Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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




A WORD OF THANKS AND A WARNING ON BARAK.....An Editorial....Bernard J. Shapiro




THE PEACE OF ASSAD.... Gary M. Cooperberg





THE LOGIC OF THE HEART.... Boris Shusteff





THE LESSONS OF 1929....David Wilder


DISORDER IN THE WORLD Or Comparative Religion 101....Bernard J. Shapiro


Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument by Yossef Bodansky….Reviewed by Sha'i ben-Tekoa


THE MACCABEAN * [ISSN 1087-9404]

Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661,


Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016, E-Mail: FREEMANLIST@AOL.COM ** URL:

(c) 1998 Bernard J. Shapiro




I want to thank again all of those who sent me words of support and contributions. There is no way I can adequately express how much they meant to me. I just want you to know that they greatly helped me adjust to a difficult medical condition and get back to what means so much to me: Support for Israel. The greatest evidence of your profound influence on me has been the re-emergence of the freemanlist and The Maccabean Online.


Now I must talk about Ehud Barak, Israel's new Prime Minister. I have watched him run from political personality to personality. I have watched his dance, his sleight of hand. I was, perhaps, too slow to react. What I tell you now is unfortunately the sad truth.

Barak is convinced that his own brilliance is enough to square the circle, to make Israeli Arab peace work..This is a hoax, a delusion. There is no deal that will please Arafat and preserve the security interests of Israel. No phony peace with Syria is worth abandoning the Golan. Friends, we had seen all this before since Oslo in 1993.

Nothing has changed. The evidence of Arab hostility is documented in 30,000 pages of Maccabean AND freemanlist analysis.

What we have now is a shell game. You know how the little pea is shuffled from shell to shell and the player must pick the one it is under. Only the con man has removed the pea from the game table in a sleight of hand. There is NO way to win.

I fear that Barak is THAT con man and with a quick sleight of hand the Golan and Yesha will disappear. A fait accompli.

So it is time to fight like you never fought before TO SAVE ISRAEL. This is definitely the END GAME of Oslo and as in chess the game is won or lost in the end game.

.....Bernard J. Shapiro, editor.



Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio -- August 2, 1999 / Av 21, 5759


By Yedidya Atlas


When Yitzhak Rabin ran for election in 1992, he publicly declared at a giant election rally just two weeks before the election: "Whosoever gives up the Golan Heights, abandons the security of the State of Israel." It is now a matter of record that the late Prime Minister misled the public on this key issue. Ehud Barak has been more honest with his voters in this regard. But he has yet to explain how he came to perform his turnabout: When he was Chief of Staff, he strongly maintained the vital necessity of retaining the "Golan Heights west of Quneitra" (i.e., everything Israel presently controls) for Israel's strategic survival. Yet today, just a few years later, on a political whim, he suddenly feels that the Golan is negotiable.

The fate of the Golan Heights, officially designated by law as part of the State of Israel, is not merely an issue of 17,000 Golan residents/settlers, but a question of national life and death. The fact that weak-willed politicians are prepared to sacrifice the very land under our feet, is cause for serious concern. To better comprehend this issue of serious national anxiety, one must first understand what the Golan is, and what it means to Israel's survival.


Topographically, the Golan is a 60-km. long by 20-km. wide mountainous plateau running from the upper Jordan Rift Valley and Lake Kinneret in the west, the Yarmuk Valley in the south, and Mount Hermon in the north. On Israel's side of the Golan, there is a steep incline from the Golan plateau down to the densely-populated Hula Valley and eastern shore of the Kinneret.

The Golan is one of three sources that supplies Israel's fresh-water needs. It comprises the headwaters of the Jordan River (60%), and the mountain streams (40%) that flow down into the Kinneret. However, with the widespread contamination of the coastal plain's aquifers, and the Oslo Accords giving over control of the aquifers and rainflow runoff from the hills of Judea and Samaria over to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, the Kinneret becomes Israel's main, even sole, fresh-water source. Today, water flows freely into the Kinneret and then, via massive pumps using 5% of Israel's electric power, the National Water Carrier supplies this water to the rest of Israel. It was not always so.

In 1964, Syria, then occupying the Golan Heights, tried to divert these critical headwaters away from Israel in a blatant attempt to cripple Israel's fresh-water supply. Ironically, the IDF operation that destroyed the Syrian damming project was carried out under then-Israeli Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Yitzchak Rabin - the same Rabin, who, as Prime Minister, we now know, was prepared to return control of Israel's fragile water lifeline to the Syrians, trusting them not to repeat past sins.


Militarily, Israeli control extends just over the crestline, giving the IDF direct eye and radar contact with the 65 km. plain that runs from the Golan to Damascus. Just 20-30 km. from Israel's forward positions, are the deployment areas of Syria's armored divisions - a mere two-hour tank ride to Israeli territory. The Golan Heights acts as a defensive wall protecting Israel's north. A Syrian attack is topographically channeled via only two passes in which armored vehicles can cross. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, some 150 Israeli tanks stopped invading Syrian columns - with more than 1,400 tanks - in the "bottleneck" Valley of Tears pass in the north, and the pass through the volcanic hills in the south. The surprised and vastly outnumbered Israeli troops held off the invaders for the 48 hours that were required to mobilize and deploy the necessary forces that ultimately beat back and defeated the Syrian aggressors.

Having these critical passes in Israeli hands is no less important now, with Syria's enormous buildup of highly advanced weaponry, than it was in 1973. Since 1982, the Syrian army has doubled in size, whereas according to foreign sources, Israel's army has only increased by 15-20%. On paper at least, it should be understood that Syria has already achieved military parity with Israel. Hence, one needn't be a military genius to realize that it's better to concentrate a small standing force on the high ground, defending the 10 km. area of the passes, than the same force having to defend a 60-kilometer line.

Any proposed pullback of Israeli forces from these passes returns Israel to the vulnerability she suffered prior to the 1967 Six Day War, and more so. It is only the vast size of Israeli artillery and tank forces in the Golan Heights targeting the Syrian army's deployment area beyond, as well as the capability to shell and bomb the outskirts of Damascus at a given moment, that is keeping Hafez al-Assad from implementing his "Greater Syria" strategy where Israel is concerned.


Imagine a Syrian repeat performance of the 1973 surprise attack, this time with 4,000 tanks, and 80-100 Scud-C missiles fired upon Haifa and Tel Aviv within a 2-hour span, sowing widespread civilian panic and seriously disrupting Israel's emergency reserve mobilization. Remember, the Syrian Scuds are twice as powerful as the Iraqi Scuds that hit Israel during the Gulf War, and the Scud-C is four times as accurate.

Can we really afford to even partially pullback our forward positions from the Golan crestline and give control of the key passes to Syria in exchange for Syria's signature on a piece of paper? Prime Minister Barak, in his zeal to make a deal on the Syrian track, tells us that he is prepared to withdraw from most or all of the Golan Heights.

Instead of this defeatist policy, let Prime Minister Barak hold the Syrian regime directly responsible for Hizballah actions in Lebanon. The terrorists there are Syrian-supplied and operate with active Syrian cooperation in attacking Israel's north. The Sagger over-the-shoulder missiles and Katyusha rockets fired by Hizballah at Israeli troops and northern civilian population centers, for example, are supplied by the Syrian army.


Mr. Barak, of all people, should realize that Israel doesn't have to prove its peaceful intentions by suicidal unilateral concessions. No matter how convivial Barak's Washington visit with US President Bill Clinton (alias the Washington Toy Master) was, it did not lower the Golan Heights, nor did it cause the Syrians to dismantle even one Scud-C missile launcher or reduce the number of tanks in any of the Syrian deployment areas. The Golan Heights is no less vital to Israel's future security as it was until now.

Let Prime Minister Barak suggest that Syria, the beaten aggressor, offer gestures of its peaceful intentions, if indeed Damascus wants peace, and not just an improved position from which to launch its next attack on the Jewish State.


Yedidya Atlas is a senior correspondent and commentator for Arutz-7 Israel National Radio and a member of the Advisory Committee of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



A Voice from Hebron - July 26, 1999


by Gary M. Cooperberg

Syria is an interesting country. Her hatred for the Jewish State is legendary. It is national policy to hate Israel and the Jewish People. Horror stories have abounded for years, including a vivid description of how a Syrian soldier took a bound Israeli prisoner and publicly chewed him to death to the cheers of delighted onlookers. Hatred for Israel is taught in the schools and inculcated on the local media. Girl scouts in Syria are required, as part of their initiation rites, to catch a snake and kill it with their teeth. There is no shortage of examples of vicious hatred of Syrians for Israel. Yet, for some unexplained reason, it seems that Syria's president, Assad, has suddenly developed a desire to live in peace with Israel. President Clinton is ecstatic, as is the government of Israel.

Anwar Sadat was murdered by Islamic militants who viewed his overtures to Israel as treasonous to Islam. Yet few understood the brilliant cunning of the first Arab leader to make use of Israel's willingness to make sacrifices for "peace". Does anyone remember, or want to remember, that, at his first meeting with Begin, Sadat sported a necktie decorated completely with swastikas? He had no love for Israel and no love for Jews. His "peace treaty" with Israel gained him Jewish land, without having to fight for it. It also gained him unprecedented American financial and military aid. And what was his contribution for "peace"? He signed a piece of paper recognizing the right of Israel to exist; diplomats were exchanged; and borders were opened to tourism, albeit that most of the tourists are Israeli's going to Egypt and not the other way around, and that Israeli tourists have been murdered when visiting that country. In fact, Egyptians to this day do not feel "at peace" with Israel.

What did Israel gain from this treaty? She gained more pressure from the United States to yield more of her homeland to her enemies. She contributed to the propaganda campaign which suggests that real peace can be achieved through Israeli retreat. And she enabled the Egyptian army to rebuild and greatly upgrade its military capacity. . . for peace of course.

The second "breakthrough" which found us signing a "peace" treaty with Jordan, was really more of the same kind of fraud which only further lulled the Israeli people into feeling safer. What exactly was accomplished with this treaty? First of all, for the first time, the Israeli government overwhelmingly and officially recognized the legitimacy of Arab sovereignty over Jewish soil on the other side of the Jordan River. Secondly diplomats were exchanged and borders opened. Thirdly, Israel agreed to supply water to Jordan, despite the fact the we have our own shortage of water. And, of course, as a result of this wonderful treaty, Jordan received increased financial and military aid from the United States. Israel also has opened trade with Jordan which increases that country's standard of living. Never mind the fact that seven schoolgirls were murdered on a class trip by a Jordanian soldier while visiting Jewish land under Jordanian control.

And what did Israel gain from this treaty? She gained increased pressure from the United States to yield more of her homeland for peace. She further contributed to the myth that real peace can be achieved by giving up more Jewish Land. And she showed the Arab world that they can defeat Israel far easier with "peace" than with war.

Proof of the above premise was quick in coming. Yasser Arafat, whose PLO was created and exists for the sole purpose of destroying the Jewish State, has joined the procession of Arab terrorist murderers who stand on line waiting for their share of Jewish Land in return for "peace". Arafat has declared that he is not "asking for the moon". Actually I would prefer to give him the moon and send him and all of his PLO followers to live there. I would even be willing to recognize his terrorist state at that location.

No one with an ounce of intelligence really believes that the PLO has stopped plotting the destruction of Israel. The government of Israel has set so many self deprecating precedents that it is unthinkable for it to admit that the path it is on can only lead to its self-destruction. Whether or not Arafat declares his PLO state is a technical irrelevancy. The fact is that he already has his state on Jewish soil on this side of the Jordan River and his hand is stretched out waiting for Israel to enlarge it even more, for peace.

Is it not evident, from all of these precedents, that Israel is working, together with her enemies, to weaken herself before them? It certainly is evident to Assad. With all the Land that Israel has already given away to Mubarak, Hussein, and Arafat, if he can convince the Jewish State to give him the Golan Heights, the Arab nations will be that much closer to achieving the peace they all seek. . . a Middle East without a Jewish State of any size.




By Dr. Aaron Lerner
(July 26, 1999)

There is a tremendous quantity of surveillance equipment on the Golan - including various antennas. Some of the equipment is locked onto targets. Providing fixed, stable, positions for so much equipment in a balloon buffeted by wind is something beyond this world.

Of course, if you want to spend a fortune you can do most anything. But the very idea of replacing the Hermon as a platform for surveillance equipment with a balloon is baloney. Even if it functioned during peacetime, a balloon can be taken out with one missile in the opening attack.

While it is true that the Syrians would also attack a ground based station, it is considerably more difficult to hurt it and damaged equipment can be replaced. And if your are on the Golan you can also advance from there to take Syrian positions and place stations there. In any case you can bring in spare equipment to a damaged ground based station - something you can't do with a balloon that has crashed to the ground.

The idea of a balloon replacing the Golan Heights is part of the self-delusions proponents of withdrawal from the Golan have engaged in.

As for the alternative of placing missile batteries out of the range of Syrian artillery, with today's technology Syria can send some people in civilian clothes with laser target indicators to illuminate these batteries so that laser guided bombs released from over the horizon can strike the batteries in the opening moments of battle.

There is simply no replacement for the Golan.

If you give up on the Golan Heights you relinquish your tactical advantage. Keep in mind that the 'look down shoot down' anti-aircraft missiles for destroying low flying planes that now can be used by Israel from the Heights could be used against Israel if Israel is not on the Heights.

Motta Gur, one of the most dovish chief's of staff, wrote in a book published posthumously that there is absolutely no replacement for the Golan.

When in 1974 Saunders visited Israel as Kissinger's representative and I met with him along with Motta, we went hill by hill and examined what we can do to defend ourselves from those hills and what the Syrians could do against us if they held them. Nothing has changed since then. In fact, technology has only made our position on the Heights that much more important.

Consider for example the American experience in Kosovo. They found that shoulder held anti-aircraft missiles prevented them from doing anything below 2,500 feet. Because of that they never even used their Apache helicopters. Consider the impact of these missiles on Israel's ability to move forces to move invading Syrians if we are not on the Golan.

The Golan today provides us with natural topographical barriers against invasion that have been improved and supplemented by man made barriers. It also provides Israel with the optimum positions for tactical intelligence as well as for anti-aircraft missile batteries to bring down incoming enemy aircraft. Keep in mind that if Syria opens attack by firing missiles at civilian targets, the standing army will have to hold out for a considerable time before reserves can come up.

History has shown that demilitarized zones only remain demilitarized as long as both parties want the zone demilitarized. Nobody - be they Americans or anyone else - can guarantee the zone. Take the classic case of what happened in the Sinai when Nasser decided he had enough of the supervisors in 1967.

All this talk about second best alternatives to Israel being on the Golan are solutions which are individually inferior and cumulatively even worse.

It is a gross mistake to consider each of these elements in isolation.

Not one element of the non-Golan alternative, not one factor, is an improvement over being on the Golan. These factors work together. So even if you take an optimistic view that each factor is only 10 percent inferior off the Golan it doesn't take much, on a cumulative basis, for the non-Golan alternative to have only half or even only a quarter of the effective overall force of being on the Golan.

Before the elections Ehud Barak invited me to his home. As Chief of Staff (C.O.S.) he said that there is no alternative to the Golan, just as Shahak said when he was COS.

So I asked him, 'tell me, what are your thoughts regarding the Golan.' He talked about the creation of a psychology - a dynamics - of peace. Bull like that. Even if you buy into this story, if another dictator comes along that isn't interested in the 'dynamics of peace' then you have lost the peace and you have lost the Golan and you have lost the nation.This is pure ivory tower. Not military doctrine. There is simply no military replacement for the Golan.

There are two types of peace: a harmonious peace like between the US and Canada in which you basically don't need an army and a peace that is the absence of war - such as is the case between Israel and Egypt - under which you live via detterence. And when you live via deterrence you have no choice but to keep your abilities to the maximum.


Dr. Aaron Lerner is the Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis).



Special insert from ARUTZ SHEVA of August 13, 1999


by Yoram Ettinger

Six years following the signing of the Oslo Accords, Arafat - a mainstream leader and a recipient of annual US foreign aid - is intensifying the demonization of Israel, Zionism and Jews in the Palestinian school system. PLO strategy is authentically represented by its own education curriculum, which shapes long-term attitudes of Palestinians and mirrors the ideology of its leadership. Arafat's refusal to expunge - from textbooks - systematic depiction of Jews and Zionists as enemies of Arabs, Islam and humanity, has reaffirmed concerns about Arafat's actual intentions and his harboring of Hamas terrorists (including murderers of Americans).

Recurring themes in school textbooks within the PA educational system educate Palestinian pupils to reject Israel, Zionism and Jews on moral, political, nationalistic and religious grounds. Jews and Zionists are systematically depicted as enemies, deceitful, treacherous, plunderers, aggressors and inhumane. The heralding of Jihad (Holy War) and legitimizing of martyrs/terrorists permeate both PA textbooks and summer camps. Martyrs are promised unique rewards in Paradise, including unlimited sex with 70 virgins per martyr.

A few examples follow:

"The first words the young boy heard were the words Jihad, attack and conquest...For him no joy equaled the participation in Jihad...Nothing gave him more pleasure than the sight of the enemy lying dead on the battlefield...Coming down on them, blow after blow, crushing their skulls..."

(The Conqueror of Africa, 6th grade, pp 6,7,43,93,96).

"One must beware of the Jews, for they are treacherous and disloyal" (Islamic Education, 9th grade, p.79).

"Jihad and sacrifice are a duty...draw your sword, let us gather for war with red blood and blazing fire...Death shall call and the sword shall be crazed for such slaughter...Oh Palestine, the youth shall redeem your land..."

(Reader and Literary Texts, 8th grade, pp.120-122).

"The final and inevitable result [of Jihad] will be victory of the Moslems over the Jews..." (Our Arabic Language, 5th grade, p.67). (This report excerpted. For complete report: <>)



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 2, 1999


By Yossi Ben-Aharon

Barak must face some hard questions before he resumes the political process.

The attitude of the Arab people toward the State of Israel...Labor believes that government-to-government agreements can themselves change the environment and fuel change on the popular level... The Labor Party... believes in a less perfect, yet achievable peace. Israel is strong enough to take calculated risks for peace based on the country's strengths, capabilities and resources."

Addressing a forum of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in August 1998, Ehud Barak, then leader of the Labor opposition, said the following: "The fundamental difference between Labor and Likud lies in their willingness to take risks for peace. Likud believes that the first step toward peace is a change in the basic attitude of the Arab people toward the State of Israel... Labor believes that government-to-government agreements can themselves change the environment and fuel change on the popular level... The Labor Party... believes in a less perfect, yet achievable peace. Israel is strong enough to take calculated risks for peace based on the country's strengths, capabilities and resources."

These words provide an insight into Prime Minister Barak's approach to the negotiation process. They echo very similar words by his predecessor, the late Yitzhak Rabin. In a meeting with American rabbis in New York shortly after the Oslo Agreement was signed, Rabin was asked what would happen if his gamble turned out bad and the Palestinians did not live up to their undertakings. Rabin answered:

We're much stronger than them and we will deal with them accordingly.

I am no apologist for the Likud and after three years under Netanyahu's leadership, nobody knows what the Likud's policy really is. Nevertheless, Barak's statement needs to be challenged by facts. We have already experienced 20 years of peace with Egypt, five years of the Palestinian Authority and many years of various covert and/or open relations with an assortment of Arab governments. Barak and his advisors must ask themselves: Has any Arab government or Arab leader made a move to influence and educate his people toward true peace with Israel, toward acceptance of Israel as a legitimate entity in the region? Can the prime minister point to any statement by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak or any of his ministers, or by Yasser Arafat or any of his associates to this effect?

Has the map of Israel finally made it into the tourist guides, school textbooks, or official maps of the region? Has any imam, in any mosque throughout the Arab world or in the Palestinian territories, preached coexistence and accommodation with Israel?

To put it bluntly, beyond constant repetition of abstract slogans such as "peace of the brave," or a "just and comprehensive peace," has any Arab leader shown that these words are not just a respectable cover for extracting territory from Israel and reducing its capacity to defend itself?

In the years 1980/81, Israel concluded some 50 memoranda with Egypt which were designed to translate the peace treaty into normal, peaceful relations between the two states. The Egyptians condescended to sign them all, that is, as long as Israel had not concluded its total withdrawal from Sinai. Since then, we have been treated to a host of excuses for not implementing any of those agreements. Today the memoranda are no longer worth the paper they were written on. When Anwar Sadat was attacked by the other Arab leaders for having signed a peace agreement with Israel, his defense was that it was the only way to retrieve the territory.

WHEN Labor came into power in 1992, they swept away the lessons of the past. The negotiations they held with Syria and the PLO were replete with one-sided concessions by Israel. The chief Israeli negotiator with Syria, Prof. Itamar Rabinovitch, characterized the Syrian position thus: "Israel remained a rival, if not an enemy, and the peace settlement should not serve to enhance its advantage over the Arabs, Syria in particular, but rather to diminish it."

Any normal person must ask: what, then, is the point of delivering the Golan Heights to Syria? There is no reason to believe that the Palestinian scenario will be any better than the Egyptian. Most probably, it will be much worse. There have been many indications to the effect that Palestinian terror has subsided only because Arafat has succeeded, by influence or by threats, to convince the Hamas to suspend their attacks as long as there is a chance of gaining more land from Israel.

Once the process of withdrawal from Israel-held territory ends, the war of attrition against Israel - psychological, diplomatic, economic and terrorist - will resume. There will be no lack of pretexts, or of extremists, who will be blamed for violating the agreements. But the main blame will be placed on Israel, either for not being generous enough in delivering territory, or for not permitting the exercise of "the right of return" of Palestinians, or for perpetuating some settlements beyond the "Green Line."

Prime Minister Barak and his government must face some hard questions before they resume the political process. What can Israel's sophisticated military might do in the face of a continuing violation of agreements by the Arab side, or in case of a resumption of Palestinian terror? Are we going to bomb Gaza or Ramallah?

Hasn't Israel taken enough "calculated risks" to its security and made enough "painful decisions"? Wouldn't it be proper to first require Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to carry out all their undertakings under the various agreements and, above all, to put an end to incitement and education against Israel? Finally - and most important - how much longer can the government of Israel continue to gamble on the security and the future of the country?

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Yossi Ben-Aharon is a former director-general of the Prime Minister's Office.




By Ze'ev Schiff

Before the Intifada broke out, a negative phenomenon began to develop in the territories concerning the organization of IDF units. By order of then-chief of staff Rafael Eitan, in the framework of the regional defense system, some units were composed entirely of Jewish settlers from beyond the Green Line. The negative aspect of this was the creation of military units with a single political hue, as opposed to all the other IDF units that consist of people coming from all shades of the political spectrum. There were those who dubbed these units the settlers' Palmach. In the case of the Palmach, however, those who enlisted came from settlements all over the country, whereas the settlers' units are also unique for their unity of geographical origin - the Jewish settlements beyond the Green Line, about which there is a public political debate. The danger was that the settlers' units would turn into political police with respect to the Palestinians. After Ha'aretz publicized this, the chief of the Central Command at the time, Amram Mitzna, took steps to break up the settlers' units. Regular army units were posted to the territories and served there for periods of about eight months at most, while reserve forces came from the general field corps. The regional defense made up of settlers carried out low-level security missions and the soldiers were for the most part at a low level of combat readiness. Care was taken so that they would not operate beyond the bounds of the settlements.

The turnabout occurred in the wake of the opening of the Hasmonean Tunnel in 1996. On orders from their superiors, Palestinian police opened fire. Fifteen IDF soldiers, 70 Palestinians and an Egyptian officer were killed in the confrontations. The IDF was deeply shaken and made operational changes as a result of the event. Considerations that previously held high priority, like those which had led Mitzna to break up the settlers' units, lost their importance.

In the IDF's top echelons, there are those who are therefore saying now that the Palestinians may believe that they have suffered "strategic damage" as the cumulative result of the operational changes in the territories. If the IDF thought in terms of reconciliation with the Palestinians, before the tunnel events, ever since then the thinking has been based on concepts of "battle and attack." This statement is of importance to those who argue that the Palestinians see the tunnel incidents as an achievement because they managed to inflict losses on the surprised IDF.

The organizational turnaround brought about the establishment of special forces among the settlers, a new kind of regional defense. After the IDF concluded that similar outbursts could take place in the future, it began to direct soldiers with a high level of combat readiness to regional defense, and this time all those soldiers reside in the settlements. If preference was given in the past to having those soldiers serve in combat field units elsewhere, now preference is given to having them serve in the regional defense of the settlements.

The outcome of this is that while in other units the call-up process for reserve service takes about 36 hours, as in the IDF as a whole, in the case of the settlers' units this call-up takes no more than 6 hours. An additional difference is that not all these units now serve within the settlements. While many of them are organized within the framework of units within the settlements, mobile units have also been established to secure the roads that link the settlements. There have also been additional changes in the organization of the forces in the territories, such as the allocation of 15 regular companies of Border Police for service in the West Bank. These companies are no longer limited to policing duties but reach the level of company maneuvers. These are changes intended to allow the IDF, in case of a conflagration, to deal with an external threat while the new force in the settlements deals immediately with the Palestinians.

What Mitzna feared before the Intifada is now happening in full. It has even expanded. Moreover, the direct command of these units is entirely in the hands of officers who are settlers themselves. The commander of the Israeli army forces in Judea and Samaria, Major General Yitzhak Eitan, has no reservations about units with a single political hue, the hue in this case being right-wing and even extreme right-wing. Eitan trusts the settler-soldiers not to misuse the authority the IDF has given them with respect to sensitive security issues. He says that there has been only one case, several months ago, in which a reserve soldier from one of these units stood trial after he opened fire without permission. Not everyone in the security establishment agrees with him.

(c) 1999 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved




By Boris Shusteff

The deafening silence in Israel in response to Ehud Barak's decision to continue the withdrawal from the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) according to the Wye Agreement timetable is a strong indication of a pending Israeli demise. The indifference and fatalism of the Israelis has become so widespread that it is almost impossible to draw a distinction between the behavior of the vast majority of the Jews of a Ghetto herded toward their death in the ovens of Auschwitz and the behavior of the Israeli Jews herded toward the "peace of the braves."

It appears that the Jewish state has become so demoralized and submissive that it is simply incapable of adequately comprehending the situation. Using all kinds of twisted logic, the Israeli leaders try to explain why it is necessary for the Jewish state to get rid of its heartland - the lands of Yesha. It seems that everybody is in a hurry to deliver the soul of the Jewish state to its enemies. It is assumed by default that as soon as the land of Yesha is given to the Palestinian Arabs and the Golan is given to the Syrian Arabs the Arab world will embrace the Jewish state and peace will descend on the Middle East. Rabbi Berel Wein wrote on August 8 in the Jerusalem Post article "Recasting History" that "there is a tendency among many Jews to beatify their former foes, give them the benefit of the doubt and explain away their faults." This tendency plagues us throughout all of our history. Lacking autonomy for almost two thousand years, we are especially sensitive to others' struggles to achieve it. It does not matter that they want to do it at our expense. It does not matter that we have to give up our land for them. The magic words "autonomy" and "peace" are the keys that open the doors to the treasury called Eretz Yisrael. Our obsession with "autonomy" was already noted by Zeev Zhabotinsky in 1924 when he wrote that:

"The Jewish publicists and politicians, even from the national camp, considered it to be their duty to support the autonomous aspirations of their enemies. Apparently autonomy is a sacred thing. We in general consider it to be our duty, as soon as we hear "The Marseillaise" to freeze at attention and yell hooray-- and it does not matter if Haman, himself, plays this melody while Jewish bones are cracking in his barrel."

The desires of the leaders of the Israeli "peace" groups to establish another autonomous Palestinian state while forsaking the lands of Yesha amply prove Zhabotinski's observation. The "peaceniks" are even ready to question the value of Jerusalem to the Jewish people. The advertisement that the Gush Shalom group ran on August 6 in The Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz stated:

"Trying to maintain exclusive Israeli rule over Jerusalem is a provocation to the whole world. Peace is real if the great majority on both sides accepts it whole-heartily as a fair compromise. The logic of the brain is not enough, the logic of the heart is needed too. Not only the political attitudes of the Palestinian people must be taken into account, but also their feelings, anxieties and hopes."

The deep self-hatred of the Gush Shalom leaders which oozes from every line of the ad is obvious. Even more despicable is that while caring about the "feelings, anxieties and hopes" of the Palestinian people, the feelings, anxieties and hopes of the Jewish people are completely discarded. However, there is one line in the Gush Shalom ad that needs to become a front page headline in all the Israeli newspapers. THE LOGIC OF BRAIN IS NOT ENOUGH, THE LOGIC OF THE HEART IS NEEDED TOO. This is the answer to all Israeli troubles. The logic of the heart is needed too. Before giving up the Jewish land we should ask the Jewish heart whether it can accept this sacrifice.

We shall ask the Jewish heart and it will remind us of hundreds of generations of Jews who were unable to tie their destiny to the land of their forefathers. It will tell us of the yearnings of millions of Jews who dreamt of the mountains of Judea, the valleys of Galilee and the hills of Samaria. It will remind us that in spite of bans and prohibitions, in spite of the most improbable and dreadful circumstances, there was never a period throughout the centuries of exile without Jewish emigration to Eretz Yisrael.

We shall ask the Jewish heart and it will tell us the unsurpassable story of the Jewish clinging to the Land. It will tell us of hundreds of thousands of Jews that drained the swamps, irrigated the stony soil and reclaimed the marshes. We shall ask the Jewish heart and it will burst in unbearable pain and will drown us in the tragedy of millions of Jews who perished in the Holocaust because the Jewish state was not yet reborn. We shall ask the Jewish heart and we shall hear again the heartbeat of the 20,000 Israeli sons and daughters who gave their lives defending the Land in the unending war for survival of the Jewish state.

And if we ask the Jewish heart it will give us an unequivocal answer. The thunderous and unquestionable NO is the only response to the attempts to surrender more Land. The logic of the Jewish heart demands that the millennia old feelings, anxieties and hopes of the Jews must be taken into account. The logic of the Jewish heart demands that the future of the Jewish people must be taken into account.

The Land of Yesha - the Jewish Land - was promised to the Jewish people by God. The Jews must cling to it and must settle it for the sake of their children and their children's children. The surrender of even a single inch of the Land is tantamount to tearing apart the Jewish heart. A Jew without a Jewish heart is not a Jew. Israel without Yesha is not a Jewish state. A people that betrays its God and its Land can end up only in the dustbin of history. [08/10/99]


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




By Emanuel A. Winston

In the earlier Arab boycott of Israel from the birth of the Jewish State, a coalition of Arab nations threatened corporate America with a loss of markets and oil resources if they did business with Israel. A secondary and tertiary boycott operated against any company who did business with companies who did business with Israel. The U.S. Congress voted legislation that countered this threat by making it illegal for any company to assist the Arabs in a boycott against Israel.

In recent years the Arab boycott of Israel and corporate America seemed to fade - although many U.S. and European corporations subtly chose NOT to do business with Israel, so they would be more 'acceptable' to Arab nations and markets. This was functionally an 'anticipatory boycott'.

Today's story revolves around Burger King Restaurants which has established 60 locations in Israel, all Kosher. Muslims also eat only Kosher meat. Burger King has demonstrated that it is an equal opportunity, non-prejudicial corporation by franchising Burger Kings at 82 locations in several Muslim majority nations including Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

When Burger King opened up a new outlet four months ago in the town of Ma'ale Adumim, a town of 28,000 northeast of Jerusalem, the Arabs once again tried to use the almost dead boycott to punish Burger King. In a vicious and blatant show of barely disguised hatred, American Muslim organizations in Washington, D.C. threatened to resurrect the boycott and have gotten the Arab League to agree that such a resolution will be submitted for vote on September 4-5.

I am told by reliable sources that these Muslim/Arab organizations have launched a well-funded campaign to portray Burger King in a negative light across the Arab/Muslim world because Burger King has chosen to open up numerous restaurants in Israel. They have used the excuse of Burger King opening up in Ma'ale Adumim to launch an attack which is intended as a far broader message to corporate America.

Those who know, understand that what is really being said is that: "We, the Palestinians intend to one day take over this Jewish city and do not want any facts of normalization to be established by any other nation through investment or development." That the primary Arab/American organization is titled: "American Muslims for Jerusalem" reveals their oft-stated intent to take Jerusalem as the capital of the new "State of Palestine".

It also tells anyone with sharp vision that the facade of peace talk is a charade. The hatred is still there and being taught daily at every possible level of official communication, including school, television, radio and the print media. Grade school children speak of the honor of being suicide bombers to kill Jews for Islam and the PLO.

The not-so-subtle boycott of American and Europan corporations conveys the message clearly to all who wish to listen: "We, the Arabs hate you, Israel and will use every stratagem to undercut and finally bring you down to an ignominious defeat. If we cannot at the moment defeat you on the battlefield, we will use disinformation through the media who, while knowing it is false, will nonetheless print the information."

Regrettably, America has been chosen as the staging area for these groups and their intended future operations. As we learned during World War II, front organizations endanger the freedom of a democratic society. The CHICAGO TRIBUNE (long known for its anti-Jewish and anti-Israel editorial policies) spelled it out in 3 articles August 7 and 8. The TRIB picked up the "news releases" from the Arab organizations in Washington, quoted their statements as facts, and deliberately continued the negative spin against Israel and Burger King. Their lead editorial Saturday August 7 "Having It Burger King's Way" claims Burger King will not sell their burgers to Palestinians. Not true. Palestinians also eat at the Burger King in Ma' ale Adumim. Burger King is not refusing to open in Palestinian areas. (However, the McDonalds franchise in Israel refuses to open any branches in Jewish areas over the former Green Line, including Jerusalem.)

Why am I not surprised that Arab/Muslim organizations in Washington are inter-linked to those in Arab countries and are pursuing the same goals? Why am I thinking of Steve Emerson's exposÚs on Muslim cells organizing in America - which has deeply worried the FBI and other Counterterrorism organizations? Why am I not surprised that Arab/American" organizations can trigger a fast response? Were not these organizations supposed to be merely religious groups dedicated to raising funds for schools and hospitals in various Arab countries? How is it that they have such influence with the leaders of Arab nations that they can command so quick a response in the incitement of boycott frenzy?

I fear that what America is seeing is a brief glimpse of a far more malevolent organization, with goals that may not be in the best interests of our nation. Attacking American corporations and enlisting the media is hardly the act of a friend, although many of these Arab/Muslim organizations have been invited to the White House as guests of the Clintons. Investigative reporting has shown that many of these organizations use their American fund-raising to finance terrorist operations against Israel and to expand their presence here in America. Boycotts may be trivial compared to what they could do. Perhaps this action is a blessing in disguise as we are given a preview of what is developing in our free society.

I fully expect the now cowed and submissive Prime Minister of Israel, Barak to respond that this is a minor issue and should not disturb the peace process. But, then Barak has already stated that he would implement the Wye River withdrawals - even if Arafat implements none of his obligations in any of his signed Accords - neither Oslo, Hebron or Wye. The homily, "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see" is quite appropriate for Israeli and Jewish leadership. No matter how many times the Arabs make it plain that they hate the Jewish State, weak and subservient Jewish leadership pretends that spit is rain. Within the Arab culture, weak governments who do not defend themselves are to be conquered by the sword of Islam until Islam rules victorious. Unfortunately, both Israel and America are now manifesting this inner weakness which inevitably leads to defeat.

In a speech in Ramallah on August 4, celebrating his 70th birthday, Arafat proclaimed that the Palestinian flag will be able to fly from the mosques and churches in Jerusalem. "Allah willing, we will continue our struggle, our Jihad." (JERUSALEM POST August 5, 1999) Yassir Arafat has been consistent in telling the Israeli people, Bill Clinton , the State Department, the world media, the U.S. Congress that he is engaged in a struggle to the death through Jihad. Is this a replay of Hitler's Mein Kampf proclamation which was also ignored by the Jews and the "free" world. Granted Madame Albright may pretend the words were not said, but, if said, not meant. The facts of unceasing terrorism and the deliberate breaking of all agreements cannot be ignored nor rewarded with U.S. tax dollars.

As for Israeli leaders, as Jews are murdered, Israeli politicians, in deference to clinging to their official seats, ignore the packs of dogs chewing on their legs. Let us wait, for Barak, as Rabin and Peres did before him, to apologize and excuse the Arabs' boycott of Burger King. The Clinton Administration is now wooing Iran and trying to get Syria off Congressional list of terrorist nations (although Syria supports at least 10 terror groups in Syria as well as the Iranian-backed Hezb'Allah terror attacks against Israel). It seems as if Yassir Arafat can do no wrong in the eyes of Clinton and is exonerated by the State Department from keeping any of his commitments signed in the Olso/Hebron/Wye Agreements. Local Arab organizations seem to easily get the Clintons to host them and appear at their fund-raising functions.

Why have these organizations been given free access, carte blanche, to the White House? Do I smell campaign contributions like others which came from China, Asia and the Middle East? The threatened Burger King boycott tells us that America remains "The Great Satan" while Israel is called "Little Satan" in Arab lore. Nothing has changed - except the words of 'peace' which mean nothing. The operative sayings for the Islamic militants are "Kiss the hand of your enemy, until you can cut it off" and "First the Saturday People; then the Sunday People".

Be aware that the Arab-American Muslim organizations' campaign has resulted in a massive response (they claim). The Arab-American Action Network sent out a mailing last month calling on supporters "to Email or phone their demands on a single day, July 30, for maximum effect, that Burger King close the Ma'ale Adumim restaurant and threaten a boycott that will hurt their profits in the short term and business expansion in the long term."

Burger King Corporation deserves our support against this blatant blackmail. Please write:

Mr. Dennis Malamatinas, CEO Burger King Corporation, 17777 Old Cutler Road, Miami FL 33157

Ph: 305-378-7770 Fax: 305-378-7403 Email: &

Also, please contact your local media, the national media outlets, your Congressmen and women, the U.S. State Department, the Clinton White House 202-456-1111 (public opinion line).


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



Reprinted from Yediot Ahronot August 13, 1999


By Roni Shaked

Israel's sealing a window on the Temple Mount this week did not conclude the power struggles over the most disputed site in the Middle East. As Israel attempts to flex its muscles, the Palestinians are increasing their control over the Temple Mount -- which is already looking like part of Arafat's autonomous zone.

A small window, broken through and resealed with lightning speed, threatened to ignite Jerusalem this week. A number of elements and circumstances meant that in the end the dynamite that is the Temple Mount was not set off, but merely remains primed for the next dispute. From each side of the window, the two sides see things differently: The Palestinians consider the Temple Mount as their territory, on which they must constantly work to strengthen their hold. Israel, in contrast, is making efforts to prove that the slogan "The Temple Mount is in our hands" remains in effect in the political reality of 1999. When Prime Minister Barak decided last Monday to act quickly and decisively, he remembered his election campaign, which was based on the slogan "Barak will not divide Jerusalem."

His decision to close up the window, opened up by the Moslems in the "Lower Al-aqsa Mosque", was out of the ordinary: It is three years since the political echelon issued any order connected to Israeli control and sovereignty on the Mount. Barak took the advice of Supreme Court Judge Eliezer Goldberg from two years ago, who ruled that "With regard to issues related to the Temple Mount, the legal solution must yield its place to solutions based on political considerations. The political echelon, not the courts, must give content and meaning to the cry "the Temple Mount is in our hands."

A Miniature Israeli Flag

Even though the window has been sealed, the struggle over sovereignty remains open and the Palestinians, in truth, have all the reasons to be satisfied: The Jordanians put up the money, Israel is responsible for security -- but real control is in Palestinian hands.

Today, 32 years after IDF forces liberated east Jerusalem, the symbol of Israeli sovereignty on the Temple Mount is a tiny Israeli flag, measuring 15 x 10 cm, found on the table of Israeli police commander. The flag was placed on the table after drawn-out negotiations on its precise placing and size, following riots on the Temple Mount ten years ago. The Police commander on the Temple Mount, who is also responsible for the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, is officially known as the "Commander of the Unit for the Holy Places."

The feeling that the Palestinians controlled the Temple Mount increased during the Intifada. The mosques were a focus for incitement and demonstrations; Hamas cells turned the mosque courtyards into a meeting point for terror groups; funds and instructions were passed on from commanders to activists in the mosques, the Temple Mount has become a central Palestinian national site for hosting respected guests from abroad, and Feisal Husseini, for example, has moved some of his meetings from Orient House to the Temple Mount area.

The Turning-point: The Tunnel Events

Three years ago marked the turning point. The opening of the Western Wall tunnel by Israel in September 1996 and the bloody events that followed, forced the Netanyahu government to quietly agree to the construction of a mosque in Solomon's Stables. Since then, the situation on the Temple Mount has been similar to that in Area B on the West Bank: Palestinian civil control, Israeli security control.

The victory following the construction of the mosque in Solomon's Stables strengthened the Moslem feeling that the Temple Mount was to all intents and purposes in their hands, and led to a breakdown in contacts with the relevant Israeli bodies -- government ministries, the Jerusalem Municipality and the Antiquities Authority.

As in the areas under Israeli security control in the PA area, so too Border Police and police patrols on the Temple Mount take place mainly for security reasons, rather than to demonstrate sovereignty. For their part, the Palestinian organizations send their members to perform police and security duties during periods of tension.

"The police station on the Temple Mount can enforce the law in the event of disorder, but on the big issues - those which require the enforcement of Israeli sovereignty on the Mount -- the police cannot do a thing without permission from the political echelon. Such permission has not been given in the last three years," say senior police figures.

Civilian control is handled for the Palestinians by the Waqf administration, which treats the area as its own. Formally the Waqf is answerable to the Jordanian government, which pays its employees' salaries and operational expenses. In practice, the Palestinian Authority controls the Mount. The Palestinian Mufti, Sheikh Akrameh Sabri, was appointed by Arafat.

Sheikh Sabri has recently moved his offices to the Mount. The Netanyahu government objected, claiming that this represented a violation of the Oslo Accords, which forbid PA activity in Jerusalem, but Sabri continues to carry out his activities on the Temple Mount, and now it is Ehud Barak who must deal with the problem.

No Entry for Inspectors

On the basis of the breakdown of the status quo due to the tunnel events three years ago, the Muslims began to energetically pursue the repair of the "Lower Al-Aqsa." The new balance of power forced the government of Israel to ignore the building, and watch with clenched teeth as hundreds of volunteers from the Israeli Arab Islamic Movement worked to realize Moslem control of the Temple Mount.

The Lower Al-Aqsa mosque, which can be used by up to 500 worshipers, is situated on 1000 square meters of ground in the south western corner of the Temple Mount, beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In the days of the second Temple, this was one of the main entrances to the temple. The construction was carried out without any request for permission being made, in complete disregard to building codes and is causing archaeological damage. But as the Moslem workers broke down walls, cleared out dust from knolls and built a new pavement, the Waqf prevented the entrance of inspectors from the Antiquities Authority to the area. "We enter any area in the State of Israel without restriction; the only place where this does not apply is the Temple Mount", says Amir Drori, Director-General of the Antiquities Authority angrily.

This week, even after the window in the "Lower Al-Aqsa" was re-sealed, the Palestinians continue to be firm in its stance: Muslim construction on the Temple Mount does not depend on the authority of Israel. "We are not asking for, and will not ask for Israeli permission, license or agreement for construction" says Adnan Husseini, the Director-General of the Waqf. "At the end of the day, Israel does not control the Temple Mount."




By Emanuel A. Winston

On August 10 Prime Minister Ehud Barak responded to a question on CNN regarding the West Bank Palestinian who ran his car twice into a group of soldiers waiting for rides to return to base after Shabbat. All reports (including the terrorist's own mother) indicate this was another suicide mission coming from the heart of Arafat's Palestinians. However, Barak's reply on CNN was the same craven response that Rabin and Peres gave as their stock answers, when Jews were killed in terrorist attacks by the Palestinians: "We will not be deterred from the 'Peace Process'." This deadly process continues, only slowing briefly when Clinton asked Arafat to curb the terrorists so the CIA/State Department could claim Arafat was compliant with his treaty obligations. Rabin and Peres had their body count of dead Jews since Oslo - numbering in excess of 300 murdered and thousands wounded, some maimed for life. So, too, has Barak started his own score card.

Vulgar words flooded my mind but none would convey the stupidity of this supposedly cultured thinker. Was it just that he was now a creature of the Clintons or was he really that pathetically blind to the reality of the Arabs' hatred? Has the word "Jew-Hatred' lost its meaning and no longer has the spark to penetrate the thick skulls of our Leftist Jews? Do they just not want to know? Do Jews create a dream world and then live in it?

We saw this in 1929 when the Jews of Hebron refused the offer of the Haganah to send in armed guards. 69 Jews of Hebron were slaughtered by Arabs who the Jews thought were their friends and neighbors. Their dream of peaceful co-existence turned to a nightmare.

We saw this in 1939 when Hitler proclaimed his intentions and then started his Final Jewish Solution. Most of the Jews of Europe refused to escape when they could and told each other that all of this will pass. They too paid the price of following stupid leaders and dreams of peace.

Now, in 1999, do we still have among us those suicidal Jews who deny the reality of the murders of their own people and pledges by sworn enemies to wipe them out? Perhaps we can excuse them because they are so enamored with their dreams of peace that reality doesn't count. Or has former General Barak, "the most decorated soldier in Israel", been conned by President Clinton, the quintessential con man, so he can proclaim this false peace as his Presidential legacy? Is Barak following the diktats of Clinton, his role model and his financial mentor who assisted his election with cash and consultants? It would appear so.

Whatever Barak is, can you believe one word that he utters? He plays his audience like a puppet master. He creates false delays, giving everyone heart that he will demand full compliance from Arafat before he gives away vital areas as did Rabin, Peres, and Netanyahu. In the very next breath he tells us that, if Arafat objects to any time delay, he will implement the Wye withdrawals regardless. This means surrendering 13% more territory which will give Arafat's PLO 40% of the West Bank, isolating the Jewish communities and giving Arafat's 50-60,000 (and growing) man army, contiguous land and crucial water resources to establish control.

Control means military jurisdiction over 200,000 Jews; disposal of countless Jewish holy sites, power to prevent Israeli mobilization if any Arab army or coalition of Arab armies attack; domination of up to 70% of Israel's water resources (including the Golan if Barak surrenders those Heights). Arafat has been ostensibly told by Barak and Clinton that he will get everything necessary for his new "State of Palestine" with Jerusalem as its capital - and he will never have to comply with the terms of Oslo, Hebron, and Wye.

Is his script being written by the almost Jew Madeleine Albright and the other court Jews like Berger, Indyk, Ross, Miller, Kurtzer and James Rubin? Presumably this gaggle of obsequious Jews surrounding our 'noble' President will be the first sacrificed when Clinton's Middle East house of cards falls. Was there ever such a nauseating gathering of spineless Jews genuflecting to their earthly deity - an impeached President Clinton?

When will Israel vote in a Prime Minister who has pride in his Jewishness and really protects the nation rather than one who caves in to a scurrilous President who is tied to Arab financial interests? I am baffled by Jews who start their dream vision by speaking of the peace with the Palestinians as if the last seven years did not happen. Even those of the political or nationalistic Right speak about withdrawal time tables as if this was an inevitable holy plan blessed by a generous American President. They sprinkle their dream with light comments about how Arafat, his fearsome officers and the Palestinians must 'vigorously' and 'meticulously' fulfill all of their commitments in the area of security.

Stop reading, dear Reader, and think.

For the last seven years, since the infamous handshake on the White House lawn, Arafat and his people have not kept any part of his signed agreements which were guaranteed by America under Bill Clinton's signatures. Each Palestinian breach was reported and filed away to record an indisputable history of non-compliance. And yet, the CIA and State Department have continuously approved the Palestinian Authority as being "in compliance". On whose orders do they lie? These people made it plain that, no matter what Arafat did, it was somehow all "OK" as long as he kept talking in this spurious "peace process". The "Process" was what was important; not the peace.

I accept the perfidious thoughts and acts of the radical Left as heartfelt. Rabin, Peres, Beilin made little effort to hide their betrayal of the Israeli people - except for the brief period of time they negotiated Oslo, in secret, away from the sight of the Israeli people. Yossi Beilin said publically that they couldn't tell the Israelis about the negotiations and the terms "because they would never agree".

But, what about the people who lived through the last seven years? Were they blind; struck dumb; deaf to the cries of the dead and wounded; or did they just not care? I know that the parents and friends of the dead felt the blows - as did anyone of conscience, Jew or Gentile. How dare those who saw it all limply demand that NOW Arafat must keep his obligations.

Of course, our courageous (?) Jewish leaders do not make this demand too loudly or too often. But, they do make frequent public statements about how much Israel should withdraw and when will she keep its side of the Wye Agreement. "Peace Now" openly encourages violent demonstrations and stands with those demonstrating Arabs. The idea of actually demanding that Arafat keep his obligations before Israel withdraws from any more land, ties their shorts in a knot.

Imagine, if you were a businessman (small or large) and you have just signed a contract. Your new partner has agreed to do certain things starting the very next day. You wake up to find nothing started; you wait for something to begin but he fulfills none of what he agreed to. Not only that, but your new partner has started proceedings which will actually destroy your corporation. So, what the're a good hearted forgive him and say let's start again.

What if you are the small country of Israel and your "peace partner" openly displays his map of the New "State of Palestine" covering all of your State of Israel and he openly declares that he will raise the Palestinian flags over Jerusalem, the capital of his State and ONLY his State? Do you start over again? Now the 'starting line' has been moved, with 40% of your territory in the enemy's hands and your positions weakened proportionately. But, yes, you do start again - and again - and again. Do you finally get the idea that your new partner really doesn't want an agreement with you? He really hates you and only wants what you have. Isn't it time to accept the wreckage of your false dreams for a peace of compromise which lets you live with him? Do you finally walk away?

Not if you are an Israeli leader. Nothing breaks his spirit and belief. The dead may pile up, but Jewish leaders have a lot of people to sacrifice before such creatures as Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Beilin, and Barak consider themselves at risk. So, the last seven years of broken agreements, suicide bombers, green lights given by Arafat to riot and murder, mean nothing but an temporary annoyance.

After all, if you have decided to give the Arabs everything: your defensive positions, the entire heart of the country, your holy sites, your capital and most of your water, then why bring up the matter of compliance at this late date?

It seems that between the Left and the Right a decision has been made to let the country die. Now it's merely starting the count down.

I hope I'm wrong and that someone who has the power to be effective will finally stand up for Israel's survival.


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



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 4, 1999


By David Wilder

(August 4) - Not too long ago a journalist visiting Hebron asked me why the Jewish community of Hebron so stubbornly refuses to accept protection from the Palestinian Authority. "After all," he stated, "it is probable that in the near future all of Hebron will be part of the Palestinian state, including the Jewish neighborhoods where you live. Then you will have no choice but to accept protection from Yasser Arafat's police force."

Exactly 70 years ago this week, four Jews, three men and a woman, made their way from Jerusalem to Hebron. The woman's name was then Rahel Yanait. She later married Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of Israel. The group, armed with weapons, came to Hebron as Haganah representatives, carrying a pessimistic message: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini was stirring up trouble. His incitement was likely to lead to violence.

They offered the weapons to Hebron's Jewish community as a means of protection, just in case the rioting reached Hebron. But Hebron's leadership was not worried. The previous riots in 1921 left Hebron untouched. Hebron's Arabs and Jews lived together as one big family. There were Arabs who spoke Yiddish and the Jews spoke Arabic. They attended each other's weddings and other festivities.

Hebron's Jewish leadership refused to take the weapons, saying they would only be interpreted as a provocation. The four members of the Haganah were politely thanked and sent back to Jerusalem as they had arrived, weapons in hand.

The riots and massacre that then occurred on the Friday evening and Saturday morning left 67 Hebron Jews dead and over 70 wounded. First-hand accounts of the atrocities speak of the unspeakable: rape, torture, castration. People were literally hacked to pieces. The British officer present did nothing to try and stop the attacks. His Arab police force stood idly by while Jews screamed for help. A small number of Arabs hid Jewish families, effectively saving their lives. But the results spoke for themselves.

After the journalist heard these accounts, he continued to query: "Do you then believe that all of Hebron's Arab residents are terrorists."

I explained to him that the perpetrators of 1929 massacre were friends and neighbors of the Jews they mutilated and slaughtered. One of the most loved Arabs in Hebron, a man named Issa, worked for the baker, Noah Immerman.

Issa spoke Yiddish. Issa tortured his employer and then killed him. "If this is what happened when the Jews and Arabs were on friendly terms, what would happen today if Hebron's Arabs thought they had the opportunity to repeat their deeds of August 1929 and get away with it?"

But the lessons of 1929 reach much further than Hebron. During the 1929 riots, Jews were killed in Jerusalem, Motza, Jaffa, and Safed. Hebron was the climax of Amin el-Husseini's incitement. The present Arab leadership, including el-Husseini's cousin, Yasser Arafat, and his nephew, Faisal Husseini, know too that it takes little to stir up the masses.

Faisal Husseini proved this while orchestrating a decade of intifada.Arafat proved it almost four years ago following the "tunnel opening" in Jerusalem, causing a minor war and leading to the deaths of IDF soldiers.

The lessons of 1929 must teach us, not only in Hebron, but throughout the State of Israel, that we cannot and must not put our trust or our lives in the hands of anyone except ourselves.

Surely we must not depend upon the "protection' of a Palestinian armed force. Almost 300 Jews have been killed since Oslo began on the White House lawn in 1993. This, in spite of the fundamental premise of Oslo that the Palestinians will prevent violence and terror against Jews. Senior military officers admit that without the cooperation of the Palestinian police force, Oslo is doomed to failure.

In other words, our safety, as individuals and as a country - our lives and existence, are in their hands.

In Hebron, in 1929, we learned this lesson once, the hard way. There is no reason why should have to learn the lesson again, be it in Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or anywhere else in the State of Israel.


David Wilder is a spokesman for the Jewish community of Hebron.



Special to WORLD TRIBUNE.COM - Monday, August 9, 1999


WASHINGTON -- Saudi fugitive Osama Bin Laden is believed to have up to 20 nuclear bombs and is seeking to launch a massive terrorist strike against the United States, a congressional investigator and author says.

Yosef Bodansky, a researcher of the House Task Force for Counterterrorism and author of a new book on Bin Laden, told a news conference on Friday that Bin Laden has been seeking to follow up on his bombings of two U.S. embassies in east Africa one year ago. Echoing U.S. officials, Bodansky said Bin Laden was thwarted in plans to blow up the U.S. embassy and two consulates in India in last December and January.

Bin Laden has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, Bodansky said. The nuclear weapons include suitcase bombs acquired through Chechniyan rebels and received technical help from Iraq.

"The Russians believe that he has a handful [of nuclear weapons], the Saudi intelligence services are very conservative, perhaps they are friendly to the United States, believe that he has in the neighborhood of 20," Bodansky said. "As far as the acquisition and obtaining, there's the multiple sources of that, dealing with the actual purchase of suitcase bombs. His collection of individuals knowledgeable in activating the bombs and he is looking for and recruiting former Soviet special forces in learning how to operate the bombs behind enemy lines."

"As far as decision-making in Washington is concerned, we should assume that he has them," he added. "Most of them have been transferred through Pakistan."

"Let me stress here: We don't have any indication that they are going to use it tomorrow or any other day," added Bodansky, whose analyses are considered controversial in Washington. "But they have the capability, they have the legitimate authorization, they have the logic for using it. So, one does not go into the tremendous amount of expenditures, effort, investment in human beings, in human resources, to have something that will be just kept somewhere in storage for a rainy day."

Bodansky said Bin Laden has strong ties with Islamic fundamentalists throughout the Middle East, the Balkans, Britain in the Untied States. He refused to name any specific organization in the United States.

"There's a distinct minority within the Moslem community in the United States that is very sympathetic to his cause, to his analysis and interpretation of the relationship between the hub of Islam and the penetration of Westernization, Western culture and the like," he said. "And a minority among this minority are known to have crossed the threshold of willingness to commit terrorist acts or commit violence. Many have been trained in Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere throughout the Moslem world, so that they are capable. They have the skills and capabilities to carry out an operation as required."

Bodansky said Bin Laden remains in Afghanistan. He said the Saudi is located in Islam Darva, about 80 kilometers northwest of Kandahar. When he wants to communicate with the outside world, he travels to Jalalabad.




Or Comparative Religion 101

By Bernard J. Shapiro

It would be instructive for many of you to have taken the comparative religion course I took from Dagobert D. Runes at UC Berkeley in 1962. He later published his work in a book called DESPOTISM: A Pictorial History of Tyranny, published by Philosophical Library, 1963, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-22269 (pre-dates the introduction of ISBN).

In the course he explained that Jews and Arabs were meant to fight, Christian's meant to turn the other cheek, and Hindus to be peaceful and loving. In reality religions may be interpreted differently by their followers. For example:

1. Arabs continue to be brutal, aggressive and seek world domination under their prophet Muhammad.

2. Following the defeat of Bar Kochba's revolt, many Jews were minorities in other lands. They began to turn the other cheek like Christians until the rise of Zionism. [Historical note: It took four years and one half of all the Roman Legions to defeat Bar Kochba, a minor Judean warrior, without full support of his own people, in a tiny desert land. The effort expended defeating Bar Kokba was one of the major factors causing the fall of the Roman Empire.]

3. Hindus stayed loving and peaceful until the arrival of the British, who taught them war. Moslems began to advance into the Indian sub-continent, raping,pillaging and murdering the innocent Hindus long before the arrival of the British. Many nationalist Hindus resent the British. But the British were interested in plunder and domination BUT NOT MURDER. The British, in fact saved India from total Islamic control. They did try forced conversion to Christianity but failed. Islam had a more effective method, tried by Catholics in Spain. Convert or die.

4. The Christians (no reflection intended toward GOOD Christians of today. Remember this is history and speaks in broad terms), while claiming to be peaceful, have been histories greatest mass murderers. They have greatly surpassed Islam in sheer numbers. For examples:

a. The Native Americans were virtually ethnically cleansed (read exterminated) from the North American continent.

b. Runes estimates that the Jewish population of Rome at the time of the empire's conversion to Christianity was 33%. Jews throughout the ancient world were a substantial portion of the world's population. He estimated under normal demographics the Jews would have numbered 1 billion people by the early 1960's. But Jews faced different demographic threats than other nations. In the name of Christ (primarily by Catholics), they were murdered, raped, forcibly converted, expelled, and looted. Eventually the very efficient and techno minded Germanic Lutherans nearly exterminated the entire Jewish population. They did kill one third of the world's Jews as many claim, BUT 90% within their military grasp from France to Russia. Islam was in awe of German efficiency in killing Jews and beseeched Hitler to bring his 'solution to the Jewish problem' to the Middle East. Fortunately for my sake he did not win WWII but he lost (as did the Jewish people). Had he won I would not be alive to write this message to you.

That my friend is Comparative Religion 101, it should have taken you no more than 15 minutes to read and understand it. It took the Jewish people 3000 years. They apparently were very slow learners.



Book Review

Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument

by Yossef Bodansky,

The Ariel Center for Policy Research and
the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, 1999.

Reviewed by Sha'i ben-Tekoa


This report on one of the great taboo subjects of our time belongs on every foreign policy-maker's desk immediately. Dr. Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research for the International Strategic Studies Association and Director of the United States Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare has put together a compendium of virtually medieval Jew-hatred spoken and written not by occidental cranks and skinheads but leading oriental politicians and respected clergymen prominent in the Arab world.

In a clear, methodical process he surveys the historical hatred of Jews in Islam which existed for about 1,250 years before the birth of what is today called anti-semitism, and for about 1,230 years before the birth of Herzlian Zionism. He does not shy from quoting the Qu'ran when it preaches that of all Islam's enemies, none are greater than Jews. Bodansky also mercifully feels no need to conjure up any imagined Golden Age of Arab-Jewish harmony; even if there had been one, by logical definition, it was the exception, not the rule, which is why it was called "golden." As a rule, Jews were as mistreated in Islam as in Christendom, if not in identical ways. To his credit, Bodansky is utterly clear-eyed as to the meaning for Jews of having been a dhimma people within Dar al-Islam, ruled over by its tyrants--the only kind of government Arabs have ever known--as an inferior, subject, oppressed people dispossessed of its Land and Covenant, both of which Ishmael proudly inherited. He understands that the Zionist movement from Day One was anathema to Islam, and that it despises Ramat Aviv Gimmel in North Tel-Aviv no less than Bet El in the hill country of Benjamin.

But the history of Arab-Jewish relations concerns him less than documenting today's never-ending cascade of shameless anti-Jewish bile pouring from government-controlled media outlets everywhere in the Muslim Middle East. If, after World War II in Euro-American culture, anti-semitism became gauche and anti-Jews had to go underground for a couple of decades until the invention of the "Ancient Palestinians" gave them a new and fashionably acceptable, albeit cloaked, excuse for returning to public Jew-hatred, open, shameless anti-Jewism has never been out of style in the less-developed Arab world; it is common coin in all strata of society, especially among the elite. To this day, Syria's Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass continues in his post more than a decade after having published a book, The Matza of Zion, his pseudo-scholarly "study" of the Jews' vampiric need for human blood as an ingredient in Passover matza. Imagine a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet, or a minister in Tony Blair's government, or even in the administration of the anti-semitic Jacques Chirac, publishing such a book and remaining in office for more than five minutes, and one begins to get a whiff of the utter otherness of the Arab world in its feelings about Jews and its absence of any shame about expressing them.

Bodansky has done a great service by exposing the facts which lead him to the honest exposure of Islam as a problem for Israel independent of latter-day "Palestinian Nationalism," this generation's cloaked excuse for hating Jews. The book's title is nonetheless somewhat misconstrued, for the phrase "Islamic anti-semitism" is not quite accurate. Anti-semitism is a pseudo-science, an attempt to re-wrap the age-old fear and loathing of the Jew in an intellectual-sounding term; to pretend that a certain body of ideas is an "ism," a theory like anarchism or socialism. As a term, anti-semitism is only some one hundred twenty years old, invented in the 1870's in France and German-speaking Europe. Its purpose then was to legitimize the resistance of many Europeans to the Emancipation of the Jews, the granting to them of social equality and citizenship, which had begun in France in 1790 and spread across the continent under Napoleon. Many Europeans could not cope with this, and anti-semitism sprouted in order to explain, in a pseudo-scientific way, why it was okay to feel this way.

In the 1870's, Friedrich Neitzsche was preaching that G-d was dead, hvs, and indeed the "Age of Reason" of the previous century had been a euphemism for the loss of faith in Christianity. (The phrase "Age of Reason" had been coined by Tom Paine for the title of his 1793 book of the same name, which was basicly a debunking of Christianity.)

And in that 19th century European milieu of shattered faith in the Nazarene, the charge of deicide against the Jews also lost meaning: If Jesus was no longer anything more than a moral teacher (as Thomas Jefferson, Paine's friend, had envisioned him when he published his own version of the New Testament with the miracles edited out), then the Jews were no longer guilty of deicide and their persecution made less sense than ever.

Anti-Semitism arose to "scientifically" explain the residual Jew-hatred when religious excuses no longer held water. The anti-semitic babblers concocted a pseudo-anthropological thesis according to which Jews should not be allowed to assimilate into European culture, not because of their religion but because they were Asiatics, non-Europeans, Semites-a word until then used only by linguists studying the similarities between Akkadian, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Syriac, Arabic and other Semitic languages. What the first anti-Semites did was to borrow the term and fantasize a group culture and personality which in fact had never existed. In effect, the new propagandists said, "We have nothing against Jews and Judaism per se. It's the fact that they are Semites from another continent, who are culturally inassimilable among Europeans. That's why we reject (and hate) them."

But of course, no person has ever used the term 'anti-semitism" to apply to an irrational hatred of, say, Amharic-speaking Christian Ethiopians, or Arabic- or Aramaic-speaking peoples. The very term anti-semitism is itself anti-Semitic, for it is a euphemism, a lie, which has never really meant "against-Semites." Everybody knows that "anti-Semite" means Jew-hater.

Which is why the title of this excellent book is a tad misleading, for so much of the material Bodansky has assembled is Islamic in character, with its own vocabulary independent of the fanciful claptrap of "classical" 19th century "anti-Semitism." Muslims have always hated Jews, which is why Arabs were dead-set against Zionism from Day One; which is why the Jewish villages and towns (a.k.a. settlements) in Judea and Samaria and Gaza today have nothing to do with Arab belligerence toward Israel. The current generation of anti-Jews (Muslim, Christian and Jewish alike) who wave the banner of "Palestinian Nationalism," have conveniently forgotten that today's settlements followed numerous attempts at genocide (1948, 1967, 1973). No casus belli, the settlements are result of a prior casus belli.

Bodansky is first-rate in emphasizing the blurring of the terms "Jew" and "Zionist" in contemporary Araby. After reading this book, no intellectually honest person can maintain that there is a serious distinction between the Arabs' feelings for the traditionally humiliated and persecuted Jews, and their feelings for Zionists.This book needs to be read by people who believe that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, like policy-makers in Washington, London, Paris, or in the newsrooms of Israel's clone of the New York Times, Haaretz, or the country's television stations, for while the book's low-key author stands on no soapbox, he might agree that the classical, secular Zionist goal of "normalizing the Jewish people," as Shimon Peres or Ezer Weizman might put it, has failed. It is well and good for some Israelis to tout their Israeli-ness as their normalness (i.e. non-Jewishness), but the world, in general, ain't buying, and neither, in particular, are the Arabs. Shimon Peres may have said in 1996 after losing to his fellow secularist Mr. Netanyahu that, "The Jews won and the Israelis lost," but this too falls on deaf Arab ears. The Children of Ishmael recognize only the Children of Israel, and given their fervent religion--practiced with a medieval enthusiasm assimilated Jews and Western Christians no longer understand, in a culture which never underwent an Enlightenment which had made light of religion-the Arabs remain warm Believers in the Jews as Islam's Public Enemy No. 1.

Bodansky's yeoman research offers scores, even hundreds of examples of how today's so-called Islamists (also a misleading term) see Jews as "immersed in a conspiracy to dominate the Middle East as a first step in their drive to dominate the world." Bodansky does not say it, but I will: These people think like Nazis, and Nazism was paganism re-born, which is why Nazis hated Jews so much, for since Abraham, Judaism has been at war with paganism. What makes a book like this one so chilling is the thought that the prominent Arab politicians and religious authorities in Islam (including non-Arab Egyptians, Persians, Afghanis, etc.) quoted herein, are not marginal personalities like a Timothy McVeigh, who blew up that federal office building in Oklahoma City in 1995, or any of the pathetic and anonymous skinheads who scrawl swastikas on the walls of public toilets in Idaho, about whom the Anti-Defamation League is so deeply concerned, but the movers and the shakers of the Arab world, about whom the ADL hardly sounds the alarm..

Bodansky, willy-nilly, without fanfare, has lifted up a rock on one of the great taboos of the age: When was the last time you read an editorial or op-editorial in the New York Times on the pandemic of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and especially among the "Ancient Palestinians" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza? When was the last time National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting Service did an essay on the medieval Jew-hatred of Islam?

Of course, little is to be expected of such Western media outlets when Israel itself is no less into hysterical denial on this matter. Whenever the Israeli police find a dead Jew, hvs, and suspect other than common criminal activity, they report to the press that the murderer probably acted out of "nationalistic motives," as if Israel and its enemies were locked into a normal contest of wills between two normal nationalities. Who has ever heard an Israeli official say that a Jew had been murdered in the country by a homicidal anti-Semite?

This virtually psychotic denial should be harder to maintain after reading this quiet survey of hundreds of expressions of fear and loathing worthy of Nazi hooligans either in the 1930's or among today's euphemistically miscalled "neo-Nazis."

Bodansky's writing is simple to the point of dryness; after a while, the litany becomes mind-numbing, even repetitive, but that only happens toward the end of this short book and should not distract anyone who cares about Israel, and fears for the poor prospects of true (vs. Oslo-style) peace, from the necessity of reading it. The author is refreshingly candid in clearly stating that the Palestinian Authority "is at the forefront of the anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement"--yet again, don't expect official Israel to acknowledge this. Let this work be a first step toward that goal.


Sha'i ben-Tekoa presents a program of political analysis on Arutz Sheva, Israel National Radio, His articles on the Middle East have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Midstream et al. Prior to the Madrid Conference of 1991, he worked on assignment for the Office of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.


The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies
in cooperation with The Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR)

Please send ______copies @ $14.95 (each) + $3 (USA) postage or $$7.50 air mail postage overseas




Mail check to:

The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies
P.O.B. 35661
Houston, Texas 77235-5661

Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail: