Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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




CHANUKAH AND JEWISH HISTORY Will We Be Maccabees Or Victims?.......Bernard J. Shapiro

DON'T WARN ARAFAT; DEFEAT HIM...An editorial....Avi Davis

THAT "VISION" THING (The New World Order)....Emanuel A. Winston
SPECIAL REPORT: Anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media
"GENEROUS WITHDRAWAL - AND RECOGNITION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE: The Program: Give the US President a Commitment as a 'Deposit'"....Eli Kamir
MIDEAST 'VISION THING'.....Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
US - ISRAEL QUAGMIRE.....Major Shawn Pine


Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016

E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3)*




Will We Be Maccabees Or Victims?

By Bernard J. Shapiro

The year is 70 C.E. and a young Roman legionnaire stands on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. While he watches it burn, he says to his comrades in Latin, "Judea Capta Est" (Judea is conquered). Yet like the legendary phoenix, rising from the ashes of its own destruction, Israel burst onto the world's stage 2000 years later, with the cry of a lusty infant yearning to breathe free. Five Arab armies tried to destroy that new life before it could take hold. With blood and fire, including the sacrifice of one per cent of its population (6000 of its best young people), besieged Israel secured its independence.

Just nine short years earlier, European Jewry faced its most devastating experience, the Holocaust. In the areas under Nazi occupation, the Jewish death rate was 90%. Despite revolts in dozens of camps, and heroic resistance with the partisans of free Europe, the Jews were unorganized, unarmed and ultimately became victims. During both the Holocaust and Israel's War of Independence, the world and its leaders were indifferent, if not hostile, to the fate of the Jews.

Jews in their own land, with their G-d, have great power, much more than the sum of arms and men. During Chanukah we should recall the legacy of the Maccabees. Remember how two "Hellenized Jews," Jason and Menelaus tried to destroy Judaism and force assimilation on the Jewish population. For generations we have taught our children about the evil Antiochus and his attempt to suppress the Jews. In reality, there were traitors among our own people who led the way for Antiochus.

There arose in Israel, a similar situation when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres led a leftwing coalition that was blatantly hostile to everything Jewish. They pushed through the Oslo Accords which surrendered the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, promised in perpetuity to Abraham and his descendants by G-d. The educational system in Israel was being revamped to eliminate the study of Jewish sources like the bible. They cultivated hatred of all things Jewish and especially religious Jews. Units of the Israel Defense Forces were recruited from the non-religious population for the sole purpose of suppressing and possibly destroying the religious villages of YESHA.

Rabin and Peres, anxious to win favor with the Arabs, much like Jason and the Greeks, planned to give away Israel's strategic assets. Territory is not important if your new god is economics. While the Israeli government renounced anything Jewish, including Holy Sites, the Arabs sought strength and comfort in a revived Islam. Nothing portrays the difference better between the Arabs and the Jews than how each views his religion. Young Arab men, promised paradise, cry "ali Akbar" (G-d is Great), then sacrifice their lives to kill Jews in one great jihad. Jewish soldiers flee their posts, uncertain about their open-fire instructions, demoralized by a government, which lies to them about the advent of peace.

The Israeli people rose up in the 1996 election and threw out the party of appeasement that had abandoned Eretz Yisrael. Benjamin Natanyahu became Israeli Prime Minister and the National/Zionist/Religious groups breathed a collective sight of relief. ONLY RELIEF DID NOT COME. For some reason known only to him, Netanyahu (and now PM Ariel Sharon) proceeded to implement the very same Oslo agreements the voters had rejected What should we do?

Let us be Maccabees again. Let us go into battle with the Maccabee cry, "All who are with G-d, follow me!" With the words: "Who is like untoThee O G-d (the acronym of which spells out he word Maccabee in Hebrew) inscribed on their flags, the G-d inspired Jewish army swept the much larger enemy from the field in a great victory. It is this victory for which we celebrate Chanukah and not just the miracle of the oil burning eight days.

There is a simple but crucial lesson for us all in the above events. If we as Jews turn our backs on our religion and our G-d, we can expect disaster. The current government of Israel has brought down the wrath of G-d on the Israeli people for turning its back on our heritage. Like Judah Maccabee, angered by the treason of Jason and Menelaus, and outraged by Antiochus, we must revolt against Sharon as we did against Peres and Rabin. The nationalist opposition in Israel must unite behind one Zionist banner. They must fill the streets and jails with protesters. City after city must be shut down.

Victory will not fall into our lap. It must be fought for and won. We must demonstrate that the strength of our will and the power of our belief can not be defeated. Only then will victory come.





By Bernard J. Shapiro

The visit of US State Department envoy General Anthony Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs William Burns has always been irrelevant. Their goal ostensibly was to convince Israel and the Palestinians to implement a cease-fire. Of course they planned to focus on convincing both sides. Their arrival also brought 26 Israelis murdered and 200 wounded in suicide bombings to impress the Americans.

"My purpose, and the purpose of my government, is to reach a cease-fire," Sharon said. "This is a matter of supreme importance, and we will make every effort possible to attain this goal. This [visit] is a true test for Arafat and the Palestinian leadership to determine if their intentions are in fact to move the diplomatic process forward." Absolute nonsense! Arafat has sold his rug of a cease fire a hundred times before since Oslo in 1993. He is a liar and a terrorist and certainly not a "peace partner."

Sharon is expected to give Zinni evidence linking the Palestinian Authority to the majority of the terror attacks. FOOLISHNESS. The Americans know the truth but have always chosen to over look Arafat's violations of Oslo and his direct links to terrorism.

Sharon met with Bush in Washington following the horrendous multiple terrorist attack in Jerusalem and Haifa. He said "The United States has an important role to play in this attempt to broker a cease fire and we are making a supreme effort to make it succeed. Again foolishness. For his part Bust told Sharon that he had a free hand to crush the terrorist attacks in his country.

How many times must Israeli leaders travel down the same road with Arafat before they understand the truth. He is NOT a "peace partner", but seeks to destroy Israel.




By Avi Davis

While the words may not come naturally to his lips, the President of the United States is talking openly these days about the creation of a Palestinian State. In his address at the United Nations, George W. Bush made clear that two states – one Israeli and the other Palestinian, should one day stand side by side in the Middle East. Colin Powell talks and acts as if the Palestinian declaration of independence has already been signed and the media is abuzz with Palestine's imminent creation.

Nevertheless, the creation of a Palestinian state at such a time involving the current Palestinian leadership will do nothing to bring stability to the region. It will not assist the U.S in its campaign against terror. It will not bring peace. Instead it will promote further war, instability and suffering.

Each of the concerned nations and populations in the region has something to lose.

For Israel, the prospects are frightening. Despite years of attempted peace-making, the evidence from the Arab world is that rejection of Israel's right to exist remains as resolute as ever. In fact, the armies of Egypt, Saudia Arabia and Jordan, bolstered for years by a massive infusion of American military aid, have upgraded their offensive capabilities to suspiciously high levels. The establishment of a hostile Palestinian state within miles of Israel's major cities, eclipses the Jewish state's vital warning time for a potential Arab invasion and the minimum space its reserves require for mobilization. It opens up a front that starts ten miles from Tel Aviv and reaches 1,000 miles deep across the Arabian Peninsula to Teheran. Pinning hopes on a buffer regime that has failed to do even the minimum to curtail incitement against Israel or whose children's textbooks preach jihad against the Jewish state, seems the height of folly.

For the United States, a Palestinian state also represents an unwarranted leap of faith. Already confronted in the region by rejectionist states such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, it can count on adding a fourth if the State of Palestine comes into being. Continuing a policy of state terror, its military adventurism will initially be directed not against Israel, as might be expected, but against neighboring Jordan whose population is 80% Palestinian. In concert with Syria and Iraq, Arafat's Palestine will attempt to topple the Hashemite kingdom, completing the PLO's aborted coup of 1970 and purging the region of its remaining moderate, western-oriented Arab state. Thus engorged, it will then have considerable muscle to turn on Israel with a full military assault. This will leave the United States with a vast swathe of the Arab world implacably hostile to the West and a fertile breeding ground for terror.

The Palestinians, after their initial euphoria, would also soon find little cause for further celebration. Arafat has done nothing to strengthen the Palestinian economy in preparation for statehood. No investment in industry, no development of export markets and no commitment toward open trade with its most natural trading partner, Israel. Poverty will remain the lot of most Palestinians for the foreseeable future as billions in foreign aid are creamed off by the Palestinian elites to finance personal empires. Governmental development will almost certainly follow the Palestinian Authority model. The legislature will act as a rubber stamp for Arafat 's dictatorial reign; the press will continue as a conduit for government propaganda and the judiciary will be coerced to enforce Arafat's wishes. In the end, Palestinian statehood will only institutionalize graft, corruption and the abuse of human rights - extending the misery of the Palestinians for years into the future.

If the 1980s was the decade of deterrence, then the1990s was a decade of illusions. And at the top of that list sat the expectation that Yasser Arafat, for nearly a generation one of the world's most high-profile terrorists, would transform into a peace-loving exemplar of Western values. The truth is now fairly evident for anyone to see. The West must replace the hopeful, comfortable assumptions of the last decade with tough-minded policies that link rewards of sovereignty to respect for human rights and the adoption of democratic institutions and practices. There are no guarantees that even the adoption of these values will establish global stability. Yet the continued failure to enforce the principle that sovereignty implies responsibility will almost certainly damn the peace-seeking nations of the world to further war, terror and bloodshed.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies in Los Angeles and a senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine




By Avi Davis

When three bombs ripped through the Ben Yehudah mall in Jerusalem on Saturday night, no one familiar with the location and the time of night had to wonder about the nature of the carnage. Within seconds it could be surmised that among the dead and wounded would be teenagers and children, pedestrians and vendors. There was also no mistaking the psychological impact. When a bomb explodes in a major Israeli city, the sound reverberates in every household in the country and no one is left untouched.

While Hamas claimed ownershipof the atrocity, Israel knew immediately where the real responsibility lay. Arafat, in spite of repeated warnings from Israel to act and in spite of a relationship with the U.S that could best be described as precarious, has done nothing to curb terrorism or to arrest those responsible for it. In a farcical demonstration of his flouting of international expectations, he regularly arrests and then releases the same terrorists, assuming that once a few days have passed, the terrorist incidents themselves will be forgotten.

Arafat's cavalier attitude can be attributed to the kind of latitude he is given in the international community. There are few who actually hold him accountable. The Bush Administration has, sadly, followed this trend by failing to invest its Middle East policy with any guiding moral principle. Colin Powell's statement in Louisiana two weeks ago called for an end to Palestinian violence while attempting to create some kind of moral symmetry between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli settlements. This did nothing to warn Yasser Arafat of the further use of terror but instead almost certainly encouraged him.

The failure of perception became further evident on Saturday night following the bombings. The U.S. President, although perhaps genuinely outraged, gave the stock statement he has issued on previous occasions of mass slaughter in Israel, calling on Arafat to demonstrate a commitment to fighting terror. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni offered an equally tepid response, requesting Arafat to capture and prosecute those behind the attack.

Missing was the crucial coda: 'or else we will retaliate against you'. What, after all, is to be Arafat's punishment for not reining in terror? What does he have to lose for not doing so? Not once in the past 10 months, when equally horrific incidents claimed the lives of dozens of Israelis in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel has the United States, recognizing the true source of the violence, set down an ultimatum to the Palestinians and followed through with resolute action. Instead we have seen waffling and indecision, feeble warnings followed by unconscionable pressure on Israel for restraint. This has taken place even as the kind of violence Israelis experience daily was brought home to the U.S in the most devastating terrorist attack in world history. Without forceful U.S or international pressure, Arafat can and does get away with murder.

To be sure, the U.S is at war and has its international coalition to consider. But what is this war being fought for, if not the removal of the scourge of terrorism and its sponsors? If democratic allies such as Israel, suffering unabated murder of their citizens, are to be condemned for defending themselves against terror, then the moral justification for the coalition collapses.

What should the U.S President then do? He could start by asking Congress to brand the Palestinian Authority a terrorist organization. He could follow that by freezing all aid to the Palestinian Authority and encouraging other countries to do the same. Then he should freeze the PA's U.S. assets. Finally he could do what Israel has been asking the U.S to do for more than 14 months - lead an international campaign to isolate the PA and create an environment for turning Arafat into an international pariah.

All of these measures may succeed in getting Arafat's attention yet may still not be enough. Israelis are learning that Arafat rarely responds to anything but force. Territorial concessions, financial support and even threats of isolation are proving increasingly futile in enticing his compliance with his written or verbal commitments. The United States understands this because its war against the Taliban and the terrorists involves an identical campaign. It is absurd to suggest that the U.S should now negotiate with either Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban.

Expectations of Israel should be no different.

In the end, Arafat, like Bin Laden, doesn't need to be warned; he needs to be defeated. This will mean a full scale assault on the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, killing its leaders and crushing it beyond operability. What this may mean for the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat's future is a matter of conjecture. Yet if polls are any indication, Israelis now seem ready for this kind of action. The remaining question is whether the United States can be counted upon to support it.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies in Los Angeles and a senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine




By Louis Rene Beres

All Islamic terrorists associated with the September 11th attacks on the United States repeatedly affirm their love of death. Such perverse affirmation is not historically unique, not even in the recently-ended century of atrocity, the bloodsoaked Twentieth Century. In 1936, for example, on the occasion of a speech by the nationalist general Millan Astray at the University of Salamanca in Spain, the hall thundered with the general's favorite motto: VIVA LA MUERTE! "Long live death." When the speech was over, Miguel de Unamuno, rector of the University, rose and said: "Just now I heard a necrophilious and senseless cry...this outlandish paradox is repellent to me." Yet, this very same repellent cry is, today, the lurid reason for being of Islamic "suicide" terrorists.

But why put the word "suicide" in quotation marks? The answer is simple for all who care to look. Islamic "lovers of death" do not commit suicide in any meaningful sense. As they believe that acts of "martyrdom"

always assure blissful immortality, the very opposite of personal death, their "suicide" makes mockery of their pretended affection. Indeed, as they commit "suicide" only to assure eternal life, their pretended heroism is really never anything more than a supreme act of cowardice.

For some yet partially unexplained reasons, the Islamic "suicide" terrorist fears death more acutely than all others. At the same time, he fears continuation of his ongoing life on earth, a life almost always devoid of any opportunity to do something rewarding and a life that almost always prohibits, inhibits and disdains the most compelling needs of his inborn human sexuality. Thwarting both meaning and eros, repressive elements of Islamic society now prod thousands of young males to "martyr" themselves in the killing of "infidels." September 11th had absolutely nothing to do with politics as usual, with alleged Islamic anger about certain elements of American foreign policy (the simplistic explanation of many academics and journalists who now routinely elevate intellectual mediocrity to high art), but rather with the delicious promise of salvation through "sacred" acts of killing.

"Suicide" killing of American men, women and children in New York stemmed from the very same sentiments that continue to animate "suicide" killings of Israeli men, women and children. Consider the statement by Jamal Abdel Hamid Yussef, explaining operations of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades (military wing of Hamas in Gaza): "Our suicide operations are a message...that our people love death. Our goal is to die for the sake of God, and if we live we want to humiliate Jews and trample on their necks." Hamas, which was loudly overjoyed at the murders of September 11th - because Americans are presumably just as evil as Jews - promises all Islamic "suicides" nothing less than freedom from death. By "dying" in the divinely- mandated act of killing "Jews" or "Americans" (it makes no difference that these are not mutually exclusive categories; Islamic terrorists are not interested in logic), the "suicide" terrorist conquers death, which he fears with unimaginable terror. In his eternal life, Hamas and Fatah and Al-Qa'ida videotapes reveal, there will be rivers of honey and 72 virgins as reward for being "martyred" in the glorious fight against the despised enemies of God.

We see, then, that the Islamic "suicide" terrorist sees absolutely nothing suicidal about his wilful murder of "Jews" or "Americans." For him, a hideous coward immobilized by both fear of death and by fear of his unhappy and unsatisfying life - "suicide" is merely a momentary inconvenience on his fiery propulsion into heaven. Now the insufferable death fear of his ego is lessened by his SACRIFICE of the infidel "American." After September 11th, it is especially through the burning and maiming and murder of defenseless American men, women and children - actions that are sometimes called "military operations" in much of the Islamic press - that he buys himself free from personal death. The Islamic "suicide" terrorist knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that after executing his "suicidal" sacrifice of infidels, literally millions of other Muslim sympathizers will proudly raise their heads over images of the American corpses, smile broadly into the sun, and reaffirm God's greatness to all the world.

What shall we do about this apparent paradox, a "suicide" that does not intend to end the murderer's own life, but to extend it forever? For America today, there is little point to deterring the determined murderers with threats of death - threats which would be received not only without apprehension, but - expectedly - with a delirious joy and collective ecstasy. No, to deter the Islamic "suicide" terrorists, America must now offer the prospective murderers a palpable threat of REAL suicide. The "suicide" terrorist who threatens America today must be made to understand that his unheroic explosion of American bodies will bring not a prompt entry into paradise, but instead an irreversible slide into eternal darkness, into fire, into DEATH.

Violence and the sacred are inseparable for the Islamic "suicide" terrorist, but America must immediately think in terms of "desacrilizing" his grotesque undertakings. It must be our task, now, to convince the would-be shatterer of innocents that God's promise will never follow his explosive logic and that his despicable murders will lead him not to paradise, but to the grave. Exactly how to accomplish this very difficult task must be the central intellectual preoccupation of all Americans who would wish to survive the Islamic "suicide" terrorist.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is Professor of International Law Department of Political Science at Purdue University and publishes widely on terrorism and counterterrorism. He is the author of many books on this subject, and a frequent lecturer in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Professor Beres has been a consultant to several agencies of American government on prevention of chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism. His articles on this subject have appeared in SPECIAL WARFARE and other publications of the Department of Defense. Prof. Beres recently became the academic advisor for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



(The New World Order)

by Emanuel A. Winston

Secretary of State Colin Powell offered Israel his "Vision Thing". That expression was first introduced by George Herbert Walker Bush, when he was President, as his view of American foreign policy. Papa Bush's "Vision Thing" was the short war with Iraq, conducted by a pacifistic Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, which allowed Saddam to stay in power. Papa Bush also introduced his "Vision Thing" called "The New World Order".

At the time, no one as exactly sure what he meant by this or what organization was behind this concept except that it dealt with continuing sources of energy (oil) and other commodities like food and water. (Some considered "The New World Order" a gathering of the self-serving world powers to control global resources as a non-fictionalized version of SMERSH in James Bond thriller.)

Regrettably, every time those who fit the profile of New World Orderists start their manipulations to control oil, etc, countries go into chaos; dictators receive lavish bribes and democracies cease to be.

This time the target is Israel. Secretary of State Colin Powell who has been severely criticized by Congress for his blatant double standard. 89 Senators wrote a letter November 16th, attacking Powell's criticism of Israel for attacking terrorists. Powell seems to be running on the "New World Order" track. That translates into appeasing the oil nations and the world of radical Islam. Some will recall the numerous times President Bush, Jr. apologized to Muslims, telling them that Americans were not at war with Islam.

While the President made these politically correct statements to his Muslim voter block, the leaders of Islam were saying the opposite: Islam is at war with America (who they did not hesitate to call the 'Great Satan' and Israel who they call the 'Little Satan'.)

Regrettably, we, the 'civilized', democratic Western world, are in a war with radical Islamism and have been for a long time. Islamism may be worse than Communism or Fascism in its collective goal for world domination. The radical Islamists state openly that they intend to bring a Khalifah (Muslim) State with the most strict Sharia laws to the whole world - by 'Jihad' (Holy War).

Powell and the U.S. State Department, to form a coalition against terrorism have chosen both terrorist nations and those who fund Islamic Terror as their partners in this coalition. In effect, this absolves such nations as Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. from their crimes committed against humanity for their role in terrorist actions. How and why did America become partners and apologists for the very nations on the State Department list of Terrorist nations?

Now, Powell, speaking for the President is going to offer a revised Mitchell plan which is designed presumably to buy the economic cooperation of Arab Islam while sacrificing the existence of Israel. Powell will, no doubt, make use of the very unrealistic Mitchell Plan - minus the mandatory cessation of violence to be implemented by Yassir Arafat as required by the Mitchell Plan.

When Israel's Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon stated that Israel will not be used as a bargaining chip as was done with Czechoslovakia in 1938 at Munich, he was right on target. The planners at the U.S. State Department howled - denying that they were planning a Final Jewish Solution plan. Our President, like his father before him, feigned personal insult when Sharon opened a window on such a scurrilous betrayal of a friend and ally.

Let us not forget that the Bush-Baker Dynasties are so deeply attached to Arab oil and the multi-nationals that no sacrifice is too great to keep their pockets jingling. What motivates the Bush family and its oil cabal to use Israel as a sacrifice for gains which would only be temporary? To try slowing down the murderous intentions of radical Islam against America and the West in general by offering Israel to them is a futile betrayal.

It is unlikely that we will find the 'smoking gun' but, if we think of their activities as a "Black Hole" which itself cannot be seen, there are clues. Astro-physicists seem to be able to observe how the stars, planets - even light - can be sucked into the maw of a Black Hole which tells us that there is, indeed, a Black Power, at work.

Similarly, this political "Black Hole" is the foreign policy of successive Presidential Administrations and the objects that can be seen are those Presidents, the on-going U.S. State Department, Colin Powell, the multi-national oil corporations, the European nations, the Arab oil nations, the Arab terrorist supporting nations and Arafat's terrorist conglomerate, 'et al'. All of these entities can be seen, whirling around the Black Hole of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Each is trying to push Israel into the vortex of the Black Hole so that she may disappear forever.

Recall that the prime contributors to President Bush's election campaign were the oil companies. Clearly, this is pay back time and Israel has been selected to pay the ultimate price.

What then is likely to happen from this point forward?

Powell has made a 'noble' speech November 19th, ignoring the daily terror facing Israel. Do not consider his empty words about the need for Arafat's compliance and a demand for his 100% effort. We have heard State Department 100% Double Talk before, which has always resulted only in 100% NON-compliance by Yassir Arafat. Nevertheless, each year since Oslo the State Department has whitewashed Arafat with their stamp of approval allowing the transfer of $100 million dollars to Arafat's deep pockets.

In a declaration that Israel must end her 'occupation' of the Palestinian territories in exchange for security guarantees, Powell has nailed up his greatest lie. Any historian or even a fifth grade child knows that American Presidents and the U.S. State Department, in appeasement to Arab oil Sheiks, have not enforced any of these so-called guarantees to agreements which they co-signed.

This is specifically true with respect to demanding compliance by Yassir Arafat and/or the Arab nations. After each of the six wars initiated by the Arabs against Israel, the U.S. and the Europeans have stopped Israel from finishing those wars. In each case, they concocted a hodge-podge of language wherein they put their signatures on a document 'guaranteeing' Israel's security and concurrently saved the aggressive Arab countries from their ignominious defeats. When these agreements were all broken by the Arab nations, the terrorists and/or Yassir Arafat, the U.S. State Department rejected Israel's demands that they, the guarantors, intervene.

While the American people and the American Congress can be trusted to support Israel as a genuine friend and worthy strategic ally in the Middle East, the various Presidential Administrations and the U.S. State Department have proven time and again that they are liars and untrustworthy guarantors of any such agreements they co-signed supporting Israel's security and sovereignty. These are not trivial lies because, when you prove that your own signature on such an international agreement is valueless, who can ever rely upon your guarantees of security or your signatures on any international agreements?

Colin Powell, in his speech of perfidy November 19th, chose to ignore that Israel acquired territory in wars she did not start. In each war of planned annihilation of the Jewish State, the Arabs gambled away territory they themselves had received as partitioned land the West had won from the Ottoman Empire. This land is, therefore, not "occupied" by Israel but rather is owed to Israel and owned by Israel by having won a defensive war.

These rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel are recognized by the 1917 British Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate (precursor to the U.N.), ratified by the American Congress; the U.N. resolution of1947;Israel's admittance to the U.N. in 1949 and the recognition of Israel by most other states. The Jewish people maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years, as well as her capital, Jerusalem. (1)

The demand by Secretary of State Colin Powell on November 19th emanates out of the notoriously anti-Israel U.S. State Department. The Mitchell Report recommendations, flowing through the voice of Powell, is absurd on the face of it. Yassir Arafat has never once kept any agreement made with Israel, or any Arab country, specifically those made with King Hussein of Jordan or the State of Lebanon. Arafat's only consistency has been non-stop terror. He did keep his word to Saddam Hussein when he used the 350,000 Palestinians working in Kuwait to subvert their host government. For leading Saddam's troops to the Kuwaiti treasures and homes of the leaders, after the Gulf War those 350,000 Palestinians were evicted into Jordan - as were the 300,000 Palestinians then living and working in Saudi Arabia. Those two Arab countries rightly viewed the Palestinians as a dangerous and subversive fifth column - as should Israel and the United States. When it comes to terror and other evils subverting whatever state has given him sanctuary, Arafat has always kept his M.O. (Modus Operandi).

The Black Hole of State Department foreign policy and all of their fellow travelers of the oil Mafia know that, no matter what Arafat signs, and, no matter what is countersigned by this Bush/Powell Administration, the Europeans and the U.N. not one word is likely to be kept. The betrayal is now in the oven, only waiting for Israel to be savaged into signing it. ###

1. "Myths & Facts: A concise record of the Arab-Israeli conflict" by Leonard J. Davis published by A.I.P.A.C. (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Near East Reports 1989




By Richard H. Shulman

During WWII, the US had every right to bomb civilian centers deliberately. But Israel has no right for helicopter attacks on Hamas leaders, with incidental deaths to bystanders. The difference was that the US was at war, states William F. Buckley Jr., but "of course" Israel is not. The US government usually doesn't moralize on the "Mideast 100-year war," but it and Europe did reproach Israel this time.

"The Israeli killer operation is explained by two standards. One says: Like capital punishment, such treatment of terrorists may deter. A second says: we derive satisfaction from executing such as were directly or indirectly involved in the terrorist operation in Tel Aviv last June that killed 2 of our citizens." (NY Post, 8/4, p.19.) "Satisfaction" falsely implies pleasure.

Europe and the US, which have perpetrated and still perpetrate enormous crimes against humanity, would be better advised to acquire a decent code of ethics before judging others. The US usually does moralize on the Mideast. In doing so, it blunders and inflicts harm. Acting out of bias and ignorance, European and US critics of Israel are not on the side of morality.

The deliberate and thorough US and European bombings of Japanese and German civilian centers were not justified by the state of war. That was terrorism! Mr. Buckley must recognize such a thing as a war crime, for he undoubtedly would categorize German bombing of European civilian centers and Japanese slaughter of Chinese civilians as crimes despite the state of war.

First Buckley asserts that Israel is not in a state of war, then he admits that it has been at war for a "100-year war" (but more like 80 years). Which of his contradictory statements is correct? Consider that there is no peace treaty with half the Arabs, and that the other half breaks the pacts they did sign. Consider that terrorism is a new form of warfare but warfare nevertheless. Consider that the PA leaders have declared themselves at war many times and that Israeli leaders recently have declared it, too, though they didn't want it. Formal declarations of war seldom are made, these days. How much fighting the US has engaged in, without a formal declaration of war! There always seem to be double standards against the Jewish state.

There is no likeness between the US carpet-bombing in Indochina and the Israeli assassinations of terrorist leaders, carefully limiting civilian casualties and usually preventing them altogether. That there occasionally are injured bystanders in Israeli actions should not be held against Israel, but there is a new, mindless notion of waging war without accidents.

Buckley speculates whether the Israeli actions are effective. It is not his "call" to judge whether they should be done. Israel is attempting to remove the middle echelon of commanders, so as to drastically reduce terrorism. If Israel persists, especially if commentators encouraged it to, which might have a drastic effect. As it is, those terrorists liquidated were planning more attacks and sometimes were moving to attack. After all, Buckley described the Israeli raids as "pre-emptive." What could be more ethical than preemptively eliminating terrorists about to murder civilians, again? Just as pirates are to be taken dead or alive, according to international law, so should terrorists be given no quarter.

Buckley also speculates on whether the accused really were Hamas commanders of terrorist raids. That decision, too, is Israel's to make. Besides, in war, one does not first have to investigate whether enemy commanders had seen action, before attacking them. I think that Israel should wipe out the entire terrorist force in the PA, which would include all members of the 9-10 PA "police" forces, the Tanzim, and other PLO and non-PLO militias such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The problem with overly-punctilious moralists is they end up favoring immorality. Buckley and others ought to appreciate Israel's unique surgical approach compared to the US's usual scattergun approach. Israel is minimizing civilian casualties. The West's failure to appreciate what Israel is doing, and its failure to reproach the Arab terrorists for what they are doing, indicates that to the Western governments and media, ethics is a tool of policy and policy is a tool of bias and corporate interests. When will ethics govern politics? Western righteousness is contemptibly hypocritical.

Israel has a just cause -- both self-defense and national self-determination in its own homeland - and uses just means. The Arabs have an unjust cause - aggression and attempt to deny Jewish self-determination - and uses unjust means. Nevertheless, commentators rebuke Israel on its means and its cause, and advocate the cause of the Arabs, regardless of their means.

"Israel's Right to Self-Defense" was the subject of Michael Kelly's "NY Post" column. He disputes the moral equating of killing on both sides, because the Arabs are the aggressors, with the strategic aim of forcing "an emotionally exhausted Israel to surrender on terms that would threaten Israel's viability." Instead of fighting Israeli forces directly, they concentrate on Israeli civilians. Israel has acted defensively. (He means that they don't fight to win, only to thwart attacks) Israel has kept Arab civilian casualties to a minimum.

After two restaurant suicide bombings that killed 35 and wounded over a hundred, Sec. of State Powell said, "I hope that both sides will act with restraint." He was being morally equivalent, i.e., immoral: more than "stupid, it is indefensible." Why should Israel be restrained and what business is it of Powell's? This is war and Israel is losing (8/15, p.27). The Arabs don't exercise restraint.



The Jerusalem Post November, 15 2001


By Jonathan Rosenblum

Conventional wisdom attributes the broad popular support that Israel enjoys in the US to the power of the Jewish lobby and the intense support for Israel among American Jews. That conventional wisdom, however, misses a great deal.

Concern with Israel's security has long since ceased to preoccupy most American Jews. A recent survey by the Jewish Studies Center of CCNY concludes that of the 5.5 million Americans defined by sociologists as Jewish, half list their religion as "other" or "none."

Not surprisingly, ethnic identity of American Jews is declining rapidly. With little sense of themselves as Jews, most American Jews have little connection to one another, much less to Jews far away.

Even among those with more than a minimal Jewish identity, the Israel connection tends to be fickle. Witness the Reform movement's cancellation of programs last summer and the nearly 50% drop out rate among this year's rabbinical and cantorial students at the Conservative Shechter Institute. A mere 135 foreign students are registered for the Hebrew University's one-year program this year, less than a quarter of the number just two years ago.

When American Jews express opinions on Israel, they often appear to be completely out of touch with events here, and with the vast changes in Israeli public opinion over the past year. A recent survey conducted by Jewish groups close to the Clinton administration claims, mirable dictu, that 85% of American Jews want the US to return to the activist role of the Clinton years - 75% even if it leads to confrontations between Israel and the States.

While those numbers must be taken with a grain of salt, the remarkable thing is that they reflect absolutely no change in light of the events of the past year. The sole exception to this bleak general picture is the American Orthodox community. At the typical Israel Day Parade, a large majority of the participants will be wearing knitted kippot and long skirts. Already 20 years ago, historian Lucy Dawidowicz observed that only the Orthodox vote reflects great concern for Jewish interests, among which the security of Jews in Israel is paramount.

Nor is Orthodox support limited to sending checks. Despite a year of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, there has actually been a slight increase in the enrollment of American post-high school students registered in yeshivas and seminaries in Israel.

Over 5,000 single young Orthodox Americans have come this year to study at these institutions, and thousands more young married men are continuing their yeshiva studies.

All this is not to say that the Jewish lobby does not play an important role in Washington, or that American Jewish philanthropy is not vital to Israel. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups are feared, if not always loved, on Capitol Hill. Any politician with national ambitions must consider the heavy concentration of Jews in states rich in electoral votes, and the wildly disproportionate Jewish money contributed to campaigns.

But while Jewish votes assure that New York's senators will always be demonstrably pro-Israel, those votes cannot begin to explain the broad consensus of congressional support for Israel and the consistently positive feelings toward Israel of the general American population.

Many of Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress have traditionally come from states with small Jewish populations: e.g., Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, Attorney-General John Ashcroft, formerly a senator from Missouri; and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Far from being supported by the mainstream Jewish community, these men are often anathematized by Jewish groups for their social conservatism. On a host of issues, from school prayer to aid to educational tax vouchers to abortion, they consistently line up on the opposite side from the organized Jewish community.

These men support Israel not because of the mainstream Jewish community, but despite it. Their views are shaped by their own consciences and reflect the consensus of their overwhelmingly Christian constituents.

Devout Christians constitute the bedrock of American support for Israel. Such Christians number in the tens of millions. Unlike American Jews, they are not embarrassed by criticisms of Israel in certain left-wing circles, and do not cancel tours to Israel after each terrorist incident.

Even a casual survey of the letters to the editor of The Jerusalem Post reveals how avidly many American Christians follow events in Israel. Mindful of the crucial importance of devout Christians, AIPAC employed an evangelical Christian as its chief lobbyist for years.

Orthodox Jews constitute a potentially vital link to the fundamentalist community. They find it easy to talk to believers of other religions. "God talk" does not give them the willies; they also talk like that.

Christian supporters of Israel open up their Bibles and read that Israel is the Promised Land, promised to the Jews. The God-intoxicated Jews they read about in the Bible observe strict dietary laws, honor the Sabbath, and are bound by strict codes of sexual morality.

The Jews of the Bible, however, bear little resemblance to those the average American Christian is likely to see on TV or read about, who are likely to be found at the forefront of every movement of sexual liberation.

Given the image of Jews as the least religious segment of the American population, Christians who take the Bible seriously are bound to ask themselves: Do the Jews of the Bible - the ones to whom the Land was promised - still exist?

Similar questions about the connection between Jews of today and those of the Bible are aroused by the apparent indifference of so many modern Jews to the sanctity of the Land and even to the most important historical sites of their religion, like Rachel's Tomb and the Temple Mount.

Israel's Christian friends are thrilled when they meet Jews who take seriously the Bible's commandments and who continue to cherish the Temple Mount as the place where the Divine Presence dwelt. A visible Orthodox community thus serves as an important corrective to Christian stereotypes about godless Jews.

Orthodox Jews are Israel's secret weapon in the war for American public opinion. They constitute, as a group, Israel's most committed supporters within the American Jewish community. And they serve as a crucial link between Israel and its strongest Christian supporters.

2001 The Jerusalem Post



Editor's Note to Bush, Powell, Peres, Sharon and Jews everywhere. Those described below are NOT peace partners. You must open your eyes and see the Harsh Reality.

The Jerusalem Post, November, 23 2001


By Shlomo Avineri

In 1979, following the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, I was a member of the Israeli delegation that negotiated the cultural, scientific, and educational agreement between our two countries.

This was in the halcyon days of what was then perceived as the new era of peace, initiated by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in November 1977. We all hoped not only for the end of war, but also for the beginning of a process of reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in the region. It was in this spirit that our delegation suggested to our Egyptian counterparts to set up a joint commission on history textbooks.

We took a leaf out of the Franco-German experience, where such a commission, made up of educators and scholars, did much to replace the traditional nationalist narratives on both sides by a more moderate and less confrontational approach. We thought that our Egyptian colleagues would welcome such an initiative.

We were totally unprepared for the Egyptian response. The head of the Egyptian delegation, a deputy minister, virtually went through the roof: "This is totally unacceptable. You want to dictate to us what will be in our textbooks? This is part of our sovereignty".

All our entreaties - bringing the German-French reconciliation as an example between, after all, two sovereign nations - were to no avail. Such a commission was never set up.

I have been haunted by this experience, though at the time we all tended - naively, it now appears - to play it down: what does it matter what is in the schoolbooks, so long as people are not killed on the border and our nations are at peace and not at war?

But more than 20 years later, and in the current global crisis, something can be learned from our exercises in well-intentioned futility. Egyptian textbooks were not changed not only regarding Israel, which continues to be depicted to Egyptian schoolchildren as a Nazi-type country, much as it was when our countries were at war. The image of the United States, and the West in general, has not been changed either from the times of president Gamal Abdel Nasser, and the old anti-Western rhetoric is still dominant. And this has consequences for the current stand of the Egyptian government when it comes to the global war against terrorism.

How can President Hosni Mubarak really mobilize his people - and not only the government - on the side of the war against terrorism when in his own schools, day in and day out, America and the West are depicted as imperialist, colonialist and war-mongering?

Where would Egyptian schoolchildren learn about the democratic values of equality, liberty, rule of law, freedom of speech - if their schoolbooks do not teach them these values? How should he or she know that the West is also about emancipation, not only about imperialism, if this is never mentioned in school? Or if World War II and the victory over Nazism is never really discussed? It is in this context that American support for Israel is also presented in the Egyptian and Arab narrative as another example of the West's imperial designs on the Arab world.

The reason for this convoluted educational policy - recently repeated in newly minted Palestinian textbooks - is obvious: it is an easy, and cheap, way of diverting criticism from the democratic deficit so glaringly obvious in the Arab world, and in Egypt itself.

The absurd allegations against one of Egypt's foremost intellectuals, Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim, recently sentenced to jail by an Egyptian State Security Court, is another example of this total alienation of the Egyptian regime from western, democratic values.

But the Egyptian government has been riding a tiger: by continuing to demonize Israel, it has created the anti-Israeli atmosphere in the Egyptian media and universities that has soured for many Israelis the meaning of peace. And by nurturing anti-Americanism as a defensive strategy, Mubarak's regime has created the sea in which bin Laden's fish can so easily swim. Mohammed Atta first learned to hate the US in Egyptian schools and from Egypt's state-controlled media.

When the US next negotiates strategy with Egypt, not only bases, intelligence-sharing and arms deliveries should be mentioned, but also school textbooks. And when Israel next negotiates - with the PLO, or with Syria - it should look not only at strategic hilltops, but also at textbooks - not as we did in 1979.

A peace that is not anchored in people's hearts and minds is not peace, and it collapses with the first wind. The US has been as generous financially to Egypt as it has been to Israel in the last 20 years: it is now reaping a whirlwind of hatred and is faced by an Egyptian government which is hemmed-in by the consequences of its own educational and ideological anti-Western policies.

Winning the war means that this has also to change, and the burden is on the Egyptian government. Everyone understands the sensitivities involved. But just as there was no compromise about Nazism, there can be no compromise about the ideological underpinnings of the murderous ideology responsible for September 11. As President Bush said, "You are either with us or against us."

(The writer, former director-general of the Foreign Ministry, is currently a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.)

2001 The Jerusalem Post



Anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media

An Interview with Itamar Marcus, Director of the Palestinian Media Watch research institute


Following the broadcast of an anti-Semitic program on Abu Dhabi TV this week, three Israeli radio talk shows interviewed PMW director Itamar Marcus on Monday, Nov. 19. The following is the translation of one of those interviews, distributed by PMW, which discusses the use of blood imagery in the Palestinian media.

Israel Radio "Round Table"

Question: Mr. Marcus, [referring to the anti-Semitic satire of Ariel Sharon on Abu Dhabi television] what influence would you say one satirical program of this sort has?

Itamar Marcus: A single satirical program would have limited influence upon viewers, however, the broadcasting of such programs, depicting Prime Minister Sharon as a murderer thirsty for Palestinian blood, is not a one-time occurrence. This message that Sharon seeks Arab-Palestinian blood is a recurring theme, appearing regularly in the Palestinian media. The Palestinian Authority audiences see this image day after day, week after week. There is little doubt that this continuous portrayal creates the image of Sharon as a monster.

Question: You are saying that this sort of thing is not only broadcast in Abu Dhabi, but in the Palestinian media as well.

Marcus: Yes, this message is one communicated repeatedly in the Palestinian media. Let me give you an example. Just a few weeks ago, a caricature of Prime Minister Sharon appeared in one of the Palestinian dailies, depicting him having a celebratory drink with American President George Bush. The two leaders were toasting one another and on the bottle were the words "Palestinian Blood". Another example: During the Israeli election campaign they published a caricature portraying Sharon and Barak together in a bathtub filled with Palestinian blood. This motif of Palestinian blood - of Israelis celebrating when it spills, of Jews drinking and bathing in it - is a recurring motif in the Palestinian media.

Question: This seems to be a motif taken from the past, the idea of the blood libels made against the Jews, claiming Jews used the blood of Christian children for their Passover rituals. This seems to be a return to those kinds of blood libels and accusations.

Marcus: Indeed. We constantly find pictures and imagery of blood, even of toying with blood. Let me give you an appalling example. A little over a year ago, a film appeared on Palestinian Television in which actors depicted Israeli soldiers raping a Palestinian girl. In the scene, "Israeli soldiers" on patrol come across a Palestinian girl and her parents. The "soldiers" stop their patrol, drag the girl from her parents, and then throw her on top of the jeep where they rape her. When her parents attempt to intervene, a "soldier" stabs the mother with a knife after which he wipes the blood onto the palm of his hand and plays with the blood on his fingers, "toying" with the blood, stroking the blood.

Question: This bodes ill for future generations [of Palestinians], if they are sitting and watching these programs.

Marcus: Yes, it is most disturbing - especially since such messages, the portraying of Israelis as evil monsters, are common on Palestinian television's children programs as well. In one very disturbing film, broadcast on a children's program a number of months ago when the violence was at its height, a young girl is seen returning from school, a book-bag draped over her shoulders. Suddenly, real footage of an IDF helicopter is shown, and then it flashes back to the girl who is now running. Next we see the helicopter shooting a missile, and then the girl falls dead, and her schoolbag flies off to the ground. Here we see how on a children's program, Israeli helicopters are depicted as intentionally targeting young children, no more than seven or eight years old.

One prominent objective of the Palestinian print and broadcast media is to promote hatred and fear by presenting Israelis - even to the youngest viewers - as monstrous, ready and willing to kill them at any time.

Question: What can be done to prevent these kinds of broadcasts?

Marcus: I do not think that it is possible to prevent this kind of programming. After all, we have allowed the Palestinian Authority control over its own media, as well as over its own edcation system, and the motifs discussed here appear, though not as explicitly, in Palestinian textbooks as well. Indeed, we have examined all of the books used in the Palestinian Authority school system and Palestinian schoolbooks are full of problematic material. They teach hatred and promote anti-Semitism. There are those who suggest that we destroy the Palestinian broadcasting ability. However, were we to terminate their television broadcasts, this would merely compound the hatred, while the Palestinians still would have other means of communication at their disposal to teach the same messages. Furthermore, their television programs serve as our window into their internal world. It is essential for us to be able to know what is happening in that world. In particular it is important to learn if there is a change for the better - if they were to introduce education for peace, for example.

Question: Do you believe that there are figures in the Palestinian Authority who oppose this type of programming, people who think differently, who think positively in regard to education for peace?

Marcus: It is difficult to imagine that there are individuals who are openly opposed to these kinds of broadcasts. If these individuals exist, they are not heard as the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian media are ruled completely from above. It is not possible for anyone to object. And we have seen these motifs recurring over a period not only of months, but of years. Although there is fluctuation in the frequency and intensity of the messages related to current events, there has been no genuine change since we initiated our media watch five years ago.



The Jerusalem Post November, 27 2001


By Melissa Radler

Anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim press has sharply increased since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, according to an Anti-Defamation League report released yesterday.

The report, titled "September 11 and the Arab Press: The Anti-Jewish and Anti-American Blame Game," tracks articles in which journalists, columnists, and political and religious leaders celebrated the attacks, blamed Israel for the carrying out the hijackings, criticized US policy and its response to the attacks, condemned world leaders for pinning the blame on Muslims and Arabs, and alleged that the world's media are controlled by Jews and Zionists.

Publications cited by the report include newspapers and Web sites - many of them government-controlled - in Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians Authority, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Qatar.

Among the publications blaming Israel for the attacks is Jordan's Al-Dustour, which on September 13 stated that, "Israel is the only one to benefit greatly from the bloody, loathsome terror operations. It seeks to benefit still more by accusing the Arabs and Muslims of perpetrating their loathsome attack." In The Syrian Times, the former head of Egypt's intelligence service, Amin Hweidi, blamed the Mossad for the attacks, and the paper cited sources holding Israel responsible for the anthrax scare in the US.

Among the articles conveying joy at the attacks is a September 16 declaration in the Egyptian weekly Al-Arabi: "I am happy about [what happened to] America; I am happy about the great number of American dead." On September 17, a columnist for the Egyptian opposition paper Al-Usbu wrote, "Oh Bush, drink from the bitter cup of the blood of your people, so that you will [come to] know that Allah is just!"

From the PA-controlled Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the US was called "the enemy of the democratic aspirations of the Arab peoples" on October 17. In the same edition, editor Hadez al-Barghouthi accused New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who had just refused a $10 million check from a Saudi prince who was critical of US foreign policy, of being "obsessed by his hatred of Arabs even before the terrorist attacks on New York. He hides his first name, chosen for him by his Italian father, so as not to remind the Jewish voters of the infamous Rudolph Hitler."

On October 25, the Palestinian Journalist Association released a statement, reported by Iran's official wire service IRNA, that the western media, including the Washington Post and CNN, "can't be trusted, it is subservient to big money and Zionist circles." Calling on the US to pay closer attention to Arab and Muslim media, ADL national director Abraham Foxman said, "This kind of anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric foments anger and hatred and creates an environment that can embolden terrorists to commit further acts of violence."

2001 The Jerusalem Post



TODAY'S MA'ARIV HEADLINE ["generous withdrawal"] - BASELESS
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser)
Jerusalem, Tuesday, November 27, 2001

[Editor's Note: This scares me. I have learned never to trust statements by politicians.]


Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Bureau states that the main headline in today's Ma'ariv newspaper is completely baseless and without any foundation whatsoever.

[IMRA: The headline in Ma'ariv: "Generous withdrawal - and recognition of a Palestinian State, The Program: Give the US President a Commitment as a 'Deposit'" by Eli Kamir.]

The text continues:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is considering coming next week to Washington with a "personal surprise" for President George Bush: A "diplomatic deposit" that will testify to his intentions for after the achievement of a cease-fire with the Palestinians.

According to the most senior diplomatic sources Sharon will make clear to Bush that immediately after the Palestinians completely honor all the terms of the cease-fire, including the seven days of quiet and a cooling off period of six weeks, he will agree to implement a "generous" third redeployment, authorize a change in the status of Area "B" [Israeli security control] to Area "A" [full Palestinian control], and recognize the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Sharon, according to the source, will not specify the size of the third withdrawal to the American president, but the intention is some ten percent "and maybe a bit more". This will lead to a Palestinian state of an area of slightly more than fifty percent of the territories. The Palestinian state will be part of the long term interim stage, and therefore the terms of the interim agreement will apply, among them Israeli control of the airspace and all borders.

According to diplomatic sources, Sharon will be ready to also consider a series of gestures to the Palestinians, among them implementation of the idea of turning the Atarot airport in northern Jerusalem into an Israeli-Palestinian airport, with the establishment of a secure passageway between the airport and the territories of the Palestinian Authority.

Elements involved in preparing the program explained that Sharon understands full well that he cannot come "empty handed" to the White House. They maintain that if the prime minister leaves the "deposit" with the US president, he will preserve the principle of not engaging in diplomatic negotiation until there is a cease-fire. On the other hand, all the American pressure will be diverted to the Palestinians."

Ma'ariv 27 November 2001


IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis



Editor's Note: I have always believed that Arabs who want to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, those who hate Jews and raise their hands to cast stones, Molotov cocktails, and fire rifles to kill Jews must find another place to live. Those that want to transform Israel from a Jewish state to a terrorist state of "Palestine" must also be driven from Eretz Yisrael.

The Jerusalem Post November, 20 2001


By Moshe Kohn

Rehavam "Gandhi" Ze'evi, was not - as many people have alleged in their desire to shame his memory - the father, the mother, or even the midwife of the "transfer the Arabs out of the Land of Israel" idea. Nor were Ze'evi's alleged spiritual fathers - David Ben-Gurion, Berl Katznelson, Haim Arlosoroff, or any of the other "activist" Socialist Zionist leaders who have been mentioned as advocates of the idea - its inventors.

In his lifetime - and since his martyrdom last month in the cause of Jewish appeasement - Ze'evi has been branded a "fascist" and a "racist" for advocating the idea. If considering the transfer of Arabs from the Land of Israel - by agreement or, if necessary, by coercion - earns one those epithets, then he and those Zionists and other estimable Jews are in the glorious company of such "fascists/racists" as Nobel Peace laureate Fridtjof Nansen, organizer of the mutual transfer of Greek and Turkish populations after World War I; the 31st president of the US, Herbert Hoover; his successors, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman; Nobel Peace Prize laureate Sir Norman Angell; the 1937 Royal (British) Peel Commission; British Col. Richard Meinertzhagen; American author John Gunther; Harry St. John Philby, a rabid British anti-Zionist and adviser to Saudi Arabian ruler Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the man responsible for the transfer of the Hashemite Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula to Transjordan; Rev. James Parkes, English Christian theologian and historian; British secretary for the colonies William Ormsby-Gore; the British Labor Party; British foreign secretary and prime minister Anthony Eden; and other non-Jewish luminaries.

(The history of transfer is told in richly documented detail in Chaim Simons's book, International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine, 1988.)

Let's begin with Herbert Hoover, who was a Quaker, a noted humanitarian, and an engineer by education and profession. (His story is told in greater detail by one of his biographers, Richard N. Smith, in An Uncommon Man, 1984.)

In 1945, Hoover proposed the recovery of some 12 million dunams (three million acres) of land in Iraq for the resettlement of the Arabs of Mandatory Western Palestine. (This designation applied only to the area west of the Jordan River, the eastern part of the Mandate having long since been presented by Winston Churchill to the Hashemite newcomers from Arabia.)

"Palestine itself," Hoover wrote, "could be turned over to Jewish immigrants in search of a homeland." He thought this might prove to be "the model migration in history - transferring Arabs to an Arab nation; restoring agricultural prosperity to the ancient valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, and providing persecuted Jews with a refuge and a beacon. It would be a solution by engineering instead of by conflict," Hoover said. He subsequently wrote a letter of elaboration to the New York World-Telegram newspaper (long since defunct) saying that his proposal offers "a method of settlement with both honor and wisdom." Truman liked the idea.

As for Franklin Roosevelt, today we know things we wish were not so about his response to the 1939-1945 murder of the Jewish people in German-occupied Europe. In light of that, it is interesting to note that he was an ardent supporter of the idea of transfer of the Arabs, at one point even advocating forced transfer if necessary.

In 1942, Roosevelt told his secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.: "I actually would put barbed wire around Palestine, and I would begin to move the Arabs out of Palestine... I would provide land for the Arabs in some other part of the Middle East... There are lots of places to which you could move the Arabs." And he told the under-secretary of state, Edward Stettinius, that "Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in it."

As for the British Labor Party, in 1944 it adopted a pro-Zionist resolution, including a proposal for the transfer of Arabs from Palestine, that was too radical even for some of the Zionist leadership. But that was before it came to power the following year, and came under the sway of that rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Semite, foreign secretary Ernest Bevin.

In 1927, even Iraq's King Feisal I implicitly welcomed the idea of "Muslim Arab peasants from Syria and Palestine" coming to cultivate the vast expanses of unoccupied Iraqi land. A little more than two decades later, Iraqi prime minister Nuri Sa'id put forth the idea of exchanging Baghdad's Jewish population for an equal number of Israeli Arabs.

More recently, a distinguished Jerusalem Arab, Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, has advocated the idea of voluntary transfer. Nusseibeh, is president of Jerusalem's Al-Quds University and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's chosen successor to Faisal Husseini as the PA's "voice of Jerusalem."

2001 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post, November, 20 2001


By Evelyn Gordon

It is still too early to proclaim the Northern Ireland peace process a success, but with David Trimble's narrow reelection as first minister earlier this month, it appears to be back on track.

The greatest optimist could not say the same of the Israeli-Palestinian process. For this, most Israelis justly blame Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Yet the Irish example raises a troubling possibility: that despite Arafat's bad faith, different behavior by Israel and the international community could have produced a different outcome.

Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. It called for a gradual withdrawal of British troops from Ulster, which was implemented; a new government in which Catholics would share power, also implemented; a cease-fire, which the Irish Republican Army honored; and disarmament of all paramilitary organizations - a clause the IRA defiantly ignored.

Initially, the Ulster Unionists tolerated this behavior. But after several disarmament deadlines were missed, the Unionists put their foot down. Even though the arms were not being used, they said, they were no longer willing to participate in a process that the other side was flouting. Trimble backed up this threat by resigning this summer, with other Unionist ministers following later to keep the pressure on. The international community strongly supported them, blaming the imminent breakdown of the process squarely on the IRA. And three weeks ago, the IRA gave in and began decommissioning its arms.

The 1993 Oslo Accord was in many ways similar. It called for gradual Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank and Gaza, establishment of an autonomous Palestinian government, an end to Palestinian terror attacks, and various measures to achieve this latter goal, including the arrest and extradition of terrorists, a clampdown on incitement and the disarmament of all paramilitary groups except official Palestinian security services.

As in Northern Ireland, the ruling party soon began implementing its commitments: Israel carried out four withdrawals, in 1994, 1995, 1997 and 1998-99; gave the Palestinian government elected in 1996 full control over the areas it left and civilian control over most of the rest of the West Bank; and finally offered most of the remaining territory, including eastern Jerusalem, in 2000-2001 (an offer the Palestinians rejected).

As in Ireland, the insurgent party ducked on disarmament: The Palestinian Authority refused to disarm groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, or to carry out its other anti-terror responsibilities (arrests, extraditions, preventing incitement).

There were, however, two major differences. First, unlike the IRA, the Palestinians never honored the cease-fire. In fact, more Israelis were killed by Palestinian terror in the five years after Oslo was signed than in the preceding 15 years.

Second, in sharp contrast to the Unionists - who took only three years to conclude that, despite the successful cease-fire, the time had come to insist that the IRA fulfill its remaining obligations - no Israeli government ever conditioned withdrawals or further negotiations even on fulfillment of the cease-fire, much less on fulfillment of other Palestinian commitments such as disarmament. Some governments, such as that of Yitzhak Rabin, simply pretended that the violations did not exist; others, such as that of Binyamin Netanyahu, railed against the violations but transferred land anyway. But in eight years, no Israeli government ever insisted that PA compliance was necessary for further progress.

And the international community compounded this error: In contrast to its support for Trimble's determined stance on IRA compliance, it exerted mammoth pressure on Israel to continue land transfers despite the far more severe Palestinian violations. The world even actively collaborated in whitewashing these violations. The US State Department, for instance, formally certified the PA as being in compliance every six months, even though not a single PA commitment had, in fact, been met.

The PA, therefore, faced no pressure from either Israel or the world, with the unsurprising result that its violations became ever more flagrant, culminating in the past year's bloody intifada - which so shattered Israelis' belief in Palestinian good faith that the process may well be beyond resurrection.

It is quite possible that no amount of pressure could achieve PA compliance. But the Irish example shows that sometimes, such pressure is effective.

Unfortunately, it seems that neither Israel nor the world has yet grasped this truth: Both the new initiative planned by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the one being launched by the US this week reportedly include new concessions to Arafat. Until the Irish lesson is learned, any diplomatic process will be doomed to failure.

2001 The Jerusalem Post




By Joseph Farah

President Bush has uttered the magic word.


Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, he went further than any U.S. leader has in his support of Yasser Arafat as dictator-for-life of a new Arab police state.

He didn't just talk about his desire to see a Palestinian state. He said the U.S. is "working toward the day when two states – Israel and Palestine – live peacefully together within secure and recognized borders."

Now, they say, there's no turning back. The U.S. has crossed the point of no return in its Middle East meddling.

I guess I can understand why Bush has chosen this road. He has surrounded himself with conventional policy thinkers – Secretary of State Colin Powell and many leftovers from his father's failed administration. It was almost inevitable that he would repeat the mistakes of the Jim Baker years.

But, for the life of me, I don't understand the reaction of American Jews – who should know better.

A public opinion survey published last week suggests most U.S. Jews support a Palestinian state. Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed said the United States should become actively involved in the peace process even if this led to disagreements with Israel. And more than two-thirds are ready to commit U.S. troops to the Middle East to reduce violence.

The poll was sponsored by the Israel Policy Forum, the New York Jewish Week and the Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies.

Why is this hard to believe?

Because I didn't know so many American Jews lived in fantasyland.

That's what is required to believe that Yasser Arafat is ever going to live in peace with Israel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again – because no one else seems to be saying it: There will be no peace – not in the Middle East or anywhere else – until there is a recognition that freedom is the basis of peace.

The last time this truism was a part of American foreign policy was when President Reagan was in the White House and Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the ambassador to the United Nations. She explained that freedom-loving republics rarely go to war with each other. Authoritarian, totalitarian police states start wars.

And that is what we are about to create in the Middle East – one more Jew-hating, totalitarian police state headed by the father of modern-day terrorism, Yasser Arafat.

Worse yet are the timing and motivations behind this move.

The poll of U.S. Jewish opinion showed that most of the respondents believe that this action will help maintain global support for the U.S. war on terrorism.

In other words, following the worst terrorist attack in history, we're yielding to terrorists, compromising with them, giving them exactly what they say they want, so that we can maintain the illusion of global support for the war against terrorism.

It's the worst form of appeasement.

Let's remember who Yasser Arafat is:

a. He's the cold-blooded killer of U.S. diplomats – a crime for which he has escaped justice for 28 years.

b. He's the architect of the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon.

c. He's the author of the Munich Olympics massacre.

d. He's the brains behind the Achille Lauro hijacking at sea.

e. He's the inspiration of the Lod Airport shootings.

f. He's the mastermind of countless foreign assassinations and murders of dissidents among his own ranks.

g. He's even the inventor of the politically motivated airline hijacking.

If he gets his own state it will only be due to his unrelenting campaign of violence directed at Israel and America. By that prescription, should Osama bin Laden survive the next 30 years, we'll need to create a state for him, too. Maybe it will be Afghanistan. Who knows?

The world does not need another Arab police state – one that will terrorize its own people every bit as much as it will terrorize its Jewish neighbor. That's the inevitable future of a Palestinian state under Arafat. It won't solve a thing. It will only make matters worse. It will be the worst sign we can give today's terrorists and tomorrow's terrorists.


Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of and writes a daily column.



The Washington Post Sunday, November 25, 2001


By George F. Will

When Colin Powell retired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993, he quoted Thucydides: "Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses men most." It might have been an impressive example of restraint if the United States had husbanded its power and continued to refrain from intruding itself, with special emissaries and multiplying plans, into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, Secretary of State Powell's Louisville speech about that conflict was useful because it demonstrated that there really is nothing much to be usefully said on the subject at the moment. At least his speech did not make matters worse, or at any rate not much worse.

Before the speech, Powell said he would appeal for Yasser Arafat to use his "moral authority" to stop the terrorists who operate in the territory controlled by Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Perhaps Powell meant that Arafat's status as the world's senior terrorist might make Arafat willing and able to stop terrorism. Perhaps.

Powell did helpfully say that Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a "Jewish state." This U.S. policy opposes Arafat's demand for an unlimited "right of return" for all Palestinians who claim to be connected in some way with those who in 1948 fled Israel, confident that Arab armies would extinguish the new nation.

How important is the "right of return" demand -- which would mean the effective dissolution of Israel -- to Arafat? Prime Minister Ehud Barak's rejection of that demand caused Arafat to scupper the July 2000 Camp David meeting at which Barak, going far beyond any previous Israeli offer and far beyond what he could persuade his country to accept, offered 98 percent of the West Bank and partial Palestinian control of a divided Jerusalem.

In Louisville, Powell made the obligatory denunciation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. They occupy only 1.5 percent of the West Bank, and their legality is indisputable, because the West Bank is an unallocated portion of the League of Nations 1922 Palestine Mandate. And the final status of that territory is to be settled by negotiation.

Perhaps Powell meant only that settlements complicate the "peace process." But, then, what did Powell mean when he said Israel must "end its occupation"? If Powell believes the entire West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, what is to be negotiated? And what becomes of the "land for peace" approach if there is this prejudgment about the land at issue?

In Louisville, Powell endorsed the creation of a "viable" Palestinian state. Well. Leave aside the fact that Switzerland would not be viable if governed by the thugocracy that is Arafat's Palestinian Authority. But does Powell believe that the territory currently controlled by the Palestinian Authority is inherently unviable as a state? If so, what territorial adjustments would be necessary for viability? And how might those be squared with his call for "taking full account of Israel's security needs"?

Does Powell believe that Israel's 1967 borders, within which Israel was at one place just 11 miles wide, were defensible? And what does he think an Israeli withdrawal to those borders would accomplish, given that in 1967 Arafat rejected Israel's right to exist, and today he says that an Israel with the 1967 borders would be illegitimate?

Powell is dispatching two officials to rev up the "peace process." The idea that this is a propitious moment for that is akin to the State Department's recent idea that the Northern Alliance should be asked to stop at the outskirts of Kabul while U.S. diplomats fine-tune Afghanistan's political conditions.

Powell's emissaries follow CIA Director George Tenet's mission, which followed former senator George Mitchell's mission, which produced the idea that the problem between Israel, which intends to exist, and her enemies, who say she should not, is a lack of "confidence." Hence the centerpiece of the Mitchell plan -- "confidence-building measures."

Powell's emissaries will urge Arafat to arrest -- or re-arrest; or re-re-arrest -- some terrorists for his revolving-door jails. The hope is that Israel will then drop its supposedly utopian demand for a week -- yes, seven whole days -- without violence before proceeding with "confidence-building."

When Arafat launched the current wave of violence 14 months ago, his pretext was Ariel Sharon's visit to Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The next time Powell meets with the world's senior terrorist, he should ask Arafat: Do you deny, in spite of abundant historical and archeological evidence, that the Temple Mount is the location of the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 A.D.? When Powell hears Arafat's answer, Powell's confidence may need to be rebuilt.

2001 The Washington Post Company



Center For Strategic Studies, November 20, 2001


By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

About a decade ago, a President named George Bush dismissed criticism that he was pursuing short-sighted policies by saying he lacked the "vision thing." Let's hope it's not genetic, because the son and namesake who now occupies the White House has lately begun talking about a "vision" of the Middle East that is at odds -- perhaps dangerously so -- with current and prospective realities in the region.

In recent remarks, President George W. Bush and his subordinates have begun enthusing about a "vision" of Israel and a new nation called "Palestine" living side-by-side in peace and security. This initiative is reportedly a product of intense pressure for U.S. "engagement" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict coming from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other, so-called "moderate" Arab states whose help Mr. Bush believes is critical to the war on terrorism.

On NBC's Sunday morning talk show "Meet the Press," the President's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, explained what her boss has in mind. "Palestine is simply a term for a state that might exist for the Palestinian people. What the president was doing was to lay out a vision of where we might be, should we be able to encourage the parties to get back into a process that leads to a permanent peace in the Middle East. And in that vision, he does see an Israeli state, our good friend Israel, that is secure, where it is fully recognized and accepted that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders, where terrorism has been wiped out as a factor in the Middle East, and where the Palestinian people have a state in which they can determine their own fate and their own future."

The problem with the Bush "vision" is that it not only bears no resemblance to today's realities. It also ignores the vision Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority (PA) have for the future of Israel.

Despite the rhetoric Arafat has served up from time to time since the Oslo peace accords were signed nine years ago -- usually in English and always for Western consumption -- about recognizing Israel's right to exist and making a "peace of the brave" with the Jewish State, Arafat has consistently communicated a very different vision to his people: The state of "Palestine" will exist instead of Israel, not side-by-side with it.

This message is most unmistakably communicated by the PA's official maps of "Palestine." These images -- which appear on the Authority's web site, in its offices, at its cultural events, on its television programming, on the uniforms of its "police" and, most appalling of all, in its textbooks --show a country made up of all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and all of pre-1967 Israel.

Unfortunately, these maps are not set forth as a means of reconciling the Palestinians and others to a goal that is maximalist and deserved, but unrealizable. Rather, they are calculated to convey even to illiterate Arabs throughout the Middle East that the Palestinian leadership continues to adhere to the "Phased Plan" it first enunciated in 1974.

At that time, the Palestine Liberation Organization and its friends were coping with their latest military defeat at Israeli hands in the "Yom Kippur" war of the previous year. Recognizing that Israel's relative power and its conquest of strategic high ground on the West Bank and Golan Heights meant that the war option was effectively foreclosed, the Palestinians declared that they would use whatever means were available (terror, blackmail, international pressure, negotiations, etc.) to induce Israel to relinquish some territory. This first "phase" would then be followed by a second one in which the rest of the land "occupied" by Israel -- including the Jewish State itself -- would be "liberated."

It would hardly be visionary for America to press Israel to make further territorial and other concessions in the face of such declared Palestinian ambitions. Rather, it would be more accurate to describe such pressure as an act of cognitive dissonance -- the phenomenon of refusing to perceive facts that are incompatible with one's beliefs and plans.

For a great power like the United States, that sort of conduct would perhaps amount to little more than the latest in a series of misbegotten American Mideast peace initiatives. For a nation in Israel's exposed position, however -- in a hostile and ever-more-dangerously-armed region (a condition to which the U.S. itself has regrettably contributed with the sale of advanced weapons like the Harpoon 2 to Egypt), such behavior could give rise to a mortal peril.

That is clearly not what President George W. Bush has in mind. His commitment to the security and prosperity of a democratic Israel that shares our values and interests seems as authentic and firm as it is laudable. He will not be able to realize his vision for the Middle East, though, by allowing his administration to pursue policies that are blind to the present and predictable realities -- realities that endanger Israel and that will render any "peace process" a formula for renewed war, not secure regional tranquility.



The Jerusalem Post November, 28 2001


By Michael Freund

After months in which tourism has been in decline, now might be a good time for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sit down and write a proper thank you note to the American government. For while average Americans have been staying away from Israel in droves, it seems as if American officialdom has become one of the most important sources of income for Israel's tourism industry.

First, there was former senator George Mitchell, who visited and wrote a copious report on the situation in the region, one that has already become a classic example of political science fiction. Mitchell was followed by the CIA's George Tenet, who sought to build on Mitchell's "success" by hastily arranging a cease-fire between the two sides. But that, too, did not work out very well. As we all know, Israel did the ceasing, but the Palestinians kept on firing.

Now this week, Gen. Anthony Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State William Burns have popped in to say hello, something that is sure to result in more than a few empty mini-bars at one of Jerusalem's finer hotels. Who says tourism to Israel is dead?

The timing of the current Zinni-Burns visit could not have been more ironic. Tomorrow, November 29, marks the 54th anniversary of the 1947 UN partition plan, when the General Assembly voted to dissolve the British mandate for Palestine and establish in its place a Jewish and Arab state in the Land of Israel. Though the resolution called for the painful division of the land west of the Jordan River, and would have created a truncated and indefensible Jewish state, most Jews were nevertheless pleased that it recognized their right to have a state of their own.

The Arab reaction, however, was less than sanguine. Riots began on November 30, the day after the partition plan was ratified, and intensified in the months that followed. In his memoir, Israel: A Personal History, prime minister David Ben-Gurion notes that more than 900 Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists in the four months after the UN resolution. Shortly thereafter, when the British Mandate came to an end and the new State of Israel was established, the Arabs underlined their opposition by launching a full-scale assault on the nascent Jewish state. Their aim was clear: to wipe Israel off the map.

The rest of the story is well-known, but what is less well-known is that in the weeks leading up to the November 29 vote, the Jewish delegation to the UN came under intense pressure from the United States to forego much of the Negev and agree to give it to the Arabs. As former foreign minister Abba Eban, who at the time served as a member of the Zionist delegation to the UN, notes in his memoirs Personal Witness, "Early in November, the United States, influenced by British pressure, requested us to yield the Southern Negev to the Arabs. American representatives were even hinting that without this concession they would abandon support of the partition plan."

It was only after Chaim Weizmann, who would later serve as Israel's first president, met with president Harry Truman, and convinced him of Israel's need for the Negev, that the State Department backed down from this demand.

Now, decades later, an American secretary of state is trying once again to compel Israel to yield parts of the land, calling for an end to "the occupation" and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Then, they wanted the Jews to yield the Negev, whereas now they want Israel to part with Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Such attempts, however, are doomed to failure, if only because the Arabs themselves refuse to cooperate. In 1947, the Jewish people agreed to divide the Land, in the hope that it would bring peace. In 1993, in the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed to subtract from the land, giving away parts of it in exchange for promises of reconciliation. In both cases, though, the math just did not add up. The Palestinian Arabs rejected what they had been offered, preferring instead to resort to violence as a means of trying to take it all.

So while they are out touring the sights, Zinni and Burns might do well to brush up on their math, keeping in mind that further land subtractions by Israel will only bring about further bloodshed, something nobody wants. Since dividing and subtracting the land have not worked, Israel now has little choice but to resort to other forms of arithmetic, such as addition and multiplication - because, thanks to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's lethal obstinacy, the only remaining option is for Israel to take back that which should never have been given away in the first place.

The math, as they say, speaks for itself.

(The writer served as deputy director of Communications and Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

2001 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post November, 29 2001


By Shmuel Katz

Not the least disturbing reaction to last week's speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell is the welcome it has been given by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

Powell's speech is an amazing concoction. First of all, it follows in the footsteps of the Mitchell Committee, which was briefed specifically not to blame anybody for the situation created by the current violence. From the very outset then, people in Israel were killed: large numbers were suicide bombed, and some were lynched. Everybody knew who was to "blame." The gimmick of blaming nobody meant blaming everybody, and so half the blame for the Palestinian aggression was transferred by the Mitchell committee onto the shoulders of Israel.

Thus, the Mitchell Report is distinguished by a silly display of moral equivalence between aggression and retaliation; and all are described as "both sides." That was not enough, however. The committee strayed even from its loaded briefing, set itself up in judgment and laid a sanction on Israel's head: Israel must stop building or even developing settlements. Lo and behold, the sanction is precisely what the United States administrations have been demanding of Israel over the years - long before the latest round of violence. There is no escaping the conclusion that one reason for the committee's appointment was simply to promote the anti-settlement agenda.

Powell talks the same language as the committee. "Palestinians," he tells us, "need security as well." Of course they do; and the family of any Palestinian who lost his life or any Palestinian who has himself been injured in the current unrest, can blame only Arafat and his terrorist gangs. What's more, it is of no use and not moral to speak, as Powell did, of persuading (or "prodding") both sides to observe a cease-fire.

How many cease-fires have there been? Does Powell know? Five, six, who remembers? And they have not been broken by "both sides." They have been broken by Arafat, who no doubt jokes about the stupid Israelis who continue to take his promises seriously.

The issue however goes much deeper, and the efforts made to achieve "instant" solutions are ill-informed and depressingly shallow. Powell refers several times to the "occupation." Sharon and even Peres should have objected immediately to his use of the Palestinian term which encapsulates one of the great lies of our time. It is, of course, the Palestinians who invented an Israeli "occupation of Palestine lands" and have successfully promoted the lie all over the world.

An American secretary of state, however, should know his history better. The only unlawful occupation that has taken place in Palestine since the United Nations resolution on partition in 1947, was the occupation in 1948 of Judea and Samaria by the Kingdom of Jordan, and of the Gaza district by Egypt. These "occupations" were the result of their war - together with Syria - designed, and so proclaimed, to destroy the infant State of Israel at birth. That war gave birth to the Armistice Lines of 1949; Jordan promptly and illegally occupied and annexed Judea and Samaria, and even renamed itself TransJordan in order to reflect their inclusion in the Kingdom.

The Arabs living in Palestine manifestly made no move at all. No one protested at the Jordanian or Egyptian occupations, and there was no mention of any place called "Palestinian lands." They had then not yet been invented. A terrorist group, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) did indeed arise in 1964, but it attacked not the Jordanian occupiers, but Israel. The historical fact is that it is not the "settlements" that have brought about Arab aggression and nearly continuous terror - they are simply part of the plan to put an end to Israel.

For this very reason, the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians in June 1967 again attacked Israel, then still bounded by the 1949 Armistice Lines. They proclaimed in advance, with great fanfare, that finally the Jewish State was about to disappear. They failed, and Israel, fighting a defensive war, liberated the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt. These areas are part of the territory of the Mandate conferred on Britain in 1922, in which to "reconstitute the Jewish National Home," and nothing that has happened since has cancelled or diminished the consequent right of Jews to settle in these areas.

We come to a most crucial and misleading element in Powell's speech. He says that American policy would be based on Resolutions 242 and 338, "which are rooted in the concept of land for peace." They are not rooted in anything of the sort. Resolution 242 of July 1967 requires Israel to withdraw from "territories," but "to secure and recognized boundaries." This was not a resolution fair to Israel and evoked considerable resentment. However, it was finally accepted.

Had the Arabs accepted this resolution there would have been negotiations as to where those borders should be. They rejected the text of the resolution and submitted a different text for 242. In their text, Israel would be required to withdraw from all the territories. At the end of the debate (at the Security Council) the Arab proposal was defeated. But ever since then a central element in their anti-Israel propaganda was that their defeated text had been accepted! It was the Arabs who made up the fiction that Resolution 242 (and 338, which came later) are "rooted in the concept of land for peace."

It is most unfortunate that an American statesman should help popularize distortions of a United Nations decision which only serves to strengthen the determination of Israel's enemies.

As for the approval by Sharon and Peres of Powell's speech - it is a shocking and dangerous blunder for which, if not comprehensively corrected immediately, Israel will pay a heavy price.

2001 The Jerusalem Post



Editor's Note: Major Pine recently lost his security clearance and command from the US Army with no real explanation except that he was "too close to Israel."


By Major Shawn Pine

The arrival in Israel of retired General Anthony Zinni to broker yet another cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians underscores the fatally flawed, and arguably morally bankrupt, US foreign policy in the region. The events of September 11 should have been a final wake-up call that the United States is pursuing a dangerous and fatally flawed strategy in the region. Unfortunately, the approach of the United States in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, reflect the Kafkaesque nature of US policy and decision making in the Middle East.

The public pronouncements of the President and Secretary of State underscore the hypocritical and myopic nature of US foreign policy in the region. Only a little over two months prior to September 11, Secretary of State Powell, in responding to the Israeli policy of targeting Palestinians terrorist leaders that were responsible for a myriad of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, stated that the Israeli policy "is too aggressive and it just serves to increase the level of tension and violence in the region." Ironically, less than two months later Powell, in reference to Al Queda, was saying "it will not be over until we have gotten into the inside of this organization, inside its decision cycle, inside its planning cycle, inside its execution capability, and until we have neutralized and destroyed it."

Unfortunately, this double standard extended to the Presidency. In the days immediately following the September attacks, President Bush proclaimed "our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them, from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." The President went on to proclaim in his September 20 speech "by aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Queda who hide in your land. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you are with us or you is with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Given these public US statements towards Islamic terrorism, we should expect greater US - Israeli cooperation and understanding of the challenges confronting Israel. Yet, rather than support Israeli actions against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the US is calling for Israeli restraint and saying that their war against Islamic terrorism is unjustified, notwithstanding that on a per capita basis Israel has suffered three times the loss as that of the US. All of this while the United States pursues an unfettered war against Al Queda.

The United States acts as if the Tenet and Mitchell reports were created in a vacuum. These reports were developed as a result of Islamic terrorism and Arafat's unwillingness to fulfill his commitments agreed upon under the Oslo Accords. Any rational and objective observer of the Middle East understands that Arafat's tolerance and support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is no different than the Taliban's support of Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. Moreover, while each Islamic terrorist group has nuances unique to their location and immediate objectives, they share the same long-term goals. The goals of Islamic Jihad and Hamas are first and foremost the destruction of Israel and then the West. The goals of Al Queda are first and foremost the destruction of Western influence in the region and then the destruction of the West. Given the US strategic position, its stance towards Islamic terrorism is very simple, kill Americans and we will come after you, kill Israelis and we will use our influence to squeeze more concessions for you. However, this should come as a surprise to anyone. It is not by accident that countries have common interests not friends. The US is formulating its regional policy in pursuit of what it perceives to be its own strategic interests, at the expense of Israeli regional interests.

Israel now finds itself confronted with the same dilemma it faced a decade ago. During the Persian Gulf War Israel was asked to absorb Iraqi SCUD attacks without response. This was done in deference to US security interests in the region and US perception that an Israeli response would weaken the "coalition" it had built to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The United States was not concerned that Israel's acquiescence dealt its deterrence credibility a deleterious blow and served to embolden and increase terrorist attacks from Hizballah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This deterioration in Israel's deterrent credibility has increased as Israel continued to participate in the peace process, under pressure from the US, despite the clear surety that Arafat had not undergone a metamorphosis and increasing attacks on Israel's civilian population. Now, once again the United States is asking Israel to subservient the safety and security if its citizens so that it can retain the ephemeral support of its Arab allies in its war against Osama bin Laden.

One thing should be obvious. It is the responsibility of the Israeli leadership to protect its citizens. Today Israel is being pressured to makes its security interests subservient to the US strategic interests as the US tries to maintain a worldwide "coalition" in its war against Al Queda and Osama bin Laden. Consequently, the United States will compel Prime Minister Sharon to sign yet another agreement and continue the "peace process." All this in exchange for yet another declaration by Arafat renouncing terrorism and expressing his support for the peace process. Yet Arafat's actions have belied all of his public declarations and this one will be no different. This cycle will continue until a final agreement is reached and the United States can proclaim that peace has been achieved between Israel and the Arabs. It would behoove Israeli leaders to review the history of the US brokered peace treaty between North and South Vietnam before agreeing to be led down this road.

There has been a subtle but discernible shift in US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Israel is no longer perceived as a strategic asset in the region. During the Cold War the US saw Israel as a manifestation of Western strength and a projection of US power in the region. The Persian Gulf War and the current conflict in Afghanistan has shown Israel to be an albatross to US strategic interests. This view has always been that of the State Department and is growing within the US intelligence community and Defense Department, not to mention the current administration. As the US continues to export vast amounts of weaponry and train the Arab forces this shift will be exacerbated.

Unfortunately, the United States is pursuing a very myopic and ultimately destructive policy. It appears that Lenin's famous dictum, that the capitalists would sell the communists the rope in which to hang the West, is coming to fruition. Since the Gulf War the West, mainly the United States, has provided the Arab states in the region with nearly a trillion dollars of the most sophisticated Western armaments. These include F-16's., M1A1 tanks and cruise missiles. While the United States has been involved in a decade long reduction of its military the Arabs have embarked on an historically unprecedented military buildup. Combined, the Arab countries of the Middle East can field a military more than twice the size of the United States in most areas and can field a military force approaching it in quality. Many of the largest recipients of Western military aid, specifically Egypt and Saudi Arabia, face formidable challenges to their rule. It is not unthinkable that these countries could go the way of Iran. Indeed, the CIA expressed such a concern in 1995. Should this happen the United States would be facing a formidable enemy. One that is Western trained and equipped with sophisticated Western armaments.

Even if these regimes are able to retain power indefinitely their regional interests are antithetical to many US regional strategic objectives. Egypt is already balking at the notion of the US bringing its 'war" to Iraq and Somalia. At some point the US will have to acquiesce to the demands of its Arab allies or confront them. The Arab league has already announced its objection to any US attacks on Iraq. It is important to note, the Arab countries do not need to field an offensive military force. They need merely to field a strong enough force to thwart any Western attempt to seize control of their oil reserves should they decide to embargo the West and Japan. There is a precedent for this and as the Arab countries increase their military strength they will be embolden to challenge the West to modify their positions, especially concerning Israel, or face economic devastation. Given the evidence of the US conduct in their "war" against terrorism the US will probably capitulate diplomatically.

The United States is in a unique historical position to use its power to cement its position in a unipolar world. Unfortunately rather than exerting leadership the United States is succumbing to an international political correctness in which it is almost apologetic in its position as the worlds only remaining superpower. Rather than boldly supporting its only democratic ally in the Middle East the United States has essentially proclaimed that Israeli lives are subservient to US political interests in the region. Rather than developing a coherent military plan to destroy Islamic terrorist organizations the United states is involved in diplomatic double speak in which only certain Islamic terrorists are bad while the motivations of other terrorists "need to be addressed." Such a policy will serve to ensure that Huntington's warning of an impending Clash of Civilizations will surely come to fruition.


Shawn Pine is a Major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence and is a military/strategic analyst. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East and is a research associate of the Israeli-based Ariel Center for Policy Research and the US-based Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments