocaust Denial to his constituency and to install leaders in Media and Education Ministries who are prepared to teach Palestinian children the truth about their Jewish neighbors".
Clearly, both the ZOA and the Wiesenthal Center understand what other Jewish organizations, and even President Bush himself, seem to have forgotten: that a peace grounded in falsehood will have no chance of enduring.
Overlooking Abu Mazen's lies and distortions may be politically convenient, but it is both short-sighted and appalling.
So long as the Palestinian premier perpetuates lies about the Jewish past, he can hardly be considered a reliable partner for its future. And, if he is unable to grant Jewish dead even a modicum of respect, it is hard to imagine that his conduct towards the living will be any better.
The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office.
(c) The Jerusalem Post
SO WHAT GOOD IS THE PA?
By Ryan Jones
Jerusalem Newswire: http://www.jnewswire.com
Elias Zananiri, a close associate of PA security chief Mohammed Dahlan, informed Israelis Thursday that the physical disarming and dismantling of groups such as Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad by the PA just isn't possible.
Israel must understand that there are "limits to the Palestinian Authority's strength," Zananiri told Army Radio.
"There is no way for the PA to act against the infrastructure of Hamas or other groups in the West Bank," he insisted.
Now, most Israeli security experts and officials would strongly disagree with Mr. Zananiri's assessment, and have in fact released statements refuting the very basis of his claim.
Earlier in the month, the head of Israel's General Security Services, Avi Dichter, told a Tel Aviv conference that in a head to head confrontation, the PA would crush Hamas hands down.
Nonetheless, let us for a moment suppose that Zananiri's statement a position parroted by the PA for several months now is actually true, that the PA simply does not have the capability to physically remove the terrorist threat.
Let's assume that it's not the PA's unwillingness to appear traitorous to Islam by sparking off a violent internal struggle against terrorist forces, nor that maybe the PA continues to see terror as a legitimate political tool.
Rather let's assume that the authority really isn't strong enough to do anything about it.
If this is the case, if Zananiri is being honest, then what good is it for Israel to negotiate with the PA, when the one thing the Palestinians have to offer Israel the removal of the terrorist threat is not even within it's grasp?
Based on the Palestinians' own statements, one of two things must be true either the PA is unwilling or unable to meet its obligations and provide Israelis with a truly secure existence in return for the surrender of land.
Again, if such is the case, then one must wonder What good is the PA as a negotiating partner?
The only logical conclusion, the one most don't want to consider, is that the PA in effect is offering nothing to Israel in return for land, and that Israel is the only force in the region willing and able to remove the threat of Palestinian terror.
The reason no one wants to take this line of reasoning seriously is because it mandates a solution few are willing to contemplate, a solution the "moderates" see as ludicrous and unreasonable - the forcible removal of the PA followed by the utter military defeat of the Palestinian terrorist forces at the hands of the IDF, after which peace initiatives can thrive in an atmosphere free from violence.
But is this solution really more ludicrous and unreasonable than staking all our hopes on a Palestinian Authority that is bringing absolutely nothing to the table?
US President George W. Bush was right earlier this week when he insisted the removal of the terrorist infrastructure was the key to peace in the region.
The Palestinians are not offering this. Israel can.
ROAD MAP TO WHERE?
By Israel H. Asper
Toronto, July 29, 2003
The following are highlights of the keynote address given by Israel Asper, Chair of Canwest Global Communications, at the Memorial Evening marking the 63rd anniversary of the death of early Zionist thinker Ze'ev Jabotinksy. The public lecture was sponsored by B'nai Brith and Herut-Likud.
My function tonight is to comment on the facts, and not the philosophies confronting Israel as it addresses the American, Russian, European Union and UN-promoted "road map to peace in the Middle East"--and to help answer the question, Is this a road map to peace? A road map to heaven? Or a road map to hell? Is it a trap, or a treadmill to nowhere? It has been called by some critics "Oslo refurbished," and "Auschwitz updated," by others. U.S. Christian leader Pat Robertson has called it "insanity and the end of Israel." Its supporters call it a panacea for peace, but I fear they may be the same naïve and delusional pacifists whose rose-coloured view of Arab intentions is responsible for the Oslo debacle of death and destruction
We are all familiar with the 1993 Oslo peace process. In the seven years of that activity, Israel delivered to the Arabs everything that it promised, but the Arabs did not keep a single one of the commitments they had made. Terrorism continued, and the incitement to violence and hatred continued in the Palestinian schools, mosques, media, and political rhetoric.
In 2000, under the pressure and influence of President Bill Clinton, and in a desperate attempt to achieve a final peace under the Oslo umbrella, the Camp David Summit was held, where Israel's Labor Prime Minister Barak made an egregious offer, giving the Palestinians almost everything they outrageously demanded. But even that wasn't good enough for Arafat, who rejected it and returned to Ramallah to plot, organize and launch the current uprising. Then 9/11 intervened, and suddenly President George W. Bush had to face the ugly realities of Islamic terrorism On June 24, 2002, President Bush made a speech in the Rose Garden There, he recognized Arafat as the master terrorist he has been all his life, and called for a "new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born." He said such new leadership must not be "compromised by terror," must practice democracy, reform all its institutions, abandon terror, end incitement to hatred and adopt a new constitution giving its people full liberty He also spelled out what would be expected of the Israelis.
This was the forerunner to the road map, which was formally tabled by the Quartet three months ago, on April 30. The Palestinian authority, created under the Oslo agreements, said it would accept the road map. Israel, determined not to reward terrorism, tabled 14 reservations, and after being promised by President Bush that the reservations would be given serious and sympathetic consideration as the process moved along, agreed to follow the map.
As you read, listen to, or watch today's media, you would think that the road map is all about Israel refusing to free captured terrorist prisoners. You would think it was about Israel building a security fence to keep out Arab terrorists. You would think it is about Israel being forced to let Palestinian workers, terrorists amongst them, come back in to work in Israel. You would think it was about demanding that Israel make "confidence-building" gestures to support Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas The road map is about none of these. In fact, none of these matters is even part of the road map. They are merely red herrings dragged across the picture by the Palestinians to try to distract the world from the fact that they are not carrying out their commitments that the road map actually provides, and to which they say they've agreed.
The road map is divided into three phases, the second being contingent on the first being complete, and the third being contingent on the second being complete Phase One [consists of the following steps]:
1. President Bush's speech of June 24/02 was adopted as the cornerstone philosophy.
2. The Palestinians are to immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
3. The Palestinians are to immediately end the incitement to hatred and the celebration of homicide bombers.
4. The Palestinians will draft a new constitution providing for free, fair and democratic elections and government.
5. Israel is to take steps to normalize Palestinian life.
6. Israel will withdraw from Palestinian areas occupied after September 28, 2000 as and when security is provided by Palestinians.
7. Israel issues an unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to a two-state vision for Palestine.
8. The Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis [including] confiscation of illegal weapons and the consolidation of security authority
9. The Arab states are to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror. And, all donations to the Palestinian authority be properly accounted for and used for proper purposes.
10. Israel will dismantle unauthorized settlements and freeze all settlement activity.
11. Israel agrees to take measures to improve the humanitarian situation, lifting curfews, removing check-points and easing restrictions on movement.
[Note that] there is no language which could conceivably expand the meaning to include the release of prisoners, the restriction on building of a security fence, or releasing Arafat
Although I doubt that we will get to Phase II and III, let's take a look at what they provide In Phase II, provisional boundaries for the Palestinian state would be established, and when all the other democratization tests have been met, there will be an international conference It is at this stage that borders, the issue of Jerusalem, the refugees issue, settlements, a comprehensive peace treaty amongst all the countries in the region would be resolved and normal relations with Israel established Phase III calls for a final international conference to tie up all the loose ends.
Parenthetically, let me draw your attention to the word refugees. Note that it does not say "Arab" or "Palestinian" refugees I fully expect Israel, or other nations, such as Canada, who attend those conferences, to ensure that the fate and compensation of the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands will be addressed and be as equitably dealt with concurrently as the case of Palestinian refugees is resolved
I don't believe you can address these questions without understanding what this war is really all about. It isn't about Jerusalem, it isn't about refugees, it isn't about settlements [nor] borders. This hundred-year war is about the right of the Jewish nation to have a Jewish state, within the boundaries of the biblical and ancestral homeland of its forebears. The fundamental objective of Arab leadership has been that Israel must be destroyed; all Jews killed or expelled, and that all Palestine belongs to the Arab world Unless there is that change in Arab thinking the creation of a Palestinian state [will lead to] yet another sovereign terror state like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya [and] to an all out Arab war to wipe out Israel.
My pessimism arises from the current stumbling start down the roadway. Firstly, the road map is premised on a [Palestinian] "regime change" That simply has not happened. Arafat, the master terrorist, and the thief of billions of dollars meant for the benefit of his own subjugated people, still runs the show He still controls 60% of the security forces in the regime and has been allowed full control of negotiations with the Israelis Arafat continues to make speeches [in Arabic] extolling the heroism of the homicide bombers This is regime change? This is a renunciation of terrorism? This is an end to incitement? As for his token replacement, Mahmoud Abbas, he is a known Holocaust denier [linked] to terrorism, including the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games
Instead of the entire Palestinian community denouncing terrorism and laying down arms, Abbas has been able only to produce the hudna. Hudna does not mean "armistice". Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aksa announced an interim ceasefire, which translates from the Arabic as merely an official temporary halt to the terrorism There [were] ten ceasefires during Oslo, which the Palestinians unilaterally broke, and six which suffered the same fate since the Intifada began. [The] terrorist organizations have made it conditional on the release of all Israeli captured prisoners of the war. That is simply bizarre. Releasing prisoners, in wartime, only occurs after final peace treaties are signed, not when belligerents announce a war stoppage with the unilateral right to recommence at any time Hudna is being used to give fighters a summer vacation while they rest, re-arm, recruit and recover from the devastating blows that have been inflicted on them by Israel .
And in an absolute abject rejection of the cornerstone principle of the road map [Abbas] has refused to dismantle the terrorist organizations. Last week in Cairo he said "cracking down on Hamas, Jihad, and the Palestinian organizations is not an option at all." He went on to remind his audience that if he were to attempt to dismantle and destroy and disarm the extremists, it would lead to a Palestinian civil war There are more than 20,000 Palestinian armed policemen in Gaza alone who are entirely capable of wiping out Hamas and Jihad, but they will not, and that is why the road map has become a farce
The road map is flawed further by its reference [to] UN Resolution 242 [which] provides that Israel withdraw from territories occupied by it in the 1967 war, consistent with peace and militarily defensible and secure borders. It does not say "all the territories", or even "the territories". It just says "territories". [Israel] gave back all of the Sinai to Egypt, and that constituted 92% of "all the territories." One can argue that that is quite enough
Israel is now entitled to call a halt to its obligations under the road map, based on Palestinian non-compliance--and it should do exactly that. But, of course, it is not compatible with what President Bush wants, heading into an election year
What should Israel do? Israel has already paid with 1,000 dead citizens and 5,000 maimed and wounded for the failure of the Oslo process. It cannot afford to repeat that mistake. Thus, Israel should not agree to release Palestinian prisoners who are connected to terrorism. Objective data indicates that one out of every two that were released during the Oslo process comes back as a terrorist
Israel must continue to build its security fence to keep the terrorists of the future out [but] should not accept the fence as its final border Israel should also put forward a plan and begin insisting on that plan, saying that since there are 1,200,000 Arabs living in the Israeli state, at least that number of Jews ought to be permitted to live in whatever Palestinian state emerges
Can Canadians play any role in this international and interminable conflict? What we can do is demand an end to the dishonest reporting by our media. The refusal of the CBC to call a terrorist a terrorist, the taken-as-given that there is a "cycle of violence" and the call for only "proportionate response" to terrorist activities is nothing short of odious. The media reporting on the release of prisoners is dishonest unless it clearly states that this demand was not a condition of the road map We and our Christian Zionist friends can ensure that the Canadian public and our politicians know the facts
Canada is seen as a rational, human-rights oriented country Our credibility with the United States, the European Union, and the UN is greater than our numbers would suggest Therefore, Canada has an influential role to play. We are about to elect a new prime minister and we are entitled to call for a complete review of Canada's foreign policy At the UN our voting record is unacceptable.
We must demand that our government's CRTC agency refuse to license the broadcast of an Arab government-owned, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic television station, al Jazeera But if in the name of free speech it should be licensed, then the law should be strengthened to ensure that [cable and satellite companies] are personally liable for any hate incitement they broadcast We must ask our country, as the chair of the Madrid conference on Middle East refugees, to put on the table (and not permit it to be removed) the compensation for the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, and not allow the word refugees to apply only to Palestinian refugees. [And] we must ask that Canada demand that the United Nations treat Israel like every other nation, not a pariah nation
I'm sorry I can't deliver a more optimistic message tonight, but in a 100-year war, it is difficult to be optimistic Regrettably, tonight, time does not permit me to lay out a Jabotinsky-inspired approach. But, perhaps, at another time, I will have another opportunity to postulate what I think would work to achieve equitable ends for Jews and Arabs alike .
CIJR's daily "ISRANET
BRIEFING" is available by fax and e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends and family to visit our web-site for more information on our Briefing series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, contact us at http://www.isranet.org/.
THE SWORD OF THE PROPHET:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
by Serge Trifkovic
(Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002)
Reviewed by Paul Eidelberg
In her extraordinary work, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Bat Ye'or avoids discussing Islam per se. She lets Islam's thirteen-century record of plunder, rape, and genocide discredit that religion. One would hardly know of such barbarism reading the doyan of Islamic scholars, Bernard Lewis. Judging from his book What Went Wrong? (2002), nothing is intrinsically wrong with the religion that enthralls 1.2 billion people. And Lewis, unlike John Esposito, is not known as an apologist of Islam.
Enter Serge Trifkovic, a man of extraordinary intellectual courage. His The Sword of the Prophet departs from the moral "neutrality" of academia and, in six lucid and well-documented chapters, provides a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." Citing the Kuran and the voluminous Hadithsthe Traditions of what Muhammad said and didDr. Trifkovic exposes Islam's prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. He examines Islam's fatalistic theology; reviews this religion's devastation of other civilizations; warns of the Muslims' insidious penetration of America and Europe; criticizes U.S. appeasement of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic regimes; and goes to the heart of what must be done to prevent Islam's global ascendancy.
Chapter 1, "Muhammad," portrays a simple preacher who became a fanatical warlord in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. After slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape. One Hadith explains:
We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, but at the same time we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl [coitus interruptus]. But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
To the men of one Jewish tribe, Muhammad offered the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Upon their refusal, up to 900 were decapitated in front of their women and children. "Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high," was Muhammad's comment. The women were subsequently raped. Trifkovic comments: "That Muhammad's actions and words, as immortalized in the Kuran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our timeand punishable by it laws, that range from war crimes and murder to rape and child molestationalmost goes without saying." Trifkovik is aware of the cultural and historical relativism that would prompt Western intellectuals to say, "we must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras." He counters this relativism by pointing out that "even in the context of seventh century Arabia, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu."
Muhammad repeatedly invoked Allah as a deus ex machina, professing revelations to justify the prophet's political and personal needs. "Nowhere was this more obvious than when it came to his exaggerated sensuality." Trifkovic cites Ibn Warraq, author of Why I am Not a Muslim (1995), who asks whether Muhammad was a "known fraud, or did he sincerely believe that all his 'revelations' that constitute the Kuran were direct communications from God?" Warraq does not see how this can possibly matter to our moral judgment of Muhammad's character. "Certain racists sincerely believe that Jews should be exterminated. How does their sincerity affect our moral judgment of their beliefs?"
Trifkovic adds: "On the Prophet's own admission, Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments and even by the law of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is the religion's claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men."
Our author sums up his assessment of Muhammad with the words of Sir William Muir (1819-1905), one of the world's greatest orientalists: "the sword of Muhammad and the Qur'an are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known." No academician today would dare such a judgment. Even the outspoken Daniel Pipes feels compelled to distinguish Islam from "Islamism" and say Islam is compatible with democracy!
Chapter 2, "The Teaching," portrays Allah as very different from the God of the Bible. Allah is absolutely transcendent. He is pure will without personality. Islam offers an "empty and barren concept of deity." (Avraham Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine, regarded Islam's monotheism as barren and devoid of joy and life.) "One consequence of Allah's absolute transcendence and lordship," says Trifkovic, "is the impossibility of free will." Sinners are as predestined as virtuous believers. Whereas sinners will "fill up the burning regions of Hell," the virtuous believers will dwell in Paradise where, according to one Muslim commentator, "The men have sexual relations not only with the women ... but also with serving boys In Paradise a believer's penis is eternally erect."
Given its fatalism, Islam is theologically incompatible with democracy, whose cardinal principle is freedom. The root of freedom is man's creation in the image of Godthe God of Abraham. Abraham can argue and plead with God, as did Moses, because the God of the Jews is a personal God, immanent as well as transcendent. In contrast, the Muslim prostrates himself before Allah as a slave before a master. Trivkovic rightly states that it is more pertinent to compare Islam with totalitarian communismdespite its atheismthan with Judaism or Christianity. He could have pointed out that human dignity is not a normative principle of Islam if only because Islamic theology cannot abide the Jewish conception of man's creation in the image of God.
Turning to the Kuran, Trifkovic, like other critics, reveals Muhammad's distorted account of the various narratives of the Five Books of Moses. (Muhammad was ignorant of the books of the prophets). Noting that the Kuran underwent revision during Muhammad's tribulations and triumphs in Mecca and Medina, Trifkovic states that Islam's holy book "looks, feels, and sounds like a construct entirely human in origin and intent, clear in its earthly sources of inspiration and the fulfillment of the daily needs, personal and political, of its author."
"Of all major religions known to man," writes Trifkovic, "the teaching of Islam makes it the least amenable to dialogue with other faiths." Nevertheless, he informs us that President George W. Bush has internalized the ecumenical views of his adviser on Islam, Professor David Forte, a conservative Catholic who believes that Christianity and Islam can together foster family values. Forte, who is not an Islamic scholar, contends that Islamic terrorists are heretics or not authentic Muslims. He seems to have reinforced Mr. Bush's naïve belief that all religions are peace-loving, and that a religious person cannot possibly be a terrorist, i.e., evil. Trivkovic comments: "Their faulty understanding of Islamic theology leads them to imagine that 'Allah' is more or less interchangeable with the 'God' of the monotheists." Their ecumenism is intended to counter the globalization of secularism.
Chapter 3,"Jihad Without End," demonstrates that the goal of Islamic jihad is world conquest, and that willingness of Muslims to sacrifice their lives to this end "is neither extreme nor even remarkable from the standpoint of traditional Islam." The notion of "inner" jihadof one's personal fight against his ego and sinful desirescame into being only after the Islamic Empire had been established. Of its countless jihads against unbelievers, Trifkovic emphasizes Islam's massacres in India, which "are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust, or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks." Regarding the Turks, "being a Greek, Armenian, Serb, or indeed any other Christian in the Ottoman Empire meant living in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, kidnap of one's children, slavery, and genocide."
Trifkovic, a Christian who acknowledges the crimes committed against the Jews during the Crusades, nonetheless emphasizes Islam's crimes against Christian communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He deplores "politically correct" academics: "Thirteen centuries of religious discrimination, causing suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic 'tolerance,' that is hurtful to the few descendants of the victims as it is useless as a means of appeasing latter-day jihadists."
This leads to Chapter 4, "The Fruits," which explodes the myth of Islam's "Golden Age." Our author correctly notes that the medieval philosophers al-Farabi and Avicenna, both Persian, "belong to 'Islam' just as much as Voltaire belongs to 'Christianity.'" (Muhsin Mahdi has shown that Farabi, to avoid being executed, crafted his work on Plato and Aristotle in an esoteric style. On the surface he appears as a devout Muslim; but a close reading reveals him as a disciple of Greek philosophy.) Contrary to its apologists, the Muslim Empire inherited the knowledge and skills of Greece, Persia, and India (including what are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers.) "Whatever flourished," writes Trifkovic, "it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam." Thus, in 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, declaring that the world is flat: anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished."
The chapter concludes with these words of Alexis de Tocqueville:
I studied the Kuran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
Islamic decadence is rooted in its impersonal and empty monotheism. In contrast, Hebraic monotheism, as may be seen in the Biblical account of creation, seeks to probe the unity underlying the totality of existenceof man and the universe. Moreover, the creativity for which Jews are famous, especially in the sciences, is rooted in the Genesis conception of man's creation in God's imagethe divine source of human creativity as well as the intellectual basis of Jewish faith. (In this latter respect, Judaism also differs from Christianity,)
Returning to Trivkovic, Chapter 5, "Western Appeasement," focuses on Washington's appeasement of Muslims in Bosnia, which has become a safe haven and transit for Arab terrorists. Israeli intelligence conveyed to the American State Department that "about 6,000 fighters in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia are ready to do Bin Laden's bidding, and that a nucleus of Bin Laden followers in the Balkans could balloon into an army of about 40,000 men." Also, some 2,000 to 10,000 Muslim migrants are arriving in Bosnia every month.
Trivkovic reveals how the State Department, while accusing Russian forces in Muslim Chechnya of "human rights" violations, exempts from human rights requirements such predominantly Muslim countries as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. (This hypocrisy is even more obscene in Washington's appeasement of the Arab Palestinians.) But our author's most dire warnings concern Washington's appeasement of Saudi Arabia. This totalitarian regime, linked to American corporations willing to sacrifice their country's interests to Mammon¸ is the financier of global terrorism.
Chapter 6, "Jihad's Fifth Column," surveys the incredibly rapid growth of the Muslim population in the West. Thanks to Saudi Arabia, thousands of mosques have sprung up throughout the U.S. and Europe. Their predominant message? Islam is the wave of the future. Despite Islam's openly declared objectives, the West refrains from restricting Muslim immigration and from enforcing the laws against Muslims who exploit democratic values to advance Islam's totalitarian ends.
Allied with these Muslims are postmodern liberals. These liberals are motivated by a hatred of Western civilization, primarily its biblical roots. Their pro-Muslim attitudemost pronounced in their support of the Palestiniansevinces an anti-Jewish animus. Academia is the seedbed of this unholy alliance of believers and atheists.
"Islam," Trivkovic concludes, "is a collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to compromise with such madness is to become part of the madness oneself." But what most threatens the West, says our author, is not Islam so much as the West's own "loss of Faith, and the arrogant doctrinerampant in 'the West' for three centuries nowthat man can solve the dilemma of his existence by his unaided intellect alone. If that loss is not reversed, the game is over anywayproving that where God retreats, Allah advances."
"The Sword of the Prophet" is indispensable reading.
TRANSFER: A MORAL DISCOURSE
(Part 1 of 3)
By Boris Shusteff
The issue of transfer that is, relocating Arabs out of western Eretz Yisrael to the present day remains very controversial. The main reason for this is obvious. The vast majority of Jews considers it to be immoral. The stigma of immorality attached to this subject is especially troublesome, because, according to many surveys, more than half of Israeli Jews supports transfer. Moreover, since the idea of transfer is considered taboo in Israeli society, it is quite probable that the actual number of its supporters is much higher, and people simply do not want to reveal their true opinions, afraid of being stigmatized.
While Israel prides herself on being a Democracy, the transfer idea, though supported by the majority of the people, is almost completely suppressed within the Israeli political conscience. In spite of the fact that its supporters can be found in many Israeli political parties, their voices are mute at best. The champions of the idea, Moledet leaders Benny Elon and Aryeh Eldad, discuss it mainly on the pages of internal party publications. No real discussion takes place within the mainstream Israeli media. It appears that the label "immoral" has been attached to the term "transfer" by default, without substantiation, simply based on the negative connotation of the word. Everything comes down to the idea that it is immoral to force people to move from their place of habitation without their consent. The opponents of transfer always ask, "Would you want to be kicked out of your home?" Without any doubt, this concern is very legitimate. And if the supporters of transfer cannot find a convincing response to it based on moral grounds, it becomes very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to defend the idea of transfer.
The inspiration to write this article came from a thorough reading and re-reading of an absolutely fascinating essay penned by Ruth Gavison, and published in the summer 5763/2003 issue of the magazine Azure. Gavison holds the Chaim Cohen chair in human rights at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and is a senior fellow at the Israel DemocracyInstitute. The essay is entitled "The Jews' Right to Statehood: A Defense." Gavison presents her arguments "framed mainly within the discourse of human rights," explaining that it is crucial to base the "justification of a Jewish state on arguments that appeal to people who do not share the beliefs of those Jews to whom the Jewish right to a state and to the land of Israel is axiomatic."
We are going to take a similar approach. It is self-evident that Jews who unwaveringly believe in the Torah do not need any additional arguments to support the idea of transferring Arabs from Eretz Yisrael. At the same time, a great majority of Jews, though they heed the Torah to a certain extent, still require justification for the transfer idea based on "universal moral grounds." Leaving aside the fact that these universal moral grounds are deeply rooted in Judaic values, which makes the Torah the main authority on the issue, we will give these Jews the benefit of the doubt. We will make an argument for the morality of transfer by making use of many of Gavison's points, which are "framed mainly within the discourse of human rights."
To begin with, we take as an axiom the statement that the Jewish people has the right to statehood and that the "existence of such a state is an important condition for the security of its Jewish citizens and the continuation of Jewish civilization." It seems fair to expect that this statement should not be questioned even by the most pro-Arab among Jews, for if they support the Arabs' right to statehood, they must likewise support this right for the Jews, based on the equality of fundamental human rights.
Ruth Gavison defines these rights as follows: "as human beings, we all have a right to life, security, and dignity as well as to national self-determination." However, while stressing that the rights to life, security and dignity are not dependent on anything, Gavison argues that the right to statehood is not constant. "It instead varies over time and according to changing circumstances." She states that the claim of self-determination "is not a matter of abstract rights talk. Rather, such claims must be addressed according to demographic, societal and political realities that prevail both in the Middle East and in other parts of the world."
The same approach must be taken with the issue of transfer. We must not look at it as "a matter of abstract rights talk." On the contrary, it is vitally important to take into account changing circumstances, demographic, societal and political realities. One of the complicating aspects of the issue is the subject of a separate Palestinian people. It is easy to prove that the "Palestinian people" did not exist as any sort of distinct or cohesive group before the First World War. Even UN resolution 181, used today by a majorityof liberal Jews to support the establishment of a Palestinian state, speaks only about Jews and Arabs and not about Jews and "Palestinians." Nevertheless, we will assume that there is indeed a separate people that calls itself "Palestinians," and claims rights to self-determination in Eretz Yisrael, which it calls Palestine.
As Gavison explains, it is very important to understand, that exercising a people's right to self-determination "does not necessarily depend on establishing a sovereign state." In her essay, Gavison employs the two distinct terms "rights" and "liberties," introduced by the American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. "According to Hohfeld, we may speak of liberty when there is no obligation to act or refrain from acting in a certain manner. A right, on the other hand, means that others have an obligation not to interfere with, or to grant the possibility of, my acting in a certain manner." Gavison explains that from the start of modern Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael, "as long as their actions were legal and nonviolent Jewish settlers were at liberty to enlarge their numbers among the local population, even with the declared and specific intent of establishing the infrastructure for a future Jewish state." At the same time, the Arab population "certainly had full liberty to take steps to resist this settlement, so long as they did not infringe on any basic human rights or violate the laws of the land." It is necessary to re-emphasize the two extremely important conditions for exercising liberties: nonviolence and the legality of action based on the laws of the land. Gavison does not bring up the subject, but, technically speaking, she proves that Palestine at the beginning of modern Jewish settlement was "a land without a people." This is because it did not belong to the people living there. It was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire. The laws of the land were Ottoman laws, which largely curtailed but did not prevent Jewish settlement. Even more importantly, with the establishment of the British mandate, the laws of the land under British jurisdiction encouraged Jewish settlement on the land, thus supporting the Jews' liberty to settle Palestine.
Since the land did not belong to the locally resident Arabs, and Palestine was not a separate country with unique laws, the Arabs had no right to stop Jewish settlement. To put it differently, from the standpoint of universal morality and equality, Jews and non-Jews in Palestine were on a level playing field: the Jews were at liberty to settle the land and the Arabs were at liberty to oppose this settlement by nonviolent means.
It is worth pointing out that the Arabs were at liberty to settle the land, as well. Significantly, in contrast to the Arabs' opposition toJewish settlement, the Jews did not object to Arab settlement. Thus, as is well documented in various sources, Arabs from Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Bosnia, and many other countries established their residence in Palestine in numbers comparable to and even greater than the numbers of Jews who settled there.
Gavison writes that "changing conditions affect the balance of legitimacy, and therefore no claim to self-determination can be absolute." Since the Arabs in Palestine did not see themselves as a coherent national group and did not have a separate national identity (at least during the British Mandate), they made no effort to exercise their right to self-determination. They had allegiance to their clans or villages, but never progressed beyond this level. Meanwhile, without even trying to create a state of their own, they objected to the establishment of a Jewish one. By negating through violence the liberties of the Jews to settle in the land, they violated fundamental Jewish rights to life and security. Gavison writes,
"Violence clearly was a violation of the rights of the Jews The violent resistance of the Arabs ultimately lent significant weight to the Jewish claim to a sovereign state, and not merely to self-determination within a non-state framework. From 1920s until today, one of the strongest arguments for Jewish statehood has been the fact that the security of Jews as individuals and as a collective cannot be secured without it."
It is precisely Jewish statehood that always was and still remains the bone of contention in relations between Arabs and Jews. All wars fought by the Arabs against the Jews were directed first against the creation of the Jewish state and then towards its destruction. Gavison points out that,
"The results of war  brought an end to the symmetry between Arabs and Jews. Palestinian Arabs did not achieve statehood, and their communities suffered a major setback, while Zionism made a critical transition from having the moral liberty to establish a Jewish state to having a moral right to maintain it and to preserve its Jewish character."
While pinpointing the extremely important moment for Jews of transitioning from liberty to create a state to the right to have and maintain it, Gavison allows for two very significant inaccuracies. First, the very phrase "did not achieve statehood" is rather misleading with respect to the situation of the Palestinian Arabs. It implies that they were seeking statehood, and were somehow unable to attain it. However, it is not because anyone prevented them from doing so that the Palestinians Arabs did not "achieve" statehood in western Palestine in 1948, but simply because they did not seek it. This reinforces the factthat the Arabs in Palestine did not consider themselves a distinct people with a national history, traditions and goals. The only common ground that united them, or, to be more precise, united their leaders, was the desire to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. Furthermore, it is not even correct to say that the Palestinian Arabs did not attain statehood. They attained it in Jordan (77% of the territory of British Mandate). An overwhelming majority of Jordan's population consists of Palestinian Arabs, so Gavison is apparently referring only to Palestinian Arabs living in western Palestine (23% of the territory of the British Mandate) as having failed to achieve statehood. Regardless, in the end, it would be more appropriate to say that, as a result of the 1948 War of Independence, the Jews finally achieved parity with other nations by reestablishing their state.
TRANSFER: A MORAL DISCOURSE
(Part 2 of 3)
By Boris Shusteff
Now that we have examined the situation during the time of Israel's creation, let us look at things as they stand today. The resurrection of the Jewish state and the events of the decades that followed have drastically changed the situation in western Palestine. Demographic changes in the region, with the Jewish state now home to over 5.5 million Jews, have made the Jewish right to self-determination unquestionable. As Gavison puts it: "justification for the existence of a Jewish state is stronger now than it was in 1947 because Israel today hosts a large and diverse Jewish community with the right to national self-determination and the benefits that it can bring." Accordingly "today, Israel has not only the right to exist but also the right to promote and strengthen its Jewish character. Indeed, this dramatic shift in the validity of the Jewish claim to statehood is one of Zionism's major achievements."
At the same time, despite the increase in the Arab population, the Arabs' corresponding liberty to settle in western Palestine cannot be translated into a right to self-determination in Eretz Yisrael. Numerical growth in population is not by itself a sufficient argument for this. Especially since the Arabs' constant use of violence against the Jews continuously violates Jewish rights to life and safety. Thus, from the standpoint of universal moral principles, the Arabs are continuously weakening their claim to the right to self-determination on this land.
Gavison stresses that, "while we cannot ignore the history of the conflict, neither can we ignore the reality that has taken hold in intervening years." And this reality clearly demonstrates that nearly all Palestinian Arab activity during this time was directed against the Jewish state and not toward establishing institutions of Arab government, or planting any seeds for self-rule.
Just the last 10 years have seen an outrageous anti-Semitic campaign in the Palestinian media and educational institutions due to the Arabs' stubborn rejection of the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Violent murders of Jews have become the norm, supported by nearly 80% of Palestinian Arabs, as every poll consistently indicates. Hatred against the Jews has penetrated deep into the souls of several generations of Arabs to whom the Jews are constantly presented as nothing but ruthless murdering occupiers. Based on this, reward this sort of attitude among Arabs with statehood is plainly immoral. Remembering Gavison's postulate that the Arabs "certainly had full liberty to [act] so long as they did not infringe on any basic human rights or violate the laws of the land," one must admit that the Arabs, incited by their leaders, have miserably failed to meet even this minimal standard.
Some may argue that the preceding arguments, though valid, only apply to "Israel proper" as defined by its 1948 borders. We therefore now turn our attention to the reality that has taken hold in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (to which we refer by the Hebrew acronym "Yesha"), the lands that came under Israel's control after the Six Day War of 1967. Significantly, it is precisely due to Arab efforts directed toward Israel's destruction that the Jews have settled on the land that they gained in 1967, in addition to living in areas they have controlled since 1948. Just as significantly, there should be absolutely nothing a priori questionable about settling this land, since based on universal human rights, the Jews have exactly the same rights as the Arabs to settle in Western Eretz Yisrael.
This is supported by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in article 13 that "everyone has the right to residence within borders of each state." Furthermore, article 2 states that for these purposes, the status of territories does not matter. "No distinction shall be made on the basis of the status of the country or territory whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Thus anybody who advocates the liberties of the Arabs to settle in the disputed lands of western Palestine must admit that the Jews have exactly the same liberties. Moreover, the laws of the land give preference to the Jews. The only existing legitimate international document pertaining to this disputed land, which is the League of Nations' 1920 San Remo Declaration, encourages Jewishsettlement there. Israeli laws that apply to this area do not prohibit settlement, either for Jews or Arabs.
On balance, then, from the standpoint of international legitimacy, there is no distinction between most of Israel "proper" and the disputed lands of Yesha. In both cases, Jews gained the land after repelling enemy attempts to destroy the Jewish state. The land obtained by Israel in 1948 was not under anyone's sovereignty. The lands of Judea and Samaria, gained by Israel in 1967, were under Jordanian jurisdiction, which was not recognized by the international community, and was later waived by Jordan in 1988, thus giving it exactly the same status as the land acquired by Israel in 1948. A similar situation exists in the Gaza strip, to which Egypt made even less claim when it controlled the strip between 1948 and 1967. Therefore, if it is legitimate for Jews to settle anywhere inside the area designated by the 1948 armistice lines, it is similarly legitimate to settle in the areas designated by the 1967 armistice lines, adjusted based on peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
The fact that all of the land now controlled by Israel has the same status is, ironically, supported by the Arab position as well. The Arabs typically do not distinguish between the Israeli conquests of 1948 and 1967. They consider the whole Jewish enterprise in Palestine, as Gavison puts it, "illegitimate at its core, since it was harmful to Arab interests and limited their control over the public domain." However, while recognizing Arab concerns, Gavison argues that they do not put moral obligations on the Jews from restraining their settlement in Eretz Yisrael. She writes:
"The claim that Jewish settlement harmed Arab interests is certainly understandable, and the fears that lay at its core were no doubt warranted. But did these fears place a moral obligation on the Jewish people to refrain from returning to their homeland?"
The equivalence in status of the lands conquered by Israel in 1948 and 1967 has another extremely important moral aspect that cannot be ignored. Namely, that it is immoral to reward an aggressor by restoring the status quo that existed before the aggression if the aggressor loses territory as a result. Since in both 1948 and 1967 the land was conquered in defensive wars, it is just as immoral to demand that Israel give up her rights to the land conquered in 1967, as it is immoral to demand that she give up her rights to land conquered in 1948. This effectively means that on moral grounds the Arabs have no chance whatsoever of transforming their liberty to live in western Eretz Yisrael into any sort of right to a state there.
But if the Arabs do not have a right to exercise self-determination inthe lands of Yesha, we then have an extremely difficult situation with respect to those Palestinian Arabs already living there. It is obvious that the present situation is very volatile, constantly on the brink of explosion, and must be somehow resolved. This gives only two possible options: the creation of a separate state for Palestinian Arabs on part of Yesha, after Israel voluntarily relinquishes her rights to this land, or the transfer of the Arabs either to Jordan, where their brethren currently exercise their right to self-determination, or to any other suitable place in the Arab world.
Let us first put aside the transfer option and look at the possibility of creating a state for Palestinian Arabs in Yesha. Gavison, a proponent of this idea, gives the following substantiation:
"From a moral point of view, it is preferable to give the Palestinians national sovereignty over at least part of their homeland. In this way, the Jewish people's right to self-determination would not come at the expense of the corresponding rights of the Palestinians."
This statement is very questionable from the standpoint of historical accuracy and very difficult to defend on moral grounds. Eretz Yisrael was never a national home for any people other than the Jews. The statement that Eretz Yisrael is part of the "Palestinian homeland" is an exercise in political correctness and only confuses the issue. One would not, for example, entertain the idea of giving national sovereignty over a part of California to Mexican Americans, under the pretext that it is their homeland because several generations of them were born there. Meanwhile, one could argue that the Mexicans have much more right to California then the Palestinian Arabs do to Eretz Yisrael. At least for 27 years from 1821 to 1848 California was a sovereign Mexican land, a part of the Mexican state, while no Palestinian state ever existed in Eretz Yisrael.
On the other hand, what moral right do the Jews have to decide for the Palestinians over what part of "their homeland" they should be given sovereignty? If it is indeed the Palestinians' "homeland" it is they and only they who have the right to decide on what part of it they want to live. This sort of patronizing approach is quite clearly immoral in this case.
And last but most important, if we view Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian Arabs, we must not forget that they have obtained national sovereignty on the greater part of their homeland more than half a century ago in Jordan. Thus the Jewish people exercising their right to self-determination in Eretz Yisrael by no means comes at the expense of the corresponding rights of the Palestinians.
As long as we are considering the issue of a possible Palestinian state, it cannot be discussed without touching on two other extremely sensitive issues: refugees and Jerusalem. The Arabs consistently demand part of Jerusalem as the future capital of their state and demand the right for all "Palestinian refugees" to return to their "original homes" in what is now Israel. As Gavison very well explains, Israel cannot allow Arabs to flood the country, as this will destroy the Jewish nature of the state. The Jews can refuse to grant this "right of return" (as well as demand that the Arabs fulfill certain other conditions) only because they were victorious in the wars that the Arabs have unleashed on them. To put it differently, this is an application of the longstanding international principle of nullum crimen sine poena ("no crime without punishment." The Arabs certainly should not be rewarded for their aggression against the Jews by granting them fictitious "rights." Moreover, is it moral to place an obligation on the Jewish people to refrain from having access to the holiest place for the Jews, the Temple Mount? Yet it is clear that this is exactly what will happen if the Arabs gain sovereignty in Jerusalem. Even now, when all of Jerusalem is under Israel's control, Islamic authorities prohibit Jews from accessing much of the Temple Mount. And what is so often called "Arab East Jerusalem" is nothing but the very same Jerusalem for which the Jews longed for 2000 years in exile.
It is clear, then, that the refugees and Jerusalem are two red lines that cannot be crossed if Israel is to remain a Jewish state. While the influx of Arab refugees will destroy the Jewish state demographically, the loss of the Temple Mount and other parts of authentically Jewish Jerusalem's Old City, will irreversibly corrode the Jewish soul of the state. The Jewish state without the Temple Mount is by definition not Jewish.
One more important point must be made - the moral implications of a Palestinian state in Yesha for the Arabs themselves. It is clear that for over 50 years, the Arabs' basic rights to life, safety and dignity have been unceasingly violated by their own leaders, with the explicit support of the United Nations and the international community. Arabs are kept in terrible conditions in the so-called refugee camps. All Israeli attempts to improve these conditions were rejected by Arab leaders, manipulatively working through the UN. One need only look at how many Arabs have been killed as a result of the Intifadas, irresponsibly provoked by Arab leaders, to agree that Arab rights to safety and life are utterly neglected. It is to these irresponsible leaders that the fate of the Palestinian Arabs will be handed, if a Palestinian Arab state is established in western Eretz Yisrael as a result of the latest Road Map peace plan.
TRANSFER: A MORAL DISCOURSE
(Part 3 of 3)
By Boris Shusteff
The authors of the Road Map have not only seemingly failed to consider the moral implication for the Arabs themselves of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) but also completely disregarded other fundamental issues. One of them is the viability of such a state. Already in the 1970s, Israeli Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi, an internationally known expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict, unequivocally proved in a series of articles that an Arab state created in Judea and Samaria cannot be viable. The main reason for this is that this state will need the support of Arab countries to survive. However, if this state is created without Jerusalem and if the "right" of the Arab refugees to settle in Israel is not realized, the Arab countries will not offer their support to this new artificial state entity. Perhaps they might recognize it on the surface, but they will never forgive the Palestinian Arabs for forsaking the common Arab demand for Jerusalem and the return of the refugees.
Another problem that cannot be resolved is based on the fact that the national ethos of the so-called "Palestinian people" has at its core a deeply ingrained belief that the Jews have forced their miserable fate upon them. This is the common denominator that gives the "Palestinian people" their identity and the only real glue that keeps them together. If an Arab state is created in Yesha with the refugee issue left unresolved, the schism between different groups of Palestinian Arabs will only exacerbate the current situation. Undeniably, with the establishment of an Arab state in the disputed territories and the disappearance of the "return option," no Arab Palestinian leader will be able to suggest any satisfactory, practicable alternative to 3 to 4 million "refugees." Indeed, though, as we mentioned before, the return of the refugees is a red line which Israel cannot cross, it's nevertheless clear that finding some resolution of the refugee problem must preempt, or go hand in hand, with any discussion of a Palestinian state.
At the same time, the entirety of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which the Arabs demand for their state, encompasses only about two thousand square miles. It is roughly twice the size of Rhode Island, one of the smallest states in the US, which, with one million people, has the second highest population density of any US state. The current population density in Gaza is already 720% higher than Rhode Island's, and with a far inferior standard of living. Given the right and opportunity to settle in an Arab state created in Yesha, the Palestinian Arabs will certainly never exercise this right in large numbers. This is simply because no one will voluntarily move from a living situation that is already bad to one that is much worse.
This means that a huge fraction of the "Palestinian people" will remain in a state of limbo, with at least 3 to 4 million Palestinian Arabs retaining refugee status and remaining completely dissatisfied. No help is likely to come from neighboring Arab countries. To expect that they will voluntarily absorb the Palestinian Arabs living among them after so many years of refusing their integration is merely na?ve. These countries have kept the Palestinian Arabs into these degrading conditions quite intentionally. There will be no new incentives for Arab leaders to deal with these unfortunate people, who are not even their citizens in the first place. This means that their plight will become even more pitiful, and their resentment will only grow, since Arab anti-Israeli incitement is unlikely to stop. It is not hard to predict that in such a situation, vengeful feelings will remain strong: "the villains that expelled us from our homeland achieved safety, and we must continue living in hell?" Just as Arafat's PLO was created in order to help "Palestinians return to their homeland," in this situation another Arafat will quickly emerge to create a new PLO (assuming that the old one ceases to exist) to demand rights for the refugees. His logic will be very simple: if it was appropriate to allow the return of the Palestinians to an area that was captured by Israel in 1967, it should be just as appropriate to allow the Palestinians to return to the area captured by Israel in 1948.
It is easy to conclude that the creation of a "Palestinian state" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza without resolving the issue of the "Palestinian refugees" is a certain recipe for disaster. We must answer, from a common moral perspective, why the fate of some of these people must be so much different from others? Why can the two million Arabs in Judea and Samaria (not counting "refugees" in Gaza) have their right to self-determination satisfied while 3 to 4 million others will not? To say that these 3 to 4 million Arabs have this right fulfilled, since they will be able to settle in Judea and Samaria does not work. By the same reasoning, it can be said that these people can exercise their right to self-determination right now in Jordan, the majority of whose people are Palestinian Arabs. There is no logic that can support the premise that the "right" to move into Judea, Samaria or Gaza to live in squalid conditions under a corrupt Palestinian leadership is somehow preferable to moving into Jordan, to live a relatively normal life. And if it is legitimate and sensible to relocate 3 to 4 million Arabs toJordan, what is wrong with relocating 1 or 2 million additional Arabs there?
What is important is that no one has ever conducted any polls in order to determine which option the Palestinian Arabs themselves would prefer: Jordan or Yesha. While their leaders, certainly insist on the latter and more, demanding the right to return to Israel proper, the actions of the Palestinians speak volumes. Over a million Arabs living in Gaza did not even try to settle in Judea and Samaria during the height of Palestinian Administration in the 1990s, instead preferring to rot in the refugee camps in the hope that they will "return to their homes in Israel." Clearly, Yesha itself is not a major attractor. This indicates that the rhetoric from all sides calling for Arab sovereignty in Yesha does not reflect the real desires of the Arabs themselves. How, then, can we make a judgment about the morality of the transfer option? The dictionary defines "moral" as "relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct." So if something is right it is moral, and if it is wrong immoral. Is it therefore not absurd to use statements like "I want this and that" or "I want it here and now" as the chief measure of the morality of an issue? Yet, this is what objectors to transfer do when they claim that transfer is immoral because it goes against what the Palestinian Arabs "want" (and we have also already seen that it's at best unclear where exactly they want to live). In order to truly judge the moral aspects of transfer one should ask: "Is it right or wrong to move people from their homes in this particular situation?" To answer this question, it is clear that the mere desires of some people to live in certain places are not sufficient in and of themselves for a moral judgment on the issue of their relocation. All other considerations must be taken into account as well. We can analogously ask if it is moral to relocate thousands of people living next to a volcano, in spite of their desires to stay put, knowing that an eruption is inevitable. Obviously, the act of relocation would certainly be right, because it would save many lives, and therefore would be a moral action. It is noteworthy that if the stubborn volcano-dwellers remain where they are, they harm no one but themselves, whereas leaving the Palestinians where they are is likely to harm not only them, but the Jews living in Israel as well therefore making transfer an even greater moral imperative in the latter situation. Thus, if the relocation of Arabs allows the resolution of the conflict between Arabs and Jews, it is certainly moral, since it is right and long overdue to bring the conflict to an end.
When we consider all of these issues, before insisting on the establishment of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, we must honestly answer what good it will bring to the Middle East equation.Even in the most optimistic scenario, it is extremely uncertain that it will indeed lead to any sort of stable or peaceful resolution of the conflict. Conversely, it is easy to answer what harm it will bring. First, it will restore a state of great vulnerability for Israel, which will lose all of its strategic depth. Second, the new Arab state itself will be not only unviable (see this author's article on "The Stillborn Palestinian State") but also will have no chance of gaining support from other Arab countries, since, as we have already determined, Israel cannot yield on the red-line issues of refugees and Jerusalem and give up its Jewish essence. And one must remember that it is not only Arafat and Abu Mazen who insist on the return of the refugees and demand part of Jerusalem. It is also Mubarak, King Saud, King Abdullah, Assad and all the other Arab leaders. Third, the issue of "Palestinian refugees," will not move any closer to resolution, leaving 3 to 4 million people in a forlorn state without any hope for a better future. Fourth, the real cause of the conflict, which is the failure of the Arab states to recognize Israel's right to exist, will not disappear. The Arabs will cling to it with tooth and nail, using as a pretext the same refugees whom they will keep in misery themselves.
Many of those familiar with the Arab-Israeli conflict maintain that international involvement is key for resolving the situation. Thus far, however, the involvement of the international community has only exacerbated the current problem. Instead of encouraging the resettlement of the refugees, an approach that has proved successful with about one hundred million other people all over the world, the UN, via UNRWA has only helped to keep the problem alive. The only Arab country that accepted the Palestinian Arabs more or less willingly was Jordan. Even recently, after the 1991 Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 300,000 Palestinian Arabs, who found refuge in Jordan without a problem, which is quite understandable, since Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect that Jordan will voluntarily agree to accept millions of destitute people. The involvement of the international community is therefore simply a must, despite the poor track record up to now. And progress can only be made if major players, such as the US, EU, Russia, China, Japan or at least some of them, officially proclaim the truth that has been hidden for fifty years, namely that Jordan is the Palestinian state.
As always, declarations alone are not enough, and must be followed by corresponding policy decisions. Once this is done, the road will be wide open for the "refugees" to settle in Jordan and the word "transfer" will lose its negative connotation, since the world community will be involved in a decent and honorable task the transfer of Palestinian Arabs from the misery of refugee camps and the abuses of their leaders to a life of hope and freedom.
The participation of the international community will also be needed in order to shield Jordan from the rage of other Arab countries, which will be the major obstacle on the road to the successful resettlement of Palestinian Arabs. For fifty-five years the policies of the Arab countries have been aimed at keeping the Palestinian Arabs in camps in order to use them as a powerful weapon in the war against Israel. It is obvious that they will object to such a solution and the international community will need to demonstrate resolve and forcefulness to make this happen. Certainly this will not be a task of one month or even one year. A long-term plan must be developed to prevent the ruin of the Jordanian economy. Infrastructure and housing should be built up-front, and proper conditions should be established for the employment of future citizens. The construction boom that will precede resettlement, will positively resolve the unemployment problem currently being faced by Jordanians. This will also provide an opportunity for Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza to obtain employment. At the same time, if Jordan is officially recognized as a Palestinian state, the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will be able to settle there as well. This means that the fate of two thousand square miles of land will automatically become a non-issue. The Palestinian Arabs will not need it to exercise their right to self-determination, which will enable Israel to annex it through a process of international recognition, thus obtaining the minimal strategic depth it requires, which will serve as the best guarantee of stability and peace in the region.
No one will argue that the resettlement of the Arabs will not be accompanied by substantial hardships, but is it not an honorable task for the world community to actively work to bring millions of people out of misery and give them real hope for the future? (Instead of clamoring for the emergence of a stunted and crippled state, knowing fully that this state will offer no chance for improving Palestinians' lives or bringing peace to the region.)
From the perspective of human rights, the alternatives are immeasurably worse. In order to create an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it will be necessary to resettle nearly 500,000 Jews living there, including Jerusalem. This is because when Arabs speak of Israel abandoning "all the lands occupied in 1967," they mean Jerusalem too. The Jews that will have to be relocated are well established in the places where they currently live. It is utterly immoral and illogical to ruin people's lives based on "abstract rights talk." And precisely because the vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs haven't been given the opportunity to build lives for themselves anywhere, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it is possible to relocate them without great difficulty. The alternative is an ever-increasing number of poor and miserable people with no opportunity to create their own future. Whatkind of morality is it to multiply the number of suffering people, instead of decreasing it?
As Gavison stressed several times in her article, we cannot ignore the reality that has taken hold in the intervening years. The refugee problem, the misery of the Palestinian Arabs, the Jews living in over 150 locations in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are all the consequences of Arab attempts to destroy Israel. The latest indiscriminate terror war, unleashed by Arafat in 2000, has only added tragedy to both sides, while Jewish settlement on Jewish land has continued unabated in spite of the hardships. Since these attempts to destroy Israel have persisted for more than fifty years, it is critical that the vengeful ideas that have driven the Arabs' relations with Israel be abolished once and for all. This cannot be done through nice words or merely by signing agreements. Only facts established on the ground can make this happen. Therefore, by recognizing Israel's sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the international community will send the clear message that the disputes over a meager 2,000 square miles of land, are finally over. It is ridiculous to believe that the Arabs, having 2,000,000 square miles of land, will settle all of their arguments with Israel, if they are given 2,000 additional square miles. At the same time, by recognizing Jordan as a Palestinian state, a path will be laid for the resolution of the refugee problem that has been a stain on mankind's moral conscience for fifty -five years. The alternative is simply a continuation of the old rule of enmity and hatred - an admission of the moral degradation of the human species.
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.
THE ROAD MAP TO PEACE -
QUESTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
by Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D.
Presented to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), Israel Bonds and Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation
Monday, July 21, 2003
Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D.
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette IN 47907
E MAIL BERES@POLSCI.PURDUE.EDU
Elementary logic reveals that states - in the fashion of individuals - do not normally seek to destroy themselves.
Israel, however, is now expected by many in the world to behave suicidally.
These expectations were formalized in the Oslo Accords. They continue, essentially unchanged, in the so-called "Road Map."
Confronted by a so-called Palestinian Authority that still acknowledges no Two-State Solution (the PA map of "Palestine" includes all of Israel) and that still speaks openly of "Palestine from the sea to the river" (a code for annihilation of the Jewish State) Israel still finds itself in a grave dilemma.
Let there be no doubt about it: The PLO "Phased Plan" of 1974 is still very much in force. -------In accepting the Road Map, PM Sharon made multiple errors.
He accepted enemy parlance that West Bank and Gaza (Judea and Samaria) are "occupied territories."
Yet, he understands that for both scriptural and jurisprudential reasons, this characterization is wrong.
To observant Jews and Christians, it is even blasphemous.
To be sure, the Prime Minister means well, acknowledging what he sees as unyielding "facts on the ground" and trying - desperately - to protect Israel from terroristic and even existential harms.
But there are problems, beyond the most obvious.
The Palestinian "Prime Minister" will never be able to control the Palestinian "militants."
And if he WERE able to control Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the "Martyr's Brigade," the situation might be even worse for Israel.
In such circumstances, the alleged "right" of Palestinians to a state would be manifest to almost all the world, and this state would quickly move to become a base for the next round of Palestinian territorial demands upon Israel.
So there is great irony here; for Israel, the Road Map is seemingly a "lose-lose" situation.
If the PA cannot prevent further acts of anti-Israel terror (which is almost certainly the case), the Jewish State will suffer continuing acts of Palestinian barbariam.
If the PA CAN reign in the terrorists (almost inconceivable), a permanent terror state will be established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - a state that will also foment injuries against the United States.
(In Binyamin Netanyahu's words: "A Palestinian state would be a primary school for suicide bombers from around the world.") ---------It is conceivable, of course, that Israel could could coexist with a Palestinian state and that a "successful" Road Map might not necessarily seek Israel's demise.
After all, the creation of such a state would give Arab terrorists a precise and readily identifiable address - a situation wherein Israel would actually gain certain tactical benefits not available in present circumstances.
Moreover, from the standpoint of worldwide public opinion, Israel's counter-terror operations could then be mounted with fewer fears of appearing unconcerned about civilian casualties.
With enemy belligerents now in the uniform of a Palestinian army and no longer secreted among civilian Arab populations, the IDF could be liberated from exceptionally dangerous and unpopular forms of engagement. ------But this brings us to the problem of Israeli Arabs.
With the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan River, Israel's Arabs (more than one million strong) will quickly become a serious Fifth Column, working diligently with their brothers in "Palestine" to "liberate occupied Palestine" (that is, Israel itself).
In the best of all possible Road Map worlds, several hundred thousand Jews in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would be exchanged for one-million plus Israeli Arabs.
We know, however, that this will never happen. Few if any Israeli Arabs would be crazy enough to leave "Occupied Palestine" for "Liberated Palestine."
To do so would bring upon them both great economic hardship and vastly greater levels of political and religious oppression.
Of course even this "best of all possible Road Map worlds" would be a terrible world for all those believing Jews and Christians who acknowledge God's divine promise to Israel.
Nowhere in the Arab world - absolutely nowhere - is there today any affirmation of ISRAEL'S right to self-determination.
For the Arab world in general, and for the Palestinians in particular, the struggle between Israel and its enemies is entirely zero-sum.
This means that any advantage for Israel is seen as a distinct loss for the Arabs. Always.
For the Arab world, the inventory of intolerable "advantages" for Israel includes physical existence of the microscopic Jewish State.
Last month PA publications circulated in Judea/Samaria/Gaza reprinted a popular column from the Egyptian government daily (a country "at peace" with Israel) Al-Akhbar.
In words praised widely in Palestinian Authority circles, columnist Ahmad Ragab said the following: "Thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on the Jews was not enough."
The enemy, to all Arabs, is not Israel.
It is JEWS, always Jews, ALL Jews.
Jews in Lincolnwood Illinois as much as Jews in "Palestine."
After Israel's failed assassination of Hamas leader Rantisi (one of the very worst of the Hamas terrorists), he made the following statement from his hospital bed: "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine."
Their hatred of Israel is based on religion.
Israel is despised in the Arab/Islamic world because it is Jewish - not theother way around.
In the prevailing Arab/Islamic view, ALL Jews are despised and fit only to be murdered.
After Israel's strike at Hamas leader Rantisi, President Bush declared that he was "deeply troubled" by this action.
Let's think about this.
President Bush had just completed a major military campaign which cost the lives of almost four thousand people so that we could essentially get one man (and that man is likely still alive).
Israel, which is somewhat smaller and less powerful than the United States (it would fit two times into Lake Michigan) had been told, repeatedly, by Hamas, that there can be no two-state solution (the PA promise in the Road Map) and that nothing short of another Jewish genocide will satisfy them.
Under these circumstances, was Israel wrong to exercise its right and obligation to self-defense?
Notwithstanding all this, there is now an air of sheer inevitability surrounding the Palestinian state.
The Bush Administration, of course, has formally endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state - even though the residents of such a state would (according to various authoritative polls) harbor the world's highest percentage of support for Osama Bin Laden and hatred for the United States.
- This American endorsement holds despite Yasser Arafat's 33-month long campaign of terror against Israel.
- this despite wholsesale Palestinian rejection of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak's extraordinary concessions at the July 2000 Camp David Summit.
- this despite the Palestinian community's unconcealed backing of Saddam Hussein before and during the recent war.
- this despite repeated calls, on official PA radio and television, describing America as "the primary enemy of the people of Palestine and theArab and Islamic nation."
- this despite ongoing sermons by PA-appointed clergy saying that "The Jews are monkeys and pigs...Allah has warned us against their evil and their filth....The Jews are idolaters, heretics, infidels. Their faith is false."
- this despite President Bush's own repeatedly unmet conditions (June 2002) that Palestinians halt terror and incitement; dismantle terrorist groups and infrastructures; select new leaders who are not beholden to terror (Abu Mazen has a history of terror himself); end corruption (Arafat is one of the richest men in the world); embrace democracy and respect human rights.
What had been the Palestinian Authority's response to President Bush's pre-Road Map expectations?
- No terrorists were arrested
- No terrorists were extradited
- No terror groups were outlawed
- No terrorists' weapons were seized
- No closing of suicide bomb factories took place
- No punishing of PLO terror factions
- More terrorist attacks
You get the idea.
Now, all of these facts notwithstanding, what would it take for the Palestinian state to get started?
All that remains, it would seem, is the taking of appropriate jurisprudential steps by the Palestinian Authority and by its many backers (especially in Europe). (These steps would likely be grounded in the CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES; also known as the Montevedeo Convention).
Should Israel now do everything in its power to prevent the Palestinian state, even though the odds of successs are very remote?
This hardly seems possible, especially after PM Sharon's open commitment toa Palestinian state.
Or should it take the Palestinian state as a fait accompli, and focus instead on coexistence; in other words, should Israel's intellectual energies be directed to the admittedly difficult question of "Living With Palestine?"
This would seem, in view of Sharon's Road Map position, to be the only viable option.
How, then, shall Israel proceed?
To answer these critical questions, Israel must first determine if there is any possibility of coexistence with a new state of Palestine. If the answer is "no," it follows that all energies must now focus on prevention. Such a focus will be rational even if the expected prospect of succesful prevention is very low and even if the expected costs of prevention are very high.
If, on the other hand, there is reason to presume more or less successful coexistence, and the expected prospect of preventing Palestine is very low, then Israel's energies should focus on limiting the various existential dangers posed by a Palestinian state.
Can Israel live with Palestine? On this question the available evidence is persuasively negative. The Palestinian Authority's persistent identification of Israel proper as "Occupied Palestine," its unrevised Charter calling for Israel's destruction and its excision of Israel from all of its official maps do not bode well for coexistence. Moreover, a number of other Islamic terror organizations functioning under Palestinian leadership remain committed, in word and in deed, to "slaughtering the Jews." There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their policies and public utterances that would now suggest a will to live together with a Jewish State.
Strategic analysts are always trained to look both at capabilities and intentions. And here the problem becomes even more ominous. The most recent visit of American generals and admirals to Israel and the territories, supervised by JINSA, produced yet another authoritative document on the essential security imperative for Israel to maintain Judea and Samaria (and the Golan Heights).
Without these lands, Israel's strategic depth would vanish, and its susceptibility to physical conquest would be enlarged greatly.
Without these lands, Israel's capacity to prevent terror strikes upon its cities would be diminished substantially, and such strikes - in the future -could even involve chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Without these lands, the overall probability of regional unconventional war - even nuclear war - would heighten considerably.
Why nuclear war?
A Palestinian state would preoccupy IDF forces to a far greater extent than even the current wave of terror.
Even if it were able to resist takeover by another Islamic state - a takeover accomplished either directly or by insurgent surrogates -Palestine would become a favored launching point for unconventional terrorism against Israel.
Various promises notwithstanding, Palestinian terrorists would continue to celebrate frenzied violence against Israeli women and children as the essence of "national liberation." (We need only to recall the latest episodes in which Palestinian terrorists murder mothers and children in cities, towns and kibbutzim).
Recognizing an improved correlation of forces vis-a-vis Israel, a larger number of Islamic enemy states will calculate that they now confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary.
They will further understand that a coordinated efort by certain Islamic countries that possess or are in process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could endanger Israel's physical survival. Taken together with the fact that global support for Israel is always low, and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of a Palestinian state would tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively.
It is, then, unlikely that Israel could physically survive next to a Palestinian state that defined itself as extending "from the Sea to the River." The full strategic implications for Israel of a Palestinian state should be carefully appraised.
If, in the end, such a state became the cause of a nuclear war in the region, everyone - Arabs as well as Jews - would lose.
But how, exactly, would a nuclear war begin in the reconfigured Middle East?
One possibility would be via Arab or Iranian first strikes against Israel.
These strikes could be nuclear (although this would still be several years away) or nonnuclear.
In either scenario, Israel - especially if it feels dangerously close to defeat - might have to resort to nuclear retaliation.
Alternatively, Israel - believing that substantial enemy attack were imminent, could decide to strike first; that is, 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 have to be used for purposes of nuclear warfighting.
It is also plausible that certain Islamic states might transfer unconventional weapons assets to selected terror groups, leading to WMD terror attacks by Israel's nonstate enemies (perhaps simultaneous with attacks upon the United States).
Israel has much to fear from Palestine. The people of Israel, not of any nascent Palestine, are the only ones who would need to contemplate complete eradication from this planet.
Threatened by a growing number of adversaries with ballistic missiles and with a corollary interest in nuclear warheads, Jerusalem should know that a full and codified transformation of Judea/Samaria and Gaza into Palestine will provide its many enemies with the means and the incentives to destroy the tiny Jewish State once and for all.
Deprived of essential territorial integrity, and beset internally by hostileArab citizens loyal only to "Palestine," Israel will become seriously vulnerable to total defeat.
Anguished by a possible end to the Third Temple Commonwealth, the nation's leaders will begin to think seriously about nuclear weapons as a last resort to another "Final Solution."
I refer to the so-called "Samson Option."
Now, it has been suggested, by many in authority, that a Palestinian state could be agreeable to Israel if only it were demilitarized.
Is this really true?
First, let us note that international law will not necessarily require Palestinian compliance with pre-State agreements concerning the use of force.
From the standpoint of international law, enforcing demilitarization upon a sovereign state of Palestine would be enormously difficult.
Because treaties can be binding only upon states, any agreement between a nonstate Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel would have little real effectiveness.
But what if a government of Palestine were willing to consider itself bound by a prestate, nontreaty agreement?
Even in these relatively favorable circumstances, the new Palestinian government would have ample pretext to identify various grounds for lawful agreement termination.
It could, for example, withdraw from the agreement because of what it would regard as a "material breach," that is, an alleged violation by Israel.
Or it could point toward what international law calls a "fundamental change of circumstances" (Rebus sic stantibus).
In this connection, if a Palestinian state declared itself vulnerable to previously unforseen dangers, it could lawfully end its codified commitment to remain demilitarized.
There is another method by which an agreement obligating a new Palestinian state to accept demilitarization could quickly and legally be invalidated after independence. The usual grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts also apply to international legal agreements.
This means that a new state of Palestine could point to errors of fact or to duress as perfectly appropriate grounds for terminating the agreement with Israel.
Moreover, any international legal agreement is void, if - at the time in which it was created - it conflicts with a "peremptory" rule of general international law (jus cogens - a rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as absolutely and irrevocably binding).
Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to "self defense" is certainly such a peremptory rule, Palestine -depending upon its particular form of authority - could be entirely within its legal right to abrogate an agreement that had compelled its demilitarization.
It follows from all this that Israel can draw no comfort from the allegedly legal promise of Palestinian demilitarization.
Indeed, should the government of a new state of Palestine choose to invite foreign armies and/or terrorists on to its territory, it could do so without practical difficulties and without violating international law.
The latest official map of "Palestine" shows the State of Palestine comprising all of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), all of Gaza, and all of the State of Israel. Additionally, it excludes any reference to a Jewish population, and lists holy sites of Christians and Muslims only. The official cartographer, Khalil Tufakji, has now been commissioned by the Palestine National Authority to design a Capitol Building, which he has drawn to be located on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, on top of an ancient Jewish cemetery.
On September 1, 1993, Yasir Arafat (again, one of the richest men in the world) reaffirmed that the Oslo Accords were an intrinsic part of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan for Israel's liquidation: "The agreement will be a basis for an independent Palestinian State in accordance with the Palestinian National Council Resolution issued in 1974....The PNC Resolution issued in 1974 calls for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or which is liberated."
Speaking of maps, those of us who are concerned with a possible Palestinian state and Israeli survival should consider the following: The Arab world ispresently comprised of 22 states of nearly five million square miles and 144,000,000 people. The greater islamic world contains 44 states with one billion people. The Islamic states comprise an area 672 times the size of Israel. Israel, with a population of around 5 million Jews, is - together with Judea/Samaria and Gaza - less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California. The Sinai Desert, which Israel transfered to Egypt in the 1979 treaty (in exchange for vague and tenuous promises of Egyptian nonaggression) is itself 3 times larger than the entire state of Israel.
We have seen that a fully-sovereign Palestinian state could lawfully abrogate preindependence commitments to demilitarize.
It should also be noted that the Palestine National Authority is guilty of multiple material breaches of Oslo and that it remains altogether unwilling to rescind explicitly genocidal clauses of the PLO Covenant calling for Israel's total annihilation.
Nor has the PA ever extradited a single wanted Arab terrorist to Israel.
This means that any Israeli plan to accept Palestinian demilitarization would be built upon sand, and that Israel should never, ever, base its strategic assesments of a Palestinian state upon such an illusion.
There exists, in the Palestinian Authority, an irreversible voluptuousness of violence against Israel.
Directed by hatred of all Jews and Judaism, Israel's Palestinian enemies now bent upon their own state do not read Clausewitz (ON WAR).
They are generally moved by more primal needs and expectations, ones based on very grotesque and uncompromising visions of divine submission and "jihad."
In these visions, Israelis are not hated because they are "occupiers."
They are despised because they are Jews. Period.
They are the "sons of pigs and monkeys" in many current Palestinian periodicals - also the words used by PA appointed clerics in the mosques of Jerusalem; Ramallah; Jericho and Gaza.
In the words of a recent article in AL-AHRAM (Egypt): "The first thing that we have to make clear is that no distinction must be made between the Jew and the Israeli....The Jew is a Jew, through the millennia...in spurning all moral values, devouring the living and drinking his blood for the sake of afew coins. The Jew, the merchant of Venice...is always an example of human degradation. Let us therefore put aside such distinctions (Jews and Israelis) and talk only about JEWS."
A current Egyptian textbook of "Arab Islamic History" (again, a country "at peace" with Israel) informs new teachers as follows: "The Jews are always the same, every time and everywhere. They will not live save in darkness. They contrive their evils clandestinely. They fight only when they are hidden, because they are cowards....The Prophet enlightened us about the right way to treat them, and succeeded finally in crushing their plots they had planned. We today must follow this way and purify Palestine from their filth."
To "purify Palestine from their filth." This does not suggest a particularly promising orientation to Israel of a new Palestinian state. Rather, it suggests an attitude of uncompromising hatred and endless war.
Ayatollah Khomeini (remember him?) remarks in the Foreword to his book on Islamic Government: "The Islamic Movement was afflicted by the Jews from its very beginnings, when they began their hostile activity...."
Discussing "The Zionist Problem" in the Palestinian press, a prominent Islamic scholar, Dr. Yahya al-Rakhawi, writes: "We are all, once again, face to face with the Jewish Problem, not just the Zionist Problem; and we must reassess all those studies which make a distinction between `The Jew' and `The Israeli.' And we must redefine the meaning of the word `Jew' so that we do not imagine that we are speaking of a divinely revealed religion or a minority persecuted by mankind." The scholar continues: "We cannot help but see before us the figure of the great man Hitler, may God have mercy on him, who was the wisest of those who confronted this problem...and who, out of compassion for humanity, tried to exterminate every Jew, but despaired of curing this cancerous growth on the body of mankind."
So it is with such views in the Arab/Islamic world that Israel must now confront a Palestinian State.
And this confrontation must take account of Arab and Islamic "sacrificers" at two levels.
Israel must continue to deal with the danger of individual Muslims who choose "martyrdom" through the path of terrorism (a "martyrdom" now correctly called a Crime Against Humanity by Human Rights Watch).
Israel must also prepare to deal with entire states that choose "martyrdom;" that is, individual human self-sacrificers in macrocosm. Such a state - perhaps a Palestinian state - could choose collective self-sacrifice through initiation of chemical, biological or nuclear war against the Jewish State.
Such a war would not be fought for traditional military objectives. but only for "liquidation" of "The Jews."
Jurisprudentially, it would represent the unholiest of marriages, between war and genocide as crimes under international law.
The dangers to Israel of a Palestinian state must also take account of Israel's Arab citizens.
Today almost one million Arabs are full citizens of Israel.
For the most part, they are thoroughly disloyal to the Jewish State, and -in most cases - actually despise it.
In the event of any major regional war, many Israeli Arabs will certainly interfere with essential Israeli mobilization and more or less actively engage in hostile activities against Israel.
In the event of a major regional war after the establishment of a Palestinian state, these Israeli Arabs would constitute an even more serious Fifth Column, now aiding not a bloody insurgency, but a new state enemy engaged in more traditional forms of extermination warfare.
It can also be anticipated that the creation of a Palestinian state will embolden the Israeli Arabs to increase violence against Israel generally, not only in the event of a major regional war.
So, what have we learned?
The Trojan Horse called Oslo - now reinforced by a so-called Road Map - has now made a Palestinian state almost inevitable.
Yet, a Palestinian state - carved out of the still-breathing body of Israel - will almost assuredly give rise to chemical, biological or nuclear war.
It does not appear that Israel can live with Palestine, but it also does not appear that Israel can prevent the creation of Palestine. What, then, is to be done?
First, I think it is essential to understand that we are dealing here only in subjective probabilities; never certainties.
It follows that we can never say with any reasonable degree of assurance that a Palestinian state is inevitable.
There are many conceivable scenarios in which, for a variety of forseen and unforseen reasons, a Palestinian state would not come into existence.
Some of these scenarios could have more to do with intra-Palestinian and intra-Arab differences than with any conscious Israeli actions.
Others could have to do with the consequences of yet another Middle Eastern war begun either by Arab state aggressions or by escalations from essential Israeli efforts at self-defense.
So, even today, creation of a Palestinian state is unclear.
Israel would assuredly do better in a world without yet another life-threatening Arab state as a neighbor.
But, let us be candid, we are speaking here of probabilities, and the odds likely favor creation of a Palestinian state.
Indeed, from the standpoint of international law, the Palestinian Authority could declare statehood at any time, and without any regard for recognition by other existing states (even though an overwhelming proportion of states in the world would more or less enthusiastically recognize the new state of Palestine).
The governing document on statehood under international law is the Montevideo Convention, also known as The Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.
According to this document, a state must possess only the following qualifications: (1) a permanent population; (2) a defined territory; (3) a government; and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
We could quibble among ourselves if an emergent "Palestine" does or does not meet these particular criteria, but the fact is that the PA and itsallies could argue, without difficulty or viable opposition, that it does.
According to the Montevideo Convention and corollary international law, all states are legally equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.
The moment that the PA declares a state of Palestine, the new country will be the full juridical equal of the State of Israel. And even of the United States of America.
When Israelis begin to object passionately to claims for more territory by the new state of Palestine - this time territory within the Green Line (still "Occupied Palestine" to the PA) - the world will listen even more intently to the Palestinians.
They will, after all, now be fully equal to Israelis under international law.
So how might Israel live with Palestine?
Even before answering this question, I should note that preventing a Palestinian state does not necessarily mean improved peace and security for Israel.
This should be fairly obvious, given current terror circumstances.
If, for example, another major war produces an Israeli "reoccupation" of Judea/Samaria/Gaza, Israel's terror nightmare could become endless.
Here, too, such a "reoccupation" could elicit far-reaching cries of Israeli "aggression," charges that make no legal sense today, when there is - as yet - no state of Palestine.
Alternatively, if a new state of Palestine is brought into existence, the IDF may, ironically, have certain new tactical advantages.
One of these advantages could be a more readily identifiable Palestinian armed force (rather than a loose collection of murderers forcibly integrated into civilian populations).
Another related advantage would be a capacity to strike militarily from greater distances, using air power and artillery where formerly only infantry would have been permissible.
The relatively small military advantages to Israel of a Palestinian state could become very substantial if there were a willing emigration of Israeli Arabs to the new country. Indeed, in the best of all possible worlds for Israel, a newly-declared State of Palestine would open its arms to all Palestinians in Israel, and these Israeli Palestinians would leave - on their own volition - to Palestine.
But this is not the best of all possible worlds for Israel, and this Arab emigration (as I said earlier) will not happen.
Moreover, for better or for worse, the Israeli Arabs will not be forced to leave Israel for Palestine.
So the new Arab state will have a Fifth Column of approximately 1,000,000 bretheren in Israel, in "Occupied Palestine."
It follows that in "living with Palestine," Israel will have to take a variety of measures to ensure that this Fifth Column does not pose intolerable security costs to the Jewish State.
What this means is that after a state of Palestine is declared, Israeli efforts at security and survival will have to focus not only on the new enemy country, but also - more vigorously than ever before - on a significant fraction of Israel's own population.
If you think we have a "Homeland Security" problem, it pales beside what could happen to Israelis.
This issue may in fact pose the single most serious aspect of a Palestinian state to Israel, as it could likely involve substantial infringements of Israeli Arab civil liberties and a resultant backlash of Israeli Arab terrorism.
The term "correlation of forces" is a useful concept of military strategy -and one that will become increasingly important to Israel if it must coexist with a Palestinian state.
Widely used by the former Soviet Union, it is applied as a measure of armed forces, from the subunit level to major formations.
Additionally, it has been used to compare resources and capabilities on both the levels of military strategy and of so-called "grand strategy." This meaning is closely related to the idea of "force ratios" used in the West.
Creation of a Palestinian state - as we have seen - will greatly increase the chances of Arab attacks, not only from the new state of Palestine (which would surely do very little on its own) but from combinations with other Arab states.
This could even happen after Palestinian forces joined with Palestinian Arab residents of Jordan (where they constitute a majority) to overthrow King Abdullah and create a single super-Palestinian state (one that would extend all the way to Jordan's border with Iraq).
IDF commanders will need to know more than ever before in order to establish Israeli force superiority at decisive places and times.
What, exactly, should be the IDF concept of "correlation of forces" after creation of Palestine?
First, it would need to take careful account of enemy leaders' intentions as well as capabilities.
Such an accounting is inherently more subjective than assessments of personnel; weapons and basic logistic data.
Second, the IDF correlation of forces concepts would have to take account of enemy leaders' rationality. An Arab adversary that does not conform to the rules of rational behavior in world politics might not be deterred by ANY Israeli threats, military or otherwise.
Here, the logic of deterrence would be immobilized and all bets would be off regarding expected enemy postures.
Third, IDF assessments would need to consider with special care the organization of enemy state units; their training standards; their morale; their reconnaissance capabilities; their battle experience; and their suitability and adaptability to the prospective battlefield.
Fourth, IDF assessments would have to consider the capabilities and intentions of Israel's remaining nonstate enemies; that is, the entire configuration of anti-Israel terrorist groups.
This configuration could look very different after Palestine; hence, itsclose examination must be a high priority for IDF planners in the probable new world of Palestinian statehood.
In all of these examinations, IDF planners must search for and consider "force multipliers."
A force multiplier is a collection of related characteristics, other than weapons and force size, that make a military organization more effective in combat.
A force multiplier may be generalship; tactical surprise; tactical mobility; command and control systems, etc.
The presence of a force multiplier creates synergy; the unit will be more effective than the mere sum of its weapons.
IDF planning responsibility in this area would concern: (1) recognizing Arab enemy force multipliers; (2) challenging and undermining enemy force multipliers; and (3) developing and refining its own force multipliers.
Regarding Number (3), this means a heavy IDF emphasis on air superiority; communications; intelligence and surprise.
Correlation of forces could well determine the outcome of war following the creation of a Palestinian state.
But there are no guarantees that the outcome of such a war would necessarily be favorable or even tolerable to Israel.
It would be best to reduce the probability of unwanted regional war in the Middle East by reducing the probability of a Palestinian state.
If a Palestinian state can be prevented by virtue of a number of previously identified scenarios, Israel will still suffer myriad problems of terror and violence, but will be less likely to disappear in a war designed by enemy states.
If a Palestinian state cannot be prevented by any reasonable measures, Israel will have to steel itself for seemingly interminable or protracted war with an enlarged Arab/Islamic world - a war characterized by intermittent terror and periodic interstate aggressions.
Not a single one of these options holds out a promise of real "peace," especially if Israel's enemies should act irrationally in strategic matters(the suicide bomber in macrocosm), but it is also true that unforseen happenings and events could grant Israel an unforseen advantage.
For now, Israel must acknowledge the existential risks of a Palestinian state, but simultaneously prepare to coexist with such a state by preparing to prevail in any consequent war.
This means not allowing itself to be blinded once again by the sort of illusory promises offered at Oslo or by the Road Map.
It means remaining open at all times to promising diplomacy, but it also means preparing to destroy enemy forces and assets rather than surrender to velvet-gloved diplomatic aggressions.
It is easy to understand that all Israelis yearn for peace - a genuine peace that would liberate the bloodied land from both terror and war.
But it would be most dangerous of all if this yearning were to lead Israel again in the very opposite direction.
All of Israel must now willingly understand that a genuine peace is still many years away, and that a realistic view of the Arab/Islamic world reveals only their preparations for war and genocide.
Only with such an understanding can Israel now prepare itself to deal with the evident risks of a Palestinian state.
LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters, terrorism, war and international law. His work is well-known to the military and intelligence communities in Israel, to the Prime Minister and to the IDF General Staff. Profesor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs Analyst for THE JEWISH PRESS in New York City, and Chair of Project Daniel, a collaborative effort by senior Israeli and American military strategists to advise the Prime Minister on existential security matters. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.
PRISONER RELEASES FROM HELL
By Ariel Natan Pasko
There's a well known story from the 1980's that former Member of Knesset, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane used to relish telling. In 1985, the then Likud-led Shamir government carried out a prisoner exchange with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, releasing over a thousand Arabs incarcerated for terrorist activities against Israelis, in exchange for 3 Israeli soldiers. All the "Palestinian revolutionaries" had signed agreements before their release, to foreswear any future violent activities. Three days after release, one of these "repentant activists" was brought into an Israeli Hospital's emergency room; he had blown himself up - what is commonly called a "work accident" these days - preparing a bomb for his next "revolutionary act" of murdering innocent Israeli shoppers.
MK Rabbi Kahane had received a phone call from one of the doctors involved, and tried to publicize the incident in the Israeli media. He spoke to several journalists. He gave them details of the incident and waited to read about it in the newspapers, and hear it on the radio and television in the next day or two. When nothing appeared, he recontacted the journalists and was told, the story won't appear because the media outlets weren't given permission by the military censor for the release of the information. Rabbi Kahane, flabbergasted, tried several more journalists, waited, and the same story repeated itself. He then contacted the censor's office itself, where he was told that they wouldn't let the story out, because the government didn't want the public to know that the terrorists that were just released were returning to "work". Rather than warn the public to be on heightened alert for possible terror attacks, but have to admit to a failed policy, the Israeli government chose a media blackout.
The Israeli government, MK Rabbi Kahane was told, didn't want to create fear amongst the public. They decided it would be better to keep the public in the dark about the incident and others like it, to shield them from worrying about the probable next wave of terrorist attacks about to strike. Later, after the first Intifadah "broke out" in December 1987, many of the leadership, the planners and agitators were traced back to that prisoner release. Rabbi Kahane used to tell this story in the mid and late 1980's at almost every opportunity, to point out the perfidy of the Israeli government and the danger of prisoner releases. Elements of this story leaked out over the years and it was later publicly confirmed.
Zoom ahead to December 17, 1992; the late Yitzhak Rabin is now Prime Minister, he "exiles" 400 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists to Marj az-Zuhour in Southern Lebanon. The international media portray their daily struggles trying to drum up sympathy for their plight, combating the grueling cold, stranded with not sufficient food or medical supplies, etc; in fact, they get a hold of cell phones, and made contact with Hizbollah operatives. For almost a year they get continuous Jihadist indoctrination, bomb making lessons, and practice in guerrilla warfare techniques - don't forget the unreported vacations to Beirut - thanks to Hizbollah. Abdel Aziz Rantisi - political head of Hamas - gained international prominence at that time, as the group's spokesman.
In an interview on Israel Television the night of the expulsions, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin explained his decision to temporarily deport the Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, saying, "I was motivated, on the one hand, by the reality of the situation. The reality in recent months has been a worsening of murderous terrorist activities by fundamentalist Islamic organizations such as Hamas, such as the Islamic Jihad...At the same time, I considered the political and legal ramifications." Rabin said that in his view, the action is not a deportation, even if it is described as such by legal terminology: "This is the temporary removal, of inciters and abettors to inciters of repugnant acts of murder. Some of them for two years, some temporarily removed for one year." He also said that a great deal of thought was given to what means were necessary to fight terrorism. "...Let's not forget," said Rabin, "what alternatives did we have? Capital punishment, destruction of houses?" Rabin demurred, "We have not hurt anybody, we have not injured, we have not killed, we have not damaged property. I view this as both the most effective means, and also the means which still physically affects these people in the most minimal sense."
Interestingly, an Israeli Poll carried out right after the deportation, showed that 91% supported the government's decision to deport the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists. Those surveyed were also asked how they think this act will influence terrorism. Fifty-five percent answered that it will reduce terrorism, while only 26% thought it would intensify terrorism and 18% said it would have no influence. It seems the Israeli public, long educated to prisoner releases and "the most minimal" measures against terrorists, as Rabin called them, had come to the "hope" that terrorist atrocities will go away by themselves, if we only weren't "too tough" on them.
The U.N. Security Council, "strongly condemned" Israel for these temporary expulsions and threatened sanctions. Under mounting international criticism and wishing to avoid such sanctions, the Rabin government offered to take back over 100 of these people and to cut the exile of the remainder in half. By September 1993, half of the deportees had returned and the remainder - with the exception of 18 who decided to remain in Lebanon to avoid arrest - returned in December 1993. The "400" eventually returned home to Gaza and the West Bank, stronger than ever, as heroes. Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror has grown exponentially since the mid 1990's. The waves of terrorist bombings from the mid 1990's on, is well known, many involved were "helped" by the "400".
Fast forward to late July 2003; The Israeli cabinet decided in a 14-9 vote, prior to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's trip to Washington, to release over 500 Palestinian prisoners, including over 400 Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah terrorists. These include relatively senior officials in Hamas' civilian leadership in the West Bank, as well as activists who served as liaisons with Hamas' leadership overseas, people involved in arranging the transfer of funds to Hamas institutions in the territories or people who arranged military training for Hamas members. All this is being done as a "confidence building measure" to convince the Palestinians and Americans that Israel wants to move forward on the Road Map. But, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has consistently said that is not enough; meeting recently in Egypt with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Abbas stated that Israel "must release 6,000 prisoners in order to push the Road Map forward."
Yet, American President George W. Bush, after meeting with Palestinian PM Abbas at the White House said, "We ought to look at the prisoner issue on a case-by-case basis...Surely nobody wants to let a cold-blooded killer out of prison, that would derail the process...I would never ask anybody in any society to let a prisoner out who would then commit terrorist actions." Later after meeting with Bush in Washington, Sharon said he and Bush had agreed there would be no release of Palestinian prisoners "with blood on their hands," those who are likely to return to terrorism or prisoners who, when released in the past, resumed terror activities. But how can we be guaranteed that that isn't exactly what will happen, since it keeps happening?
Seeing the weakening Israeli resolve to be "tough on terror", Hizbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah announced recently that he is willing to give Israel one last chance for a prisoner exchange. Nasrallah called upon Germany to send an emissary for a final attempt at reaching a mutually agreeable deal for a prisoner exchange with Israel. Nasrallah threatened, that if a deal were not reached with Israel, he would resume Hizbollah's efforts to abduct additional Israelis. Hizbollah, who taught Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror techniques and set the example of how to drive the mighty Israeli army out of a field of operations, is now learning from Palestinian PM Abbas. That's Abbas, who in violation of the Road Map, has publicly refused to disarm and dismantle Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other terror groups, while demanding the release of thousands of more terrorists.
Since the Israeli government has kept raising the number of prisoners it announced it would release in the last few weeks, will it finally succumb to Abbas's demand? Is Sharon about to preside over the largest terrorist release in world history?
Israeli government policy - regarding terrorist prisoner releases - might not have changed much in the last 18 years, but there are some signs of improvement among the Israeli people. A telephone poll - which included Israeli Arabs - carried out for Israel Radio on July 9, 2003, asked: Do you support or oppose the release of Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners who are labeled as being "without blood on their hands", within the framework of the negotiations with the Palestinians? Only 43.4% supported it, 48.5% opposed, and 8.1% held no opinion. AmongLikud voters - Sharon's party - there's even less support 34.4%, while 62.5% oppose it and 3.1% answered no opinion. Clearly, Israelis today, don't believe the "ostrich" approach of ignoring terror till it goes away will work.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon told reporters at the Tel HaShomer Army Base recently that the IDF is preparing for a renewal of terrorism, "as the Palestinian Authority is currently not dismantling the terror infrastructures... There could be an interim period of quiet, maybe even a long one, but I'm starting to count the days until the next outbreak of violence." Yaalon explained that the terrorists are taking advantage of the hudna - temporary ceasefire - to manufacture combat materials.
How much will this latest prisoner release bolster their forces and abilities?
When will the Israeli government learn the tragic lesson of releasing vicious murderers? I include - as murderers - not only those who pull the trigger, but also those who plan, finance, organize, send out, and do publicity for the "shooters" and bombers. Maybe if the Israeli government would have let the public in on it's "deep dark secret" - prisoner releases bring more terror - back in 1985, by now overwhelming public opposition to these releases, would have caused the Israeli government to stop carrying them out long ago? We can only speculate as to how many of the over 800 people killed since September 2000 in the Oslo War, by Palestinian violence, would be with us today, if no prisoner releases or exile returnings had taken place. If you still "believe" in the peace process, you haven't yet learned the lesson.
But, more importantly, we each need to ask ourselves, the Israeli government in general and PM Ariel Sharon in particular, how many lives are we willing to sacrifice for this latest "confidence building measure"?
My personal answer is not one Jewish life!
Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko
(c) 2003/5763 Pasko
WHY A "SUCCESSFUL"
WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR ISRAEL
By Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University
An ironic aspect of the so-called Road Map has gone unnoticed. From the standpoint of Israel's physical survival, the very worst case would likely be one in which there were a complete halt to Palestinian terrorism. On its face, this argument would first appear outrageous, indeed, positively indecent, but there are deeper meanings that must now be uncovered. A "successful" cessation of Palestinian terror occasioned by the Road Map would absolutely compel Israel's full acceptance of a Palestinian state. And this new enemy state would move immediately to implement the next stages of the still-honored 1974 PLO "Phased Plan" for Israel's annihilation.
For Israel, the Road Map is a lose-lose proposition. If the Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot prevent further acts of anti-Israel terror, the Jewish state will suffer continuing instances of enemy barbarism. If, however, the PA CAN reign in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant factions - that is, if it can be "successful" - a permanent terror state will almost certainly be established in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. After all, how could Israel be expected to deny claims for "self-determination" in the West Bank/Gaza if the Palestinians now show "good faith" by agreeing to stop their incessant murders of Jewish men, women and children? The world would never allow Israel to stand in the way of a Palestinian state in such seemingly conciliatory circumstances - never.
It is conceivable, of course, that Israel could coexist with a Palestinian state, and that a "successful" Road Map might not necessarily finalize Israel's demise. The creation of such a state would give Palestinian terrorists a precise and readily identifiable "address," a situation wherein Israel would actually gain certain tactical benefits not presently available. Moreover, in terms of worldwide public opinion, Israel's counter-terrorism operations could then be mounted with fewer fears of condemnation as there would be reduced civilian Palestinian casualties.
With enemy belligerents now in the carefully-pressed uniform of a Palestinian army (at least, one hopes, most of these belligerents) and no longer secreted among civilian Arab populations (a method of protecting terrorists that always exhibits the crime of "perfidy" according to international law), the Israel Defense Force could then be liberated from uniquely dangerous and widely unpopular forms of military engagement. But there are other predictable aspects of a Palestinian state that must be understood and confronted. For one, Israel's own Arab populations would surely begin to operate more vigorously as a Fifth Column, offering loyalty and more to their brethren in "Palestine." To be sure, it is altogether unlikely that Israeli Arabs would actually want to move to the new state, but Palestine would provide a codified focus for a new sort of intifada, a steadily-expanding Arab rebellion within the Jewish homeland itself.
In "living with Palestine," Israel would need to take various effective measures to ensure that an Israeli-Arab Fifth Column does not pose intolerable security costs to the Jewish State. These costs would include not only direct terror violence against Israeli Jews, but also carefully calculated interference with IDF mobilization plans in any future regional war: The anticipated Fifth Column which would be spawned by a Palestinian state could even imperil the Jewish State's physical survival. It follows that if, pursuant to the Road Map, a state of Palestine is eventually declared, Israeli efforts at security would have to focus not only on the new enemy country but also - and more vigorously than ever before - on a significant fraction of Israel's own population. If one believes that we in the United States have a "homeland security problem," it positively pales beside what would happen to Israel immediately following the creation of a Palestinian state. Indeed, this issue could pose the single most serious hazard of a Palestinian state to Israel, as it could involve essential infringements on Israeli-Arab civil liberties and a resultant backlash of Israeli-Arab terrorism or of even wider Arab wars of aggression.
The Arab world is presently comprised of twenty-two states containing nearly five million square miles and 144 million people. The wider Islamic world contains forty-four states with more than 1 BILLION people. These Islamic states comprise an area 672 times the size of Israel. The State of Israel, with a population of about 5 million Jews, would fit two times into Lake Michigan. The Sinai Desert, which Israel ceded to Egypt in the 1979 treaty in exchange for vague and still unfulfilled promises of "friendship," is itself three times larger than the entire State of Israel.
Maps tell much of the story. Just a brief glance at maps of the Middle East reveal, on their face, the inherent preposterousness of Palestinian claims and expectations. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, it is probably too late for pointing out the obvious, and Israel will surely have to base its future security on the particular way it chooses to deal with the RoadMap. As outright rejection, the only truly correct way, is no longer possible, Prime Minister Sharon must now refuse to forget that a "successful" Road Map would inevitably be the very worst route for Israel.
Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.
US State Department Middle East Policy That Operates Without US Congressional Authorization and Without Public Awareness
By David Bedein
The US State Department acts independently of US congressional approval in its implementation of middle east policy, while obfuscating basic facts from the Executive Branch of the US government, leaving the White House and Congress totally in the dark as to the reality of the Palestinian Authority
These are matters that must be brought to the immediate attention of the White House, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US House International Relations Committee, and to the media . . .
1. The US State Department has ignored all data brought to its attention from Israeli intelligence which provides documents, records minutes, and recordings which demonstrate Abu Mazen's direct involvement with the PLO murder campaign which has ensued over the past three years, which have resulted in more than 18,000 terror attacks and more than 800 Israeli citizens who have been murdered by Arab terrorists in cold blood.
2. The US State Department has demanded that Israel free hundreds of Arabs who have been involved in acts of murder and premeditated murder, the Arab terrorist did not directly commit an act of murder.
3. The US State Department has demanded that Israel free members of Arab terror organizations who are ideologically committed to murdering Jews.
4. The US State Department has refused to demand that the PLO withdraw its sentence of death for any Jew who lives in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Katif or the Golan.
5. The US State Department has demanded that Israel not publish the documents that it has acquired which demonstrate the direct involvement of the Palestinian National Authority and the Fateh in the campaign of premeditated murder that has occurred over the past three years.
6. The US State Department has refused to comment on the finalized, approved version of the Palestine State Constitution which mandates that the Palestinian State will be based on the Islamic Sharia Law and allow for religious freedom, human rights or civil liberties, while legislating the "right of return" for all Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 and for their descendents.
7. The US State Department has mandated that Israel and the PA NOT dissemble the Hamas, which endorses the murder of all Jews in any part of Israel.
8. The US State Department refers to the June 29th "Hudna" agreement that was achieved between the PLO and the Hamas as a "cease-fire", despite the fact that the US State Department knows full well that a "hudna" implies a respite before the next battle in the war. Since the requirement of the "hudna" is that Israel free ALL jailed terrorists as a condition for continuing the war, there is no chance that the "hudna" will lead to peace or reconciliation.
9. The US State Department, while approving massive arms shipments and weapons upgrade for Egypt, has not used any leverage with Egypt to demand that Egypt put a stop to the mass construction of weapons tunnels into Israel.
10. The US State Department, despite its protestations against those who aid and abet terrorist organizations, will issue no public call for Saudi Arabia to cease and desist from its funding of Arab terror organizations.
11. The US State Department, mandated by the US Congress to monitor PA education,has hired the leading PLO advocacy organization known as IPCRI,which has whitewashed the PA school curriculum as a 'peace curriculum while not citing any specific reference in that same curriculum, That US-funded IPCRI report is being used as the rationale for US AID and the EU to renew funding for the PA schools. Meanwhile, the US State Department is ignoring the text analysis of the newest PA school textbooks provided by CMIP, the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, whose work is located at http://www.edume.org.
12. The US State Department, mandated by the US Congress to provide a critical analysis of the status of religious freedom inside the Palestinian Authority, issued a report in which it described the PA "transformation" of "Kever Yosef", Joseph's Tomb,into a mosque as an "act of religious freedom".
13.The US State Department acting under binding legislation which requires the US Congress that it is not allowed to deal with the PLO unless and until the PLO cancels its covenant which calls for the dismemberment of the state of Israel, to be replaced by a state of Palestine. The PNC, the Palestine National Council, met in special session on April 24, 1996 and on December 14, 1998 to consider the question of the PLO covenant. In both cases, the PNC did not cancel the PLO covenant. However, the position of the US State Department is that the PLO covenant has been cancelled. In other words, the US State Department acts in flagrant violation of US law in this regard.
14. The US State Department recently dispatched emissaries to the middle east, John Wolf and William Burns, both of whom met with Israeli political organizations which lobby for the PLO. Meanwhile, Wolf and Burns refused to meet with Israeli organizations which critique the PLO, leaving pro PLO groups as the only Israeli organizations which are in a position to provide feedback for the US State Department
15. The US State Department, mandated by the President to seek ways to facilitate a two-state solution, has allocated a special grant of $70 Million to UNRWA whose mandate mitigates against any such solution. UNRWA, runs Arab refugee camps and advocates policies that promote the "right of return" for four million Palestinian Arab refugees to take back Arab villages from that have been replaced by Israeli towns, collective farms and woodlands.
16. The US State Department, mandated by the US Congress to facilitate the creation of a "democratic state of Palestine", describes the one party elections in which Arafat was elected president of Palestinian Authority in January 1996 as "free and democratic" despite the fact that all candidates had to be selected and approved by Arafat in order to run. PA Foreign Minister and constitution author Nabil Shaath recently confirmed that Arafat would again be the only candidate for president of the Palestinian Arab entity. However, the PA elections committee spokesperson reassured us by saying that Arafat would again "choose someone to run against him".
17. The US State Department, mandated by the US Congress to facilitate a system of human rights in the Palestinian Authority, turns a blind eye to the fact that the PA has placed more than 200 dissidents on death row for the crime of criticizing the PA. The PA calls them "collaborators" for media consumption.
18. The US State Department has authorized the resumption of direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority, before it took any steps to disarm and disband Arab terror groups that act within the PA. That aid to the PA was supposed to be predicated on that PA crackdown on organizations that plan and conduct acts of premeditated murder against Jews.
19. The US State Department has resumed military training of the PA military forces, after a three year period in which those same PA security forces were directly involved in all levels of terror activity, while incorporating the Hamas.
20. The US State Department, working in conjunction with US AID, has provided financial backing to PASSIA, the Palestinian Arab organization that trains professionals to lobby Capital Hill and the media for their cause. The PASSIA lobby manuals thank the US government for their generous sponsorship. In other words, the US government pays an Arab organization to lobby the US government to advance their interests
Send comments and letters to the editor to firstname.lastname@example.org
Israel Resource News Agency has one purpose: to report Israel's reality to the media by retaining the services of the best Israeli and Arab journalists to cover, research and investigate the events of the day.
Since its inception in 1987, Israel Resource News Agency has covered every aspect of peace negotiations, providing hands-on coverage for the press from Jerusalem, Ramallah, Gaza, Gush Etzion, Hebron, Oslo, Bonn, Brussels, the Wye Plantation, Shepherdstown, Washington, Ottawa, Toronto and Vienna.
Israel Resource News Agency conducts its news investigations with commissions from bona fide news organizations and foundation grants. A membership organization helps Israel Resource News Agency maintain its operation.
The Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2003
By Michael Freund
Today marks the one-month anniversary of the Palestinian terrorist organizations' decision to declare a temporary hudna, or ceasefire, in their ongoing campaign of murder and mayhem against Israel. Reading the press, it would be easy to conclude that this is a date almost worthy of national celebration. Take, for example, a July 17 Associated Press dispatch, which asserted that, "A temporary ceasefire declared by Palestinian militants on June 29 has brought a dramatic drop in violence." And then there was Monday's issue of the UK Guardian, which declared that there has been "a sharp decline in violence since the end of June". Dramatic drop in violence, sharp decline in terror - it almost makes you want to fling open your windows, sweep your arms through the air, and declare to the world: Happy Hudna!
But the reality, of course, is that there is very little to celebrate. For, despite the media's predictable attempts to cheerlead on behalf of the Palestinians, the fact is that anti-Israel terror has far from petered out. According to statistics compiled by the IDF, there have been a total of 167 Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel in the four weeks since the hudna went into effect. That averages out to about 6 Palestinian attacks per day, every day, over the past month. 167 attacks. Think about that number for a second. 167 individual, separate attempts over a 30-day period to murder as many Jews as possible using knives, bullets, bombs and stones. Is this really something to cheer about? After all, a ceasefire means that the Palestinians are supposed to cease the firing (hence the name).
Does it really matter if instead of trying to kill Jews 300 times per month they have decided to temporarily "cut back" to just 167? Others have cited the "relatively" low Israeli death toll in July as proof that the ceasefire is working, since "only" 3 Israelis and one foreign worker have been killed since the hudna went into effect. Aside from the immoral nature of such a statement, which necessarily devalues the lives that were lost and the families that were destroyed, such an assertion is also patently false.
It mistakenly assumes that the ceasefire is the primary reason why there has been a drop in the number of Israeli fatalities, ignoring the role played by the army's efforts to prevent attacks. Thus, for example, in the second week of July, the IDF captured three would-be suicide bombers in Hebron before they were able to carry out their attacks. On July 21, soldiers operating near Shechem (Nablus) found and dismantled a suicide belt containing 10 to 15 kilograms of explosives, while the day before a Palestinian near Jenin was killed when a bomb he was carrying exploded prematurely. In other words - it is not that the Palestinians haven't been trying to kill Jews of late, it is just that they haven't been succeeding.
If any one of the dozens of attacks thwarted by the army over the past month had not been stopped, the death toll for July might very well have been 40 instead of "just" 4. Hence, to give the Palestinians even a measure of credit in this regard is simply absurd. Indeed, Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen has made plain that he has no intention of disarming or disbanding the terrorist groups, who are now reportedly using the hudna to build over 1,000 Kassam rockets with a range of up to 20 kilometers for use against major Israeli cities (Jerusalem Post, July 22). And so, even with the ceasefire in place, the violence continues and the Palestinian terrorist build-up proceeds apace. In effect, then, the only thing that has really changed during the past month is the level of gullibility demonstrated by our leaders, who are quick to forget that the country is still under attack.
The first step toward emerging from this crisis is to return to our senses. Israel must remain firm in demanding "zero tolerance" for terror. And "zero tolerance" means zero attacks. Period. Making excuses for the Palestinian leadership's failure to quash terror, or minimizing the extent of the violence itself, is merely a recipe for further bloodshed and carnage. For by doing so, we come perilously close to accustoming ourselves to terrorism and even accepting it as part of our daily lives. And that is something which no nation in the world should ever have to tolerate. Only by dismantling the Palestinian terrorist regime that has arisen alongside Israel, and removing the terrorist threat once and for all, can we possibly hope to enjoy true peace and security. And only once Abu Mazen and his Hamas and Islamic Jihad accomplices are removed from the scene, will we truly be able to say, with feeling and even a measure of joy: happy hudna to all, and to all a good night.
The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under Benjamin Netanyahu.
(c) The Jerusalem Post
WOULD BUSH RELEASE HIS "PRISONERS?"
By Arlene Peck
For six years I chaired a Jewish discussion group at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. During those years I learned a little about the penal system and the thousands of dollars it costs to keep those criminals in jail. Of course, that being a maximum prison, people may have complained about the high cost of incarceration but they sure didn't give a thought to letting those hardened criminals out. Whatever the savings, it just wasn't worth it. In fact, it's never worth it to open the gates of hell and release murderers and rapists onto the general population. Hey, even if one or two managed to escape, all points bulletins are issued and the news media have a field day until those inmates are captured. We fought a war following 9/11 and a lot of our soldiers died.
I don't care how many human rights organizations march, our government has no plans to open the doors of Guantanamo and let the terrorists out. These are bad people and they belong in jail. On that we're all in agreement. However, I'm astounded that there seems to be a growing contingent of morons out there who are pressuring Israel to release between 3,000-5,000 terrorists that have murdered Jews. Personally, I find it mind-boggling that Israel has already released over 350 of these terrorists. One has even been honored upon his return to the Palestinian Authority, gave his customary kisses to Arafat and then was appointed to the post of an advisor. This man, incidentally, planned and carried out an attack against a school bus which was loaded with children. The parents of one family, where three of their children lost limbs as a result of a deadly explosion, are still in mourning. And Israel opens the jailhouse doors?
Am I the only one who sees insanity in this? What happens to the leaders of Israel once they get elected? And I don't just mean Ariel Sharon. He possibly has been the biggest disappointment but pretty much the past four--Peres, Rabin, Netanyahu, and Barak have given carte blanche to the wishes of everyone but their constituents. Who would have believed that these men, either because of weakness or corruption, would have sold the citizens of Israel down the Road to Hell? Has anyone noticed that Abbas was not only the terrorist in training with Arafat , but Abbas was the same man who financed the cold-blooded Munich Olympic massacre. In addition, he's still making out those checks to the Palestinians and vowing that the Intifada must continue.
What will he do with the released inmates? Hire them into his new police force as Arafat did in Oslo I? Will Peres send them the guns again? Is this where you want your tax dollars going? A billion more is waiting in the wings. I am astounded that Sharon, of all people, is now catering to Mahmoud Abbas, also known as yadda yadda, yadda, who believes that both the Holocaust and the Temple are a myth.
Despite all this, Bush, Powell and Rice see nothing wrong with the mass release of criminals who have not suddenly been transformed into choir boys. Oh, and let's not forget the negotiations that Israel is obliged to engage in with terror organizations to get their executioners back on the streets. Disgusting. Our President, as a former Governor of Texas, is not known for pardoning convicted murderers or releasing known convicted criminals. His state has and probably still does have the largest mortality rate for criminals on Death Row. As Governor , Bush was not famous for complying with wishes from state authorities for the wholesale release of "prisoners", otherwise known as inmates.
So why is he so accommodating when it comes to demands that Israel be victimized in this manner? Back when he was Governor , Bush wasn't a good bet to be offering "goodwill gestures" for any kind of Texas "peace process". It should be obvious that once a nation releases on a grand scale its incarcerated murderers, and all those who are hell bent on their destruction ...this is asking for trouble ! It's outrageous that our country is demanding, and Israel is acceding to, letting out the most hardcore elements who have killed before and who are preconditioned to kill again. Israel might as well issue a press release informing the enemy that it's "open season" on the killing of Israelis. Relying upon the so-called "hudna", or temporary cease-fire, for protection is like relying upon the discredited Oslo Accords for the same purpose.
Why would any country in its right mind willingly agree to such a prisoner release? It is no answer to say that pressure was brought to bear on the Sharon government. That factor cannot be allowed to result in an appreciable diminution of Israeli security. The United States might be the world's only superpower but, in the case of Israel, who can respect any country that so slavishly acts like it was a vassal state? It's ironic how when we pre-empt and destroy the enemy, as we recently did with Saddam's evil sons, it's great! It's morale boosting! Hey, George Bush even gets on television and gives a press conference praising the action and calling them murderers and terrorists who will never be able to do that again.
Terrific . I totally agree. Yet, had it been an Israeli operation, the evildoers would have been described as "activists" who Israel was attacking in violation of the sacred Road Map. I have a difficult time swallowing the double standard . A recent poll , conducted by the Neil Newhouse Public Opinion Strategies, found that 83% of Americans said Israel should not release any Palestinian prisoners who have been involved in the killing of Israeli citizens . And just 15% said they have faith in the hudna, compared to the 78% who said the hudna isn't enough to secure peace. Oh yes, and a McLaughlin poll found that 71% of Americans oppose creating a Palestinian Arab state, only 13% favor it.
Hardly anybody agreed to the wanton opening of jails either. Frankly, though, in a way I think that those who advocate the massive prisoner release have a marvelous idea. The more I think about it, opening up the prisons is looking pretty good to me. But with this catch: let's open the prisons AND the borders and send them out to their twenty-two brother nations. A massive move-out might just be the solution and if they are going, let them go as far away as possible! When a people have only one thought for my people and that thought is reflected in the word death, Transfer is the only solution. Before getting any more politically incorrect, however, I think I'll tackle that topic in another column.
Those wishing to subscribe (or unsubscribe) to the freemanlist daily or freemanlist-digest should mail requests to email@example.com - Or sign up on our web site.
FREEMAN CENTER SERVICES PROVIDED
1. Daily freemanlist -- freemanlist archives <http://mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist/>
2. Monthly Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE (archived from 1995) <http://www.freeman.org/online.htm>
3. FREEMAN CENTER WEB SITE <http://www.freeman.org>
4. Directory of important pro-Israel and other Jewish sites on the WWW. <http://www.freeman.org/other.htm>
5. Search Engine <http://www.freeman.org/search.htm>
6. Sponsorship of programs with pro-Israel groups.
7. And much more!