Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
THE MACCABEAN ONLINE
POLITICAL ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ON ISRAELI & JEWISH AFFAIRS
"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"
VOLUME 8 B"H DECEMBER 2000 NUMBER 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISRAEL'S VIRTUAL SURRENDER TO ARAFAT ...An Editorial....Bernard J. Shapiro 2
ARAFAT'S WAR OF ATTRITION
THE INSANITY OF THE SHAMELESS ....Eugene Narrett, PhD 3
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE....Daniel Pipes 7
OF COURSE, IT'S THE SETTLERS' FAULT ....Nadav Shragai 8
WE ARE ALL SETTLERS....Boris Shusteff 10
THE PITIFUL ISRAELIS!....Jan Willem van der Hoeven 13
THE INTIFADA UNDER UN PROTECTION ....Moshe Zak 15
I AM FOR LASTING PEACE' ....ARIEL SHARON 18
ISRAEL AT THE CROSSROADS
OSLO - A CONCEPT THAT FAILED....Nomi Blumenthal 18
THE STRONG ROOTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AT MACHPELAH.... Rabbi Eliezer Waldman 20
OSLO WAS MERE CHILD'S PLAY....Nadav Shragai 22
NO LONGER A WEAKLING....Daniel Pipes 23
"OSLO ISN'T DEAD" SAYS SHIMON PERES Emanuel A. Winston 25
Analysis / SAME OLD THING, MINUS KATYUSHAS....Amir Oren 26
RECONSIDERING THE PAST....Yosef Goell 27
SPECIAL "WHITE PAPER" ON ARAFAT AND THE PA 28
THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404]
Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
Published Monthly by the FREEMAN CENTER FOR
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661
THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL: http://www.freeman.org/online.htm
Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016, E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ** URL: http://www.freeman.org
Copyright (c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro
The Freeman Center receives no public funds
and exists solely on
private contributions which are fully tax deductible.
FREEMAN CENTER AND
ALL OF ISRAEL CAN CELEBRATE
ISRAEL'S VIRTUAL SURRENDER
By Bernard J. Shapiro
1. It is apparent to many people that, despite his exalted military career, Prime Minister Ehud Barak is showing cowardice in the face of Palestinian attacks during the current war. While IDF soldiers and officers certainly are personally brave in the face of the enemy, Israel's political leadership is indecisive and non-aggressive. I ask you: When in Israel's military history did its forces not attack and occupy enemy positions from where live fire was coming? Only today is the IDF entangled with rules that prevent its ability to defeat the enemy decisively. The failure to engage the enemy with force and aggressiveness has led to a massive loss of deterrence on the part of Israel.
2. The repeated cease-fire talks with U.S. President Bill Clinton have made the Israelis look like a "banana republic" as well as fools for expecting Arafat's signature on an agreement to mean something tangible.
3. The level of lying on the part of the Palestinians about Arafat's war is an indicator of how unreasonable and "anti-peace" they really are.
4. It is clear to me that Barak is using Arafat's war for the purpose of causing the Jews of YESHA to evacuate their homes. This to save himself the difficulty of personally taking charge of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the area. He has already given the green light to Arafat by his actions in not suppressing the war.
5. Barak's giveaways at Camp David should have brought down his government, yet he still rules. I am very disappointed at this. Where is the nationalist camp?
6. There is talk of international observers for YESHA. This would be a great victory of Arafat and justify his war against Israel. The Israeli response should be a deafening no. From experience of 52 years, we all know that the UN, its bodies, and all International Forces are biased against Israel and in the pocket to the Arabs. The only purpose of such a plan would be to diminish Israel's rightful sovereignty in the area.
7. Barak's constant warnings and threats, for which he never acts, further reduce Israeli deterrence.
8. Allowing the news media to photograph teenagers throwing stones is bad for Israel's image. It is well know that these very same photographers avoid taking pictures of Palestinian gunfire. The print journalists avoid references to live fire from the Palestinian side. Many rioters wait for journalists to arrive before rioting. It is past time to remove journalists from the areas of clashes.
9. Oslo and Camp David must be terminated with extreme prejudice.
10. Israel must annex immediately areas B and C leaving the Palestinians with only A for now. Then the Palestinians must be told that those who engage in hostile activity against Israel will be expelled from the country. If hostility is widespread then the entire population should make a new home in Jordan.
The Insanity of the Shameless
By Eugene Narrett, PhD
On Thanksgiving Day, Israel's Foreign Ministry issued a lengthy report describing reiterated calls for violence by Palestinian officials and details of the recent weeks of violence against Israeli civilians and soldiers from the Jordan to the sea. "Somehow," bleated the bureaucrats, "the world media conveys the impression that Israel and the Palestinians are equally to blame." Who helped create this impression?
Israel's current Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami has been among the most insistent of those urging a return to the bargaining table with Arafat, on the basis of the Camp David II "understandings" (Ha'Aretz, 11-02, 11-24-00). The operative assumptions of this "strategy" to divide Jerusalem and surrender 95% of Yesha are that an agreement can be reached with Arafat and that such an agreement will be honored or enforced. The first assumption had some pieces of paper to support it. The second is a volatile fog of delusion and deceit, shrouding seven years of gathering danger over Israeli streets and farms. Of course the media and Foreign Service bureaucrats of other nations despise Israel; weakness in defending one's nation is despicable. Sold on the assurance of Israeli strength, the "progress" of Oslo has demanded Israeli weakness. Thus Ben Ami's plaint is stupid or disingenuous. Once the Israeli Labor-Meretz-Arab coalition formally made Arafat a negotiating partner at Oslo, they created the illusion of moral equivalence between Israel and the Arabs. When they followed that up by repeatedly overlooking gross violations of the Accords, they exposed the principle that for decades has driven Labor policy: that Judea, Samaria and Gaza are to be surrendered, and their Israeli population removed by force or attrition regardless of Arab compliance. The process is outcome-based; the conclusion foregone. The blood that is being spilled today and the inevitable contempt for and bias against Israel by global power centers results from this mad and shameless betrayal of Israel and its Jewish heritage.
The Foreign Ministry Report defensively protests that "under these difficult circumstances [unremitting attacks by Arabs], the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) is acting with the greatest possible restraint, doing its utmost to prevent injury and the loss of life." That "greatest possible restraint" is exactly the problem, as it has been for seventy years. The first week in October 2000, it admitted, "the IDF has been following a policy of maximal restraint. This policy does not seem to be producing the desired effect." Of course it will not conciliate but rather encourage Arabs to attack Jews, a point Jabotinsky made repeatedly during the 1920s and '30s. The policy is not only foolish but, at best, misleading even in its ostensible goals. "Restraint" by the IDF invites injury and murder of Jews by Arabs, and then, eventually, when the government is pressured to a minimalist response, produces some Arab casualties, at which the media and diplomatic powers of the world cry "excessive force."
"Israel has no interest in escalating the violence," complained the IDF. "To the contrary, Israel believes it is imperative that the Palestinians stop this violence so that both parties can return to the negotiating table. Israel maintains that a just and sustainable solution can be found only through dialogue, not armed conflict." This is the essence of the madness: to return to a negotiating table that Arabs have defined and used as a site to extract unilateral Israeli concessions in exchange for promises that are, as Marwan Barghouti of Fatah explains, part of a "cease fire" (hudna) that complements armed attacks. This is precisely the tactical combination of violence and "negotiation" favored by the Arab masses as indicated in the broad base survey conducted in the West Bank and Gaza November 06-09 by Bir Zeit University (see www.memri.org, 11-15).
The shamelessness is the shedding of ever more Jewish blood and the failure to respond with the force that would deter future assaults. The week of November 20 saw a steady and gruesome escalation of attacks on Jews. A school bus was bombed near Kfar Darom in the Gaza strip killing two teachers, a mother of four and a father of six children. Three children were so badly mutilated that parts of their legs had to be amputated. The next day, a sniper bullet killed a Jewish civilian waiting for a ride. Then a bus in Hadera, on the northern coastal plain was bombed, killing two and wounding 53 civilians.
These murders accompanied further declarations of war by Palestinian officials. "We will shoot at settlers and soldiers everywhere in the West Bank and Gaza," said Fatah leader, Hussein Sheikh. Shortly afterward, an 18-year old Israeli youth, Itamar Yefet, on his way to make a condolence call to the family of one of the Jews murdered two days earlier was shot to death. Arafat's Secretary General (whatever that means in his thug-ocracy), Ahmed Abdel-Rahman showed the quality of Arab mercy and commitment to peace by stating, "yes, our policemen will now use their guns in self-defense [sic] in areas under our full sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post, 11-22-00, evening). Worse was to come.
There is more than brazen violation of commitments to enforce security in this announcement. Arab hatred for Jews is so extreme that a civilian mourner going to make a condolence call to a family bereaved by a murderous attack on a school bus is considered an aggressor requiring Arab "police" to shoot in "self defense." Those who made and wish to make further "agreements" with these Arabs are insane, and complicit in the murder of their own people. Beyond these wake-up calls, was the problem pointed out for eight years by critics of Oslo (and of the mad acknowledgment at Camp David I of Palestinian "rights to a homeland"). Once the Arabs have a sovereign area, whether termed an "autonomy" or a state, the "police" of that state will be empowered to accumulate and use their guns.
The complicity appeared in the belated killing of a Fatah-Tanzim leader 11-22. Jailed for attacks on Israeli soldiers, he had been released in 1999 by the terms of the first "Sharm el-Sheik agreement" despite objections and a formal petition by the Victims of Terror Association. In recent weeks he had organized many terrorist attacks in Gaza (Arutz-7, 11-23). Even as the Fall 2000 war of attrition against Jews developed, the IDF continues to refer to Fatah-Tanzim as "activists" (peilim). As Aaron Lerner pointed out (IMRA 11-22), this allows diplomats like Madeline Albright to sanitize Fatah's Jew-killing militia as a sort of protest or civil rights group.
It is not politicians or the IDF High Command, but civilians and enlisted men who pay the price of the Oslo fraud, one of whose delusions was that there could be meaningful "joint-security patrols" between Arabs and Israelis. For years, Arabs on these patrols, especially in Gaza (where the CIA have been training the Arabs in "security" techniques) have been pointing their guns at their Israeli 'peace partners' in the midst of patrols, prompting crises that short-circuit genuine security. In fact the Rosh HaShana war began with the murder of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Samaria by their patrol partners. On November 23, an Arab obeying PA-Fatah commands to shoot at Israelis "in the territories" threw a hand grenade into the DCO, the office where joint patrols were coordinated. This killed Israeli lieutenant, Edward Machnik and wounded two soldiers. "The Palestinians struck at IDF soldiers who worked with them, shoulder to shoulder in the joint office for seven years," the IDF spokesperson complained. What did they expect, especially after events of the previous two months? Does the IDF monitor the public pronouncements of PA and its affiliated Fatah officials? "This serious event harms the trust that still remains between the IDF and the Palestinian security authorities," concluded the IDF statement (11-23-00). "The trust that still remains"? There is no excuse for stupidity of this magnitude.
Yet worse stupidity and betrayals followed. The IDF ordered the closing of the DCO's but the Arabs simply refused the order. They similarly (and predictably) refused the IDF's offer to cooperate in investigating the murders (Ha'Aretz, 11-23, Amira Hass). One Arab took his familiar 'victim' role and poignantly told the media, "we need the DCO's for humanitarian purposes, such as coordinating passage of ambulances" (Jerusalem Post, 11-24). Dining in Moscow, Arafat had Putin telephone Barak who soon "agreed to renew senior contact and security cooperation in an attempt to end the violence" (Ibid.). This shameless acquiescence to murderous deceits was followed by reports that Barak is bending to Russo-Turkish proposals to station "observers" in Judea and Samaria "to end the violence" (Jerusalem Post, 11-26). Thus, Barak achieves the impossible: he brings Russia and the Turks together. How? Over Israel's nearly dead body, and simultaneously fulfills Arafat's strategic goal. Earlier reports suggested that his toady, Ariel Milo has been negotiating precisely this endgame concession at the UN ("Secret Israeli-Palestinian Talks, Washington Post, Colum Lynch 11-16, p. A35). What a sweet pill this must be for the parents and family of Lt. Machnik, Itamar Yefet, of Gabi Biton and Mira Amichai.
Those who are considered stalwarts of the Israeli opposition often show themselves to be deeply affected by the Oslo mad-peace disease. MK Rehavam Ze'evi sounded what passes for a bold note in urging assassination of Mohammed Dahlan, head of PA "Security" (murderous attacks on Jews) in Gaza. Then he added, "so should Arafat be made into a target if he continues along the path of terrorism." "IF?" The IDF knows that Arafat smuggles weapons and ammunition into Gaza on his private plane at the airport the Israelis keep open for their "peace partner" there, the airport where PA police repeatedly have shot at and wounded Israeli customs inspectors. Military Intelligence has informed the government of Arafat's strategy "to balance the account of blood with Israel" (Ha'Aretz, "Arafat wants to kill Israelis," 11-24). Fatah is Arafat's personal faction; it orders and carries out attacks on Israeli "settlers and soldiers" and the "nationalist" says, "if he continues in terrorism?" Would Ze'evi too, sit down with Arafat for another deal? "Of course in the end we will have to sit and negotiate anyway" he declared at a rally titled, ironically, "Let the IDF Win!" Have any Israeli 'hard-liners' heard the term, "unconditional surrender?" There are enemies with whom one does not negotiate, for example, murderers of civilians and those who scrawl, "Hitler killed germs." Anyone who still speaks of "negotiating" with "Palestinians" is emitting fumes of shameless madness.
For decades, the Labor-IDF nexus has appointed and promoted second-rate leftist hacks to top command positions, then moved them into politics whence they have proceeded to "negotiate" their nation almost to death. Current Chief of Staff Shaul "Barak-Lite" Mofaz epitomizes the pattern. It was just compounded when one of the most competent top officers, Brigadier General Effie Eitam was again passed over for promotion because he is an observant Jew. "Many less talented officers were promoted above him," noted a colleague, announcing his resignation from service. Earlier in November, Colonel Haggai Eldar also resigned, because, he explained, he no longer could assure his enlisted men that he would be allowed to use all means to rescue them if they were wounded in action. "I can't live with that," he said, adding, "I see that this began with [aviator] Ron Arad, and then with Joseph's Tomb where an IDF soldier was left bleeding to death and the army asks the Palestinians to evacuate him. This is terrible! And then a week later at Mt. Ebal" (Arutz-7, 11-06-00). Abandonment of Jews and of Jewish holy places is the method and signature of Barak. This is what he did to Jonathan Pollard 15 years ago, and has continued to do. So it is a sort of justice that Clinton & Co hang Ehud out to dry when his utility to them nears its end. Once one sells one's soul to the Devil, the fiend will not take 'no' for an answer. Betrayal must be complete. Death is the only out, and Barak has preferred Israel's death to his own.
As for satanic voices, Clinton administration officials pressuring Israel for further restraint and concessions care little for Americans, either. Two days before the latest round of arm-twisting by Albright and William Cohen, PA TV broadcast a call for "the Arab world to enter into confrontation with American interests using all possible means, to boycott American products and denounce its policies." And it called upon Arabs to "demand the shattering of American hegemony" (11-20-00. Transmitted by Palestine Media Watch). Clinton & Co. ignore these signs of hostility because they care nothing for their own people (witness the USS Cole incident), and less for Israel. Like his masters, Barak abandons his own.
The only sober voice among Israeli officials was that of Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu. "I would never be willing to sit in the same government as Barak and Beilin. It's time for the national camp to stop stuttering on this issue." Exactly; at this late stage of the endgame to efface Israel, the minimum condition for leadership is total repudiation of Oslo and the resignation or removal from government of all officials who supported it, especially those who designed and sold it to the nation, often through the big lie method. It is not simply that "Barak has failed in everything he touched," but that his masters and makers, Clinton and Peres mean him to deliver his nation on a platter. Their success is Israel's failure. Shameless insanity or betrayal, this is what the recent "open season on Jews" has been. Not until Israel takes back all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will it and its leaders be taken seriously and that is the essential step to respect and life.
Eugene Narrett teaches at Boston University.
Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post -- November 8, 2000
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE
By Daniel Pipes
"There is no alternative," says the Barak government, explaining why it plans a return to the bargaining table with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. "In the end, the diplomatic way is what will win out," declares Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami.
Similarly, an editorial in Ha'aretz declares that a military power cannot deal with Palestinian violence; the "realistic solution is to move toward coexistence, based on compromises and negotiated agreements." Surveys indicate that a healthy majority of Israelis agrees that there is no alternative to diplomacy.
But there is an alternative - not an exciting or particularly attractive one, to be sure, but one that does address the country's strategic problem.
That alternative, by the way, is not the "unilateral separation" that the Barak government has floated, and which can be summed up as "us here and them there."
Unilateral separation means imposing borders of Israel's choosing between its population and the Palestinians; in Barak's colorful formulation, it sees Israel as "a villa located in a jungle." Barak's own analogy points to the reason that separation cannot work; a villa in the jungle cannot survive for long. Similarly, Israel cannot find true security in walls. Even if walls did work against the Palestinian Authority (an unlikely prospect - think of southern Lebanon), they do not at all address the threats posed by Israel's many other enemies.
Separation suffers from another flaw: Like the Oslo negotiations, it falsely assumes that Israel can take the initiative to make the key decisions of war and peace. Israelis cannot begin to deal with the threat confronting them until they realize that such decisions are made not in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv but in Cairo, Gaza, Amman, and Damascus. The conflict, in other words, will end only when Arabs accept the permanent existence of a sovereign Jewish state in their midst, not when Israelis decide it should be over.
This fact clearly frustrates Israelis, who are eager to put their century-long conflict with the Arabs behind them. But they cannot do this on their own, they can only try to encourage the Arabs to do so. Israel cannot force the Arabs to reach this conclusion, only attempt indirectly induce them to do so on their own.
Once Israelis reconcile themselves to these unalterable truths, their alternative to diplomacy becomes clear, even self-evident, and it is neither new nor exotic. It consists basically of a return to the approach of the pre-Oslo era, when Israelis understood two facts: (1) The great majority of Arabs want Israel to be militarily destroyed and (2) The only way to change their minds is by demonstrating that this goal has no chance of succeeding. Pursuing it, in fact, leaves the Arabs impoverished and weakened, without severely damaging Israel.
This, called the policy of deterrence, dominated Israeli thinking during the country's first 45 years, 1948-93, and it worked well.
Recognizing Israel's immutability, for example, was what prompted Anwar Sadat to give up military confrontation and fly to Jerusalem in 1977.
The trouble was that even as deterrence visibly wore down the Arab will to destroy Israel, it more subtly but no less certainly also wore down the Israeli will. Deterrence being slow, erratic, and passive, not to speak of expensive and indirect, it is hard to sustain for decades. Eventually, Israelis became impatient for a quicker and more active approach.
That impatience brought on the Oslo accords in 1993, in which Israelis initiated more creative and active steps to end the conflict. So totally did deterrence disappear from the Israeli vocabulary, it is today not even considered when policy options are discussed, leading to the widespread perception that there is "no alternative" to diplomacy.
Israelis will turn to deterrence only when they conclude that more exciting solutions have failed them. Sadder but wiser, they will rediscover the one policy that has stood them well: deterrence. The sooner that happens, the less damage they will suffer.
In retrospect, the 1990s will be seen as Israel's lost decade, the time when the fruits of earlier years were squandered, when the country's security regressed. The history books will portray Israel at this time, like Britain and France in the 1930s, as a place under the sway of illusion, where dreams of avoiding war in fact sowed the seeds of the next conflict.
Reprinted from HAARETZ -- November 26, 2000
IT'S THE SETTLERS' FAULT
By Nadav Shragai
"Every day there's a funeral," wrote the poet Uri Zvi Greenberg in 1936, "death without pause has already become a habit among the people - and I," the poet continued, "hear those who say: 'We will know how to defend... every day they say this, four long months of killing." Sixty-four years later, we are at the threshold of another bloody era, "considering," "deliberating" and "viewing with seriousness," and like Greenberg said then, "walking in cities and in villages, like mice..."
Ehud Barak, too, is familiar with "Every Day There's a Funeral" by U.Z. Greenberg. Two weeks ago Shlomo Filber, a resident of the settlement of Psagot (and the director-general of the Yesha Council of Jewish Settlements) visited the prime minister's office and handed him a copy of the poem. Barak, slightly embarrassed, was quick to initiate a learned discussion about the poem. And so, the prime minister of Israel and representatives of the Jews who are being shot at every day in Judea and Samaria sat together and pored over the old text: "Four months have passed and Arab guns still hunt Jewish rabbits, male and female."
Residents of the Katif bloc who met with Barak at Be'er Sheva's Soroka Medical Center also spoke with him about history. They reminded him that when the poet was writing "Every Day There's a Funeral," a Jewish citrus grower named Tuvia Miller was battling Arab rioters who sought to uproot him from the swampland he had purchased in Dir al Balah that eventually became Kfar Darom. Miller was forced to leave, but in 1946 the pioneers returned, and they returned once again in 1970 (by decision of the government of former Prime Minister Golda Meir) and again in 1989 (by decision of the Shimon Peres-Yitzhak Shamir unity government).
The Yesha Council leaders have a different sort of dialogue with the army. Barak insists that the hands of the Israel Defense Forces are not tied, but on Wednesday they heard from Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz that the security cabinet had rejected his 10-point plan.
The events of these days, which are so difficult for the residents of Judea and Samaria, have also been merciful to them, as proven by the long list of thanks read out by the presenters at last week's mass rally at Jerusalem's Zion Square. Artists, guesthouses, holiday villages, kibbutzim and moshavim from the Galilee to the Negev, supporters as well as political rivals who understood that in wartime political disagreements must be put aside and hands extended to their brethren. Senior army reserve officers come to the Jordan Valley to provide armed escort to the Jewish transportation there, while Upper Galilee residents who found temporary refuge and calm in the Binyamin region are now inviting inhabitants of Judea and Samaria to take a vacation in their communities.
But the events also exposed elements in Israeli society whose hearts have forgotten the old Jewish rule that all Jews are responsible for each other. They are the priests of the new religion - the people who speak of peace at any price, even if the price is the complete opposite of peace. They immediately found the guilty party - the settlers. Calls are already being heard, as they were with regard to Lebanon, on the lines of "what are our soldiers dying for" and "what are the settlers doing there anyway." The Palestinians can infer from this that the blood of some Jews is worth more than that of other Jews.
The account that some of the left is settling with the residents of Judea and Samaria is not only not political, it is also one-sided. The accounts ledger they keep against the settlers is missing the line containing the irresponsible decisions made by Israeli governments in recent years which endangered the lives of Israeli civilians and soldiers. The Oslo Accords, which [the late Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin called a calculated risk, turned out to be a wild gamble.
Hundreds of "victims of the peace" were stabbed, shot or killed on buses as a direct or indirect result of handing over territory in Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians and turning those areas into places of refuge and hotbeds of terror. In the name of peace and in the spirit of Oslo, terrorists with blood on their hands were freed, despite it being proven time and time again that many of them go back to killing and murdering. (The Intifada in which more than 200 Jews and more than 600 Palestinians were killed was also born in the school of the members of Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command who were released in a prisoner exchange with the organization.)
Since Rosh Hashanah, Palestinians have been shooting and sometimes killing Israeli soldiers and civilians in Psagot and in Hadera, in Kfar Darom and in Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda market, and it is impossible to ignore the fact that at least some of the arms in their possession were supplied to them by the architects of Oslo, "in the name of peace."
But instead of casting their eyes to the ground in shame, asking for forgiveness and telling the public what they promised to say seven years ago if their experiment failed - we tried, we made a mistake - some of the Oslo people have the insolence to point to the real cause of the problem: the settlers.
(c) 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
WE ARE ALL SETTLERS
By Boris Shusteff
It is time to repeat the question that Berl Katznelson asked on 1 May, 1936: "Is there another people on earth whose sons are so emotionally and mentally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape and robbery committed by their enemies fills their hearts with admiration and awe?" It is time to ask ourselves when we are going to stop loving our enemies and start loving our brothers?
Arabs are killing Jews, and some of our brethren dare to say that they attack "the settlers." They say that it is all the settlers' fault, and if not for the settlers there would be calm and serenity in the Middle East. At a time when Jews are murdered and maimed in terrorist attacks all over Eretz Yisrael, the leaders of the Israeli "Peace Now" organization are publishing an open letter to Ehud Barak declaring that, "the settlements... are the main obstacles to the achievement of an agreement with the Palestinians." They appeal to Barak to "halt all construction in the settlements" and to "dismantle those settlements that are located in the midst of heavily populated Palestinian areas."
The fact that the open letter appeared not only in Israeli newspapers but also in the Palestinian paper "Al Ayam," which is published in Ramallah and Gaza shows the depth of the degradation of the so called "peace camp." These self-appointed Israeli "righteous" will never understand that in the eyes of the Arabs they, themselves, are the settlers, as well. The Arabs do not see a difference between the settlers of 1967, the settlers of 1948 or the settlers of 1922. For the Arabs we are all Jews and this is what counts. For the Arabs we are all settlers that occupy their land. This is the Arab's comprehension of history and reality and no self-hating or self-demeaning behavior of the Jews can change this perception.
"Arabs have never really distinguished among Zionists, Israelis and Jews. As Anis Mansur, one of Egypt's foremost journalists and a one-time confidant of President Ahwar Sadat, put it in a moment of candor: "There is no such thing in the world as Jew and Israeli. Every Jew is an Israeli. No doubt about that."(1)
For the Arabs every Jew is an Israeli and every Israeli is a settler. If the Jew does not currently live in Eretz Yisrael, he is a potential settler for the Arabs. It is because of this Jew-settler connection Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, member of the PA-appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, said on November 13 in the sermon broadcast live on official Palestinian Authority television: "Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them... because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine" (2)
It is not only Kfar Darom, Tekoa, Efrat or 140 other large and small settlements built by Israel since 1967 that the Arabs want to make free of Jews. The Arabs do not want to recognize Israel's right to be anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, which for them is Palestine. As Dr. Halabiya said, "...We will not give up a single grain of soil of Palestine, from Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre, and Mulabbas [Petah Tikva] and Salamah, and Majdal [Ashkelon], and all the land, and Gaza, and the West Bank (2).
It is not the settlements that the Arabs are going for - Jerusalem is what they really want to take away from the Jews. It is not only Yasser Arafat who declares non-stop that Jerusalem is going to be the "capital of the Palestinian state." It is the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian Arabs who repeat this demand. The results of a poll conducted on 6-8 November among Palestinian Arabs in 75 locations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by the Birzeit University showed that 92.0% of them "Do not believe that peace is possible between Palestinians and Israelis if East Jerusalem is not the capital of a Palestinian state" (3). However, even if "East Jerusalem comes under Palestinian sovereignty, 74.3% will not accept Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem" (3).
Perhaps the Israelis believe that if they retreat to "the June 5, 1967 line" the Arabs will be satisfied? If so, maybe they can explain why the Arabs were not happy with this arrangement before 1967? Or maybe they could take the explanation that Saddam Hussein gave on Baghdad Radio, when he said on November 17:
"No part of Egypt was occupied when late Egyptian President Jamal Abd-al-Nasir waged war against the Zionist entity. So, why did he wage war? Was he an aggressor? The answer is no. [He believed] that occupied Palestine is a pan-Arab and national duty to Egypt. This is because the Zionist entity will continue to threaten the Arabs as long as it exists. There will be no security, safety, or stability for the Arabs if this entire Zionist entity is not removed."
Saddam Hussein did not single out the "occupied territories" of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). He was speaking about the "removal" of the entire "Zionist entity." Those who believe that the Arabs will be satisfied with Israel's retreat into the "Auschwitz borders" are simply hopelessly lost dreamers. The Arab hatred of the Jews will not disappear. One saw its ugly face just recently during the lynching of the Israeli soldiers and the destruction of Joseph's Tomb. One could have also seen it on October 28, on the pages of the major Egyptian newspaper "Al Ahram" which resurrected the blood libel:
"The bestial drive to knead Passover Matzahs with the blood of non-Jews is [confirmed] in the records of the Palestinian police where there are many recorded cases of the bodies Arab children who had disappeared being found torn to pieces without a single drop of blood. The most reasonable explanation is that the blood was taken to be kneaded into the dough of extremist Jews to be used in Matzahs to be devoured during Passover"(4).
So how is it possible that so many Jews are embracing the Arabs, who hate and despise them, in the desperate hope of being accepted, and at the same time are blaming all possible evils on the Jews who live in Yesha? When are they going to understand that there is no difference between Karnei Shomron and Haifa - both of them are parts of Eretz Yisrael?
Professor of Bar Ilan University Gerald Steinberg wrote in his analysis on the situation in Gaza that, "Hundreds of soldiers are needed in order to protect a handful of families living in areas of minor significance, in terms of national security and historic or religious heritage." The Professor is dead wrong. This handful of families is not living in "areas of minor significance." They are living in their Homeland!
Every square inch of the Homeland is of the utmost significance in terms of national security and historic or religious heritage. It is not the fault of this "handful of families" that Israeli leaders were weak and indecisive for more than thirty years and did not annex these territories; it is the great sorrow of the Jewish people that this has not happened yet.
David Grossman, one of Israel's foremost leftist novelists wrote recently in an impassioned editorial:
"The time has come when all Israelis must ask themselves honestly whether they are prepared to die for the sake of tens of thousands of settlers who live in isolated, armed enclaves in the heart of an Arab population. Are they prepared to have their children put their lives in danger to defend those settlements?" (5).
Grossman's question should be re-phrased. The Israelis must ask themselves if they are ready to die for the sake of millions of Jews who live in an isolated armed country in the heart of the Arab world. Are they prepared to put their lives and the lives of their children in danger to defend the Jewish State? There is no difference at all between an "isolated Jewish settlement" surrounded by an Arab population, and the nation of Israel, surrounded by Arab countries. And while the Israeli Jews contemplate the answer to this question they should remember that every day many of the tens of thousands of settlers are targeted by the Arabs.
The citizens of Yesha do not think about themselves as heroes. They are absolutely normal people devoted to the Land of Israel and to the People of Israel. They do not want to die. They want to live, they want their children to be happy, they want to enjoy life to its fullest extent. Although they do not speak about this, they are at the forefront of the struggle for the existence of the Jewish people. When grief strikes their families, they stoically accept the unbearable pain. Eliezer Amitai, who lives in Kfar Darom and whose wife Mira was killed in November 20th bombing of a school-bus, said at her funeral:
"Kfar Darom, it happens to be, was purchased by Jews even before the establishment of the State of Israel... we don't need a consensus, and we don't need approval from anyone or from the world - we will do what we have to do, and we will continue to raise our children where we have to. Our spirit is strong... And this is not politics; this is life!... The pain is not of our families alone, but of all Israel - and whoever does not feel it, should ask himself why..." (6).
Michael Freund, former deputy director of communications and policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office explained what this "do what we have to do" should be. He wrote on November 21 in the "Jerusalem Post" that "it must be made clear to the Palestinian Authority that for every Jewish home that is shattered by the murder of a family member, a dozen more homes will be built in a settlement in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza."
The Israelis are the settlers - this is the simple truth that always was in the foundation of the Zionist enterprise. Israel was born through the settlements. It will remain standing only through expansion of the settlements.
"You, the settlers, day in and day out strengthen the whole nation, even those who have no belief," said Rabbi Motti Elon, dean of Horev Yeshiva High School, speaking at Jerusalem demonstration. November 23, 2000.
It is time to repeat the question that Berl Katznelson asked.....
1. Efraim Karsh. The Long Trail of Arab Anti-Semitism. "Commentary." December, 2000.
2. MEMRI 10/14/00
3. IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis). Most important Palestinian Poll Since Oslo. 11/14/00.
4. MEMRI 11/06/00
5. New York Times. Should Israel Sacrifice Its Hopes for Peace for Settlers? 11/15/00.
6. Arutz 7 News. 11/21/00.
Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.
THE PITIFUL ISRAELIS!
By Jan Willem van der Hoeven
How is it possible that the usually clever Israelis are so void of understanding when it comes to relating to their enemies death wish upon them? It is much like the Jews in Europe who, by continually trying to accommodate the ever increasing measures of enmity by the Nazis, thought that they would thus placate their enemies maybe to let them live their lives in peace however humiliated and abused. Like a battered woman running after the one that again and again beats her hoping against hope that one day he will live in peace with her.
How is it possible whereas there is such manifold and clear proof and documentation of this that still Israeli politicians and journalists can believe in the stupid assertion that only through negotiations such as Oslo, Camp David, etc, can their finally come peace to this region? Whereas it is clear for anyone who is willing to see that even if an Israeli government would offer more than Ehud Barak did at Camp David there would still not be peace because all the main sections of the Palestinian side still want the destruction or dissolving of all of Israel as the only way to peace in this region.
How is it that Israelis refuse to see and reckon with this absolute clear reality? How much further have they come in resisting and overcoming the death wish of their enemies all of them, including Egypt than the poor Jews of Europe that felt that in order to have a chance to live they had to give in until it was too late!
What nonsense is this often-repeated mantra: In the end there is no other way than to go back to the negotiating table. We cannot choose our partners for peace; we just have to find a way to live with them. What nonsense is this? Did we say that concerning our neighbours in Europe? Did we say in Holland, Denmark and Norway, "We just have to learn to live with Adolf Hitler. We cannot choose our neighbours; we just have to live with them"?
There is peace in Europe now for over fifty years because we did not accept Hitler or his Nazi's. In the end we allowed the Allied Armies to win a war not just a battle and endless ceasefires with even more endless negotiations with an unwilling enemy Hitler. We won a war and therefore with God's help and mercy we won a peace that has now lasted for more than half a century. If only Israel's leaders could be as wise as those Western leaders that even when the Nazi's sent their clever 'peace ploys' - men like Rudolf Hess - to Britain to weaken the Allied forces resolve on the way to victory. They were totally ignored and a peace was won not by peace negotiations but by a war that was won.
Peace you do not make with enemies, war you make with enemies and when you win then your enemies will make peace with you! That is the lesson of the histories of war and peace. You have to win a war in order to achieve a peace, Mr. Peres!
It was the unwillingness of most European Jewry especially their own leaders that made them such easy victims and objects of Nazi aggression. And if after all we have seen and suffered there are still Israelis who do not believe that the great majority of Muslim Arabs and Palestinians are so pro-German or should we say pro-Nazi - because deep within their hearts they aspire to the same aims as the Nazis - the "it bah el Jahud" syndrome - the time so fervently hoped for by nearly all of them that Israel will be no more - then why do they not listen to what they say among themselves? Why is it that most have no serious problems with what Hitler had done? Why is "Mein Kampf" still required reading in many of their universities and the Holocaust denied?
I want to end with one of the recent expressions of this 'Hitler-like' aim versus the sovereign Jewish state as reported by the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) on 21 November 2000, "Three Palestinian Viewpoints on the Intifada and the Future of the Palestinian State":
Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news channel, recently hosted a debate on the future of the Intifada and the Palestinian state. (1) Three Palestinian figures participated in the program, representing the three leading political viewpoints of the Palestinian public today. PA Minister of Information, Yasser Abd Rabbo represented the PA's official position, Deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, Musa Abu Marzuq represented the position of the militant Islamic movement, and Bilal Al-Hassan, an analyst with the London-based daily, Al-Hayat, represented the position of the Palestinian left.
Abu Marzuq explained that Hamas has no objection to such a state and even said, "A State within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza would be considered an achievement at the present stage." However, he promptly added, "it is clear that if a state is established within the 1967 borders, these will not be its final borders. We must further aspire for borders that will include Palestine in its entirety."
PA Minister Abd Rabbo, on the other hand, refused to elaborate on what will happen once a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is established. "There is almost a consensus among Palestinians that the direct goal is to reach the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the June 4, 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital," he said, "[but] regarding to the future after that, it is best to leave the issue aside and not to discuss it."
Bilal Al-Hassan: "at this stage we talk about a state within the 1967 borders, but this is not the end of the story." This unified Palestine, once the Palestinian state is established, can come about in one of two ways: through peace, or through war. It can be established through peace, if the Israelis accept the logic of a [unified] democratic Palestinian state. If they don't accept this logic, then the logic of history will lead to a confrontation."
So if after all this, there are still politicians who want to prove that they were right and will continue nevertheless with the so-called 'peace process' than let us realise that even if they bring about such a 'peace agreement' by offering in a next Camp David-like meeting Arafat even more: that is a Palestinian State on all the area occupied by Israel since the Six Day War with East Jerusalem as its sovereign capital - even then that would not be the end of the conflict, it would be an acceptable intermediate phase for most Muslims and Palestinians till they would feel strong enough to take the rest of Israel. So why negotiate at all if all it means that we make it easier under the present circumstances for our enemies to finish off what will be left of us?
INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN ZIONIST CENTER
P.O. Box 49063, 91490 Jerusalem, ISRAEL
Telephone/Fax: +972 (0)2 540 0133, Email Address: email@example.com
Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post -- November 8, 2000
THE INTIFADA UNDER
By Moshe Zak
Yesterday the American people elected a new president, and tomorrow the serving president will open his last chapter as an "honest broker" between Israel and the Palestinians.
On the last day of his term, 70 days after the elections, president Lyndon Johnson signed the order to supply Israel with Phantom warplanes, and his successor, Richard Nixon, was in no hurry to fulfill his predecessor's commitment. In its last days in office, in the middle of December 1988, the Reagan administration announced its readiness to inaugurate a dialogue with the PLO following Arafat's promise to denounce terrorism. But the dialogue was unsuccessful.
President Bill Clinton intends to present a bridging plan between Israel and the Palestinians during the time left for him in the White House, and it's not yet clear whether the new president is in any hurry to adopt it: the Palestinians don't want negotiations with Israel.
At the most, Palestinians are striving to shove a wedge between Israel and the US.
Arafat objected to the statements prepared by the Americans at the end of the Camp David and Paris conferences, and not just because of their contents. He didn't want to openly admit to any agreements with Israel. A declared agreement would likely quench the fire of the intifada, which he needs until the declaration of Palestinian independence.
Israel waited in vain for Arafat to keep his commitment to Regional Cooperation Minister Shimon Peres and broadcast a personal statement to his people asking them to stop the violence and cooperate with Israeli forces to restore order. Internal inhibitions prevented Arafat from admitting the existence of the "Gaza agreement," as well as from signing the "Paris agreement."
This is why the Palestinian Authority's statement described Arafat's trip to Washington as a concession: he is now willing to renew negotiations with the US, not with Israel. Arafat will not negotiate with Israel because the intifada must continue until the Palestinian flag flies over east Jerusalem.
ARAFAT IS going to Washington with a carefully laid out plan in his mind: to resist the American opposition to sending UN observers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These observers will provide the Palestinians with immunity while the PA makes illegal land conquests. He has to maintain the intifada against Israel in order to close the ranks of the
Arab world around him before the determination of the borders of the Palestinian state.
Arafat will be in Washington tomorrow, and not to forge an agreement with the US. If he wanted an agreement, he wouldn't have had the insolence to reject ex-secretary of state Warren Christopher as chairman of the team investigating the source of the past month's violence.
Arafat is going to Washington to clear away any possible obstacles to declaring his Palestinian state. Arafat is not summoning the UN forces to defend the Palestinian population, but as a means of delineating the borders according to the June 5, 1967 armistice lines. At the same time, Arafat is trying to catch Israel off guard by meeting in Cairo with the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian security services. On the face of it, this meeting suggests a "return to normality," and creates the illusion that the PA is ready for a compromise agreement.
In fact, this is to camouflage Arafat's illegal intentions. Arafat's plan is to organize mass marches of thousands of Palestinians armed with stones, knives, and Molotov cocktails on IDF positions and settlements, all under UN protection.
The investigation of the terrorist attack perpetrated in Aden harbor against the American warship revealed that the sailors on the deck of the huge destroyer actually waved a greeting at the little boat which approached them in order to attach an explosive device to the hull. The sailors never guessed that the tiny vessel had villainous intentions.
We must not be deceived by the little Palestinian boat floating opposite the strong army of Israel. We must not be fooled by the camouflage of a so-called non-violent intifada.
(c) Jerusalem Post 2000
I AM FOR LASTING PEACE'
By ARIEL SHARON
I AM for lasting peace. All of us, we are committed to peace, and all of us in Israel understand that peace is almost as painful as war, because very large-scale compromises must be done, and I would like with your permission to say something personal. Generally, generals are suspected to love wars, especially when it comes to me. And I have been described for many years as a general who was looking for wars. So I would like to say a few personal things. I had a bad experience participating in all the wars and the major battles of the state of Israel in the last 50 years. I commanded maybe the best units and formations of the Israeli army, and always in the hardest parts of the battles. And I saw the horrors and the fears of war. I saw my friend being killed. I was badly injured twice in battle, and I felt those terrible pains in hospitals. I had to take decisions of life and death, of others and of myself. And therefore I believe that I understand the importance of peace better than many of the politicians who speak about peace but never had that experience. For me, peace should provide security to the Jewish people and peace for generations.
We have to remember that the Jews have one tiny country where they have the right and the power to defend themselves by themselves, and we have to thank God every day that we have that. And we have to preserve it. I believe we need a new approach to reach the peace, a multi-stage plan. I strongly believe that the so-called "Camp David Plus" - the new thing that appears now, that says that the concessions that the Israeli government has made are not sufficient, that Israel now should make more concessions - is a dangerous approach. To those that have the view that we are facing a situation that dictates either a peace now, at any price, or war, let me assure you: This is not the case. It might serve some people's agenda to portray it in this light, but it's simply not so, because there is wide enough gray area between an immediate peace, at any price, and war. And many things can be done in this gray area. I would like to emphasize that we can deal effectively with the present security situation. We have done it in the past. We need the determination and the commitment. And I speak about steps that will contain escalation, because I don't think we need escalations, but there are many steps we have not taken yet. We need cessation of hostilities, not reduction of hostilities. And I am really very sorry that the Israeli government - and this thing happened Sunday again in Washington - is not demanding a full cessation of hostilities as a precondition for negotiation. What is a reduction? It's one man killed per day. That is reduction? Or 20 wounded, maybe? It should be stopped completely. And that is a natural demand. I expected that the government would demand it. I would like to emphasize that peace is very important for us, but it is not less important to the Palestinians. And that should be remembered.
We need peace, we want peace - but we are always asked this question: What are you ready to give for peace? The time has arrived that the Palestinians - or any other Arab country - should be asked this question: What, gentlemen, because peace is important for you not less than for us, what are you willing to do for peace? Ladies and gentleman, we still can control our destiny. United, I believe, we can win the battle for peace. But it must be a different peace, one with full recognition of the rights of the Jews in their one and only land: peace with security for generations and peace with a united Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish people in the state of Israel forever. You know, as Jews we have been praying for 2,000 years, "next year in Jerusalem." Thank God, we are in Jerusalem. Every year, every day, every night in Jerusalem. Forever in Jerusalem. Thank you.
Adapted from remarks at yesterday's New York Post Forum by Gen. Ariel Sharon, the leader of Israel's Likud Party.
Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of November 15, 2000
OSLO -A CONCEPT THAT FAILED
By Nomi Blumenthal
With the debris barely cleared from the recent car bomb attack in Jerusalem's Mahaneh Yehuda neighborhood, Palestinian terror struck again this week, with deadly results. As the cycle of bloodshed continues and escalates, so the bankruptcy of the policy of Ehud Barak's government becomes ever more starkly apparent.
The aggression directed at Israel is the outcome of the long process of submission, self-abnegation and surrender initiated at Oslo.The policies pursued by the current government have brought this process to new depths. The disorderly retreat from southern Lebanon, the indecent haste to part with key sites of national importance in return for baseless declarations expressed at Camp David, the issuing of empty ultimatums in response to continued violence, all may be seen as milestones in the process of the drastic reduction of Israel's deterrent power.
Occasional high-profile acts of counter-terror, such as that seen in Beit Sahur last week, are to be welcomed, but cannot substitute for a firm, consistent, across-the-board policy. The shameful maneuvering on the domestic political front have made it crystal clear that national unity, a real coming together of the main national forces in the face of the external threat, is of no interest to this prime minister. What he wants is to shore up his coalition, by all means necessary, and thus buy more time for the continuation of the policy of surrender.
At this moment of real national emergency, the unity of the people of Israel is of utmost importance. That unity exists, and is in evidence throughout the country, in the determination of the communities under attack to stand firm - from Gilo to Psagot, from Netzarim to Mahaneh Yehuda. That this unity has not found political expression is Barak's responsibility.
At a key, testing moment in our history, our prime minister chose to busy himself with sordid political shenanigans, conducted with the intention of propping up a dying government. The current function of the coalition, now surviving only by means of artificial respiration, is to enable the diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing intended to breathe life into a dead idea. Thus, the extensive, unprecedented concessions offered at Camp David apparently remain the basis for discussion between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The old, tired slogans calling for "putting the process back on track" are being dusted off yet again, in an attempt to paper over the irreparable damage inflicted on the illusions of the past seven years by the chaos and carnage of recent weeks.
ALL THIS WILL prove quite futile. With all due respect to the prime minister's instincts for political survival, the simple reality of the situation will no longer be denied. At such a moment, what is needed is a basic revision in thinking. The mistaken concepts of the past decade must be replaced by a clear-eyed, sane response to the dangers and possibilities inherent in Israel's situation.
For the duration of the emergency, the government will find the opposition firmly behind it regarding the preservation of security of Israel's citizens. But if the government prefers to ignore the calls for a firm, unified stance, if it wishes to continue, instead, to kneel to aggression, then the national camp's responsibility would be to set in motion the vital debate over what must replace the failed Oslo experiment.
The events of the last weeks have shown the dangers inherent in a policy of unreciprocated concessions. They have also shown the underlying firmness and strength of Israeli society. The nation has divested itself of illusions, and is now calling for a return to realism. Such realism would take the form of the cessation of further retreats before the Palestinian Authority, which has shown that it has no interest in putting an end to the conflict, and which thus sees all concessions as an invitation to further demands.
The unity and determination of the public in the face of the recent aggression indicate that they are unlikely to be deceived again.
(c) Jerusalem Post 2000
Nomi Blumenthal is a Likud MK.
QUOTE OF THE DECADE
Stop being afraid. There is no danger that these guns will be used against us. The purpose of this ammunition for the Palestinian police is to be used in their vigilant fight against the Hamas. They won't dream of using it against us, since they know very well that if they use these guns against us once, at that moment the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will return to all the places that have been given to them. The Oslo Accord, despite what the opposition claims, is not irrevocable."
---Yitzchak Rabin (after signing of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement in 1994)
The Strong Roots of the Jewish People at Machpelah
Give us the Strength to
to Uproot Us from Our Homeland
by Rabbi Eliezer Waldman
Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshivat Nir Kiryat Arba
The nation is trembling in anguish, horror, frustration and outrage as Arab terror continues to strike, and our leaders continue to declare that the only solution is negotiations with our PLO "peace partners". The explosion this morning of a school bus loaded with children on their way to school at Gush Katif only accents the absurdity of continuing to treat the PLO as if they are our partners rather than our enemies. Yet rather than admitting that there is no peace process and ordering our army to vanquish our enemies and protect Jewish lives, our government displays confusion and weakness, begging Arafat to stop shooting so we can give him even more of our homeland for his worthless lies. While it is true that one makes peace with an enemy, this can only happen after that enemy has been vanquished and surrenders.
Our government has lost the basic Zionist ideals upon which this country was founded and which are necessary in order to lead our people in an independent state. What is even more painful is to listen to our enemies enunciate the very principles which once were espoused by Jewish leaders. PLO spokesman proudly say, "Our spirit is strong. We will be victorious because of our loyalty to our homeland and faith in our just cause." How pitiful and frustrating it is when I fail to find governmental leaders in Israel making such a statement. Unless we believe in our inviolable right to our homeland, we will not be able to sacrifice and fight for her.
Our leaders talk about understanding and recognizing the needs of the PLO. It is this very willingness to accept their claims, even partially, which is the root cause of this so-called "intifada". It lends justification to, and encourages, the savage murder of Jewish men, women and children as an "understandable" means of attaining their "just" rights. Rather than dedicating their efforts toward building, strengthening and defending our homeland, our government has set the example of fleeing from our obligations. We fled from Bethlehem and Jericho, abandoning Jewish land to PLO thugs who, defacto, turned these areas into a new PLO sovereign terrorist state. We fled cowardly from Lebanon, allowing our enemies to portray us as defeated in battle, thus stimulating the PLO to declare, "We will drive you out of Jerusalem just as you were driven out of Lebanon." This policy of fleeing from before our attackers was continued as we evacuated Jews from the kotel rather than driving the stone-throwers from the Temple Mount. The policy of surrender continued as our army abandoned the Tomb of Joseph to Arab murderers.
In exile we had no choice but to flee from our enemies. But the essence of Jewish independence in Israel is to confront and destroy our enemies. Today the Tomb of Rachel is under attack and our government responds by limiting Jewish access to our holy site rather than removing those who shoot at us. The main road from Jerusalem to Hebron is closed every other day as a result of shooting by Arab snipers. Instead of silencing the guns and driving away our enemies, again we choose the path of retreat. This policy only reassures our enemies that by continuing to shoot, bomb and stone us they will eventually win the war. Thus we invite even more terror. The new roads which were built to avoid the intifada and ensure the safety of Jewish travelers still find Arabs throwing rocks and shooting at us. By not stopping terror in its tracks, rather deciding to live with it, guarantees more terror. The only way we can find an answer to this crisis is to return to our Jewish roots and restore our faith in the Zionist process.
I remember when Chaim Herzog, the 6th President of Israel, was our ambassador to the UN, the Arabs demanded the uprooting of the Jewish presence from the "Arab" city of Hebron. Herzog took out his Bible before all the member nations of the general assembly and read from the parsha of Chayay Sarah. He reminded the world of the historical transaction in which our Father, Abraham, bought the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite. "Hebron belongs only to the Jewish People." Who in our government is prepared to make that statement? Yet this is the only answer to terror and the source of our strength. We must return to our roots, to Hebron and the faith of Abraham and Sarah. No Jew, certainly no Jewish leader, has the right to reject those roots. We must remember that our cause is just. Our rights to our land are engraved in the covenant of Abraham and the lives of our people in all generations.
We find, in parshat Chayay Sarah, two expressions of elevation with regards to the Cave of Machpelah: In verse 17 (Genesis 22), it says "Vayakam", "it rose up", describing the transfer of ownership of the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite to our Father Abraham. Now the Cave of Machpelah, as all of Abraham's possessions is destined to serve a Divine purpose. Again, in verse 20, after Abraham buried his wife, Sarah, the same word appears, "Vayakam", to indicate yet a further elevation of sanctity, which, in this case is spiritual. In this way, the Cave of Machpelah unites the spiritual and physical elements of Jewish life, being elevated to the service of G-d. Our sages say that the Cave of Machpelah is the focal point connecting this world to the eternal life of the next world, therefore serving as the point of transition of every Jewish soul from one world to the other.
The Jewish people have a Divine obligation to reveal the holiness of the Land by possessing it, and establishing a Jewish life of Torah values. Jewish leaders have the responsibility to bring the Jewish people to fulfill their destiny. They must possess the courage and strength to stand up to evil and destructive powers, never to negotiate with them. The goal of our enemies is to destroy the Jewish State and the ideal for which it was created. It seeks to extinguish the light which we are destined to bring to all of Mankind.
The children at Katif were on their way to school to be imbued with these ideals. No PLO hatred nor Jewish weakness can deter us from fulfilling this responsibility. A government which does not understand this responsibility and lacks the courage to achieve our goals will not long endure. A new leadership will rise in its place, drawing its strength and courage from Hebron and our Father, Abraham. Such a leadership will attack the roots of Arab terror. It will keep murderers away from our roads and holy shrines, and will eventually drive the PLO out of our homeland. With G-d's help, we will restore Jewish life to all of our towns and cities, removing the evil and returning to a life of faith. Until then we, in Judea and Samaria, will continue our everyday life. We will continue to travel the roads. Our children will continue to go to our schools and strengthen their faith. We will not allow the enemy to achieve its heinous goals. We will continue to live in all parts of our homeland and raise our children to give expression to our eternal ties to our homeland and faith in G-d. The G-d of Abraham, who has brought us back to our homeland and helped us create this great reality of Jewish life, will continue to guide us to our destiny. The eternity of Israel will not be denied.
Reprinted from Ha'aretz 6 November 2000
Oslo Was Mere Child's Play
By Nadav Shragai
Oslo supporters ignore devastating results
and disaster that would have
been worse if Camp David had been implemented.
The Israeli memory is short, maybe shorter than any other nation on earth. However, the stubborn determination of Prime Minister Ehud Barak and some of his cabinet ministers in sticking to the "Camp David understandings" as a basis for negotiating with the Palestinians, even after the events of the previous month, seems to indicate more than just poor memory. At Camp David, Barak was willing to pay the price of humiliation for the sake of peace between the Palestinians and the Israel. Yet, in the end, all he ended up with was humiliation and war.
The great Jewish thinker Ahad Ha'am once commented: "A mistake that turns out to be a success is still a mistake." This statement is even more true if the mistake turns out to be a mistake. The obstacle course known as the "Oslo process" that has proved to be an empty shell, was only the road to hell (even if the road was paved with good intentions). The hell that we were almost led into, only a few months ago, was the "Camp David understandings," which Barak, even today (incredible as it seems), is finding so difficult to abandon.
In the last month, one third of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - territory designated Area A - was a base for attacks, for terrorism, for gunfire and for other forms of combat directed against Israel. Over the past few weeks, dozens of Palestinian terrorists with huge quantities of Jewish blood on their hands were set free into this very territory. Furthermore, the "industry" of Palestinian terrorism and bomb-making has been renewed over the last few weeks in this territory, from which extremely powerful explosive devices and human time bombs were sent into Israel during the so-called Oslo years.
At Camp David, an irresponsible Israeli prime minister proposed that Israel would increase by 100 or even 200 percent the extent of territories under Palestinian jurisdiction. At Camp David, the Palestinians were nearly granted the potential - which they do not hesitate to use - to increase terrorist attacks and shootings against Israeli targets by 100 or even 200 percent.
If, during the past few weeks, the Palestinians fired no shots at Jerusalem's Ramot neighborhood, the only reason was that they thought that Beit Iksa, which is adjacent to Ramot and which was proposed to them, is not worth the trouble. The Palestinians also did not fire at another Jerusalem neighborhood, Pisgat Ze'ev. Massive pressure exerted on Barak prevented him, five months ago, from handing over to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat the adjacent community of Anata. At Camp David, Arafat replied "This is not enough" to the offer of the two communities of Shuafat and Beit Hanina, which are adjacent to Pisgat Ze'ev.
The prime minister did not manage to hand over to the Palestinians Abu Dis and Al-Azariya. As Barak has said, "Jews have never prayed to return to these during their two thousand years of exile." Thus, shots were not fired at Jews who attended the funerals of loved ones under a hail of rocks at the Mount of Olives cemetery.
At Camp David, reference was made to the establishment of a Palestinian Civil Guard and to Palestinian community policing in the Old City of Jerusalem, but, at the very last moment, we were spared the "exalting" sight of Palestinian police officers firing on Israelis from atop the walls of the Old City.
Only a few weeks ago, Barak transferred the Temple Mount to the jurisdiction of Palestinian General Intelligence Services chief Tawfik Tirawi and Palestinian security personnel for a few hours. The Temple Mount became a conflagration. The plaza before the Western Wall was cleared of its Jewish worshipers. Israeli police officers were wounded and many Israeli Jews felt that they had reached the very depths of humiliation. At Camp David, such an arrangement came very close to becoming institutionalized.
Jerusalem's Jewish residents have drunk only a small portion of the poisoned drink prepared at Oslo. Life in Jerusalem has been drastically transformed - shots fired at Gilo; a municipal economic crisis; Atarot industrial zone on the point of collapse; rerouted bus lines, and in some cases a total suspension of service on certain bus routes; shooting incidents and explosive devices in the Rehavia quarter and in the Mahaneh Yehuda open-stall marketplace. Marketplaces and holy sites in Jerusalem have become deserted zones. Every evening helicopters are in the air and the sounds of explosions on the ground sharply disrupt the peace and tranquillity of the city's residents.
This is the "Oslo way." This is the multi-staged process, the Hudaybiyah procedure, as Arafat and his followers have themselves termed the "Oslo way." However, in contrast to the "Camp David understandings," which Israelis were spared at the last possible moment, the "Oslo way" is mere child's play.
Had the "Camp David understandings" been implemented and had the Palestinian community of Jabal Mukkaber (which is situated opposite the Jewish neighborhood of East Talpiot), Sur Baher (situated opposite the kibbutz of Ramat Rachel), and Wadi Joz and Sheikh Jarrah (situated opposite the Israeli government compound in East Jerusalem and opposite the neighborhood of Musrara) been transferred to the hands of someone - whom Barak and Regional Development Minister Shimon Peres still stubbornly refuse to call an enemy - the bloody clashes and the destruction in Jerusalem would have been on a much greater scale.
Recent events have amply demonstrated that former science minister Benny Begin, who has often been depicted as a prophet of utter pessimism was, after all, merely a realist.
Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post -- November 22, 2000
NO LONGER A WEAKLING
By Daniel Pipes
Israel has been taking it on the chin from the Palestinians. It offers them an incredibly generous package at Camp David in July; the Palestinians (and Israeli Arabs) reward it in October with the worst-ever outbreak of violence.
Likewise, the IDF fights in a careful manner intended to return the Palestinians to the negotiating table (as opposed to defeating them); in reply, Palestinians respond with heightened violence (uniformed "policemen" are now shooting at the IDF).
Nor are the Palestinians the only ones to assault Israel:
* The UN Security Council thanks Israel for its "policy of restraint" limiting Palestinian casualties - even though this adds to the injuries and deaths of its own troops - with a resolution lambasting its "excessive use of force."
* The international media ignore Israel's absorbing a range of provocations almost without retaliation (the abduction of soldiers to Lebanon, the lynching of soldiers in Ramallah, the desecration of Joseph's Tomb) and instead vilify it.
* Governments around the world respond to hundreds of incidents of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions on six continents, carried out almost entirely by Moslems, with near-silence.
Why this barrage of aggression and unfair treatment, far worse than Israel has experienced in decades?
Here's my answer: The world despises a weakling and Israel is now reaping the bounty of the soft foreign policy in place since 1993.
Israeli policy toward the Palestinians over the past seven years has been to sign about one agreement a year and then hardly insist on implementation. Of course, this laxness did not go unnoticed by Palestinians, who took advantage of it routinely to break their promises.
With a record like this, how can Israel now demand the Palestinians fulfill their promises and expect anything but derision? After letting its enemies get away with so much for so long, its citizens now wonder if they have become the mat on which anyone can trample.
Accepting this analysis means that tamping down Palestinian violence - as well as the Arab and Moslem saber-rattling, the international finger-wagging, and global violence against Jews - requires Israel to shed its weakling image.
Trouble is, the longer the Palestinians get away with their criminal misbehavior, the more heavy-handed must Israel's response be. In 1993, normal protection of Israel's rights would have sufficed. Today, a crackdown is needed. It might include several steps:
* Assert political goals. These days, Israeli policy aims only at a return to the bargaining table. It would do well to emulate the Palestinians, who have a well-articulated set of goals (end Israeli occupation, establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital). If it did, Israeli equivalents would include a complete end to violence by Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, and the Arab and Moslem states.
* Enforce agreements already signed. At present, the government asks only for a "drastic" drop in violence before returning to the bargaining table. (And the Likud wants hardly more, demanding merely a complete cessation of hostilities.) Better would be to demand complete implementation of all agreements reached since 1993 before even considering another round of negotiations.
* Choose the time and place of confrontations. If Palestinians insist on continuing the violence, stop letting them decide its terms. Actively choose the who, when, where, and how favoring Israel's interests.
* Don't worry about world opinion. Israel is so unfairly treated in this regard, it has little left to lose. Anyway, a strong Israel criticized for defending itself is far better off than a weak Israel no less criticized when it fails to defend its interests.
Such moves by a self-assertive Israel would go far to heighten the country's morale while boosting its international standing.
"OSLO ISN'T DEAD"
SAYS SHIMON PERES
by Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East analyst & commentator
Indeed, Oslo will never be dead. Only those it killed will dead forever. Shimon Peres, the author of the Oslo Accords, has never admitted that this abortive agreement was merely another one of his hair-brained schemes without substance. Peres still brings his shallow European background into the Middle East as he extols his "Piss Now" or "Piss Process".
Peres never actually integrated into the Arab/Moslem world in thought. He merely dreamed dreams of little substance and then expected others to solve the inevitable problems on the ground. That is why Oslo is a vacuum of solutions evolved by cohorts of Peres: Beilin, Yair Hirschfeld, Yoel Singer, etc.
Oslo has killed many Jews (over 300 dead since the signing of Oslo in 1993, plus thousands more injured, some maimed for life) but these fools consider dead Jews sacrifices for peace. They do not hold themselves accountable for agreements that not only failed but, actually never got started. Oslo placed Israel in an extremely vulnerable position of a low intensity war (definition of Terrorism) and placed Israelis everywhere in Israel and Jews everywhere in the world at risk as "sacrifices for peace".
Only the Leftist government gave up substantive things like land, water, Jewish Holy sites and the lives of Jews. To these people everything was negotiable, even the lives of their people.
Yes, they did know that arming Palestinians was dangerous. They did know that is was risky turning over access roads to Arafat's terrorist Policemen (originally Terrorists). They did know that Israelis had surpassed its water resources but insisted on giving the Judean/Samarian aquifers over to Arafat. They did know that giving up the Golan would cut off the water resources to the Kinneret and/or pollute it to a point that will become a lake of sewage.
But, Shimon Peres of the infamous Oslo never saw these problems or even attempted to address them in his secret (always secret) negotiations with Arafat. Now Peres was supposed to a well-read man or at least that's the impression he tried to give. The documentation of Arafat's 20 plus agreements with Jordan's King Hussein were all broken at which time Hussein drove the perfidious Arafat and his terrorists out of Jordan.
When Jordan landed in Lebanon, he again made dozens of agreements with the Lebanese Christians and Muslims - all of which he broke. He established a Palestinian mini-state over the bodies of minimally one hundred thousand (100,000) Lebanese.
But, the well-read Peres seemed not to have read Arafat's record and put Israel in mortal jeopardy on a dream that dismissed reality. Sometimes I wonder who Shimon Peres was really working for - Israel or whom?
Yes, Oslo will live on as a historical fact of infamy and no less gross stupidity. Such men as Peres, Beilin and now Barak - live by well-crafted slogans meant to pacify the Israeli people. Words are not things, according the semanticist Korzibski. You can say anything you want to but there is no immutable law that guarantees that what you say will actually happen.
"Peace Now - Peace Process - I'll give you 48 hours (again and again) to cease your attacks or I will do something." At the theatrical memorial to Yitzhak Rabin, actress Gila Almagor said: "Yes to Peace and No to War; Yes to Peace and No to Violence; Yes to Peace and No to Terrorism." I cannot help but wonder what planet dropped these bubble heads on Israel. Arafat has broken every single agreement ever made and now when he got from Barak what Barak never owned, Arafat launches a full scale attack everywhere in Israel and abroad. But, Peres and this actress burble sweet slogans as real people are actually dying. Cannot Israel mount the Oslo Accorders on the front of the Army jeeps as hood ornaments and drive over to Ramallah to receive kisses, stones or bullets - or a lynch?
Yes, Oslo is with us like a cancer. Sometimes, it is in remission and other times it erupts to eat at the living body of Israel. The Peace Dopes and the Deaf Doves will always be there to snivel and whine about peace, at least until a brother is shot or a sister is blown up by a road-side bomb.
So, Dumb Doves, get this straight! The Arabs hate us with a passion that cannot be pacified. The religion of Islam calls for our utter elimination . Having beaten the snot out of their testicle-driven macho armies in six wars of aggression started by the Arabs, they can never forgive us Jews. The American Jewish rabbis can preach Pacifism until they are blue in the face, it will not change one Arab mind. Barak can issue proclamations of deterrence which he never carries out - until he is thrown out of his offices as Prime Minister and Defense Minister.
Did Rabin, Peres, Beilin and Barak intend to become a Clear and Present Danger to Israel's existence? Probably not. The fact is, either through sheer ignorance and gross stupidity, they have. Their slogans of Peace have led a whole gneration of Jews, both in Israel and America to ignore a more grounded slogan:
Reprinted from "HA'ARETZ", November 27, 2000
Analysis / Same Old Thing,
By Amir Oren
The supporters of the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon sought to replace the security zone and the South Lebanon Army with a wall of warnings issued by Prime Minister Ehud Barak. So thunderous and mighty were the words of warning issued by Israel and so pathetic was the Hezbollah's justification for continuing the war after the withdrawal of the last Israeli soldier from Lebanon, that it seemed that peace and quiet were guaranteed for the Galilee. If not, the Israel Air Force promised to deliver a "message via air mail" to the right "addresses," be they the Lebanese government, Syria and/or the United Nations.
Like many of Barak's other warnings, these soon proved to be devoid of substance. If Barak implements his threats now, as Hezbollah seems to be taunting him to do, he is chancing the landing of Katyushas on the Galilee, and perhaps even a conflict on the Syrian front. If he does not, the initiative will remain with the Hezbollah which will continue trying to bloody the Israel Defense Forces.
Yesterday's bombing in Har Dov is yet another high point in the Hezbollah's series of provocations. The radical Shi'ite organization is, in fact, telling Israel that the IDF is unable to prevent the attacks, even when Hezbollah announces the area and the timing of its next attack. Concentrating on Har Dov was not - although it could still be - an attempt to divert attention from the real frontline. It reflects the helplessness of the United Nations, which has so far only managed to paint over the border area in blue instead of purple.
International recognition of Israel's unilateral compliance with Security Council resolution did not thwart the guerrillas who planted the lethal bomb, as it could not thwart previous attacks, including the kidnapping of three combat engineers a week after the outbreak of violence in the territories in late September. During the 30 minutes it took to inform the troops of the trio's kidnapping, one could nearly reach the Beirut suburbs and hide there forever. Fifty days after the kidnapping, there is still no authorized information on the fate of the three soldiers (the case of a fourth kidnap victim, Elhanan Tanenbaum, is being dealt by the Foreign Ministry).
The IDF forces, deployed along the border since the summer, expected to be withdrawn for rest, training and operations in the territories. They will now remain there, so that the experience garnered over the months will not be wasted in case of further escalation.
Colonel Aharon, commander of the paratroops in the area, said that "the only difference from still being in the security zone is that [the Hezbollah] is not firing Katyushas on us."
The Hezbollah made do with a roadside bomb yesterday. The attack was not accompanied by shooting, but the IDF responded with firing at "the sources of the shooting," positions which were set ahead of time.
No one in headquarters deludes himself that a response will be of any use. All are certain that the next escalation will result in some form of response along the Hezbollah chain of command, and on to the Syrian and Iranian interests in Lebanon.
A veteran general commented last week that it is better to strike the sources of power rather than the sources of the shooting. Barak is still not authorizing such an attack, perhaps in an effort to gain another week, another month. However, Barak does not have control over Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah or over Syrian President Bashar Assad, or over the winter which will disrupt air force operations in the north.
(c) 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post
Reconsidering The Past
By Yosef Goell
(November 27) - There is at least one point on which the left-wing doves are right: A mere escalation of the Israeli military response to the Palestinian attacks and "permitting the IDF to win" will not solve the problem.
Where they are totally wrong is in their insistence that a return to negotiations on the basis of magnanimous Israeli concessions, a la Camp David 2000 plus, will provide such a "solution." It stands reiteration ad nauseam that deeply embedded national conflicts of the sort we have with the Palestinian national movement have no "solutions." The best one can hope for is the sort of managed, restrained antagonism we have had with Egypt for the past 21 years, as evidenced by the withdrawal of the Egyptian ambassador last week.
A cursory worldwide check shows that real national conflicts are not amenable to compromise. Their intensity can be made to abate until, hopefully, they gradually fade over many generations and centuries.
The one exception I can think of is the relationship between Germany and France at the end of World War II. The ability to progress to a "solution" in that case was made possible by the near total destruction of Nazi Germany in 1945 and the massive suffering that several generations of British, French, Germans, Poles and Russians had undergone during the first half of the 20th century. This forced the leaders of both parties to look for imaginative and magnanimous solutions.
We are not in such a situation. In considering our next steps it is essential first that we jettison the lie that what we are involved in is a "peace process" and a "historic reconciliation" between the two peoples who inhabit this land. The late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and his fellow converts may have believed that these self-delusions and outright lies were necessary to sell an unpalatable agreement to the Israeli public. But lies remain lies, and are eventually uncovered by dramatic events.
This does not mean that we can or should resort to military and economic repression of the Palestinians. But it does mean that in the absence of any prospects for a "real peace," all concessions and agreements should be judged in light of the assumption that the violence will continue for a long time to come.
It is essential that Prime Minister Ehud Barak make the mental leap from his reiterated insistence that we teach Arafat that he has gained nothing from resorting to violence to a determination that before negotiations are resumed Arafat and the Palestinians learn that they have lost, and lost profoundly.
This means not returning to where we left off at Camp David four months ago, but to Oslo 1993.
One of the main arguments in support of taking the present opportunity to retract the excessive Israeli concessions of the past seven years was an off-hand remark on a television interview last week by the deputy head of the national security council, Maj.-Gen (res.) Gideon Sheffer. He blithely pointed out that in the present intifada, Arafat has not put into use the gigantic stockpiles of arms he has amassed in contravention of his Oslo commitments. This means he is saving up for the likelihood of many future intifadas, whenever he or his imminent successors are frustrated at the negotiating table.
Israel's demand that the Palestinians hand over those illicit arms stockpiles will most likely be met by derisive laughter. But two can - and should - play at that game. At the present time, Israel must take speedy action to make two points: rescinding some of the territorial concessions to Area A which are under total Palestinian jurisdiction and the right to hot pursuit after terrorist perpetrators in Area A.
The best place to carry out a rollback would be in the Jordan Rift Valley. Israel should reoccupy the entire valley, including the town of Auja, with the exception of the tiny enclave of Jericho.
Once those points have been made it should be possible to return to renegotiating the implementation of the Oslo principles of mutual recognition on a much more realistic basis.
SPECIAL "WHITE PAPER" ON ARAFAT AND THE PA
The Israeli government released this week, as part of its retaliatory actions against the Palestinian Authority for Monday's fatal terrorist bombing of a Kfar Darom school bus, a "White Paper" detailing 60 pages of PA/PLO non-compliance with the Oslo agreements. IMRA (Independent Media Review Analysis) publicized an electronic version of the paper (http://www.imra.org.il), after the government limited the distribution to hard copies alone. Excerpts from the document:
"The present wave of violence - led by the Fatah "Tanzim" - is essentially an attempt by Arafat to achieve, through violence, his maximal political goals: and avoid the choices necessary to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion... Instead of responsibility for the welfare of the governed we see him willing to use Palestinian suffering, including the death of children on the frontline (shamelessly exploited)...
"Ambivalent attitudes towards terrorism, and at times - outright complicity1/4 In the current crisis, P.A. Preventive Security [and] the "Tanzim" (militia) of Arafat's Fatah movement are actively involved in terrorist attacks...
"Incitement to Hatred - a key element in the current crisis has been the relentless effort to mobilize "the Arab masses and destabilize the region... This comes against the background of a broader pattern of education and public messages, which denigrate the Jews, and reject the possibility of compromise solutions.
"Criminal activities on a large scale - from car theft to excise tax fraud - take place under P.A. auspices.
"It should be recalled that the P.L.O. was not an "unknown quantity" when it came into the Peace Process: its institutional record - of terrorism, breach of agreements (with Arab governments - Jordan, Lebanon), and abuse of the "governed" in areas under its control - meant that extensive formal commitments were required - beginning with the pledges given to Prime Minister Rabin prior to the signing of the Declaration of Principles. These, however were often interpreted in a slippery way, or honored only when it was expedient for Arafat and the P.A. to do so.
"As early as Arafat's own speech on the White House lawn, on September 13, 1993, there were indications that for him, the Declaration of Principles [signed that day] did not necessarily signify an end to the conflict... The map of "Palestine" remained as it has always been for him, the entire territory of pre-1948 mandatory Palestine...
"On various occasions, Arafat continued to use the language of "Jihad"... a clear reference to the violent option. In a eulogy to a Palestinian official on June 15 1995 (at the height of the Oslo Process) he paid homage, among others, to two women terrorists and spoke of the children throwing stones as "the Palestinian Generals." Of special interest, in this context, are Arafat's repeated references to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, signed by the Prophet Muhammad with his Meccan enemies when they were still stronger than him, and then abandoned (as he conquered the city) within a much shorter time than the Treaty itself warranted. The first such reference made public came shortly after the signing of the Interim agreement, in the "Jihad" speech he made at the Mosque in Johannesburg (obtained by the Jewish community, and broadcast in Israel in May 1994) The reference to the Hudaybiyyah treaty re-surfaced in 1998, coupled with the warning that "all the options are open to the Palestinian people". (Orbit television, April 18, 1998). In essence, here was a rationale for accepting Oslo and the place at the negotiations, and the various commitments involved, not as the building blocks of trust and cooperation but as temporary measures, to be shed off when circumstances allow.
"In a speech (documented on video) to a forum in Nablus in January 1996 - again, at a time when the negotiations were going forward - Nabil Sha'ath described the strategy in terms which then sounded unrealistic, but now ring familiar: "We decided to liberate our homeland step-by-step... Should Israel continue - no problem. And so, we honor the peace treaties and non-violence... if and when Israel says "enough"... in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom... If we reach a dead end we will go back to our war and struggle like we did forty years ago".
"[There is now within the PA] the collapse of all existing commitments, and the systematic creation - day by day, week by week - of an atmosphere of raw emotions, fear and hatred, in pursuit of a general Palestinian and Pan-Arab mobilization. All of this is not only in breach of the clearly stated commitments offered at the beginning of the Oslo process, but also in obvious, at times blatant, rejection of the understandings reached at the recent Sharm al-Sheikh Summit."
The document lists specific examples of Palestinian non-compliance in the areas of incitement and the perpetuation of hatred, violence against Israel, complicity in terrorism, the size of the Palestinian police, foreign relations, economic breaches (such as not paying debts to Israeli companies), invading and building in area C, where it has no legal jurisdiction, criminal activity under PA auspices, failure to protect holy places, and more.