Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   August 2004             NUMBER 8

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

August 2004


TRANSFER WHOM?...Guest Editorial....Borris Shusteff
PROMOTE JEWISH EDUCATION - Enough Of The Inner City!...Guest Editorial....Arlene Peck

COME ON, RAPE ME....David Wilder
MUSLIM THERAPY....Irwin N. Graulich
ISRAEL AND PRESBYTERIANS....Editorial from The Jerusalem Post
A $64,000 QUESTION (Why Anti-Semitism?)....Yashiko Sagamori

PROJECT DANIEL -- The Existential Threat To Israel: Part Seven....Prof. Louis Rene Beres
THE SUCKER OF ISRAEL: Bodansky's Revelations....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
THE BETRAYED PRISONER - A Visit With Jonathan Pollard....Moshe Feiglin


THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright © 2004 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)





By Bernard J. Shapiro

As I survey the fragile planet we call home, my mind makes note of the chaos, blood, and tears. The cries of a million lost souls shatter the night in a million corners of the earth. The sensitive, compassionate among them try to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked. One by one their energies dissipate. They try to hold back the tide with a teaspoon and then see the impossibility of the task. The Jewish people are but a cosmic speck in this universe. To many Jews who feel deeply about their own people, that speck becomes the whole world. Other Jews are irrevocably tied to non-Jewish pursuits.

May we as a people open our eyes and begin to see the world as it really is. Without becoming depressed and morose, we must realize that there are powerful forces in the world that wish us ill. May we mobilize our strength to fight our enemies until they are defeated. May we not succumb to false prophets of peace. We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls. It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a pseudo-peace. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. Why did some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated "peace" with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers?

Why do many still believe that it is possible to make peace with the barbarians who surround Israel and wish only to destroy it. (Santayana said and it is true today: "Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.") The Jewish people must learn from history and learn the value of unity in the face of so many enemies who wish them ill.

I pray that Israelis who have fought in countless wars will understand that there is no magic cure, though they crave to be free of constant conflict. As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle.

I have a vision and a dream that I must reveal. In the name of G-d, the Almighty, Defender of His People, Israel, I say to my people's enemies: Beware of the thing that is coming, that will take what you would not give. That will free the people of Israel from your atrocities. I say to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: Be aware of the Risen People who will sweep the Arab scourge into the dustbin of history. Know that the Jewish soul will be set free. The spectacular victories of the Israeli army and the return to Zion demonstrated that power. But it wasn't a miracle. It was just the soul of the Jew coming to its own. It was just the Jewish soul freed at last to be itself.

And I see it coming, the Jewish soul released to be itself. I see a new proud Jewish government coming to power in Israel. A government that reclaims the Jewish Holy Places and restores Jewish sovereignty in all of Eretz Yisrael. I see Moslem control and Islamic sites removed from the Temple Mount to make it ready for Moshiach. I see the enemies of Israel, who raise up their hands to murder or injure Jews, driven from our Holy Land. I see the secular Jews of Israel and the world becoming more observant and returning to the Torah. I see religious Jews becoming more tolerant of diversity in Jewish practice.

I see a new Israeli foreign policy that grovels before no nation, no matter how powerful. I see Israel's Foreign Minister informing every nation that their embassies must be in Jerusalem. If they don't respect Israel's capital, then they will be given permission to have a consulate in Tel Aviv. I see the government demanding that the Vatican return all the property it has stolen from the Jewish people during the last 2000 years. Maybe they will refuse and we could always hold their property in Israel as a down payment. The Vatican has been used to dealing with obsequious groveling Jews, but now they would see proud fearless Jews. I see an Israeli government that would change its relationship with America from one of subservience to one of equal alliance.

Yes, I have a dream (apologies to MLK) that Jews will no longer debate the obvious: like whether to hold onto what is theirs or trade it away; whether to struggle for survival or to give up from fatigue. I have a dream that the Jews of the kibbutz and the Jews of YESHA will be reborn as brothers and patriots. From the Galilee to Eilat, all the people of Israel will share the same dream of a powerful independent Zionist nation. I have a dream that this strong, proud independent Israel will win the respect of all the nations of the world, including the Arabs. Instead of the contempt it has earned in recent years, Israel will again be a light unto the nations. And finally, I have a dream that this new Israel will find the peace it so dearly deserves. A peace with strength and self-respect. As I look back at 4000 years of Jewish history, I have but one urgent hope and prayer: We must make this dream a reality. There is no alternative.

May the Lord, bless the leaders of Israel with the courage to pursue peace, and the wisdom to know when it is not attainable. May the Lord bless the Jews who return to Zion and give them jobs and new friends to ease their transition into Israeli life. May the Lord bless the war-weary Israeli people with the stamina to bear up under the strain, if peace is not just around the corner. May they understand that their fate may be that of endless struggle to survive in a hostile world and may they have the strength to understand that there is still no alternative (ein brera). May the people of Israel prosper and go from success to success never forgetting that their destiny lies in their might, their righteousness and their faith in HaShem.


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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

1. Crush terrorism and pre-empt all existential threats to the State of Israel. Why move to a country unable to protect its Jewish population?

2. Annex all state lands within the borders of Israel (post 1967). Annex all property stolen from the Jewish People during the last 2000 years, including Church and Waqf property (exceptions, of course for Holy Places. The term Holy Places does not include fraudulent claims of Muslims to Jewish or Christian Holy Places.). Remove all illegal Arab buildings and farms.

3. Require all voting citizens of Israel to do military or community service for 3 years (including Arabs). The right to vote and be a citizen will depend such service + a loyalty oath to the Jewish State.

4. Re-affirm that Israel is a Jewish State and NOT a democratic (one man one vote) state of all its citizens. The loyal citizens of Israel whether Jewish, Christian, Druze, Beduin or Arab will have equal rights.

5. Adopt Prof. Paul Eidelberg's constitution with constituency elections.

6. Open up Judea & Samaria for massive building, thus creating giant suburbs close to the heavily populated Israeli coastline. A system of toll roads, and light rail will connect these suburbs to the coast from Ashdod to Nahariya. This will solve the over population along Israel's coast and create a better quality of living for all Israelis.

7. Anyone in Israel who raises up a rock to crush Jewish skulls, or a knife, gun or bomb to kill Jews should be expelled from Eretz Yisrael.

A final thought: It took Jews 2000 years to regain Eretz Yisrael. We should most emphatically not allow the world who wished us dead to influence our decisions on how we should LIVE.




by Boris Shusteff

[07/11/04] Few will argue with the assertion that today we live in an age of political correctness. Nevertheless, let us try to free ourselves from this preconceived notion and soberly observe the situation. Whether we like it or not, among all the different solutions available for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, we must consider the option of Arab transfer. It is quite possible that transferring the Arabs out of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper can cut the Gordian knot of the unending conflict once and for all.

Why transfer? From Israel's standpoint, the answer is simple. It is a very realistic way to separate the Jews from the Arabs. It is an extremely painful and at the same time very pragmatic method by which the Arabs themselves will bear the consequences of their wild hatred of Jews and their non-acceptance of Israel. It is an excellent way to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. And perhaps most importantly, it is the only solution that can have a long-lasting effect, thus enabling peace.

Let us first note that, while in the first half of the 20th century, "population transfer used to be accepted as a means to settle ethnic conflict, today forced population transfers are considered violations of international law" (1). Does this mean that we should not talk about transfer? On the contrary, if at one point transfer was acceptable to the world community, why is it not possible that it will again become accepted as a legitimate method of resolving ethnic conflicts?

Population transfer was once "considered a drastic but 'often necessary' means to end an ethnic conflict or ethnic civil war." (1) However, after the Nazi atrocities and the forced deportation and expulsion of civilian populations associated with them, the Charter of the Nuremberg Trials of German Nazi leaders "declared forced deportation of civilian populations to be both a war crime and a crime against humanity. ... Underlying... the trend to assign rights to individuals, thereby limiting the rights of states to make agreements which adversely affect them." (1).

Let us pause for an obvious question. What are the most sacred of the rights that an individual possesses? Most would agree that these are the rights to life, security and dignity. It is exactly these rights that are enshrined into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That means that if by its actions a state "adversely affects" these rights, it violates international law. The opposite is true as well. If a state acts in order to guarantee the preservation of the rights of individuals to life, security, and dignity it acts inside the margins of international legitimacy. But then how should we look at a situation in which the rights to life, security, and dignity can only be achieved by means of transfer? How would we deem transfer if, after forceful relocation to Jordan, ending decades spent in substandard conditions, the Palestinian Arabs were finally able to attain decent lives, in security, and with dignity?

This is not an empty question, since transfer is still employed in the international arena for resolving ethnic conflicts. For example, in the 1990's "The United Nations took steps that, while not intended to constitute population transfer, given the weakness of UN forces in the area led to the transfer of population" (1) within the boundaries of Yugoslavia. That means that just a couple years ago, the forced transfer of a population took place under the auspices of the UN and "one immediate result... was a sharp decline in ethnic violence in the region" (1).

And it was a real full-scale transfer. Hundreds of thousands of people were expelled or left on their own. As a result today in Croatia more than 90% are ethnic Croatians. In Kosovo the overwhelming majority of the population are ethnic Albanians. It is important to note that the process of population migration did not stop with the suspension of military hostilities. For instance, before the arrival in June 1999 in Kosovo and Metohija's Municipality of Urocevac of the Kosovo Force (KFOR), a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing and maintaining security in Kosovo, there were about 60,000 Albanians and 20,000 Serbs living in this municipality. As of November 3, 2003 only 12 (!) Serbs remain there. The rest were expelled and sought refuge in the regions with predominantly Serbian population, thus transforming Urocevac into a mono-ethnic Albanian region.

This means that in reality, population transfer remains a way of resolving ethnic problems, in spite of loud proclamations to the contrary. Stefan Wolff, an English Professor of Political Science, and one of the foremost specialists on the subject of ethno-politics, recently wrote a paper discussing the pluses and minuses of population transfer. The work is extremely important for this discussion, and we will therefore refer extensively to his paper.

After a thorough investigation of many instances of transfer that involved the forceful relocation of tens of millions of people, Wolff writes,

"...The previous case studies have illustrated that forced population transfers can contribute, although to differing degrees, to the internal stability and external security of the states involved, achieving, for the most part, two essential objectives -- to avoid internal ethnic strife and to prevent external minorities from being used as instruments of irredentist foreign policies" (2).

It is exactly internal stability and external security that have been desperately sought by Israel for more than 56 years. And the Palestinian Arabs have been, and continue to be used by the Arab world precisely "as instruments of irredentist foreign policies." Would it not be reasonable to expect that the transfer of the Arabs could resolve these seemingly irresolvable issues?

Certainly, relations between Jews and Arabs after the Arab expulsion would be extremely tense. According to Wolff's study, "bilateral relations between expelling and receiving states have often been poisoned for decades as a consequence of an expulsion, especially when unresolved issues of compensation and restitution remain" (2). But aren't relations between the Arabs and Jews already exceptionally bad?

In essence, Arab hatred toward Jews today is already at such a high level that the transfer of the Arabs will only marginally increase it. It is even more important to understand that Arab hatred is directed not toward Israelis, but toward Jews. And it is spread not only by the Palestinian Arabs, but by all Arabs. For a good example, let us listen, to Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, the preacher at the Grand Al-Haraam mosque -- the most important mosque in Mecca, at the very heart of Islam. He said on February 1, in his sermon,

"Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels... calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs... These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."

Such pronouncements can mean only one thing: Arab hatred towards the Jews is irrational, and does not really depend on the Jews' actions. Whatever the Jews do, they will remain for the Arabs "the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs." Therefore if Israel expels the Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper the Arabs' loathing of the Jews can hardly increase. It is essentially impossible to be more scornful of Jews than the Arabs already are.

Lest we assume that it is always preferable not to carry out population transfer than to implement it, there is ample evidence to the contrary. As Wolff explains,

"Avoiding population transfers has had even more disastrous long-term consequences in at least one case -- the German dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39, and has resulted in ethnic tensions, occasionally escalating in violence in other cases -- such as in post-1990 Transylvania and southern Slovakia" (2).

It's important to remember that within the two words "disastrous consequences" are contained the violent and barbaric deaths of over 50 million people who perished in World War II. And the first step in the direction of war was the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In truth, avoiding the expulsion of the Arabs is similar to the rejection of the transfer of the Sudeten Germans. Could it be that Israel today, as Czechoslovakia did then, walks along the road to disastrous consequences?

Knowing the history of the conflict, it is very doubtful that the festering wound of the Arab-Israeli confrontation can be healed without separating the Jews from the Arabs.

Unfortunately, the way that Ariel Sharon, Israel's current Prime Minister, is trying to achieve this separation -- by means of a loudly proclaimed transfer of Jews out of Gaza and four communities in Samaria -- is not even a quarter-measure.

There are two main issues that make the transfer of Jews completely useless. First, this sidesteps the issue of the Israeli Arabs, a problem, of which an overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are acutely aware. In a survey conducted in the beginning of January, 71% of Jews agreed with Benjamin Netanyahu's statement, that "the Israeli Arabs constitute a demographic danger."

Honestly speaking, the situation is very grave for Israel, if it intends to remain a Jewish state. Data presented at a workshop held in January at Tel Aviv University showed that "in the past 15 years, the number of mosques in Israel has increased four and a half times, from 80 in 1988 to 363 in 2003." The Arab population in the meantime increased only by one and a half times, meaning that the islamization of Israel's Arab population grew 300%.

Along with the growth of the Arab population all over the country, there is a visible tendency towards an increase in the Arab population in the capital of the Jewish state. A struggle for the capital itself is taking place. According to the Jerusalem Center for Israel Research, while in 1967 the fraction of Arabs in Jerusalem constituted 26%, now the Arabs make up 33% of the city's inhabitants.

In the December 10, 2003 issue of Ha'aretz, Israel Harel wrote about several other very troubling facts.

"The percentage of Arab pupils in the first grade, a crucial indicator for what can be expected in the near future, is 32.5. Moreover, about 58.8 percent of Israel's Arabs are under the age of 24, while among Jews the proportion is only 38 percent. These figures clearly show that the Jewish population is growing older and its fertility is declining. The Arab population, on the other hand, is young and its fertility is on the rise - and is certainly not declining. The average Israeli Arab family has 5.26 members while the average Jewish family has only 3.13 members."

Knowing all this, it becomes clear that Israel's demographic threat originates not from the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, who are in any case not the citizens of the Jewish state, but from the Israeli Arabs. And therefore the transfer of Jews (even if we forget about the terrible harm that will be inflicted on the Zionist idea itself) does nothing to eliminate this threat.

A second issue that makes Sharon's plan of transferring Jews completely illogical is the issue of Arab irredentism. It should be clear to anyone with a modicum of logic that since the Arabs view Israel as "occupying" ALL of Palestine, they will consider Israel's voluntary retreat from ANY part of Palestine as a victory. Sharon's withdrawal will serve as obvious proof that Israel can be forced to relinquish more land, since she has done it before. The precedent set by the Jews' abandonment of Gaza will only increase Arab desire to gain more from Israel.

At the same time, we should not miss the point that the world community has met Sharon's plan of transfer of the Jews with the utmost enthusiasm. Support from western democracies for transferring Jews out of Gaza is almost unanimous. This means that supporters of Arab transfer have a unique chance to bring the issue that they champion to the fore, for open discussion. If transfer in general is legitimate, then transfer of Arabs must be considered legitimate as well. If a transfer of Jews is possible, then a transfer of Arabs is possible too.

One of the main principles in Sharon's disengagement plan states: "The stalemate dictated by the current situation is harmful. In order to break out of this stalemate, the State of Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation."

But then why it should be a transfer of Jews? Doesn't a transfer of Arabs also fall into the same category of "moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation?" And if public support is in question, the latest study carried out by the University of Haifa's National Security Research Center should put those concerns to rest. The data show that "A full 63.7% believe in what is known as transfer, and said that the government should encourage the emigration of Israeli-Arabs from Israel." Therefore we have every reason to ask: If transfer is needed, why not transfer the Arabs?


2. Forced Population Transfers: Institutionalised Ethnic Cleansing as the Road to New (In-) Stability? The European Experience (Stefan Wolff, Department of European Studies, University of Bath/UK)



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



This speech by Nadia Matar, Chairperson, Women in Green, at the Tisha B'Av Evening Walk around the Old City Walls of Jerusalem was delivered in Hebrew. The following is an English translation thereof.


On June 7, 1967, our paratroopers broke through the Lions' Gate, and liberated the entire Old City. At ten o'clock in the morning, three paratroopers, following Motta Gur's orders, climbed to the top of the Mosque of the Dome and unfurled an Israeli flag over it. Four hours later, at two p.m., Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived, surrounded by his entourage. Nadav Shragai writes in his book The Contested Mount: "Dayan was immersed in his thoughts when the IDF Chief Prosecutor Meir Shamgar drew his attention to the fact that the Israeli flag had been raised over the Temple Mount since the morning. Dayan ordered that it immediately be lowered. Then Dayan spotted a paratrooper company that was preparing for permanent deployment in the northern part of the Temple Mount, and he ordered that they, too, be removed from the Mount.

"GOC Central Command Uzi Narkiss sought to persuade Dayan, and he reminded him that Jordan, as well, had kept a military unit on the Mount to maintain order. Dayan was not convinced. He told Narkiss that it seemed to him that the place had to be entrusted to the Muslims." Several days later, Dayan decided finally that the place and its administration were to be entrusted to the Muslim Wakf. At the same time, he decided to insist that Jews be allowed to visit the Temple Mount, but not pray there. Later on, Dayan gave an explanation for his scandalous decision - a decision that proved to all just how much Dayan was an assimilated Jew and an ignoramus. He explained that, "since for the Muslims the Temple Mount is a Muslim mosque for prayer, while for Jews it is merely a historical site recalling the past, the Arabs are not to be disturbed in acting there as they do now, and the right of the Muslims to control it must be recognized."

A few weeks later, on Tisha B'Av 1967, 1897 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbi Goren, may the memory of the righteous be for a blessing, with several dozen other Jews, entered the Temple Mount plaza, where Jews -according to halacha-were permitted to be. They brought with them a shofar (ram's horn) and a Torah Ark with a Torah scroll, and they conducted the afternoon prayer service. This afternoon prayer service on the Temple Mount aroused a public storm in Israel and abroad. The media launched unbridled agitation against Rabbi Goren's initiative to renew Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, and his request to conduct a mass prayer service on the Sabbath following Tisha B'Av was categorically rejected. The government told Rabbi Goren in no uncertain terms: If Jewish worshipers were to ascend the Temple Mount, they would be evacuated by security forces.

In response to this terrible decree, Rabbi Goren wrote a letter to the Ministerial Committee for the Safeguarding of the Holy Places. His words could have been written today, almost forty years after we liberated the place of our Temple, while, to our shame, the Temple Mount is still closed to Jewish prayer. The following are a few passages from his letter:

"Honored Ministers! Your decision by which you forbid me, as an individual, and the Jews as a whole, from praying on the Temple Mount shocked me to the depths of my soul. It follows from your decision that the only place in the world in which an express and specific ban has been placed on the Jew, as a Jew, to pray, is Mount Moriah, the mount of the Lord to which all of Israel's prayers are directed, the location of the nation's Holy of Holies. [...]

"From the destruction of the Second Temple until three hundred years ago, the prayers of Jews on the Temple Mount did not cease. [...] The uniqueness of the Kotel (Western Wall) as a place of prayer is a historical innovation, and is not more than three hundred years old. It began after the decrees and limitations placed by the Muslim rulers on the Jews, and the abrogation of the 'synagogue' [...] that had existed for centuries on the Temple Mount. [...] In no manner or form is the Western Wall entitled to be a substitute for the mount of the Lord. The prayers at the Wall symbolize the exile of the people and its expulsion from the Temple Mount, while our prayers on the Temple Mount represent the return of the people to its land and the place of its Temple.

"Who could conceive that Israel's security forces would be compelled to obstruct Jews from praying before the Lord, when the Temple Mount is under the government of Israel? And is this our situation now, after our dazzling victory? Did we await this, that the government of Israel would discriminate between Jew and Muslim, and place guards lest, Heaven forbid, Jewish prayer would be uttered on the Temple Mount, about which the Prophets prophesied, 'For My House shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples' [Isaiah 56:7]?"

"Jewish history shall not forgive us for this. My request," Rabbi Goren ends his letter, "is to open wide the gates of the Temple Mount to all Jews and for everyone in the world. Save the Holy of Holies of the nation, do not hand over the Temple Mount to those who defile it. Signed in grief, in hope, and in blessing, Shlomo Goren, General, Chief Rabbi of Israel."

My friends, the State of Israel exists for 56 years. Of these, we were truly, in the words of the Hatikvah, "a free people in its land" only for four hours. Those four hours were those in which the Israeli flag waved above the Temple Mount. For, as Uri Zevi Greenberg knew, whoever controls the Temple Mount controls all of Eretz Israel. Anyone with any sense knows that the Temple Mount is not holy for Muslims. The only reason why they are building mosques there is because this is the people of Israel's most sanctified spot, and their goal is to prevent us from gaining a foothold there. Turning the Temple Mount compound into a Muslim place of prayer is therefore not a religious act, but a political and warlike act, a sort of spiritual terrorist attack against the Jews.

The order to lower the Israeli flag from the Temple Mount in '67 constituted the beginning of the continued withdrawal from, and collapse by Israel's governments to the Arab enemy. There is a clear and direct connection between the removal of the Israeli flag from the Temple Mount in '67 and the retreat from Yamit, from there to the criminal Oslo accords, from there to the Wye agreements, and from there to Ariel Sharon's ethnic cleansing plan to deport Jews and hand over broad portions of the soil of our homeland to the enemy. Obviously, anyone who abandons the Temple Mount, the very heart of the Jewish people, will eventually hand over the rest of the homeland to that same Arab foe.

Rabbi Yisrael Rosen writes in his book Kumu Ve-Na'aleh (Come, Let Us Go Up) that our hold on Jerusalem is to be regarded as a barometer of the degree of the national revival of the people of Israel. A debased hold on Jerusalem hints at national subservience. Firm adherence to Jerusalem means standing with head held high and with dignity. According to this barometer, the national revival of Israel today seems at first extremely low. The children of Israel's adversaries play soccer in the place of our Temple; the Arab enemy engages in the destruction of all the antiquities and Jewish traces at the site, without interference and with our full governmental compliance. This is really depressing and frustrating.

But here comes the good news. We, the people, are capable of changing the situation! Admittedly, we have many weak and tired political leaders, who are no different from the ten spies who slandered the Land of Israel. Those scouts were afraid. They did not believe or have the faith that we could conquer our Land. As is common knowledge, it was specifically for the sin of the spies that we were punished. G-d turned the day on which the Land was besmirched by these messengers, which fell on the ninth of Av, into a day of destruction and mourning. Today, we must correct this sin! Today, the people of Israel rejects the way our people reacted in the wilderness. Then, the response of the people was to believe the ten spies, to weep, to complain, and to tearfully implore Moses to return to Egypt. Yesterday we had a magnificent human chain, with more than two hundred thousand participants, from Gush Katif to the Temple Mount. Today, we have tens of thousands participants in the Walk, who encircle the Temple Mount as a bride encircles her groom under the wedding canopy. This Walk has been held for ten years in succession now, and just grows from year to year. All of this demonstrates that the majority of the people received the genes of Caleb ben Yefuneh and Joshua ben Nun, who believed in the justness of our Cause, and who did not fear to say "We will certainly go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it" (Numbers 13:30).

We must deliver an unequivocal message to all the politicians today who, once again, slander the Land and are willing to surrender parts of it: This shall not come to pass. The people shall not allow you, even if you cook up a majority in the Knesset and the government. The majority of the people of Israel, throughout the ages, clearly say: "The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel, in accordance with the Torah of Israel, and no one has the right to cede it." Don't delude yourselves: yesterday we stood in the human chain like nice and very disciplined children, and today we are holding a quiet and respectable march - but you should know that for us the Land of Israel is like our child, and if, Heaven forbid, the patently illegal order should come to take our child from us, the masses that we saw yesterday in the human chain, and today in this Walk will be forced to react as a lioness defending her cubs against criminal and murderous hunters.

With G-d's help, we will not have to face such harsh situations. With G-d's help, in the coming months we will succeed in sending home, to early retirement, all the political leaders who today are betraying Zionism and Judaism, and thereby bury their plan of destruction. In their place we shall find true, proud Jewish leaders, leaders who shall fearlessly proclaim throughout the whole world: "The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel, in accordance with the Torah of Israel" - leaders whose first action will be to expunge the national shame from the Temple Mount. In other words, leaders who will remove the foreign intruder and who will return the Israeli flag over the Temple Mount, the very heart of our sanctity. This way, and only this way, with G-d's help, will the complete Redemption come, speedily and in our days, Amen.


Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380




Enough Of The Inner City!

By Arlene Peck

I surprised myself yesterday. I received a call from The Jewish Federation solicitation for my yearly donation. In the words of Theresa Kerry, I almost told them to 'shove it'. Frankly, my reaction shocked me. I used to be one of those people who sat at the phones and made those calls to people like me.

I came from a family of big federation workers. In fact, in my hometown of Atlanta, I believe at one time or another many of my relatives have been president of that particular branch and founded most of the Jewish organizations there.

My doubts about the value of this particular organization began many years ago when my kids were little. My husband came to me one day, demanded a divorce and I didn't know where to turn. Here in California, everyone is either a therapist, or seeing one. However, in those days and in that city, I didn't have the leisure of that choice. So, I turned to the Federation for help.

Silly me. They told me that they were busy settling the "Cambodians" and could give me an appointment in six months. I pleaded with them that the situation being as it was, six hours might be too long. Nothing moved their "family service" department and I was left waiting for them to get around to me after they finished making their plans to settle the Cambodians.

I've spoken to too many others who've had that same experience. One friend recently told me "I was widowed with no income and they told me that unless I was a minority they wouldn't help. It's appalling that the Jewish Federations think that "Jewish" is the wrong minority.

The output of funds into these organizations and where it's going needs to be examined. Maybe after having to deal with CEO's like the Michael Eisner's of the world who live like kings on stockholders dividend checks I've gotten suspicious. Or, maybe it's the simple fact that some of the people leading these organizations and Israeli consulates seem to have the IQ's of eggplants. Whatever, I've gotten where I don't want to give them a dime until I see where that money is going. And, from what I've seen, too little is going into Jewish education.

One would think that after all of these years their attitude would have changed. Not so. I'm seeing the same callous attitude toward Jewish education twenty years later. My children were given a background in Judaism. Now, my daughter thankfully, wants to continue to see that her children are able to have what she was given. However, now she is having to face the fact that if she wants to have her three babies of three, four and five years old get that Jewish education - then she must pay the tab of thirty-six thousand dollars a year to keep them in the Jewish Day School. Thirty-six thousand dollars a year!

My other daughter and her husband are planning a family. Where they once spoke of three or four children it's been cut down to two. This, so they might be able to see that their children have the Jewish education they want to give it. Atlanta is cheap by Los Angeles standards and the going price for a good Jewish Day School (grammar, not college) is seventeen thousand dollars a year per child.

This, in my opinion, is crazy. Not only that, but it answers my question of why there is no great connection instead of to the 'new generation' to Judaism. They have no idea what the word Jewish means. Israel? They couldn't find it on the map because the values of Judaism were not into them from babyhood. They had a Bar Mitzvah and that's about it.

Jdate? I hear from my daughter how her Asian and blond, Nordic girlfriends think it's a really neat way to meet cute Jewish guys. After all, they don't beat their wives, drink too much and are 'good to their wives'.

I asked the girl on the phone what programs that the Federation was promoting. I wasn't surprised when she went on about the plans they had to help the 'inner city' kids. I remember in Atlanta how busy everyone was working with the black churches in sending kids from the 'inner cities' to the Jewish camp the week it closed for the summer. I wondered then, what black group has ever worried about having a joint program with the Jewish children? Name one of these benevolent groups that feel they must include Jewish children?

Recently, I spoke to a group at the synagogue in Portland Maine. I told them that they best be looking into the growing problem of children not having any Jewish identity and the reasons behind it.

While I'm not privy to what the inflated salaries of our leadership moguls are, they have so much money and channel it into their ideas of worthy causes. Unfortunately, most times, the idea of a child getting a proper religious education doesn't even cross their minds.

Funds are being cut to the Jewish community centers, which is bad enough. But, the price of seeing a Jewish child stays a Jewish child is forgotten. Good Lord, lately they've even taken to closing Jewish Community Centers which is, in my way of thinking, the unthinkable. With all of their fund-raising, the cost of the average person being able to join these centers and day schools is getting beyond the affordable limit.

I'm a strong believer in protecting Israel. However let me tell you something. The belief begins early. The Leadership of the Islamic fundamentalist movement understands this and they train their children in hatred beginning with their nursery rhymes. Jewish youth have to be taught in the same way but to have a love in their hearts for Israel.

In Judaism the key word has always been education. Education with a capital "E". Yet, in today's high flying world, the very basics of our religion are lost in high tuition.

The Hollywood crowd? Forget them. They have no love or concept of what the word Israel means to them. Why? Because they probably also grew up in a Federation world where Aid's victims in Africa and Children's Hospitals in LA were benefits they should attend to raise money. Most of their trophy wives think Jewish is something that's 'cool' like Kabala and they can go with Madonna and Britney. If they are convinced to attend a fund-raiser, then they are usually paid a hefty price just to put their name on the list of 'attendees'.

Israel does its best by promoting low cost trips to visit for high school students. Even my own kid benefitted, probably for the rest of her life from the SAREL program that she was part of. Yet, that's not enough. It has to begin long before that first trip to Israel.




By Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East analyst & commentator

It's really quite easy as exemplified by the Oslo Accords, the Road Map and Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plans.

Having been hunted by the so-called civilized world for a few thousand years, Some Jews have a deep craving for recognition and approval. Promise them anything that fills that vacuum and they will follow like puppies.

Israel has many enemies, most of whom have declared their enmity long before the Jewish State was ever created in 1948. No point in going back a thousand years because, if you don't know our uninterrupted tragic history by now, it's doubtful you will ever take the time to learn it.

It is now 2004 and the Jewish State is 56 years young. She has been attacked in seven wars of Muslim Arab aggression. She has won all of them and maintained her existence by beating and enduring against an unending sub-level of Terror. Her enemies are quite easy to list, namely, all of the Muslim Arab nations, most, if not all of the European nations, including those who collaborated with Hitler to eliminate all Jews from their nations. The Arabist U.S. State Department has an indelible record beginning in earnest during WWII through the present. The United Nations continuous anti-Israel resolutions were and are driven by the Muslim Arab Block. Russia's history is rife with murderous pogroms against its Jews. The Church of Rome through its teaching - well, you get the idea.

These are and have ever been the enemies of the Jewish State who wish it to disappear from the face of this planet - denials by France, Germany, the U.S. State Department, 'et al', notwithstanding.

But, destroying the Jewish State of Israel has become a problem, given that she has armed herself and has become proficient at winning wars and defeating Terrorism. She also has a non-advertised Nuclear Deterrent - which the State Department, Egypt and the U.N. is making a concerted effort to have Israel voluntarily eliminate - as a gesture of 'good will'. To accomplish the cutting down toward elimination, Israel's enemies concluded that they must enlist Israel's leadership - both Left and Right to voluntarily commit national suicide.

This is accomplished by offering to fill that vacuum in most Jews by recognition and seeming approval. That too is not difficult since, in addition to that yearning for friendship, there is the fact of their naiveté about world intentions.

Unlike the Europeans who have centuries of conflicts where they were in almost constant state of plotting wars and subversion of each other, Israel is just beginning to learn. Israel has had only a mere 56 years to develop the ability to look ahead and foresee dangers to her existence. Her leaders have mostly been former generals whose only experience was the military with little experience in the world. In the world of International Politics, they are mere babes in the woods. Dangle something shining or make an attractive noise, and like an infant, those man-children will reach for it.

Such backward leaders as Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and now Arik Sharon are easily euchered (tricked) by offers to make little Israel part of the "Big Game". David Ben Gurion would have been more difficult to trick because he still had his experience from Russia and was not quite so gullible. Menachem Begin also, although less so when he was massaged by Jimmy Carter, Moshe Dayan, Ezer Weizman and even Ariel Sharon into surrendering up the Sinai Desert for virtually nothing more than a promise by Egypt to cease fighting and preparing for war. Israel received a cold peace and Egypt has since absorbed $60 Billion in free American tax-payers dollars for war-making equipment with more on the way by a pro-Arab State Department's approval.

Each time the U.S. through the Arabist State Department or a President who is an advocate of Saudi Arabia wishes to sucker a Jewish Prime Minister, they make an offer she cannot refuse. Usually the State Department or the President starts courting the Prime Minister, telling him how important he is between threats and how they desperately need him on their side. Part of the recruitment process is to tell them that they have vast overall plans to control the Middle East through conversion of Muslim Arab nations into dependence if not Democracy. The idea of dependence is to sell them mountains of sophisticated armaments which are then supposed to make them dependent on American technology, maintenance and spare parts. Of course, in the end, it is the U.S. who is actually dependent on the sale of more armaments plus the ever present oil.

But, the friendly back-slapping and invitation to be part of the Free West's grandiose plans makes Israel's shallow country bumpkin leaders gasp and their eyes spring open at the recognition of their value. How their egos inflate and they strut with self-importance, not understanding that they have been bought like any cheap street walker.

Soon, these pathetic leaders begin to cut back on planning for future war. They buy the argument of 'Peace' or at least, 'The Process' from their so-called friends who try to appease the Arab Muslims by re-partitioning the country that was once the Jewish homeland in the Palestinian Mandate. Their 'friends', the Americans, wish to gift a State with all that Israel has built and made green to the Arab Muslim Palestinians. They do this hoping to pacify the murderous Muslim Palestinian Arabs, knowing it will immediately become a Global Terrorist staging area. (Note the internecine war that is already raging down in Gaza as the Terrorist factions manuever to be the last ones standing after their own firefight.)

The political Left is easy to recruit because they do not regard the Land of Israel as theirs and are ready to move on if pushed sufficiently. Thus we acquired the failed Oslo Accords, with a doctrine that pre-plans to accept Terror and a 'reasonable number' of dead Jews. We previously saw the emerging of Ehud Barak, who was cultivated in the military by Labor to become Prime Minister. Ehud Barak accepted the Clinton plans and promises of compensation if he escaped from Lebanon in the middle of the night abandoning our Christian Lebanese allies, while leaving Israeli tanks and artillery there for the Hezb'Allah to acquire.

As Prime Minister, Barak was promised peace for his gross, foolish and cowardly gesture. He got neither peace nor the funds for his betrayal. The vacuum was filled with Hezb'Allah and now there are some 12,000 rockets and missiles pointed at Israel's entire North - some loaded with chemical war-heads, courtesy of Syria and Iran. At this time there is a major push by Sharon and Peres to resurrect Oslo, combined with elements of the Road Map and the European/Beilin-Geneva Plan.

Now, we have Arik Sharon whose life was spent in the military pushing these suicidal plans, making solemn, though infantile, judgements about the political future of all Israel. This is a man, not unlike Rabin and Barak who never understood how America works and its separate vested interests in Arab oil and Arab oil markets. Sharon thinks that promises made by a President are binding and that Congress is simply like the inept Israeli Knesset which he can bully.

So he accepts the Bush Road Map which itself was a naive plan of wishful thinking and completely empty of any understanding of an Arab Muslim world, dedicated to 'Jihad' (Holy War for Islam) and world domination by Islam. Sharon, not having any real experience in world affairs, is vacuumed into a suicidal plan because he is told that Israel is an important player in a high stakes game of importance.

How proud our erstwhile Sharon is to be thought of as a 'big player' among the nations and, mostly, by America. He still hasn't grasped the fact that he is merely a disposable pawn only valuable in promoting Israel's ability to sacrifice herself so the really "Big Game" can proceed. Sharon doesn't realize he's merely a joke at the State Department who creates America's foreign policy no matter who is President.

Sharon was a great warrior in his own little patch. Now he is neither a great warrior nor a sophisticated leader with worldly vision. He has become merely a Pied Piper who is planning to lead the Chidren of Israel over an irrevocable cliff.

Israel had to be recruited to accomplish her own destruction under the illusion that she will be part of the "Grand Scheme" to change the Middle East.

That Iraq will become a Democracy.

That Iran will cease its Islamic march toward regional and world infusion of Islam for everyone.

That Egypt will remain modestly religious and will not become a fully Islamic State when President Hosni Mubarak dies and the Muslim Brotherhood starts its 'Coup d'Etat'.

That Jordan's Muslim Palestinians will not overthrow King Abdullah to make it a full fledge Muslim Palestinian nation (read: Terrorist Nation).

That Syria will fall into line with the Bush democracy and all these nations will cease to be Israel's dedicated enemies.

But, first Israel must be reduced in size by being driven back to her 1967 Armistice lines (what Abba Eban called: "The Auschwitz lines"). I would call these lines the Armageddon Lines. Sharon has proclaimed that he plans to FIRST evacuate 8,000 men, women and children from Gaza/Gush Katif where they made the sand bloom and grow green for three generations. Sharon is inviting Egypt's Intelligence into Gaza to be followed by its Army to, of course, protect its Intelligence in Gaza and the Sinai - close up to Israel's southern borders.

Israel must do all these things voluntarily, as a gesture to Bush, the Muslim Palestinians and the Arab Muslim nations, in the hope that the promise of Peace will be bestowed upon them. Sharon plunges forward even as the different Terrorist groups fight each other for dominance in Gaza with the winner leading a final assault on Israel.

Does anyone, even the most radical Leftists, the most hostile, non-Jewish Jews, see anything wrong with this picture?

It appears that, with the exception of the Jews of YESHA (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza) as well as the Golan and the observant Jews all over the world, many Israelis see nothing that shakes their confidence in their security by giving up their Land.

As for American Jews, their leadership was easily recruited. Just invite the members of the Conference of Presidents to the State Department or the White House, tell them how important their acceptance of surrender is for the "Peace Process", pat their behinds on the way out and they will float for weeks, inflated with their own self-importance, bloated on the recognition of their role convincing American Jews to remain passive and silent..

However, many Jews and Christians are not so easily taken in and recruited. They know viscerally that neither the Arabs, Europeans or State Department can be trusted - at least not with the fate of the only Jewish State or even with America future security.

Israel has been sold out - again. Some by intention, some by naiveté, some from their own inflated self-importance and stupidity. It really doesn't matter, bottom line, except to those who are or will be the victims. There is always the chance that the Jewish people will awaken, rise up and throw out their weak leadership like true Maccabean warriors of old, united, to defend the Land that was given to the Jewish people forever by G-d at Mt. Sinai.

When such men as Sharon and Peres lose their hearts, their souls follow and they are only dead men walking. Sharon, like Peres and Barak, has lost his nerve and can no longer command. It is time for this Israeli government to be overthrown and replace with better minds, with Israeli courage. Sharon, with his partner, Peres through secret agreements have betrayed the Jewish nation and must go!




By Caroline Glick

Has Israel won the Oslo War? Is the Aksa intifada over? Over the past several weeks a number of prominent voices have weighed in on this topic claiming triumphantly that indeed, the war is over. Israel has won.

There are several objective factors that lend to this conclusion.

Israel's economy, which was teetering on the verge of collapse in the first two years of the war is now making a strong comeback. Whereas in 2001 and 2002 the economy shrunk, by 2003, our economy grew by a modest 1.3 percent and conservative projections forecast a healthy 3.8 percent increase in GDP by the end of 2004.

The number of successful terrorist attacks has decreased by some 70% over the past year. The fact of the matter is that IDF forward deployment in Judea, Samaria and Gaza together with more sophisticated defenses, better technology and more specialized training and professionalization of the armed forces have together enabled Israel to prevent terror attacks that would have been undetectable four and even two years ago.

The precipitous drop in the number of Israeli casualties has had a psychological impact on Israelis. Today we cringe, rather than fall into a sweaty-palmed panic every time we hear ambulance sirens. Tourists, the kind that come here for fun rather than "solidarity missions," have returned to us. Foreign exchange students are returning to our university campuses.

In short, it would seem, we are back to normal.

On the other hand, the Palestinian towns and cities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are wracked with anarchy and gangland violence between the various terror groups and PA militias in a seemingly endless turf war. When polled late last month about Gaza's prospects after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's planned evacuation, 59 percent of Palestinians said that they are worried that internal Palestinian infighting WILL ensue. More starkly, 69 percent of Palestinians believe that their lives and those of their family members are not assured.

Add to this popular sentiment about the Palestinian Authority. Eighty-seven percent of Palestinians believe it is corrupt; 92 percent support fundamental reforms of the PA while 53 percent do not believe that the PA is reforming. Fifty three percent of Palestinians also believe the status of human rights and democracy in the PA is poor.

And then there are the PLO apologists. Over the past couple of weeks some of the PLO's strongest and most knee-jerk supporters are voicing criticism of Yassir Arafat. Terje Roed-Larsen, who as the UN Coordinator in the territories has been one of Arafat's most trusted shields from criticism and one of his main shills for libelous attacks against Israel, has suddenly said that things are bad in Gaza and the Arafat isn't interested in governing. Even more shocking, The New York Times, which holds the greatest responsibility for mainstreaming the PLO in the US, politely suggested on Thursday that Arafat consider retirement. Such statements from Arafat's best friends seem to indicate that the wall of international support for Arafat's terrorist dictatorship may be starting to crumble.

But there is another side to this story. And it tells a far different tale. Yes it is true, so this story begins, that Israelis are persevering and proving once again that the presence or absence of peace has no bearing on our ability to function normally and indeed to prosper. And yes, the Palestinians are miserable and poor.

Yet we have changed and they have not.

When Ehud Barak went to Camp David in July 2000, he did so after having lost a vote of confidence in the Knesset. He went as the head of a minority government increasingly despised by the overwhelming majority of Israelis. His offers at Camp David were rejected by a majority of Israelis. After the collapse of that summit, as Barak desperately begged Arafat for a peace deal in Taba, there was a complete disconnect between the sentiments of Israeli citizens and the machinations of the government. The landslide with which Ariel Sharon was voted into office in 2001 attests to the fact that Barak's platform -- the surrender of all or most of Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the partition of Jerusalem with the ceding of the Temple Mount to Arafat -- was completely rejected by the Israeli people.

Back in 2000, the idea of erecting a fence more or less along the 1949 armistice lines was seen as the default view of the far-Left. Politicians like Haim Ramon, who wanted to put distance between the Labor Party and the messianic visions of Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, embraced the idea of the fence as a way to force Israel out of the territories with a delusion that we weren't creating a terror kingdom on the other side. The Likud under Sharon opposed the fence, rejecting the idea as a stupid version of the stupid Bar Lev Line which led to the fiasco of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Tempered by two years of war, in 2003, the Labor Party discarded its grandiose visions of PLO flags unfurled on the Temple Mount and based its election campaign on a call for the mere withdrawal of IDF forces from Gaza and the destruction of the Israeli towns and farms that have been built there. Again, Israelis laughed, Sharon called it folly and won an overwhelming victory as the Labor party was all but decimated.

Yet what do we have today? Largely as a result of the Palestinian terror war, the Likud has adopted some of the most radical Labor views from four years ago. Not only is Sharon calling for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the deportation of some 8,000 Israelis from their homes. He and the Likud have made Ramon's fence their own. Even Sharon's original route for the fence left plenty of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria on the Palestinian side and thus spelled out their eventual destruction. Under US pressure, Sharon basically agreed to have the fence follow the route of the 1949 armistice lines. And now, the Supreme Court has determined that even that was not enough. The Supreme Court's decision on the fence laid down the legal precedent that, as Ehud Barak conceded at Camp David, the territories are not disputed, they belong to Arafat.

Although Sharon still argues that he will not divide Jerusalem, his deputy and gadfly Ehud Olmert has already stated that at least five Jerusalem neighborhoods would end up in PLO hands. The route of the fence already takes two neighborhoods out of the city.

Shimon Peres, who has never been elected by Israeli voters, is poised to become reunited with his seat in the Foreign Minister's office. Four years after the transformation of his Oslo Peace into the Oslo War, Peres is still a true believer. He insists on resuming negotiations with Arafat and believes that it would be "immoral" for Israel to retain any territory it gained in 1967. According to Palestinian sources, Arafat is banking on both Peres's return and Bush's defeat in November.

When he assumed office in 2001, US President George W. Bush proclaimed that the proposals offered by Israel at Camp David, like the December 2000 Clinton Plan, were no longer valid. Yet over the past three and a half years, Bush has made Palestinian statehood one of the central planks of his foreign policy. His advisors have made clear that from their perspective Israel will at the end of the day transfer nearly all of the territories to the PLO. And Bush is still more supportive of Israel than his Democratic rival Senator John Kerry.

When Arafat rejected peace and turned to war four years ago, Barak and his foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami both argued that Europe would have to react to Arafat's action by finally ending its automatic support for the PLO. Alas, time has proved them wrong -- again. As we learned last year, far from supporting Israel, the EU now considers us the greatest threat to world peace.

Levels of anti-Semitic sentiment and violence in Europe are higher than they have been since the Holocaust. Not only does the EU support every Palestinian position against Israel in every international forum, its leaders and elites have a new comfort level with the notion of Israel's destruction.

For their part, the Palestinians are proud of what they have accomplished. While 16% of Palestinians believe that Israel has won the war, 40 percent believe that they are on the winning side. There has been no dampening of support for terrorist attacks since the beginning of the war. Support for suicide attacks in Israel remains more or less steady at 62 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that the "armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinian rights in a way that negotiations could not." As for Arafat, he is still the unquestioned leader. While it is true that various Palestinian factions are fighting one another, they are all paid by Arafat and they are all loyal to him. And while his supporters in the West half-heartedly criticize him, they will never abandon him.

And look at what he has accomplished: He went to war to gain through terror what he was given at the negotiating table. And he has achieved this aim. In so doing he showed that he will receive Israel's final offer from July 2000 as Israel's opening offer tomorrow and will do so without having made any concession in return. He is still a terrorist overtly committed to Israel's destruction and he has been handsomely rewarded for this.

Perhaps then, the best that can be said is that Israel won the Aksa intifada but Israel has lost the Oslo War.



The Jerusalem Post, July 7, 2004


By Isi Leibler

After four years of bloodshed, some in the Israeli media have opened the debate as to the peace credentials of Yasser Arafat.

What self-inflicted masochism is this? In every generation we seem to spawn frustrated Jews obsessed with an urge to denigrate themselves and their people. Whether conscious or subconscious, the motivation stems from a thrust to be absorbed into society at large and to discard Jewish identity. In its radical manifestations, it invariably degenerates into self-hatred.

In the Middle Ages, Jewish converts to Christianity played central roles in campaigns by the Church to promote hatred of the Jews. During the Emancipation, there were Jews who reverted to anti-Semitism in their embrace of universalism. Karl Marx has become a metaphor for some self-hating Jews of his time.

Jewish communists picked up the mantle. Soviet Jewish communist cadres inflicted more cruelty on their kinsmen than their gentile comrades.

In Israel, there was the Marxist Mapam-Hashomer Hatzair group which continued to worship Stalin, even as he proscribed Zionism as an anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary movement. They retained this "schizophrenic" approach even after the arrest of Mordechai Oren, one of their most prominent political leaders, on bogus political charges in Czechoslovakia.

And again in our time there are no shortages of Jews who demonize and delegitimize Israel for what can only be attributed as a syndrome of self-hatred.

We have our own politicians, journalists, academics, and so-called peace activists who seem to relate more with the Palestinian terrorists than with their own people. Until the 1980s they were considered eccentric radicals, usually associated with Matzpen, a Trotskyite fringe group. However, today some occupy important roles in the Labor Party and feature prominently in the op-ed columns of Israel's most important Hebrew newspaper, Haaretz.

These post-Zionist groups achieved the zenith of their power when Oslo was touted as irreversible. They infiltrated the mainstream school curriculum, promoting textbooks that undermined the ethos of Zionism. Some even hinted that the Jewish state was born in sin and was therefore responsible for all the Palestinian suffering since 1948.

The post-Zionist call for the transformation of the Jewish state into "a state of all its citizens" is a prescription for the elimination of the distinct Jewish character of Israel, including the abrogation of the law of return, erasing the Jewish symbols in the flag, and rewriting the national anthem.

With the advent of the current violence and the eruption of global anti-Semitism, most were forced to retreat. Yet in recent months, in the wake of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, they have begun regrouping.

ON JUNE 11 one of the icons of post-Zionism, Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar, published an interview with Amos Malka, a former head of military intelligence. Central to Malka's message was that senior members of the Intelligence Corps with an ideological axe to grind had suppressed the truth by accusing Arafat of readying himself for the violence even before the breakdown in negotiations with Ehud Barak.

Malka's claim was that not only was Arafat reconciled to achieving an accommodation with Israel, but he was even willing to give up the Palestinian right of return if Israel would agree to repatriate a token 20-30,000 refugees.

A drum beat of articles in Haaretz promoted this image of a benign Arafat forced into a violent confrontation because of an intransigent Israel.

On June 18, a week following the Eldar article, Haaretz ran a front-page interview with Arafat conducted by Eldar and editor David Landau. The headline quoted Arafat saying, "A Jewish state? Definitely!" The interview portrayed a peace-loving Palestinian leader conveying remorse that a settlement with Israel had not been achieved.

This, of course, was not the first time that Israelis had resurrected a discredited Arafat. They did so in 1993 after the Gulf War. Arafat's standing was then at an all-time low. He was perceived as a clone of Saddam Hussein and despised by everyone, including Arab leaders. But the Oslo architects rehabilitated him. They brought him and his gang out of exile in Tunis to the West Bank, providing them with weapons and opening the White House. Furthermore, after the accords had been signed and Arafat continued making speeches promising armed victory, our leaders buried their heads in the sand and insisted that his words of incitement should not be taken seriously.

Terrorist outrages were glossed over, and we were repeatedly given mind-numbing admonitions that terrorists must not be allowed to derail the irreversible peace process.

Today after the murder of more than 1,000 Israelis, it is surely somewhat obscene for newspapers to recycle the same rubbish we heard during the heyday of Oslo. To do so is to fall into the trap of Arafat's psychological warfare. Nothing has changed since his repeated undertakings in the language of his people that his real objective was an end to Jewish sovereignty through a phased design of incremental dismemberment.

Is not Arafat the ghoul who repeatedly blesses and continues to sanction suicide bombers? Who calls for a million shahids to go to Jerusalem? Who rewards the families of murderers? Who transforms the Palestinians into a truly evil society inculcating children to strive for the highest level of martyrdom by killing themselves in order to murder Jews?

The recently appointed editor of Haaretz is an observant Jew who is striving to promote a better understanding of Judaism through his paper. It is hard to comprehend how in the midst of war, when Israelis continue to be killed daily, he can justify providing Arafat with a respectable platform to repeat his lies.

Are we really so befuddled that we have to ask ourselves whether, after his terrible track record, the man dripping with the blood of the innocent could still be a genuine partner for peace?

What is this effort if not another manifestation of self-inflicted masochism?

The writer, a resident of Jerusalem, is prominent in the international Jewish arena. (



The Jerusalem Post, Jul. 30, 2004


By Caroline Glick

The arrival Wednesday morning of a special El Al flight at Ben Gurion airport with 200 French Jews immigrating to Israel was a beautiful thing. As they disembarked, to the buzz of news crews from around the world, the new arrivals broke out in song and dance as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon welcomed our brothers and sisters home. It was enough to turn the greatest cynic into a sobbing idealist.

The scene was significant not simply because every time a Jew moves to Israel we see the Zionist dream come true. It was significant also because it came just a week and a half after Sharon, in a moment of moral leadership and clarity, told the Jews of France, "If I have to advocate to our brothers in France, I will tell them one thing: Move to Israel, as early as possible."

In the first six months of 2004, the French Interior Ministry recorded 510 anti-Jewish attacks or threats. During the whole of 2003, only 563 such incidents were reported. Yet, in the wake of Sharon's call for French Jews to come to Israel, where they will be able to live proudly, if not safely, as Jews, French President Jacques Chirac went ballistic. If there is anything the French hate, it is moral clarity.

Sharon's remarks coincided nicely with France's success in bringing the entire European Union on board in voting for the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the security fence. That resolution was itself founded on the International Court of Justice's ruling that Israel has no right to build the fence to protect ourselves from Palestinian suicide bombers.

It is no coincidence that France was acting in an overtly hostile manner toward the Jewish state when Sharon made his declaration. In recent years, rarely a day has gone by without some French leader doing something to make common cause with those devoted to the annihilation of the Jewish state.

From the French ambassador to Britain's statement calling Israel a "sh-tty little country," to former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard's declaration that the creation of Israel was "a mistake", to its persistent support of Arafat despite mountains of evidence implicating him as a current and active mastermind of terror, France has made it plain that it is an opponent, not an ally, in the Arab-Muslim war to destroy us. So yes, it was sweet to see 200 Jews telling us that they see their future here and not in France.

The problem with France is not simply that one in five French citizens voted for an avowed Holocaust-denier in the last election. Nor is it just that almost every week we hear another story about a synagogue torched, a rabbi beaten, a Jewish cemetery or Holocaust memorial defaced with swastikas or Jewish children terrorized on the subway or on their way to Hebrew school. Nor is it that France hates Israel. The French hating Israel is nothing that keeps anyone here awake at night.

The problem with France, rather, is that it has appointed itself arbiter of global justice, and in so doing inserted itself as a key factor in the US presidential race.

Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has made his objections to Bush administration's foreign policy a defining issue of his candidacy. During this week's Democratic national convention in Boston, speaker after speaker took to the podium and declared that under a Kerry presidency, the US would not act "unilaterally." A Washington Post analysis of Kerry's basic message to American voters noted that Kerry's major theme is a "restoration" of US positions during the 1990's under the Clinton administration.

As former Clinton administration official and current Kerry foreign policy adviser Richard Holbrooke put it to the Post, the Bush administration advocated "extremist ideas" that had "never had a voice in the policymaking bodies of the executive branch." One such idea, the Post paraphrased, was "acting unilaterally." But what does "acting unilaterally" mean? It does not mean "going it alone." After all, there are several dozen other countries actively involved in US operations in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.

Neither does "acting unilaterally" mean that in Iraq the US is acting outside of a clear UN Security Council mandate. Ahead of the US-led operations in Kosovo in 1999, in which Holbrooke played a key role, Russia used the threat of its Security Council veto to prevent the US from taking action under a UN umbrella. Yet no one has ever accused the US of acting unilaterally in Kosovo.

What "acting unilaterally" actually means to Holbrooke and Kerry is that the multilateral coalition Bush assembled in Iraq does not include France. It was France that prevented a UN Security Council resolution backing the US-led invasion, and it was France that led the EU and NATO to reject US requests to forge coalitions under whose aegis the US would lead the war against Saddam's regime.

With its UN Security Council veto, its membership in NATO and its leading position in the EU, France has fashioned itself the indispensable ally for Eurocentric Americans. This it has done in spite of the fact that France has opposed almost every single US foreign policy initiative since September 11. Yet, in spite of France's overt hostility, administration critics still believe that the US cannot garner a politically palatable coalition for action on the international stage without French involvement.

One of the truly disturbing aspects of France's success in so positioning itself is that the veneer of respectability of a French-approved coalition is so thick that even when such coalitions fail abysmally, no one seems to notice. Thus, according to a recently released report by Human Rights Watch, it was the French forces who were most responsible for NATO-led Kosovo force's decision to remain garrisoned as thousands of Kosovar Christians were evicted from their homes and villages by Albanian Muslims even as they were begged to come forward and protect these minorities. But who's noticing?

It is hard to know precisely what a Kerry presidency would hold in store for Israel specifically.

Yes, it is true that he seems to pay inordinate respect to outspoken Israel-bashers such as former President Jimmy Carter and Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then again, Bush appointed the harshly anti-Israel Marine General Anthony Zinni to be his Middle East mediator shortly after assuming office.

Yes, it is true that Kerry seems determined on forcing Israel back to the negotiating table with Arafat and using Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk as his emissaries in spite of the colossal failure of every policy the two men advocated during the Clinton presidency. But Bush has adopted the Road Map, which formally, if not practically, gives the EU, Russia and the UN the status of arbiters in the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

One thing though, is clear enough. In the unrelenting emphasis Kerry places on a certain brand of "multilateralism," he is providing undue, unreasonable and unacceptable legitimacy to a country that does not wish Israel well. Kerry can choose to be a friend of France, or he can choose to be a friend of Israel. But this is one area where he can't have it both ways.




By Arlene Peck

Recently, while unpacking some old boxes, I came across some treasures that had been bundled away for more decades than I care to remember. I had saved many old appointment books and love letters from many more men than I should recall. The reason I mention this now is because, until then, I had never realized what a terrible person I was.

After sitting down and reading these postscripts to my past, I noticed something. It seemed the more I was unkind to these guys, the more they wanted me. Truly. I thought what a bitch I was. Yet, no one in all those little stacks of envelopes seemed to mind that I gave them a hard time. Most in fact, seemed to love it.

So, it got me to thinking. Israel has been too needy. The same as the woman who sits in a bar with the expectant look of "Pick me! Pick me!", is never going to have a date for the prom. I think the same holds true for Israel. They want to be loved! They need to be appreciated!

Folks, there is another thing I learned a long time ago. There are four words that should be removed from the English language. They are, "ought" " should" " fair" and "equitable," 'cause folks, life ain't always the way it ought to be, should be, and for sure it's not fair or equitable.

It's not "fair" that a gaggle of anti-Semites from all those wonderful bastions of democracy around the globe such as Cuba, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the Organization of Islamic States, the League of Arab states etc., meet in a world court in The Hague.

Gawd, who cares?

The Jews are concerned that the Catholic Pope gave a good review for the Mel Gibson passion play? Better the Catholics should give a little thought to the crises in their own church with pedophiles running rampant. How better those funds might have been used in charitable endeavors instead of close to a billion dollars in lawsuits. Maybe Mel Gibson ought to choose that as the topic for his next 'religious' epic. How his own church ought to go about cleaning up its act.

How much energy has been wasted in down playing Israel's aid to even their enemies so as not to antagonize the Arab World? Israel doesn't need to be loved that much.

Why should Israel give a diddly-squat that those very same folks who gave us the Holocaust decide to meet in the Hague to sit in judgement of Israel?

They have the power, but seem to have forgotten that fact. Maybe it's time to remember. My momma used to tell me, "Darlin, the best defense is a powerful offense!'

Some people aren't going to like the Jews... no matter what. The Jews gave a conscience to the world. The Ten Commandments was a stunner! Until then, everyone was happy in their hedonistic ways. Hey, they could sleep with sheep and who would care? Moses had to do his 'thing' and it's been downhill ever since.

The fact that the Jews are just tiny spot on the planet and the major recipients of the Nobel Prizes doesn't help either

Here's an apt analogy. I think I have no problem with my identity. Until some young, tall skinny blond wearing implants and hip-huggers walks past me. Do I like her? No! I think 'bitch'. She could have the personality of Lady Di. Or, the goodness of Mother Theresa. It wouldn't matter. She's hated by me and most of the other women in the room.

The same goes for Israel. As far as their immediate neighbors, most of which have the educational skills of an eggplant, they hate the Jewish State. It's a shame. It's tragic. But, folks, that's just the way it is. Their school books teach math, "If Abdul kills three Israelis and Mohammed bombs ten, how many are left?" This is not a mentality you can reason with.

The rest of the world? Well, to my thinking, it's pretty much the same thing. Israel tries to hard to be respected, loved or appreciated for all the truly wonderful things that they are. So what? Treat the European Union like a scorned man and they'll come groveling.

I grew up in Georgia. It saddens me to say it but, the state was filled with men who, I seriously suspect, slept with their cousins. That's just the way it was. But, do you think that they would have cared for a moment, or reacted by changing their ways, if the general population of California decided to violate their 'states rights' by interfering in the habits of the local natives. Lo-d, it almost caused a war when the State legislature decided to take down the Civil War flag from the courthouse.

Yet, just as soon as George Bush or any of our State Department civil servants who, have been on the payroll of the Saudis for many years snap their fingers and say jump, the wayward, hungry leaders of the State of Israel, say "How high?"

Which brings me back to how Israel ought to treat her detractors like a successful woman treats her men. Jealousy, in moderation, never hurt either. The United States doesn't want to give that needed 2.2 billion dollars foreign aid to Israel? Hey, call Michael Eisner! He's a nice Jewish boy who has money to burn and just turned down FIFTY-ONE BILLION dollars for a transfer of Disney to Comcast Cable Company.

So the motto ought to be "it's a can't have, want world." The detractors of the Jews can't be the chosen people. The more they are rejected, the more they want it. My mother used to tell me, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free." Israel has to remember to make their so-called friends buy more cows.



Hebron/Arutz7-INN Commentary - July 19, 2004


by David Wilder

The Jewish Community of Hebron


The week opened with all sorts of wonderful events. New coalition talks: meetings between Peres and Sharon; Labor-Likud negotiators squabbling over economics and cabinet positions; Shas huddling with the Likud demanding: Dump Shinui; Agudat Yisrael toying with an original idea: accepting a ministerial post in the government. Everyone is expected to get what he wants, especially Ariel Sharon: a majority government, permitting him to rule for another two years. And all for a sale price: Eretz Yisrael goes cheap!

And let's not forget our favorite National Religious Party -- in Hebrew, the "Mafdal" or NRP. What do they have to say? Of course the two 'brave souls,' Effie Eitam and Rabbi Yitzhak Levy have already taken the giant step, having resigned their ministerial posts and abandoned Sharon's slimy ship. Yet others still remain, hanging on at all costs, stuck to their chairs. And what is really important to them? NRP minister Zevulun Or-Lev, battling Effie Eitam for leadership of the party, made headlines on Sunday morning. Why? What did he demand? Did he insist that all 'disengagement' talks from Gush Katif be stopped immediately, due to the massive 'chaos' in Gaza, as so described by the resigning PA Prime Minister Abu Ala? Did he blast Sharon for commencing talks with Peres and Co.? Did he question Shinui's continued membership in the government? No. None of these factors interest him. What he did request was that Shinui not receive another minister in the cabinet, replacing the disgraced Yosef Pariztky, fired for alleged criminal shenanigans. Or-Lev claimed that Paritzky's, exclusion from the ranks of his party bring Shinui down from 15 mandates to 14, thereby reducing the number of ministers allowed from that party from five to four. That's first on Or-Lev's wish list this week. Really important, compared to everything else that's happening in Israel. Impressive, for a guy who's supposed to be smart and claims leadership of his party.

Why is Labor interested? That's easy. Shimon has ants in his pants. He cannot sit by and watch his old buddy Arik get credit for emptying the Land of Israel of some of its extremist settlers, an event he's wanted to accomplish for years. He too wants his name in the history books.

In addition, Peres still smells the Prime Minister's office. He intends to campaign for Labor leadership, in order to run again for the premiership. He realizes that his chances will be much improved coming from a position of strength, i.e., a position of leadership, proving to his electorate that, without Shimon Peres, Israel would not be able to rid itself of Gaza.

What about Shas? What's their excuse? That too is not difficult to solve. First of all, they must avenge the wounds inflicted by Shinui. After all, Tommy Lapid's party is virulently anti-religious, almost anti-Jewish. They announced loud and clear: 'we will not participate in a coalition with Shas or Agudat Yisrael.' Shinui has done everything possible to take money from religious affairs, yeshivas, etc. Now, Shas smells blood. They want revenge. They want in, with Shinui out. At any cost. Even at the cost of Eretz Yisrael.

Of course, we cannot ignore money, power, and political struggles. Eli Yishai needs to prove himself, to prove that he too is a master political manipulator, that he too can squeeze money from the Likud, and that he deserves to continue on the throne of the Shas party. A leader can only accomplish such goals from within, not from the outside. So he wants in, even if that means that Gush Katif is out.

And what about Agudat Yisrael? They too have a sharpened sense of smell. Dollars, shekels, whatever currency you like, have a distinct odor. And money tends to attract. Need more be said?

But the real scoundrels are our friends with the knitted skullcaps on their heads, the National Religious Party. After all, they are keeping Sharon in the Prime Minister's office. Without their votes, it might have been possible to bring Sharon down, evicting him from his office before he could complete his dirty deed. But no, they insist on providing much needed legitimacy to Arik's abandonment from Gaza. How can they, or how can anyone else in the religious camp, complain about Shas or Agudat Yisrael, two other religious parties closing a deal with Sharon, when the "political symbol" of Eretz Yisrael is stubbornly insisting that they can 'influence from inside.' How can anyone demand that Shas and Agudat Yisrael keep out with the NRP in?

That's one side of the coin. The other is, without a doubt, Arik himself. The question marks and exclamation points are so vivid, it's difficult to comprehend his obstinacy. The past few days have witnessed total upheaval in Arab Gaza. Razi Jabali, head of Arafat-terrorist security, was kidnapped on Friday. Jabali, a known killer who has an outstanding arrest warrant hanging over his head in Israel, was grabbed by other Arab terrorist forces because of PA "corruption." Arafat achieved his release by firing him from his position as PA security chief. When his replacement was announced, Yasir's nephew, Mussa Arafat, Arabs took to the streets in Gaza, rejecting the appointment. Several others were kidnapped and released in Gaza City, including western peace activists. There is no Palestinian Authority -- this so-called framework, if it ever did exist, has totally disintegrated. And this is all before Arafat's demise. When he goes, the remains of the PA are going to fireball, engulfing Gaza and much of the Arab-occupied cities and villages in Judea and Samaria. The ensuing power struggle will include not only kidnapping; it will involve killing, killing and more killing. After all, that's how the Arabs get things done.

With all this, Arik is giving the green light -- let's get out as fast as possible, uproot the Jews, flee from Gaza, and let them worry about themselves. Without giving a thought to the repercussions of such a conflagration on Israel, on how many lives it will cost us!

Arik doesn't want to go it alone. Somewhere, in the back of his head, is a little red light, blinking on and off, warning him. So he wants someone to hold his hand, someone who can share the blame when things get out of hand -- like Shimon, Shas, Agudat Yisrael and the NRP -- the more the merrier.

Ariel Sharon reminds me of a woman who wants to be a prostitute, but is afraid to stand on the street corner and sell herself. So what does she do? She dresses in really skimply clothing, showing just about everything, and strolls around the wrong part of the city. In her actions, she is teasing and inviting, suggesting to the lucky guy, 'come on, rape me.' That's what Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is doing -- he is prostituting Israel, begging the Arabs: Come on, rape me!




By Irwin N. Graulich

It doesn't make any sense. Most Islamic terrorists come from middle to upper class families. A billionaire, Osama bin Laden is their leader. The children of well to do families flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and join al Qaeda. Perhaps they all need a "Wilderness Program." The Jews underwent their therapeutic healing process for 40 years in the Wilderness after leaving Egypt, while American Christians had their clinical treatment while founding and settling the Wilderness of America.

Today, much of the Muslim world is in constant turmoil, turning out sons and daughters with horrendous anti-Western values and ideas. The hatred for America, the most moral nation in history is unprecedented and the continuous blame of Jews and Israel for most Islamic shortcomings is indeed irrational.

The morally confused left, Europe and Scandinavia continually use the poverty excuse and Middle East policy as root causes. Similar excuses were used to explain Nazism. Poverty--what a joke. Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of modern evil is perhaps the richest nation per capita on earth. The oil wealth in Kuwait, Iran and other Islamic Middle Eastern countries refute this fraudulent Marxist economic theory.

No. It is their horrendous value system caused by a seriously flawed psychological belief, uncovered by Freud and Jung. The Islamic world is a society dominated by "shame." Pride is an overwhelming value, where an obsession on dishonor means tremendous weakness. This is the underlying reason why America and Israel are hated with such passion. The incredible successes of our religious societies coupled with overwhelming military power gives "Muslim penis envy" a new meaning.

Instead of saying we admire America and thank them for liberating us from a Saddam; instead of praising America for developing their oil wealth; instead of welcoming a new democracy, Israel, into the Middle East whose technology and medical centers can truly improve their lives; instead of trying to emulate these two countries...the Islamic world has attempted to destroy them so that their own societies do not appear quite as flawed by comparison. Muslims need to find behavior moderation through learning coping strategies that deal directly with the fact that we have created much better societies. 58 countries and 1.2 billion people must come to that realization and attempt to improve themselves.

It is a "Guilt vs. Shame Theory." In lieu of using guilt in a positive way over their inadequacies, shame overwhelms them. Shame is a very dangerous emotion where someone will do almost anything to hide what they or a family member has done, or perhaps not been able to accomplish. It can bring on the realization that the individual is a horrible person.

"I, or my family member, did something atrocious and we are truly despicable human beings. Therefore, I do not mind killing myself or sending a family member to die in order to blow up innocents." No wonder many fathers in the Arab world actually murder their own daughters in "honor killings" because of a premarital sex act.

Guilt is a healthy Christian and Jewish emotion that says, "I made a mistake and I am upset over it." However with guilt one simply feel that hard work will correct the problem. Shame means the individual can never get better, because that is how you and your society were made and it can never be corrected. Modern American therapists attempt to transform shame into guilt. Guilt means there is an ability to change by developing a positive attitude. Shame always makes the individual feel terribly inadequate. No wonder that terrorist leaders are so angry and irrational. They get their negative coping skills from shame, because trying to hide from shameful feelings and thoughts leads to even more shame and irrational radicalism. Terrorism is the reaction to these emotions caused by bad values and horrendous religious interpretations. It has nothing to do with poverty. The terrorists are simply ashamed that we are better at virtually everything we do, so they turn to terrorism. They become proud of terrorism and then ashamed of their actions, so they initiate more terrorism which continues the vicious cycle.

Unless these fundamentalist societies change to mirror Western democracies with a focus on this life and not 72 virgins in heaven, Islamic terrorism will continue. Unless they are shown the rewards of a life where ethical monotheism is the prime motivator and not a religious system that seeks to dominates the world, Islamic terrorism will continue. Unless they establish healthy patterns of communications and do away with a manipulative, lying press, Islamic terrorism will continue. Unless they focus self-control on character building and learning lessons from life's journey, Islamic terrorism will continue.

Bin Laden and his associates have become "teenagers in crisis" with classic cases of anger, resentment and oppositional, defiant behavior. They do not know boundaries nor take accountability for their evil deeds. They have made and continue to make all the wrong choices. They have never grown up or matured emotionally. Where have we parents heard all this before?


Irwin N. Graulich is a well known motivational speaker on morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO of a leading marketing, branding and communications company in New York City. He can be reached at



Jewish World Review - July 16, 2004


By Charles Krauthammer

Among various principles invoked by the International Court of Justice in its highly publicized decision on Israel's security fence is this one: It is a violation of international law for Jews to be living in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. If this sounds absurd to you -- Jews have been inhabiting the Old City of Jerusalem since it became their capital 3,000 years ago -- it is. And it shows the lengths to which the United Nations and its associate institutions, including this kangaroo court, will go to condemn Israel.

The court's main business was to order Israel to tear down the security fence separating Israelis from Palestinians. The fence is only one-quarter built, and yet it has already resulted in an astonishing reduction in suicide attacks in Israel. In the past four months, two Israelis have died in suicide attacks, compared with 166 killed in the same time frame at the height of the terrorism.

But what are 164 dead Jews to this court? Israel finally finds a way to stop terrorism, and 14 eminences sitting in The Hague rule it illegal -- in a 64-page opinion in which the word terrorism appears not once (except when citing Israeli claims).

Yes, the fence causes some hardship to Palestinians. Some are separated from their fields, some schoolchildren have to walk much farther to class. This is unfortunate. On any scale of human decency, however, it is far more unfortunate that 1,000 Israelis are dead from Palestinian terrorism, and thousands more horribly maimed, including Israeli schoolchildren with nails and bolts and shrapnel lodged in their brains and spines who will never be walking to school again.

From the safe distance of 2,000 miles, the court declared itself "not convinced" that the barrier Israel is building is a security necessity. It based its ruling on the claim that the fence violates Palestinian "humanitarian" rights such as "the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."

I'm sure these conventions are lovely documents. They are also documents of absolutely no weight -- how many countries would not stand condemned for failure to provide an "adequate standard of living"? -- except, of course, when it comes to Israel. Then, any document at hand will do.

What makes the travesty complete is that this denial of Israel's right to defend itself because doing so might violate "humanitarian" rights was read in open court by the chief judge representing China, whose government massacred hundreds of its own citizens demonstrating peacefully in Tiananmen Square. Not since Libya was made chairman of the Commission on Human Rights has the U.N. system put on such a shameless display of hypocrisy.

Moreover, the court had no jurisdiction to take this case. It is a court of arbitration, which requires the consent of both parties. The Israelis, knowing the deck was stacked, refused to give it. Not only did the United States declare this issue outside the boundaries of this court, so did the European Union and Russia, hardly Zionist agents.

The court went ahead nonetheless, betraying its prejudice in its very diction. For example, throughout the opinion it refers to the barrier as a "wall." In fact, over 93 percent of its length consists of fences, troughs and electronic devices to prevent terrorist infiltration. Less than one kilometer out of every 15 is wall, and this is generally in areas that Palestinian gunmen have been using to shoot directly onto Israeli highways and into villages. Sensors and troughs cannot stop bullets.

The court's long account of the history of the conflict is equally corrupt. For example: In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states -- one Jewish, one Arab. When the British pulled out and Israel proclaimed its independence, five Arab countries responded immediately by declaring war and invading Israel with the announced intention of destroying the newborn state. How does the court render this event? "[O]n 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence . . . armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States." Broke out? As if three years after the Holocaust and almost entirely without weapons, a tiny country of 600,000 Jews had decided to make war on five Arab states with nearly 30 million people.

Israel will rightly ignore the decision. The United States, acting honorably in a world of utter dishonor regarding Israel, will support that position. It must be noted that one of the signatories of this attempt to force Israel to tear down its most effective means of preventing the slaughter of innocent Jews was the judge from Germany. The work continues.



The Jerusalem Post, July 15, 2004


Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday he was confident Israel could fend off Palestinian attempts to get the United Nations to impose sanctions in the wake of the ICJ's ruling against the security fence.

A draft resolution introduced by Arab nations and the Nonaligned Movement of 116 mostly developing countries demands that Israel tear down the fence. It is expected to go to a vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday.

The General Assembly can call for the fence to be torn down, and it can recommend sanctions if Israel fails to comply. But only the 15-member Security Council can order such actions. The United States has vetoed such measures in the past.

"Israel is not going to accept the court's challenge, and I doubt that it will find passage to concrete instruments at the UN," Netanyahu, a former Israeli ambassador to the world body, told a group of foreign journalists in a joint telephone interview. "I think there are ways to ensure that doesn't happen."

He could not confirm media reports that Israel has an American pledge to veto any sanctions bid in the Security Council.

"I'm not aware of any discussions about this," he said. "I have no information whatever about any American promise."

Netanyahu was scornful of last Friday's ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which said Israel must halt construction of the 680-kilometer (425-mile) complex of concrete walls, barbed-wire fences, trenches and watch towers, dismantle it and compensate Palestinians whose lives have been harmed by it.

He said the judges had failed to take into account Israel's need to protect itself from constant terror attacks, and by outlawing any Israeli presence in the West Bank had set back chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

"It does damage to any potential future settlement," he said. "It will probably harden Palestinian positions, for a while at least, and not allow a future leadership to be more amenable to a compromise."

Israeli Defense Ministry officials Thursday said they would spend US$11.1 million to adapt completed portions of the West Bank barrier, building new roads, underpasses and tunnels in an effort to ease Palestinian conditions. The total coast of the barrier project is estimated at US$1 billion.

The Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the army to change the route of the barrier in a 30-kilometer (20-mile) stretch near Jerusalem, saying it was causing too much hardship to the local Palestinian population.

Defense officials have started a review of the rest of the barrier to ensure that it meets the court's criteria.

Netanyahu on Thursday argued that the Supreme Court's actions showed that the Israeli judicial system provided sufficient protection for Palestinian human rights, with no need for international intervention.

"The important thing is that we actually have a real court which makes the decisions to which we respond," he said. "The international court was not a court of justice but a court of a travesty of justice."





by Eli E. Hertz

The average Israeli is "humiliated and harassed" by being searched far more times a day than the average Palestinian.

Palestinians say they feel humiliated and harassed when Israeli authorities search them and their belongings; when they are prevented from traveling freely because of checkpoints, roadblocks, closures and curfews. They say they feel "corralled" behind security fences and ugly concrete walls.

Israel is criticized for these measures even by those who understand the causal relationship that makes such security steps necessary. The cynical use of the movement of innocent Palestinians, including people in need of urgent medical treatment(1) and Palestinian day laborers crossing to work in Israel is used as a convenient cover for the perpetration of terrorist acts.

Palestinians take advantage of Israel's sensitivity to Arab female honor to mobilize women as live bombs. The two latest -- a 40-year-old mother of seven who carried a suicide belt across army checkpoints; and the second, Reem Salah Riashi, 21, a mother of two young children who dreamed of "becoming a martyr" since she was 13.

Riashi, approaching a checkpoint, claimed a medical disability; she said she had a metal pin in her leg and was escorted to an examination room to be checked by a female security officer. She then blew herself up, murdering four Israelis and wounding 12. As a result, Palestinian women and patients who appear to be in obvious pain will no longer be exempt from thorough physical scrutiny, to ensure that they, too, are not human bombs. This increased hardship for innocent Palestinians has been caused by their own leadership, which cynically continues to claim that the Israelis humiliate their citizens.

Strangely, no media outlets and not a single human rights organization has fully and objectively reported or protested the daily humiliation and harassment Israelis suffer because of the Palestinian Authority's 'factory of terror.'

In Israel, every Israeli is searched numerous times during the course of a day. Israelis are asked to open their bags and purses for inspection. In most cases, they are subjected to body searches with a metal detector every time they enter a bank or a post office, pick up a bottle of milk at the supermarket, enter a mall or train station, or visit a hospital or medical clinic. Young Israeli men and women are physically frisked in search of suicide belts before they enter crowded nightclubs.

As a matter of routine, Israelis' car trunks are searched every time they enter a well-trafficked parking lot. Daily, their cars pass through roadblocks that cause massive traffic jams when security forces are in hot pursuit of suicide bombers believed to have entered Israel. Far from a rare occasion, in the two and a half months of relative quiet between the October 4, 2003 bombing of the Maxsim Restaurant, a popular Christian-Jewish-owned eatery in Haifa (which left 22 dead and more than a 100 injured) and Christmas, a Christian day of peace, 24 suicide bombers headed for Israel proper and another 15 with West Bank targets were apprehended before they could reach their destinations.

Israelis are searched not only when they go out for a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks or Pizza Hut, but also when they go to the movies or the theater or a concert, where the term "dressed to kill" has an entirely different meaning.

These ordinary daily humiliations now extend to similar searches when Israelis go to weddings or bar mitzvahs. No one abroad talks about the humiliation Jews in Israel are subjected to, having to write at the bottom of wedding invitations and other life cycle events, "The site will be secured [by armed guards]" -- to ensure relatives and friends will attend and share their joyous occasion.

One out of four Israeli children, ages 11 to 15, fear for their lives. One out of three report they fear for the lives of their family members, and more than a third report they have changed their patterns of travel and social lives due to security concerns. (2)

These ubiquitous security checks do not exist in Arab cities and towns in Israel (or, for that matter, in the West Bank and Gaza) because those places are not and never have been targets of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, the average Israeli is "humiliated and harassed" by being searched far more times a day than the average Palestinian. Not one human rights group has so much as noted this massive intrusion into the rights of privacy and person imposed on Israelis.

The latest source of criticism is the security fence -- designed to serve as a barrier against Palestinian suicide bombers, a measure critics brand as a form of ghettoization and another form of Israeli harassment.

To date, no one protests the fact that, since the 1970s, Jewish schoolchildren in Israel are surrounded by perimeter fences, with armed guards at the schoolyard gates, as if their schools were the domiciles of Mafiosi. Not one Arab village in Israel or the Territories has a perimeter fence around it. Guards are not required at Arabic shops, cafes, restaurants, movie theaters, wedding halls or schools -- either in Israel or in the Territories. Palestinians also do not need armed guards to accompany every school trip, youth movement hike or campout. They are not targets of terrorism.

Arab children have never been willfully attacked by Jews, while Arabs have purposefully murdered Jewish youngsters at boarding schools, junior high school students on overnight trips and teens on a nature hike. Arab Palestinians attacked Jewish school buses carrying elementary school children (twice), murdered two children playing in a cave near their homes, killed a toddler in a nursery and murdered small children hiding under their beds -- all in addition to wave after wave of suicide bombings.

Countless Israelis in sensitive areas within the Green Line -- not only in the Territories, but also in Jewish towns, villages and bedroom suburbs -- are "ghettoized" behind high fences. Three years ago, Jewish urbanites in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem were closed in by an ugly high concrete wall that blocked their view of the city and the bullets of Palestinian gunmen from the Arab neighborhood of Beit Jallah.

While the General Assembly protests the inconvenience Palestinians suffer because of the layout of the security fence, not one UN organ has protested the fact that, for years, an entire country has been harassed and humiliated. Israelis traveling north from Jerusalem to the Beit She'an Valley, or south from Jerusalem to Beersheba, have been forced to make a 60 to 90-minute detour to avoid traveling across the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, where drive-by shootings by Palestinian snipers and other attacks on civilian traffic threaten their lives.

Motorists traveling between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Route 443 are forced to negotiate a lengthy trough-like gauntlet that runs between two high concrete walls that protect them from Palestinian sniper fire. Yet there have been no UN protests against these walls -- only against the 'ugly' wall that prevents terrorists from the Palestinian town of Qalqiliya, (3) from attacking cars "inside Israel" on a major cross-country toll road, and against a number of other short sections, where the security barrier is concrete, not fencing.

Israelis' freedom of movement is compromised daily as countless citizens seek to avoid crowded areas or events, change their daily routines by sticking to side streets, avoid traveling close to public buses, or simply stay out of the heart of their own capital entirely. Most school trips have been cancelled or curtailed during the past three years.

Many Israeli motorists avoid major arteries that pass through Arab areas of Israel, while Arab citizens and Palestinians from the Territories continue to enter Jewish cities and go about their business without peril. Israelis are told, in effect, to disguise themselves when traveling abroad - not to speak Hebrew in public and not to wear garments that reveal their Jewish/Israeli origins. Even Israel's national airline -- El Al -- has been forced to remove its logo from the tails of its aircraft at certain airports, out of concern for the safety of its passengers. This followed several attempts to down Israeli civilian aircraft with missiles. On the other hand, Arabs who frequent Jewish cities and towns in Israel wear their traditional Arab headgear without fear of being attacked or harassed.

An article in Forbes, "Cold Calculation of Terror," estimates Israeli economic losses due to continuous terrorism is 3 percent of the $110 billion gross domestic product. Tourism alone fell 50 percent and lost $2 billion [yearly].

As of this writing, "Interrogation of terrorists belonging to various organizations in Samaria has indicated that the security barrier does indeed present a significant obstacle to terrorists wishing to infiltrate into Israeli territory." (4) The security fence, in areas where already constructed, is remarkably effective and saves lives.

Can the UN General Assembly calculate the 'proportionality' of building a fence that saves lives to Palestinian terrorism and barbarism?

All this begs the question: Who are the victims and who are the victimizers? Who are the ones being harassed and humiliated? Palestinians or Israelis?

(1) Such dastardly conduct extends to hiding suicide belts under sick children in ambulances, using ambulances to move operatives in and out of closed areas disguised as paramedics or patients in need of immediate care - then complaining that heartless Israelis stop ambulances.

(2) "Survey: 1 in 4 teens live in fear of terror," Jerusalem Post, June 3, 2004. See

(3) What the Secretary-General report does not disclose is the fact that Qalqiliya was and is a home to Palestinian terrorists who produced so far five terror attacks on civilian targets within Israel, contributing to the death of 28 innocent civilians and many more injuries. The last non-lethal incident took place on August 31, 2003, when an Israeli Arab construction worker was moderately wounded in a shooting attack. See .

(4) Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S) at



Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Jul. 25, 2004


Last week, delegates representing the three-million-strong American Presbyterian Church voted, by a margin of 431-62, to study the idea of divesting itself from Israel -- that is, refusing to invest church moneys in companies that do over $1 million annually in business here.

Furthermore, they voted 471-34 in favor of a motion condemning the separation fence for "[ghettoizing] the Palestinians and [forcing] them onto what can only be called reservations." And they voted 260 to 233 to continue to fund a Philadelphia congregation, Avodat Yisrael, which missionizes among Jews.

As enthusiasms go, the Presbyterian one is a bit behind the curve: Divestment mania pretty much peaked in 2002. Partly it was a victim of its own excess; its less militant advocates found themselves feeling a bit queasy as (left-wing) Israeli academics were forced off the boards of scholarly British journals simply for being Israeli.

But mainly divestment was stopped because of the words of one man, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. In September 2002, Summers noted that "where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities.

Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." Among the examples he listed were calls "to single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any part of the university's endowment to be invested."

"The university," he added, "has categorically rejected this suggestion."

Summers's statement was significant because it issued from the high temple of American high culture. It was courageous because it put collegial niceties aside to take direct aim at members of Summers's faculty. And it was important because it marked in a very clear way the spot where anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism converge.

This is very close to the spot where the Presbyterian Church -- generally a "progressive intellectual community" in its own right -- has now planted itself. It claims to have taken the vote "as part of a larger commitment... to human rights and social justice all around the world."

In fairness, the church has divested itself from an oil company doing business in Tibet. Over the years, it has issued reports on "issues of justice related to North and South Korea, Rwanda, Taiwan, Central American states, and many others." And it insists its interest is merely in "selective" divestment, from companies "whose business in Israel is found to be directly or indirectly causing harm or suffering to innocent people, Palestinian or Israeli."

These caveats aside, it defies common sense that the church did not know exactly what kind of message it was sending (and message-sending is what these votes are about) by targeting Israel this way. We will not argue with the assembly's interpretation of events here, which sees the occupation as "the principal cause of the conflict."

This may be an erroneous view, but it's a legitimate one. What is not legitimate is to single out Israel for special opprobrium, when fewer Palestinians have been killed over the past four years of fighting than the Janjaweed militia murdered last week in the Darfur region of Sudan.

On this current human-rights and social-justice issue, however, the Presbyterian delegates were silent.

For many years now, mainline Protestant churches have taken an increasingly hostile stance toward Israel, while evangelical churches have tilted strongly toward Israel. If there is a consolation for Israel, it is that the mainline denominations are in decline while the latter are flourishing. The reasons for these patterns probably have little to do with their views vis-a-vis Israel.

But it ought to be of some concern to American Jewry that the very people with whom they might otherwise make common cause on domestic issues have taken such a hostile position on Israel.

More broadly, it is of great concern to Jews everywhere that this slide toward outright anti-Semitism is taking place in the very quarters from which one might expect sympathy or at least nuance in judgment. With its vote last week, the American Presbyterian Church showed neither.



July 13, 2004

A $64,000 QUESTION (Why Anti-Semitism?)

by Yashiko Sagamori

Why do they hate us?

A friend of mine recently went to Hong Kong on business. His local associates invited him for dinner, and the conversation somehow turned to World War II. The host told my friend it was hard for him to believe that Germans had really killed 6 million Jews. My friend assured him that as incredible as it might sound, it was historic fact. The host responded,

"The Jews must have done something truly terrible if the Germans punished them in such a harsh way."

At first glance, his response may seem unashamedly anti-Semitic. Actually, for someone unfamiliar with intricacies of European history, it is perfectly logical. One person can be killed in anger, by mistake, by accident, or as a result of a misunderstanding. Killing six million people requires a well organized industry. Disposing of 6 millions bodies in a minimally sanitary fashion alone presents enormous technological and logistical problems. Besides, unlike most other industries, this one promised no hope of profit. Even if you confiscated everything those six million people used to own, from bank accounts to gold teeth to shoes to toys that silly Jewish kids dragged after them into the gas chambers, you wouldn't have collected enough to cover expenses. It is only reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Jews must have done something terrible to warrant such efforts. It is much more difficult to believe that Germans attempted to exterminate us out of totally selfless, completely unmotivated hatred.

Inevitably, within a generation or two, this simple logic will lead humankind to conclude that the Holocaust was nothing but a Jewish myth. Why not? The world has already decided, contrary to facts, that there is a people called "Palestinians" that somehow owns Israel's land, although even at the UN you won't find a single legal document making their ownership valid. If, in addition, humankind finally succeeds in implementing the final solution, then, soon afterwards, everyone will agree that Jews themselves were nothing but a myth. This will restore the balance: a terrorist organization created in 1964 will become an ancient nation, and an ancient nation will never have existed.

Let's look one step further. We know that the Nazis did not invent anti-Semitism. As far as we can tell, anti-Semitism has accompanied us throughout history everywhere we lived, no matter what we did or did not do. It could be violent or subdued; it could be explicit or subtle; but, it has always been present in the very air we breath. When Israel was restored, we hoped it would become our haven from anti-Semitism. Instead, humankind made Israel the focal point of its eternal hatred for the Jews. It is only reasonable to conclude that we have done something horrible to deserve it.

Take, for instance, the recent decision by the International Court of Justice (isn't that a truly Orwellian name?) regarding the legality of Israel's security wall. In essence, it means that Israel has no right to defend itself. The law of every civilized country allows a person to defend his or her life with necessary means. Only criminals sentenced to death are denied the right of self-defense in the face of imminent mortal danger. Obviously, Israel would not have been sentenced to death had the Jews not committed some terrible crime. Such a conclusion is so logical that even Jews cannot escape it. So, how can you expect gentiles to accept the fact that they hate us without any fault of ours?

But what exactly was our terrible crime against the rest of humanity? Crucifying Jesus couldn't be it, since we were hated long before we invented Christianity. Besides, even if you believe that Jesus really existed and really was crucified by Jews, you have to agree that not a single one of those bad Jews is alive today. Then what are you hating me for? I certainly have never crucified anyone, and neither has any Israeli.

Could it be the goyishe blood in our matzo dough? After all, how can one be sure what Jews mix in it? I know I've never killed anyone, whether to add my victim's blood to the dough or for any other purpose. But can I guarantee the same about other Jews? Take the Chassidim, for example. Compared to some other Jews, they look pretty menacing with their peyes and hats. Who knows what they do when no one is watching?

In March 1911, a body of a 10-year old Christian boy was found in Kiev. The boy had died of multiple puncture wounds. The police immediately adopted a working theory: the boy had been exsanguinated by Jews for the purpose of obtaining his blood, which, as everyone knew, was an essential ingredient of the matzo dough. Based on that theory, the police arrested Mendel Beilis, one of the very few Jews who lived in the area, and accused him of the murder. Fortunately for Mr. Beilis, his case attracted attention of Russian liberal journalists (a century ago in Russia the L word had a very different meaning than in today's U.S. of A.) who raised public awareness of it to the level of an international scandal and helped organize Mr. Beilis' defense. Renown experts on Judaism told the jury what could and what could not be added to the matzo dough and why the blood of even kosher animals (which the murdered child was not since he didn't have split hooves) is never used in Jewish recipes. After a two-year-long ordeal, the jury that didn't include even a single Jew (remember O.J. Simpson's trial?) acquitted Mr. Beilis.

Soon afterwards, the victim's mother and her common-law husband were arrested, tried for the murder of the boy and easily convicted. During their trial, it became clear that the police had overwhelming incriminating evidence against the parents from the very beginning. They knew Mendel Beilis was innocent when they arrested him. They knew who the murderer was while they were trying to extort a confession from Mr. Beilis by locking his young son in the adjacent cell and forcing him to listen to child's desperate cries. Why was the framing of a Jew more important than punishing those who murdered their own child? Was there any logic in it?

Of course there was. About a month before the murder, liberal factions in the Russian parliament, the Duma, introduced a proposal to abolish the Pale of Settlement. Imagine what would've happened if the law passed: 5.5 million Jews would've flooded Russian cities poisoning the lives of 200 million Russians by their vile presence among them. Mr. Beilis was acquitted, but his case had stirred up anti-Semitic sentiment in the population, and the law was defeated. The Pale of Settlement was abolished only when the entire tsarist government fell.

So, Beilis was framed in order to help prevent the abolishment of the Pale of Settlement. Does that explain it? Not really, since the next logical question would be, what harm would Jews really bring to the Russian majority by living among them? Why was it so important for the Russian Empire to keep Jews within what was essentially a huge ghetto?

I will try to answer that a little later. Meanwhile, let us forever remember the lesson of the Beilis case: Anti-Semites will murder their own children in order to falsely accuse Jews. Remember what Golda Meir said about the Arabs? Does it make sense? I guess it depends on whether you are a Jew or not.

Now, let's talk about the Arabs. Not so long ago, Saudi Prince Abdullah announced to his subjects and the world that the recent string of terrorist acts on the sacred soil of his kingdom had been perpetrated by Zionists. For some reason however, Saudi authorities did not even try to convince anyone that the four alleged terrorists they summarily killed without a trial were Jews. I guess, for Muslims that would have amounted to corpse mutilation, and, that, as they have convincingly demonstrated to us in Fallujah, is against their religion. Nobody asked how the four dead Muslim Arabs happened to be Zionists. Nobody asked why the Saudi kingpin, instead of fighting real terrorists, chose to libel the Jews who, by the way, are forbidden from setting foot on his piece of camel dung floating on top of an oil spill. Isn't there something painfully reminiscent of the Beilis case? The truth is that the Saudi royals are the leaders of the Wahhabi sect of Islam. The Wahhabi version of the "religion of peace" is the only variety of Islam allowed in the kingdom. This is despite the fact that, on the one hand, Saudi Arabia remains a faithful ally of the United States (I'd love to know, against whom), while, on the other, Wahhabism is exactly that extremist, militant variety of Islam against which out president declared his war on terror.

Oy, how complicated things are for those who stubbornly refuse to see the truth!

If you really want to understand why everybody hates us, imagine that you must kill someone. Never mind why, just play along for a while. Anyway, since you didn't have a choice, you killed him and, naturally, buried the body. The very next day you are peacefully strolling along, minding your own business, enjoying the weather and your peace of mind, when suddenly someone delicately taps you on the shoulder. You turn around and see your victim. No, it is not a ghost or a zombie. It's him, alive, although obviously unwell. Dirty bandages cover the terrible wounds you left on his body. A monstrous bruise decorates his face, which you accidentally hit with the shovel while dragging what you thought was his dead body to the shallow grave. Pieces of dirt are visible in his curly hair. The smell of earth emanating from him is overwhelming. All this confirms that you didn't dream up last night's murder. And yet, here he is, back from the grave. What terrifies you the most is that your victim isn't seeking revenge or even justice. All he wants is to live in peace with you, as if nothing had happened. He is smiling at you, squinting his eyes myopically, because you broke his eyeglasses last night. If you want, he will lend you some money. If you want, he will teach your child to play piano. Just tell him what you want; he will be happy to oblige; he will do his best.

I know you would never hurt a fly. I know if you had been in charge of Abu Ghraib, unbearable boredom would've been all the inmates could have possibly complained about. But, please, stretch your imagination. Here is your victim, the one you left for dead just yesterday, the living witness of your horrible crime, standing in front of you bearing no malice. Can you imagine what it would feel like? Had he tried to stick a knife in your back, it would hurt of course, but not as badly as having to live in this nightmare. Therefore, the most reasonable thing you can do under the circumstances is to wait for an appropriate moment and kill him again, and this time you make sure it is for good.

Imagine, now, that the morning after you feel that barely perceptible tap on your shoulder again -- not the second time in a row, not even the two hundred twenty-second time in a row, because you have long ago lost count of your attempts to end this unending nightmare, but haven't lost hope that one day your victim won't be able to crawl out from the grave you dug for him.

Anti-Semites hate us for the same reason they are forced to lie every time they need to accuse us of something. They hate and fear us the way a very bad person hates and fears his conscience. That should give you some idea of what's going to become of this planet when we are no longer among its inhabitants.




by Arlene Peck

Several months ago, I 'discovered' Walid Shoebat. I was called and asked would I be interested in having a former PLO terrorist on my television show as a guest. When I was told that he was now a big supporter of Israel and Jews, I became intrigued and said, "Sure, why not"

His story was unusual to say the least and when I heard his background, as one who had been raised on hate and revering Death to the Jews I wanted to see what had caused this change. Especially from one who had been a fund-raiser for the PLO in college and had gone beyond throwing stones at tanks and was 'suited up' for bombings. Walid was a bad guy. A very bad guy.

What caused the change? Well basically it was the love of a good Christian woman who came into his life at the right time and said, "Before I become the Muslim wife you want, I want you to read my Bible." The rest is history. And, now he is in demand at universities, radio, and a multitude of newspapers. All, except the L.A.Times as I called them to cover his talk at the Zen Buddest Center and couldn't drum up any interest.

I wasn't surprised as I said he was supportive of Israel. Yet, I have yet to understand why the Israeli Consulate and the office of Yuval Rotan or the Israeli Public Relations had much the same reaction when I tried to impress upon them what a treasure Mr. Shoebat is for the Jewish State. What is wrong with them that they don't support someone who is one in a million, no, several million who is helping Israel without backing from those who should be promoting this man? He flies all over the world to give his message, and he should be giving it in the Arab schools in Israel.

However, five or six hundred Zen Buddhists didn't seem to have any problem with attending his lecture and at the end giving a standing ovation with what this man had to say. Interestingly enough, the group looked more Jewish to me than what I had pictured as Buddhist but, what do I know?

He said things that I have been writing for years but, coming from a man that grew up under the canopy of terrorism, they listened. There can be no negotiation with this culture. It is the cycle of Nazism repeating itself and called Islamic fundamentalism. "We have to blame somebody. Kill the men and rape the women." The difference, and the horror that the world is facing is "Germany was one country. Islam is in fifty-five countries."

Mr. Shoebat related the parallel to the Nazis in how they began with the youth. They had the Boy Scouts and the youth in media creating facts from myth. The same facts were used for his past upbringing. Except, Walid attended schools that are funded, still today by the Hashemite kingdom, which is supposed to be a secular Moslem country. Yet, they teach to promote hatred against the Jewish State. He spoke of how that the text books in virtually Arab country is filled and cresting over with quotations of "Death to the Jews". They soaked up his statements of how the Arabs are taught, "We will knock on the gates of Paradise with the skulls of the Jews." Of course, it really got their attention when he said, "Of course, that's because we behead them first."

His recollections of his childhood were of nursery rhymes that he learned as a toddler singing, "Kill the Jews"

He spoke of how the Muslims don't want to share. "They want the whole pie. I've never read a Muslim publication in relation to the Jews that doesn't say, "From the River to the sea." He continued, "And let there be no mistake. Once they get Gaza, then they want Acre, Ramala, Haifa, Tel Aviv. Israel was never interesting to the Arabs. The only time they wanted it was when the Jews had it."

He told his audience, "You never hear about the refugee problem of 850,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab lands. All you hear about are the Palestinian refugees. Why won't people accept the fact that the biggest refugee problem in the history of mankind is the Jewish people? For over 2,000 years they had their presence in Israel. The American people have no clue...none!" Lord, he's got that right. I wondered how many of the Arabs had ever been told, as he told their audience, "Israel, throughout history have not been occupiers as I was taught. Instead, they are the liberators."

I have always known that their goal has been to wipe away anything Jewish from the land. The Muslims build mosques over the synagogues and remove all artifacts, holy places, and anything that ties them to the land. Anybody out there remember what they did to Josephs Tomb?

There are no Palestinian refugees. It is a 'cause' that is passed down from generation to generation, no matter where they live. The Arabs of the entire region all say that they are Palestinians and look upon that to be a privilege and get free food. The productive ones will never go back to Palestinian. The only ones will be the fanatics." And, there are enough of them.

Hey, it was no great surprise to me that the Saudis use their barrels of oil to profligate Nazism. But, coming out of this man, they listened.

And, as much as I knew about the Saudis I found it interesting when Walid set out the "plan". "The majority of the Muslims have an agenda. The Saudis aren't spending billions of oil money to propagate peaceful causes. They are all over the world building mosques, usually over churches, and giving to terrorist charities for dawa (Islaminic prothalozation). That is the first stage. That is the jihad of the pen. That's the stage where they use the massive PR and rush to the United Nations for yet more of those resolutions against Israel.

The second stage is the Jihad of finance. That's where the Saudis and their fund raisers and big donations to terrorist's organizations and schools come in. The Mosque is nothing but the Jihad of the Pen which includes giving to terrorist charities which most of them are fronts for.

And, the final nail in our coffin of culture is the Jihad of the Sword. That folks is when all these nice peaceful 1.3 billion Muslims are to unite and oust all secular government and reinstate Islamic laws and rule the world.

And, finally, on the topic of democracy. Walid thinks that despite the billions and billions of dollars that our tax dollars that are invested, in bringing freedom, to Iraq, democracy is unlikely to happen. At least it won't in our life time. The only time that they use 'democracy' is one time. And, that will be to hold elections to insure that the Islamic fundamentalism will continue to flourish. Chilling.



The Jewish Press, 7/21/2004

The Existential Threat To Israel: Part Seven

By Professor Louis Rene Beres

My previous column in the Project Daniel series dealt with Israel`s survival problem in a world of increasing chaos and anarchy. Recalling apt images of the Irish poet Yeats, of a world wherein "the blood-dimmed tide is loosed," and where "the ceremony of innocence is drowned," we must now quickly acknowledge that certain current threats to Israel are profoundly existential. Such an acknowledgment, however disturbing, is the necessary starting point for all further investigations and recommendations on Israeli security. With this in mind, Project Daniel, very early on in our Final Report, undertook to identify these unprecedented threats. Let me now explain what we had to say to the Prime Minister at the outset of Israel`s strategic future.

In an age of total war, Israel must always remain fully aware of those harms that would threaten its very continuance as a state. Although the Jewish state has always recognized an overriding obligation to seek peace through negotiation and diplomacy wherever possible, there are times -- to be sure -- when its commitment to peaceful settlement will not be reciprocated. Moreover, there are times when the idea of an existential threat may reasonably apply to a particular level of harms that falls well below the threshold of complete national annihilation. In our Project Daniel Final Report,* therefore, we advised the Prime Minister accordingly that certain forms of both conventional and unconventional attack against large Israeli civilian concentrations could constitute a true existential threat, even where they did not point toward total country destruction.

For example, certain biological or nuclear attacks upon Tel-Aviv that would kill many thousands of Israeli citizens could have dire consequences for the continued functioning of the whole country. A recent report by the Washington- based Heritage Foundation examined the effects of an enemy WMD attack on Tel-Aviv. In one scenario, a single enemy missile carrying 500 kilograms of botulinum would kill approximately 50,000 Israeli men, women and children. In another scenario, an enemy missile fitted with 450 kilograms of VX nerve gas would kill about 43,000 people. If left to develop nuclear warheads, these missiles could kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

Examining these possibilities, our Project Daniel group noted three distinct but interrelated existential threats to Israel:

1. Biological/Nuclear (BN) threats from states;

2. BN threats from terror organizations; and

3. BN threats from combined efforts of states and terror organizations. To the extent that certain Arab states and Iran are now allowed to develop WMD capabilities (the UN`s International Atomic Energy Agency remains predictably more focussed upon Israeli nuclear efforts than upon those of Islamic states), Israel may have to deal someday with an anonymous attack scenario. Here, the aggressor enemy state would not identify itself, and Israeli post-attack identification would be exceedingly difficult. What is Israel to do in such a situation?

The Group recommended to the Prime Minister that "Israel must identify explicitly and early on that all enemy Arab states and Iran are subject to massive Israeli reprisal in the event of a BN attack upon Israel." We recommended further that "massive" reprisals be targeted at between 10 and 20 large enemy cities ("countervalue" targeting) and that the nuclear yields of such Israeli reprisals be in the megaton-range. It goes without saying that such deterrent threats by Israel would be very compelling to all rational enemies, but -- at the same time -- would likely have little or no effect upon irrational ones. In the case of irrational adversaries, Israel`s only hope for safety will likely lie in appropriate acts of preemption -- defensive acts to be discussed more fully in the next column of my ongoing Project Daniel series.

A policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which was obtained between the United States and the Soviet Union, would never work between Israel and its Arab/Iranian enemies. Rather, the Project Daniel Group recommended that Israel MUST prevent its enemies from acquiring BN status, and that any notion of BN "parity" between Israel and its enemies would be intolerable. The ratios of physical size 800:1; population 55:1 and political clout in the United nations -- at least 22:1 -- means that Israel`s very survival is contingent upon avoiding parity at all costs. With this in mind, the Group advised the Prime Minister that "Israel immediately adopt -- as highest priority -- a policy of preemption with respect to enemy existential threats." Such a policy would be based upon the more limited definition of "existential" described above, and would also enhance Israel`s overall deterrence posture.

Recognizing the close partnership and overlapping interests between Israel and the United States, the Project Daniel Group strongly supports the ongoing American War Against Terror (WAT). In this connection, we have urged full cooperation and mutuality between Jerusalem and Washington regarding communication of intentions. If for any reason the United States should decide against exercising preemption options against certain developing weapons of mass destruction (a distinct possibility these days, as we are very much preoccupied with Iraq), Israel must reserve for itself the unhindered prerogative to undertake its own preemption options. Understood in the more formal language of international law, these operations would be an _expression of "anticipatory self- defense."

Our Group began its initial deliberations with the following urgent concern: Israel faces the hazard of a suicide-bomber in macrocosm. In this scenario, an enemy Arab state or Iran would act against Israel without ordinary regard for any retaliatory consequences. In the fashion of the individual suicide bomber who acts without fear of personal consequences -- indeed, who actually welcomes the most extreme personal consequence, which is death -- an enemy Arab state and/or Iran would launch WMD attacks against Israel with full knowledge and expectation of overwhelming Israeli reprisals. The conclusion to be drawn from this scenario is that Israeli deterrence vis-a-vis "suicide states" would have been immobilized by enemy irrationality, and that Israel`s only recourse in such circumstances would have been appropriate forms of preemption.

My next column in this special series will elaborate further on Project Daniel`s recommendations concerning preemption, deterrence and nuclear warfighting. As always, I welcome any e-mail inquiries from my readers about my columns.

* Readers can access the full report of "Project Daniel" online, by going to the website of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel) -- -- or by requesting the printed monograph from the Ariel Center. It is ACPR Policy Paper No. 155 (May 2004) and can be ordered by contacting:

LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) lectures and publishes widely on international relations and international law. He is Chair of Project Daniel as well as Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for THE JEWISH PRESS. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He can be e-mailed at:



The Washington Post, July 22, 2004


By Louis Rene Beres


International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei recently visited Israel, trying to convince Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to scrap his country's presumed nuclear arsenal as part of a regional peace agreement.

In the best of all possible worlds, such a proposal might be reasonable. But in the chronically unstable Middle East -- where several Islamist states remain openly genocidal toward Israel and where Iranian nuclearization has scarcely been sanctioned -- it is foolhardy. No country should ever be asked to be complicit in its own annihilation, and such complicity would be the certain result of any proposed IAEA "peace" plan.

Israel holds nuclear weapons only to prevent its catastrophic destruction by enemy-state aggression. It is inconceivable that Israel ever would resort to such weapons as an initial move of war. Certain Arab states or Iran, however, might at some future point consider nuclear attacks upon Israel with plainly genocidal intent.

What does Israel have to fear? Following the first authoritative report by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, the anticipated physical and biological effects could involve temperature changes; contamination of food and water by radionuclides; disease epidemics in crops, domesticated animals and humans due to ionizing radiation; shortening of growing seasons; irreversible injuries to aquatic species; widespread and long-term cancers due to inhalation of plutonium particles; radiation-induced developmental anomalies in persons in utero at the time of detonations; a vast growth in incidence of skin cancers; and an increasing incidence of genetic disease.

Overwhelming health problems would afflict the survivors of a nuclear attack upon Israel. These problems would extend far beyond the consequences of prompt burn injuries. Retinal burns would occur in the eyes of persons far from the explosions. Israelis would be crushed by collapsing buildings and torn to shreds by flying glass. Others would fall victim to raging firestorms. Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation injury, produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiations; superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiations; and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances within the body.

After an Arab and/or Iranian nuclear attack, even a "small" one, those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed well beyond capacity. Water supplies would become altogether unusable. Housingandsheltercouldbe unavailable for hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of survivors. Transportation would break down to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be critical and long term.

Israel's complex network of exchange systems would be shattered. Virtually everyone would be deprived of the most basic means of livelihood. Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. All systems dependent upon electrical power could stop functioning. Severe trauma would occasion widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders for which there would be absolutely no therapeutic services.

Normal human society would cease. The pestilence of unrestrained murder and banditry would augment plague and epidemics. Many of the survivors would expect an increase in serious degenerative diseases. They would also expect premature death, impairment of vision and sterility. An increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and uterine cervix would be unavoidable.

Many balanced relationships in nature would be upset by the extensive fallout. Israelis who survive the nuclear attack would have to deal with enlarged insect populations. Like the locusts of biblical times, mushrooming insect hordes would spread from the radiation-damaged areas in which they arose.

Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with the prevalence of unburied corpses, uncontrolled waste and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes. Breeding in the dead bodies, these insects would make it impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis.

Throughout Israel, the largest health threat would be posed by tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting human corpses.

This is only the tip of the iceberg; indeed, it is a vast understatement of what could be expected. Interactions between individual effects of nuclear weapons would make matters far worse. It follows that Israel must never accede to IAEA proposals for regional denuclearization. Such proposals would render Israel unable to deter aggression, while failing utterly to prevent other states in the area from going nuclear. The likely final result, for Israel, would be to suffer genuinely existential harms.

Louis Rene Beres is a professor of international law at Purdue University. He chairs Project Daniel, a small high-level group advising Israel's prime minister on nuclear issues. Prof. Beres is also the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by David Basch

I have long alleged that U.S. agents were active in the so-called peace movements in Israel, doing the bidding of U.S. interests. Here now is a detail of one case.

In a DEBKA report on the recent burglary of secret documents by Sandy Berger, Clinton's Security Advisor, it is noted that Berger was a founder of Peace Now. That he was active in that organization is one of the open secrets. But how many more such agents are there and still very much active? The matter is important since these agents aren't involved in it for philosophical, fair-minded reasons that bear on the rights and wrongs of the issues involved, but for the naked political reasons of promoting the propaganda of the US State Department, NSA, or other such US agencies, hostile to Israel. Such agents don't give a fig for how right Israel may be or not be, politics and service to outside US interests being the overriding aspect in this work. This is just a warning for Israelis and Jews not to take seriously the phony moral claims of organizations like Peace Now, Betzelem, etc, which are all too often on the terrorists' side.

Neither take seriously National Public Radio and Television, whose messages concerning Israel are also controlled by clandestine US agents that are part and parcel of the broadcasting operations. Of course, add into this mix the NY Pravda-Times and its stable of agents posing as journalists.

And while we are at it, think twice about Israeli writers and artists with anti-Israel messages. These narcissists are puffed up and given publicity in the Arts pages of Pravda-Times in payment for giving poisonous anti-Israel messages.

Know the score. Jews and Israelis Agents of foreign interests are afoot to control your thinking and turn you against Israel.



THE SUCKER OF ISRAEL: Bodansky's Revelations

by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Israeli-born Yossef Bodansky has been the director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for more than a decade. His latest book, The Secret War of the Iraq War (Harper-Collins 2004), is the basis of this article. Indeed, I will quote extensively from Chapter 3 of his book and inject comments en passant.


Chapter 3 refers to an investigation that had begun in the fall of 2002 in Israel, and which involved the intelligence services of more than six countries. "The investigators' findings," writes Bodansky, "provided the 'smoking gun' supporting the [Bush] administration's insistence on Iraq's centrality to global terrorism, the availability of operational weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and proof of the close cooperation between Iraqi military intelligence and al-Queda."


The data accumulated during this investigation could have provided the casus belli -- the justification for war -- and urgent imperative to take on Saddam Hussein. Yet in the first of several indecisive and self-contradicting political maneuvers, the Bush administration preferred to accommodate [Prime Minister Tony] Blair's pressure to keep Israel at arm's length, not implicate Arafat [who was working strategically with Saddam], and placate Blair's fellow West European leaders rather than go public with the findings of the investigation. Despite mounting international criticism and skepticism in the media, the American public was not presented with one of the strongest and most explicit justifications for the war with Iraq (p.51).

Had the public been informed of the Arafat/Saddam/al-Queda nexus -- which would conjure in American minds the horror of 9/11 -- President Bush's restraints on Israel and even his road map to Palestinian state would have appeared ludicrous. Indeed, exposing that "axis of evil" would have required Bush to encourage Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, to eliminate Arafat's Palestinian Authority in coordination with the war on Iraq.

But now for another Bodansky revelation:

On the night of September 13, 2002, Israeli Special Forces intercepted and captured a three-man squad attempting to cross the Jordan River and enter Palestinian territories [sic] on their way to Arafat's compound in Ramallah. Their interrogation revealed that they were highly trained members of the Baghdad-based Arab Liberation Front (ALF), sent to conduct spectacular strikes under the banner of Arafat's Fatah...

The three ALF terrorists were trained for several missions, including an operation that involved shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down civilian airliners as they approached Ben-Gurion Airport and using anti-tank rockets and missiles to ambush convoys -- including American groupings on their way to Iraq. They were also to organize and train Palestinian terrorists... The three had been briefed in Baghdad that they would get the missiles, heavy weapons, and explosives they might need from Fatah via [Tafiq] Tarawi [chief of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service and Arafat's closest confidant]...

The Israel interrogators were most interested in what the three had to say about their training... at Salman Pak -- a major base near Baghdad -- by members of Unit 999 of Iraqi military intelligence. They recounted that in an adjacent part of the camp, other teams of Unit 999 were preparing a select group of Islamist terrorists specifically identified as members of al-Queda.

The three ALF terrorists told the Israelis that... the Islamists also received elaborate training with chemical weapons and poisons, specifically [the extremely potent poison] ricin. Moreover... the ALF terrorists recounted, Islamist detachments traveled to Turkey, where they were to strike American bases with chemical weapons once the war [on Iraq] started...

Within a week of the capture of the ALF trio, a delegation of senior Israeli intelligence officers traveled to Washington to brief the White House about their findings...

Since the Bush administration was hard-pressed to justify going to war with Iraq, one would think it would readily publicize Israel's intelligence data. Not at all! The White House, says Bodansky, "was reluctant to advertise this evidence because it demonstrated Israeli intelligence's major contribution to the war on terrorism."

Nevertheless, and despite Europe's pro-Palestinian posture, Israel quietly shared the acquired data with several European governments. This led to the destruction and capture of several Arab and Chechen terrorist networks in Paris and London, as well as support networks in Spain and Italy. As Bodansky sees, "Israel had in fact demonstrated to the Europeans why Saddam Hussein had to be toppled, and soon." And yet, "most Western European governments adamantly refused to address Iraqi training of al-Queda in the use of chemical weapons and poisons." But this is not all.

As Bodansky points out, acceptance of the evidence provided by Israel would also acknowledge the intimate involvement of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority in international terrorism. The European governments insisted not only on separating the Palestinians from the war on Iraq, but demanded that the Arab world be compensated for the American-led attack, by forcing Israel to accept a political solution favorable to Arafat, regardless of the extent of Palestinian terrorism! Moreover, Tony Blair led a European effort to salvage Arafat and reward him with a Palestinian state, hoping to demonstrate that the war was not indiscriminately anti-Arab.

As for the Bush administration, "Having to choose between further alienating the Western Europeans, who insisted on keeping Arafat out of the war, and bolstering its case against Iraq by providing concrete Israeli evidence, the White House decided to go with the Europeans..." The Palestinian Authority's involvement with Iraqi terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was thus hushed up, as was Israel's contribution to the effort to disarm Iraq.

The present writer asks: If the U.S. is so dependent on Israeli intelligence -- as indeed it is -- why didn't Prime Minister Sharon make demands on the Americans in accordance with Israel's vital national interests? Why has he behaved as a "sucker"?

Throughout 2002 and before it launched its attack on Iraq in March 2003, the United States sought to gain the cooperation of various Arab regimes. The attempt was futile and revealed the ignorance of the Bush administration even as regards seemingly pro-American Arab states.

The elimination of Saddam Hussein could not but pose a threat to the autocratic nature of these states. Besides, and as Bodansky points out, "For the Saudis, any semblance of cooperating with the United States in the occupation and destruction of Baghdad -- regardless of the fact that they hated Saddam Hussein -- was sacrilegious" (p. 62). Moreover, U.S. occupation of oil-rich Iraq and the establishment of a pro-American Iraqi government would undermine Saudi influence and importance in Washington. This also applies to Egypt, a key player in the Middle East.

Despite these obvious facts, the Bush administration, while preparing for "Operation Iraqi Freedom," insisted that Israel maintain a "low profile" and act with restraint vis-a-vis Arafat's Palestinian Authority. To placate Washington, prime minister Ariel Sharon, on September 29, instructed the Israel Defense Forces to comply with American requests to ease the siege of Arafat, and to withdraw from Arafat's compound in Ramallah. Even more significant, Sharon bowed to Washington, at Israel's expense, by not exposing Arafat's connection with Saddam Hussein. "It is impossible to say no to our big friend [the United States]," Sharon told the newspaper Yediot Aharanot.

But this is precisely what Arabs states were saying to Washington, including Egypt, which receives two billion dollars each year in U.S. military aid. In November, Cairo said no even to "Washington's request for special security measures in the Suez Canal during the passage of navy warships on their way to the Persian Gulf" (p. 62).

While receiving nothing from Egypt, the U.S. received crucial intelligence about Iraq from Israel. Yet Washington expected Israel not to become involved in any military campaign to topple Saddam, regardless of any sort of attack on the Jewish state. It mattered not to the administration that Israel had documentary evidence that Iraq was directly responsible for Palestinian terrorism. The evidence showed that Saddam and Arafat, acting in collusion, ordered suicide bombings in Israel to distract Washington from its war plans against Saddam's regime.

Nevertheless, Washington applied constant pressure on Jerusalem to make concessions to Arafat, and warned Sharon not to do anything once the war started "even if Iraq launched missiles at the tiny state"! Jews were expected to bleed for their big American friend. And bleed they did.

Some 130 Jews had to be murdered by Palestinian terrorists in March 2002 before Prime Minister Sharon screwed up enough courage to launch "Operation Defensive Shield." Moreover, the operation was terminated before the IDF could completely destroy the weapon factories in Jenin, the venue for suicide bombers. Jews had to be reduced to body parts to placate the United States, or rather, to preserve Ariel Sharon's "friendly" relations with George W. Bush.

Here, a slight digression. While Israel dutifully supplied the U.S. with intelligence about Iraq -- intelligence that would save American lives -- Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison for having (illegally) supplied Israel with such intelligence, but which Washington withheld in violation of the Strategic Cooperation Agreement between the two countries. Jewish blood is cheaper than American blood -- or so we must conclude not only from Washington's attitude toward Israel, but also from the submissive attitude of Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

After a mid-October meeting with Bush who called Sharon a "close friend" and affirmed Israel's right to self-defense, "Sharon came out of the Oval Office," writes Bodansky, "deeply insulted and personally hurt when, at the last minute, a six-page 'position paper' on the future of the Middle East that included veiled threats to Jerusalem was stuffed into his hand." Bodansky goes on to say:

Sharon had not expected "his friend" Bush to sandbag him, especially in light of Sharon's close cooperation with America, even at the cost of Israeli lives. Despite Sharon's indignity, Israel made unilateral concessions to the Palestinians that enabled greater movement to would-be martyrs and bomb-makers. As a result, Israeli citizens suffered some of the most lethal strikes in recent memory, including, on the morning of Sharon's meeting with Bush, a bus bombing in which fourteen civilians were killed and close to fifty wounded (p. 65).

Some critics will say -- and rightly say -- Israel desperately needs a prime minister that can say no to Washington and uphold Israel's interests. But has the Knesset nothing to say in this matter? Isn't the Knesset also responsible for the well-being of the Jewish people? And if the Knesset lacks the power to constraint the prime minister, must there not be some deadly flaw in Israel's system of government?



July 23, 2004

A Visit With Jonathan Pollard

By Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit

"We must walk in line and remain on this side of the corridor", Esther Pollard explained to me when we first entered the prison, "the cameras have to monitor us all the time".

We advanced down the long corridor which leads to the visit room at FCI Butner: Esther, Rabbi Pesach Lerner (Jonathan's American rabbi), Shmuel Sackett (of Manhigut Yehudit), Aviv Ezra (the Israeli Deputy Consul from Atlanta) and I.

We were accompanied by a prison guard and an American Intelligence officer, who had come from Washington to monitor the visit. The monitor was there to ensure that after 20 years in prison, Jonathan did not reveal any American state secrets to me, the Israeli. It was, of course, forbidden to speak in Hebrew.

Esther led the way down the hall. She is an intelligent and special woman who has devoted her life to Jonathan, whom we were about to meet.

When I recognized Jonathan at a distance, standing in the prison compound behind a glass separation and locked doors and smiling at us, tears came to my eyes; with difficulty I overcame them.

Jonathan was escorted into the visit room. We greeted each other and shook hands warmly.

"I am so delighted to see you!" I said to him. "The same here!" Jonathan replied with a broad smile. "From what they write about you I expected to meet a frightening, tough guy weighing half a ton!" he added with a laugh.

Jonathan also welcomed the other visitors. "Please give my thanks to your son, Gavriel, for the letter he sent me", Jonathan said to Shmuel Sackett. "Tell him that I really appreciated it." Jonathan indicated that he receives a great deal of mail from Israel and all over the world. He reads all the letters. "I am not able to reply", he told us, " but I read every single card and letter that I receive. They are very important to me and deeply appreciated."

Most of the time Jonathan spoke and we listened, impressed. It was immediately clear that Jonathan knows all about Manhigut. He went into details, understood the ideology very well. I couldn't help being impressed by this person. He was analytical, clear, fluent, deep-thinking, and recalled the most minute details, while at the same time retained an overall view of the entire picture. A man of belief and a man of action, all this after twenty years of prolonged betrayal by his brothers - betrayal that left him a prisoner, subject to physical and mental torture that would have been enough to drive a normal person mad. Without doubt, this is one of the most impressive people I've met in my life, perhaps the most impressive of all.

He showed us a laminated card which features a special prayer which his rav, HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu composed, and he asked Manhigut Yehudit to print as many copies as possible of it, and to circulate it throughout Israel. Esther added that HaRav Eliyahu promised that any person who says this prayer for Jonathan is also answered in Heaven. Jonathan continued, "I would also like all Likud central committee members to receive a copy of this prayer card". We took this task upon ourselves with pleasure.

"Israeli politicians think that in order to succeed in Israel you have to show the public that you have good connections in America", Jonathan explained. "Some of them have good intentions, but no Israeli politician is prepared to risk incurring the displeasure of the Americans, so they just go around in circles. They make all the right noises when speakinging to the Israeli public, but in practice do little or nothing to bring about my release. They talk a lot -all for local consumption - but take no meaningful steps to signal to the Americans that they really want to bring an end to this disgrace."

Jonathan pointed out that the Americans claim that Israel alone broke a long-standing gentleman's agreement by spying in the U.S. and that the Americans still use this excuse to justify his grossly disproportionate sentence and harsh treatment. "But the truth is", Jonathan told us, "there have been a number of Israelis who have been caught spying for the U.S. in Israel.

"One of them, Angie Kielczynski - (mf: the traitor who fingered Pollard) - even served as a member of the Knesset Committee for Foreign Affairs and Defense. He was appointed by Ariel Sharon! When he returned to Israel, after years abroad working for the CIA, Kielczynski was never arrested, nor was he ever even interrogated about his espionage for the Americans - which he openly, publicly admitted to! He even gave an interview to Kol Yisrael about his espionage activities for the Americans. It is on our web site.

"Other Israelis who spied for the U.S., like IDF officer, Yossi Amit, were treated humanely and released after relatively short sentences."

Amit was arrested in Israel just months after Pollard was arrested in the U.S. Israel did not press for a spy swap. The most recently revealed case, Pollard pointed out, was that of an Israeli cabinet minister who spied for the U.S. around the time of the Six Day War. Newly released U.S. government documents exposed this. The U.S., of course, continues to spy in Israel.

"112 MKs have signed a petition calling for my release," Pollard told us, "but Sharon refuses to deliver it to President Bush."

"The behavior of Israel's leaders is the continuation of the Sin of the Spies - 'We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and in their eyes'," Jonathan quoted from the Torah portion, "Vayishlach".

"They (Israel's leaders) are grasshoppers in their own eyes. They have no faith in G-d, so America has turned into their g-d. They are afraid of the Americans and ashamed of me. I have remained in prison for twenty years not only because of the indifference of the Israeli Government, but also because of their complicity. My sentence is grossly disproportionate, and it was unjustly obtained, but the Government of Israel has never uttered a word of protest about it, nor about the harsh conditions I have been subjected to."

"Others who spied for allies of the U.S. received very short sentences, or no jail time at all. Even hostile spies who spied for enemies of this country - a far more serious crime - have received much lighter sentences. Many of these hostile spies were arrested after me but have long since gone free. Their governments protected and defended them, fought for them, and made it clear to the U.S. that they were not alone."

The things that Jonathan said did not surprise me. I have always felt that his release was prevented by the Israelis and not by the Americans. What really surprised me was the clarity with which Jonathan explained the issue.

It is obvious that Jona than knows better than anyone else what has to be done to bring about his release. But there are those in Jerusalem who prefer to sabotage and undermine him by misrepresenting him and falsely characterizing him as a wretched person who, after so many years in prison, has lost his stability. I have never met a person more stable than him.

"I am also a little familiar with the feeling", I replied to Jonathan. "About a month ago Yediot Aharonot published my picture next to that of Hitler".

Pollard was thunderstruck. "They really did that to you?" This was the first time that he stopped smiling.

"Three simple things are required in order to secure my release", said Pollard. "These are the things that Israel has repeatedly done in the past any time she wanted to secure the release of an agent. In nearly 2 decades, Israel has never done them for me. They are the immediate formalization and implementation of the following:

a) a government policy on my case
b) my captivity status
c) prison visits from the Ambassador

"Let me explain:

"First of all, a clear government policy is the sine qua non for any Israeli effort to secure my release. It is a declaration of fact and a statement of intent. I even mapped out all of the points that were needed in such a government policy. These are simple statements of fact including the following: (Pollard reads the points to us from a paper.)

" (i) Jonathan Pollard was a bona fide Israeli agent who acted in good faith at the behest of his Government superiors;

"(ii) The Government of Israel has taken full responsibility for the operation and has formally apologized to the United States;

"(iii) The Government of Israel is outraged at the sentence and treatment of her agent, Jonathan Pollard, which has been unjustified by the facts and circumstances of his case. In particular, the Government of Israel draws attention to the recent admission of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in which he concedes "the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance." [Excerpted from : Caspar's Ghost]

"(iv) The Government of Israel expects the United States to honor all prior commitments made to free Mr. Pollard;

"(v) The recent Knesset resolution signed by 112 Members of Knesset calling for the repatriation of Mr. Pollard underscores the fact that Mr. Pollard's release is viewed as a national priority by both the Government and people of Israel.

"Secondly", Pollard continued, " the formalization and implementation of my captivity status is essential. It gives substance to the Government's 1998 declaration that I am an Israeli agent and that the Government accepts full responsibility for me. It takes that declaration from out of the air where it hangs, and defines the Government's specific obligations towards me and my wife. It defines my treatment and the kinds of efforts to be made for my release according to Ministry of Defense standards, and it provides the Ambassador with the tools that he needs in order to ease my daily suffering.

"Thirdly, regular prison visits by the Ambassador for the duration of my incarceration sends a clear message to the Americans that Israel is serious this time about securing my release. Moreover, the Ambassador is the onlyofficial in a position to assist me for as long as I remain in prison. To do so, he needs to be empowered by a clearly articulated government policy and by the formalization of my captivity status.

"That's all - three simple points that every other Israeli agent in my situation received automatically in the past: a clear policy, implementation of my status of "captive", and visits by the Ambassador - that's all I ask for."

Pollard also pointed out that, as an Israeli agent, he is by definition a captive, and that all that remains is to for the Government to implement that status. He dismissed those MKs who are uninformed and think that it is not possible to be a captive in a friendly country. "Even the Geneva Convention", he explained, "allows for the status of captive in a friendly nation".

When Jonathan finished speaking, he gave me his full attention.

"You know", I said to Jonathan, "I'll explain why I decided to come here. First of all, I wanted your image to be always opposite my eyes. Manhigut Yehudit means responsibility for every Jew, loyalty and not treachery.

The second thing that I wanted from you." The tears choked me, and for a long moment I couldn't continue to speak.

"The second thing that I wanted from you was that you should pray for our success. There is today no Jew in the world who has sacrificed and suffered so much for the Jews as you have. I believe that your prayer must be answered. Pray for our success, the Jewish People need it."

"You know, twenty years ago, when you were thrown out of the Israeli Embassy, I was a young officer who had just finished my army service and was starting my life. Your imprisonment came as a shock to me. The State of Israel, which I then believed was the Jewish State, took pains to rescue and return Aviam Sella to Israel - the Israeli Air Force officer who had run you. It hit me then that they had rescued the Israeli but threw the Jew (you) to the dogs. I understood then, for the first time, that the State of Israel may be the State of the Israelis, but it is not the State of the Jews - and it certainly is not a Jewish State. I think that everything I have experienced since then, right up until the establishment of Manhigut Yehudit, began at that moment."

Jonathan was visibly moved. He controlled his feelings much better than I did. "Wait", Jonathan requested. "Before you go on, what you know is just the tip of the iceberg."

We continued to talk for another hour. We had to finish. We embraced one another. It was hard to leave.

"You know", I said to Esther when we finally left, "Jonathan's story encompasses the crisis of identity, the flight from ourselves, the entirecomplications and tragedy of Zionism, of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel."

"You're right", Esther told me in fluent Hebrew, "Jonathan is the mirror of all of the values and principles that our current leaders have either forgotten or are trying very hard to ignore."

She then returned to her tiny room in a run-down motel near her husband's jail.

* * *

You can send letters to Jonathan to the following address:
Jonathan Pollard - 09185-016
FCI Butner
PO Box 1000
Butner, North Carolina 27 509-1000

You can write to Esther Pollard c/o Justice4JP at or
For information on the Pollard Case visit

Israelis Who Spied for the US Page - Kielczynski, Amit & Others
IMRA Interview with Esther Pollard: Jonathan Pollard's 3 Point Agenda & Why He Opposes The New Law
"TAKE ME OUT OF THE BOR!" - Yediot Achronot Feature Interview With Jonathan Pollard
Israel Cabinet Minster Spied for the US - New US Docs Reveal



The Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2004


by Michael Freund

In the past few weeks, a number of chilling anti-Semitic incidents have taken place on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the otherwise serene Canadian capital of Ottawa a synagogue was vandalized, with swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti scrawled on one of its walls shortly before a bar mitzva celebration was scheduled to begin. The town of Markham outside Toronto was also targeted when unknown perpetrators sprayed Nazi slogans on a number of homes, businesses and vehicles.

In Belgium two Jews were physically assaulted on the streets of Antwerp, including a cyclist who was attacked by a group of 15 people hurling stones and bottles.

And then, in Paris, came last Friday's attack on a commuter train against a young mother and her infant, mistaken by their assailants for Jews. According to the French police, the attackers drew three swastikas on the mother's stomach before overturning the stroller, with the baby inside, and fleeing the scene.

The natural response to these incidents is a mixture of revulsion and fear. How is it possible that the world has so quickly forgotten how it tormented us over the centuries? The rebirth of the age-old demon of anti-Semitism is taking place before our very eyes; the phantom we thought had been vanquished is now returning to haunt us.

The reality of the situation, however, is far more complex. Indeed, it is time that Israel and its supporters finally acknowledge the unpleasant, if somewhat awkward, truth: that there is a direct connection between the resurgence of anti-Semitism and Israel's policies in the territories.

On this point, at least, our critics are correct. What Israel does or does not do clearly has implications far beyond its borders. But as much as our detractors may be right about the existence of a connection between Israel's actions and global anti-Semitism, they are absolutely wrong when it comes to the underlying nature of that connection.

While they might believe it is Israel's alleged use of too much force that lies behind the renewal of Jew-hatred around the world, just the opposite is true. It is precisely because Israel has reacted to Palestinian terror with a slap on the wrist rather than an iron fist that haters of Jews worldwide have become so emboldened. To put it even more bluntly: It is Israel's perceived weakness that invites greater manifestations of anti-Semitism across the globe.

That's right -- it is not the construction of a security fence, or restrictions on Palestinian workers, or even the assassination of Hamas leaders that is fueling the fire of anti-Semitic hatred, but Israel's ongoing failure to crush Palestinian terror once and for all. Anti-Semites, like bullies everywhere, prey on those they perceive to be vulnerable and defenseless. A weak and conciliatory Jewish state is seen as representing Jews everywhere, no less than a strong and assertive Israel once did in the wake of the 1967 Six Day War.

WHEN PEOPLE see an Israel taking blow after blow from Palestinian terrorists over the past decade, and yet responding with proposals of retreat and surrender, the message is clear and unequivocal: Jews are feeble and fainthearted, so feel free to take your best shot at us, wherever we might be.

Indeed, by seeking to withdraw under fire from parts of the territories, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has transformed Israel and the Jewish people into the equivalent of a high-school wimp, one who wanders the hallways wearing a sign that reads, "Kick me."

The image this projects only serves to inspire contempt, prompting bigots everywhere to vent their hatred at the easiest and most readily available target -- the neighborhood Jew.

This is not to say the Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism. But if Israel is unable, or unwilling, to use the sovereign powers at its disposal to protect its own people against its foes, what is there to deter Jew-haters everywhere from picking on Jews?

Obviously, we must still be humane and never lose sight of our universal mission to spread morality and justice, even when confronting our foes.

But the best answer to anti-Semitism remains an infusion of Jewish pride and the application of Jewish power. The rescue at Entebbe in 1976, the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, are two illustrations of how a proud and self-confident people was once able to set such an example, dazzling the rest of the world in the process.

Of course we must continue educating, protesting and petitioning against anti-Semitism. All that is important. But the bottom line is that if we want the world to respect us, rather than disparage us, we have to work a little harder at it.

A good place to begin would be to stand up for ourselves, and for our Land, and start fighting back against those who would destroy us.

The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning under prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.