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"

VOLUME 10       B"H DECEMBER 2002       NUMBER 11



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

SEVEN LIES ABOUT JENIN....Commentary by Dr. David Sangan

THE BUSH FAMILY ROAD MAP....Emanuel A. Winston

WAIT NO LONGER....Boris Shusteff

JEWS AND JUSTICE....Louis Rene Beres
KILLING TEAMS....Emanuel A. Winston
15,000 AND COUNTING....Michael Freund

ISRAELI P.R. MAN....Richard H. Shulman




THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright © 2002 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 had 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. Today in Israel, a similar situation has developed. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Yossi Beilin Shimon Peres led a left wing coalition that was blatantly hostile to everything Jewish. They planned to give away 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 are being recruited from the non-religious population for the sole purpose of suppressing and possibly destroying the religious villages of YESHA.

Barak and Peres, anxious to win favor with the Arabs, much like Jason and the Greeks, plan to give away Israel's strategic assets. Territory is not important if your new god is economics. While the Israeli government under Rabin, Peres and Barak renounced anything Jewish, including Holy Sites, the Arabs seek strength and comfort in a revived Islam. Nothing portrayed 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. Some Jewish soldiers were uncertain about their open-fire instructions, demoralized by a government which lied to them about the advent of peace.

Let us be Maccabees again. Let the IDF go into battle with the Maccabee cry, "All who are with G-d, follow me!" With the words: "Who is like unto Thee 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. Like Judah Maccabee, angered by the treason of Jason and Menelaus, and outraged by Antiochus, we must revolt against the Israeli left.

We must let the glow of the Chanukah lights inspire us to return to our roots as a proud, strong and fearless nation.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of The Maccabean Online and the freemanlist.




by Avi Davis

12 November 2002

It didn't take too long. Only 73 days after a United Nations report found no evidence whatsoever of an Israeli massacre in Jenin, the accusation has been revived. The Jenin massacre is a story , despite its absolute fabrication, that will not die. Reports from the Palestinian papers claim that the United Nations report was a cover-up and a Palestinian documentary entitled Jenin, Jenin apparently presents the true story. Britain's Guardian reported, in coverage of former IDF Commander-in-Chief Shaul Mofaz's recent appointment as defense minister, that "he directed some of Israel's most controversial military operations in the West Bank earlier this year, including Jenin -- where a Palestinian refugee camp was all but demolished."

Yet the facts are these: the refugee camp at Jenin is 3,500 square meters and fighting only took place in a 200-square-meter area (about 6% of the total area of the camp). The camp at Jenin had 1,100 houses, yet only 95 booby-trapped houses were demolished by the IDF (about 8% of the total number of homes). The area eventually demolished was half the size of a football field, not an entire town.

The United Nations report by the Secretary-General on Jenin ( confirms the findings that there was no "massacre" of Palestinians by Israel, and that Palestinians deliberately set up terrorist operations in civilian centers. The report states in Paragraph 56: "Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. IDF also place the death toll at approximately 52. A senior Palestinian Authority official (Saeeb Erekat) alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged."

At the end of the Jenin section, the report states again: "Once IDF granted full access to the camp on 15 April, unexploded ordnance impeded the safe operations of humanitarian personnel. Non-United Nations humanitarian agencies reported that large amounts of unexploded ordnance, laid by Palestinian terrorists and the IDF, slowed their work. Negotiations carried out by United Nations and international agencies with IDF to allow appropriate equipment and personnel into the camp to remove the unexploded ordnance continued for several weeks, during which time at least two Palestinians were accidentally killed in explosions."

The same evidence of the terrorist nature of the camp continues to percolate through the rubble today. The Village Voice reports that Ian Rinell, a 52-year-old British explosive ordnance disposal expert working with a Scandinavian-funded de-mining team, has cleared thousands of "improvised terrorist devices" from Jenin. "We found 4668 items, of which 804 were live," he said. Rinnell's team gets called all the time by "people who are not happy about things... like two-meter-long pipe bombs planted in the road near their houses... And there were instances when guys with guns would show up and demand their bombs back," he said. Indeed, the real impact of both the UN and Village Voice reports is the confirmation of the international community's and non-governmental organizations' propensity to question Israeli assertions, while accepting, without question, wholesale fabrications and exaggerations by Palestinian leaders.

Not content with such falsifications, Amnesty International's report on the IDF's assault against terrorist bases in both Jenin and Ramallah was issued last week. Those who have the patience to scroll through its 76 pages will find few comments or opposing facts or statistics tendered by the Israeli government or the IDF. Instead, allegations of unlawful killings, the use of "human shields", torture, the blocking of medical assistance and the destruction of property, is detailed with almost sole reliance on Palestinian sources and NGOs. The report is riven with failures of corroboration, taking at face value statements of Palestinians while adding next to nothing from the Israelis. In addition, in its lengthy discussion of international law and its allegations of Israeli war crimes, the report fails entirely to acknowledge that carrying out military activities from a civilian area, as was conducted by Jenin's terrorists, is a profound violation of international law. Why, one might wonder, does the report fail to acknowledge that military activities conducted from a civilian area are legitimate targets of military reprisal if the reprisals are proportionate to the threat to the victim state? In the light of this universally accepted legal doctrine, why does it also fail to recognize that the self-declared aim of these terrorists, who do not function individually, but in planned, team co-ordinated operations, is the destruction of the State of Israel?

If Palestinian terrorism is understood in this way, it seems ludicrous to contend that the IDF's actions in Jenin were disproportionate or not in keeping with humanitarian law. The conflict is properly characterized as war and, with the Israelis experiencing attacks throughout the country, it can be legitimately described as a war of survival. No one who has witnessed the devastation wrought by homicide bombers in Israel and the imminent threat to Israeli civilian life created by the Palestinian terrorist campaign can reasonably claim that the Israeli operation in Jenin, a hotbed of this terrorism, was unjustified or disproportionate.

The 22 Palestinian civilian casualties of Jenin are therefore not war crimes. Nor are any other of the measures that Israel has undertaken to eliminate the terrorist menace to its population and protect its population. They are in direct proportion to the actions and threatened actions of the enemy. Conversely, it is not the Israelis, but Palestinian terrorists who must now be held accountable for war crimes by the NGOs. They must be treated as trained, armed militia and not merely, as they have been until now, as civilians who have taken up armed resistance against an occupier. Their terrorist actions must be assessed against the standards for how an army should conduct itself in the field and made to understand that reprisals against military targets are sanctioned by international law, even when they take place in civilian areas. Only when the human rights organizations and other NGOs who work so feverishly to find fault with Israel understand this, will truth finally come to displace myth as the governing principle for judging human rights abuses in the Israel- Palestinian conflict.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for



Ma'ariv, 8.11.2002 [Translation by Israel Government Press Office]


Commentary by Dr. David Sangan

I watched Muhammad Bakri's film Jenin, Jenin in a limited forum, with Jerusalem Cinematheque Director Leah Van Leer and several journalists. After the private screening, I responded and indicated each lie and lack of credibility. One of those present at the screening was outraged: "If you don't accept the facts in the film, you apparently don't understand anything; how can you be a doctor?"

For a moment, I forgot that I had been in Jenin last April, serving as a regional brigade doctor, while this viewer had, at best, been fed on rumors. Bakri expertly weaves together lies and half-truths until it becomes very difficult not to be seduced by the distorted picture he creates.

I did not succeed in convincing the Cinematheque management to cancel the screening. I was told that the pictures of destroyed homes were authentic and that there was, therefore, truth in the film, and that the film would be shown around the world in any case. Even so, I was invited to its premiere screening in Jerusalem and I arrived in order to explain my position to the audience. Following are several points that I wished to raise to the audience:

1. Dr. Abu Riali, director of the hospital in Jenin, claims in the film that the western wing of the hospital was shelled and destroyed and that the IDF knowingly hit the hospital's water and power supplies. There never was any such wing and in any case, no part of the hospital was either shelled or blown up. IDF soldiers took care not to enter its grounds even though we knew that it was serving as a refuge for several wanted fugitives. We guarded the water, electricity and oxygen supplies to the hospital all throughout the fighting and assisted in setting up an emergency generator after the city's electrical system was damaged. Bakri himself is seen in the film wandering the hospital's clean and well-kept corridors, but not in the blown up wing. I met him outside the theater and asked him if he had visited the western wing. At first he said no, then he corrected himself and said, "You remember one moment in the film with shattered glass - it was from there." It is important to point out that this Abu Riali is one of the "authorized sources" for the claim of a "massacre." At the beginning of the operation, he was interviewed on Al-Jazeera television and spoke of, "thousands of victims."

2. Another impressive part of the film is the interview with a male 75-year-old Jenin resident who mumbles and cries and tells how he was taken out of his bed in the middle of the night, shot in the hand, and after he failed to obey the soldiers' command to get up, was shot again in the foot. I met this very same old man as he was brought to me after an operation to clear one of the Hamas cells' houses in the refugee camp. He had indeed been lightly injured in the hand and was suffering from a minor scratch on the foot, but certainly not as the result of a bullet. IDF soldiers transferred him to a secure station that had been set up to treat wounded and there he was treated by me, among others. One of the military doctors identified diagnosed a heart problem. We suggested that he be transferred immediately to Haemek Hospital in Afula for treatment. He asked to be treated at the hospital in Jenin since he did not speak Hebrew. After the hospital refused to admit him, we transferred him to Afula and he stayed there for three days in the internal medicine department for treatment of his heart problems and the anemia that he suffered from as a result of another chronic illness.

3. Another person who was interviewed spoke about a baby who suffered a chest wound from a bullet that entered through his chest and exited his body, creating a hole in his back. According to the film the baby died after IDF soldiers prevented his evacuation to hospital. A baby's body with this type of injury has never been found. Moreover, such an injury would have been fatal, and evacuation would not have saved his life. What is this baby's name? Where did his body disappear to?

4. The same person interviewed also told how, using his finger, he opened the baby's airway in his neck after he was injured. Again, a complete lie. Such an action cannot be carried out with a finger. This "witness" adds that tanks ran over living people many times until they were completely crushed - this never happened and is imaginary.

5. The film mentions a mass gravesite that IDF soldiers dug for Palestinian dead. Every international organization that investigated the matter concur that there were 52 Palestinian dead in Jenin, and that all the bodies were returned to the Palestinians for burial. Bakri does not bother to show the supposed location of this mass gravesite.

6. Israeli planes that supposedly bombed the city are mentioned in the film. There were no such planes. In order to prevent civilian casualties, only focused helicopter fire was used.

7. It is interesting to note that Bakri was not present in Jenin at the time of the operation, and only arrived two weeks after it was completed. In pictures shot at the site in the center of Jenin, the damage appears much larger than it was in actual fact, and the martyrs' pictures and jihad slogans - which had been present at the time of the IDF military operation - had disappeared from the walls of houses. The film systematically and repeatedly uses manipulative pictures of tanks taken in other locations, artificially placing them next to pictures of Palestinian children.

In general, this is a vulgar, but extremely well done, work of manipulation. At the conclusion of the film, hundreds of viewers gave Bakri and the film's editor a standing ovation. Bakri asked the audience if there were any questions. I presented myself, I went up to the stage and began to systematically list the lies and inaccuracies in the film.

At first there were whispers in the audience, and later scornful calls, and I was labeled a "murderer," "war criminal" etc. I had barely succeeded in finishing my second point when a man in the audience aggressively came up on stage and tried to take the microphone out of my hand. I decided not to be dragged into violence. I allowed him to take the microphone and left the stage. I was surprised that only a few people stood up for my right to free speech and free expression. I was shocked that the audience was unwilling to hear the facts from someone who had physically been there.

It was difficult for me as a person, as a father and a doctor to hear calls of "murderer" from my people. I said that I did not kill anyone. But the calls became more heated, immense hatred was directed towards me. It left me with a hard feeling that has not subsided. I am not sorry that I went to the Cinematheque that evening. I am certain that in any case there were people who heard my doubts, and that this changed a small amount of their feelings towards the "facts" they saw. I am sure there were other people who were shocked at the intolerance demonstrated by the audience, but even so, it is hard for me [to accept] that they were the silent minority.

Allow me to say what I was unable to say to those people that evening. I am proud that I was part of this excellent and ethical force that operated in Jenin, regular army soldiers and reservists with motivation and a fighting spirit, who went to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in its capital. Many suicide-bombers came from Jenin, and were responsible for the murder of the elderly, women and children on our streets. I am proud that we were there, that we fought, and I also am proud of the morality of the battle. The camp was not bombed from the air in order to prevent innocent civilian casualties, and artillery was not used even though we knew about specific areas in the [refugee] camp where terrorists were holing up. IDF soldiers fought against terrorists, and terrorists only. Before destroying a building where terrorist fire against our soldiers had originated from, as many warnings as could be allowed, were given, so that the people could leave without injury. The medical team administered medical aid to all casualties, even if they had Hamas tattoos on their hands. At no point was any person refused medical treatment.

This battle, heroic on one hand and ethical on the other, took a heavy toll from the best of our fighters! We who had to be there - the soldiers that fell there, their families and the IDF - do not deserve that Muhammad Bakri should incite the world to murder and hatred at our expense.



New road map: Israel forfeits physical and diplomatic right to self defense.

[IMRA: Under the road map, Israel immediately forfeits its right to defend itself either physically by military operations or in the world court of public opinion. The Government of Israel would cease to publish or distribute information that puts the Palestinian Authority in an unfavorable light.

Under the road map, Israel also forfeits its right to determine that the Palestinians have failed to honor their obligations and instead relies on the judgement of the "Quartet" with the US having veto rights. Over the course of Oslo the United States has consistently taken the position that for the sake of "progress" in the "peace process" it is necessary for the United States to declare that the Palestinians have complied come-what-may.

Muzzling Israel is a critical element of the revised plan since it cripples Israel's ability to even attempt to bring public and congressional pressure to bear on the U.S. government not to give the Palestinians an automatic pass.]

Ha'aretz, 21 November 2002


By Aluf Benn

The latest version of the internationally sponsored "road map" to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is tougher in the demands it makes on both sides than the original draft given to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Washington last month.

According to the new draft, which reached Jerusalem this week from unofficial sources after it was leaked to the Arab press, the Israeli leadership will be required to publish a declaration expressing its commitment to "the two-state vision," and the establishment of an "independent, viable, sovereign" Palestinian state that will live in peace and security beside Israel.

The Israeli declaration, says the new draft, will also call for "an immediate end to violence against Palestinians anywhere," and an end to "actions undermining trust" - expulsions, harm to civilians, and destruction of Palestinian property. All official Israeli institutions will be required to "cease incitement against Palestinians."

The Israeli declaration - not mentioned in the original draft of the road map - is meant to be issued simultaneously with a Palestinian declaration about Israel's right to exist and an immediate, unconditional end to the armed intifada and all violent activity against Israelis, everywhere.

The new draft also intensifies the demand for a settlement freeze, including a freeze on settlement expansion resulting from natural growth. Now Israel is required to make a top priority out of freezing projects that disrupt Palestinian territorial contiguity, including in the Jerusalem area. The issue of timing of the settlement freeze remains in dispute, and has yet to be decided. According to one approach, the freeze would only come after a general cease-fire.

The authors of the draft accepted some of Israel's demands. They somewhat softened the reference to the Saudi Arabian peace initiative, which had angered Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Palestinians are now required to begin focused efforts to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the first stage of the program. The closed Palestinian institutions will be reopened, but only in accordance with agreements between the sides.

The new draft rejects Israel's opposition to an international Quartet (the U.S., UN, EU and Russia) monitoring team, which will determine whether the conditions have ripened sufficiently to move to the next stage in the program. But in the new draft, the Quartet's decisions must be unanimous, and the U.S. can apply a veto and block pressure from its partners who may want to accelerate the implementation of the plan.

The new draft was completed on November 14, after the administration received comments from the parties and after discussions held in Jerusalem by Quartet representatives. The administration did not give the draft to Israel and it reached Jerusalem through other sources, after it was leaked to the Arab press.

American officials sent a message to Israel that the latest draft is an interim version that has not yet received the White House's blessings. They said the final version will be brought to the Quartet foreign ministers on December 20, after first receiving U.S. administration approval. The original draft was personally vetted by President George W. Bush.

The Prime Minister's Office held a preliminary discussion of the latest draft yesterday and Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to discuss it in his ministry today. Meanwhile, Housing Ministry Natan Sharansky met yesterday in Washington with Vice President Richard Cheney and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage, telling them it would be difficult to conduct a serious discussion of the road map during the current election campaign.

Furthermore, said Sharansky, while there are articles that match Bush's June 24 speech, "there are also a lot of contradictions, and things to discuss. The timetable is very problematic." He told reporters that in any case there was no point in discussing it as long as the "Palestinian dictator" - a reference to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat - remains in office. He also told Cheney and Armitage that he did not understand why the draft reached Israel through an Arab newspaper.

The new draft sticks to the main elements of the original version. The Palestinians are required to undertake comprehensive reforms, creating a parliamentary democracy with a strong government and a prime minister's position. The plan calls for the appointment of a temporary prime minister in the initial stages. A proposal to sign a new security compact between the sides has been dropped. There are also some changes in the division into stages, but the timetable remains the same:

* From now to May 2003: An end to terror and violence, normalization of Palestinian life and establishment of Palestinian institutions. Israel withdraws from the PA areas, and the status quo from before the intifada is restored, in accordance with progress in the security cooperation, according to the Tenet work plan. A settlement freeze is announced, according to the Mitchell plan.

* June 2003-December 2003: A transition phase, for the purpose of establishing a Palestinian state inside temporary borders according to a new constitution. The Quartet will convene an international conference, in consultation with the parties (in the early draft it required their consent), to be followed by the start of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue about the establishment of the interim state. Still under discussion is to what extent the Quartet will act to win the new Palestinian state acceptance in the UN.

* 2004-2005: A permanent arrangement. The new draft says the purpose of the agreement is an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In early 2004, a second international conference is convened, to welcome the new state with its temporary borders and to formally launch the negotiations for a final status agreement.

The new draft also has a special section on Jerusalem, not included in the original. It says that a negotiated settlement of Jerusalem's status will take into account "the political and religious concerns of both sides and will protect the religious interests of Jews, Christians and Muslims throughout the world."


IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis



The Jerusalem Post, November 12, 2002


By Zalman Shoval

(The writer is a former ambassador to the United States.)

...One cannot help feeling that the road map was concocted by too many cooks, not all of them using the same recipe..


With the approaching elections, the so-called "road map" for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become also a concrete and burning domestic political issue, not least in the leadership contest in the Likud.

Already in his June speech, US President George W. Bush referred to some of the political coordinates of a future settlement. Though neither a fully developed plan nor a precise timetable, the speech listed the stops, as the US administration saw them, on the way to peace.

While the first stops on the map looked reasonable and positive - e.g. the imperative to end terror and violence, the need to change the Palestinian leadership, the elimination of institutional corruption, etc. - it also was clear that some of the ensuing stops could be much more problematic, not least the envisioned end-of-the-line, namely Palestinian statehood. After all, what guarantee is there that the president's vision of a "democratic, stable, Palestinian state, living in peace alongside Israel" won't turn out to be just another aggressive, brutal, undemocratic - probably irredentist - rogue state like so many others in the Arab world?

Still, the Israeli government was right in reacting positively to the speech - not only because of the close relationship with America, but also in assuming that the ideas and principles expressed in it were just that, "ideas and principles," and not concrete proposals.

However, as it turned out, the draft of the road map which the prime minister received during his visit to Washington and which Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns brought with him on his recent Middle East tour, was a horse of a different color - eliminating or changing some of the main stops on the way.

Not only are there suddenly strict and quite unrealistic time-tables, but the perhaps most negative aspect of the new draft is that while it expects the Palestinians to "reiterate" their commitment regarding "Israel's right to exist in peace and security" and to "call" for an end to the armed intifada (bullets are out, but apparently not stones) and incitement - without specifying who or how Palestinian compliance would be monitored - Israel is asked to pay for this post-dated check in advance: to facilitate travel of Palestinian officials (in effect the current Palestinian leadership) "without restriction"; to lift curfews and end "attacks in civilian areas" (i.e. the very areas out of which the terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, deliberately concentrate their bases of operation); terminate demolition of Palestinian homes and deportations of terrorists (which is one of the measures employed by Israel to cope with the scourge of suicide bombings); to dismantle some settlement outposts; and hand over large sums of money to the present, corrupt Palestinian Authority.

In other words, it's words and declarations against concrete deeds. Words in the Arab world are cheap, and as America's former chief peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, has reminded us, anything Israel gives up is irretrievable; anything the Palestinians concede can be reneged on the very next day. One only has to remember that "annulling" the Palestinian National Charter, in the presence of president Clinton, did not in the least stop the continuation of Palestinian terror attacks - nor did it change Arafat's position, as became clear to Clinton and Barak in Camp David and Taba, of denying the Jewish people's right to their homeland, or even of the very existence of a Jewish people.

Hard on the heels of the first stage (which, by the way, doesn't require the Palestinians to hand over illegal arms), comes stage two. This stage, in the proposed wording, in effect puts to naught the previously enunciated principle (including by Bush) that ending terror and violence must be a pre-condition to further diplomatic engagement.

As the Washington Institute's Rob Satloff has pointed out, if there is "sequencing," it's actually the other way around: Israel is called upon to make substantive and irreversible steps in advance of anything the Palestinians will (or won't) do.

In stage two, divided into two phases, there is to be "continued"(?) Palestinian political reform and "free, open, and fair elections" for the PLC with Israel withdrawing the IDF from the areas it has occupied since September 8, 2000 in response to Arafat's terror offensive - without expressly making said withdrawal contingent on an actual end to Palestinian terror and violence.

Furthermore, Israel should now permit the opening of official Palestinian economic institutions in its capital, Jerusalem. Israel would also have to freeze all settlement activity, "including natural growth of settlements" (one only hopes that this won't require the 250,000 Israelis living in the settlements to agree to compulsory birth- control).

At this point the monitoring mechanism of the "Quartet" (US, EU, UN, Russia) will be established. But it isn't difficult to discern that parts of this mechanism will be driven more by political motives - some of them highly questionable from Israel's and America's traditional point of view - than by concerns about the actual performance of the Palestinians.

For instance, the clear implication of the creation of a "permanent" monitoring mechanism by the Quartet is the not overly disguised intention to internationalize the peace process (as Arafat had wanted all along) and perhaps also to push particular political or economic interests by one or more of the parties.

There are several negative implications to this: Israel's freedom of action in matters vital to its security will be severely curtailed, as certain members of the Quartet will tend to prefer putting pressure on Israel rather than on the Arab side. Israel, thus, must now make it very clear that under no circumstances will it allow outsiders to determine if and when it takes security- related steps against an outside threat.

At this stage, called "transition," the Quartet will also convene an international conference to launch negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians "on the possibility of a state with provisional borders by the end of 2003." This is not what was previously stated by the US, which spoke of a "provisional state," not the same thing as "provisional borders."

Concurrently, there would be "further action on settlements," hinting that at least some settlements are to be removed before a permanent status agreement has been reached or even negotiated. Progress into the third and last phase (2004 - 2005), based on judgment of the Quartet [author's emphasis], would start with another international conference to launch permanent status negotiations, including on final borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements (all or several of which may once again turn out to be deal-breakers). The Quartet, however, or some of its members, intend to play more than a stage-manager's role in determining the final denouement of the process.

YASSER ARAFAT isn't mentioned in the road map, perhaps because the authors couldn't agree among themselves if or how to deal with him. Be this as it may, his role can hardly be deemed irrelevant, as in more than a few matters the document would rely in practice on his participation and support. And, as the goings-on of the last few days have shown, he has no intention of leaving the stage - regardless of Bush's call for "new" Palestinian leadership.

One cannot help feeling that this road map was concocted by too many cooks, not all of them using the same recipe.

One may also assume that the US at this point in time is principally, and rightly, focused on the Iraqi issue, and that not everything in the present draft actually reflects America's intentions. The US probably assesses that the successful conclusion of the Iraqi campaign will create a completely new political situation in the Middle East. This will affect the Palestinians, who will be forced, for their own good, to finally understand that the only way forward for them is by accommodation based on compromise with Israel - not by continuing intransigence and violence.

Israel shares US priorities and has no interest in embarking now on a public debate with the most friendly American administration that ever existed. At the same time, it cannot afford - by not making its position and concerns crystal clear through suitable channels - to risk creating a potentially dangerous momentum later on.

Israel would readily accept a road map leading toward real peace and security - but not one that's a "road to perdition."

(c) Jerusalem Post




by Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

What is it about the Bush family that takes them on detours along crooked roads when it comes to Arabs, Oil, Terror and Israel? President George W. Bush announced that, within his depth of experience in world affairs, particularly in the Middle East, he has a plan, a road map for Israel.

That road map has many forks in the road, detours to no exits but, in the end of this crooked road, it requires Israel to be replaced with another Arab State called Palestine. That, of course, is not what is being promised to Israel but, in the end, Israel will be submerged in a sea of hostile Arab nations.

According to all past history that new state called Palestine will be the epi-center for all Terrorist organizations to represent their sponsoring nations of Iran, Iraq, Syria and others. Even now, in the areas turned over to Arafat by the Oslo gang, it has become a hot incubator for Terrorist training and collaboration between the gangs, including the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Tanzim, PFLP, Hezb'Allah, Al Qaeda, 'et al'.

One might speculate on why President Bush and family would want to act as godfather to a Terrorist nation that, when it acquires its full growth will inevitably threaten American interests. Looking back to explain this strange phenomenon, we find that George Bush, Sr. and James Baker team supporting Saddam Hussein with money (at least $5 Billion American tax-payers'dollars), technology and finally being reluctantly forced to push Saddam out of Kuwait while still leaving him and his top military team whole. America now faces an Iraq with vastly expanded and improved weapons of mass destruction - courtesy of the Bush/Baker/Powell/Scowcroft team.

There are two (at least two) excellent, well-researched books that track the Bush/Baker/Powell/Scowcroft dealings with Iraq before, during and after the 1991 Gulf War, Desert Storm: "The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq" by Alan Friedman (1) and just released "The High Cost of Peace: How Washington''s Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism" by Joseph Bodansky. (2) The illegal machinations by the Bush interests are especially interesting and help to explain the disingenuous "Road Map" plan of the current President Bush. (I plan to review this book by Bodansky soon but I highly recommend that you purchase it for your reference library.)

If we Americans are concerned about such nations as Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others having plans to subvert America and American interests, just wait for the new state of Palestine! Here will be the crucible into which will be poured every hostile Terrorist organization, acting both as proxies for the above named nations but, also and especially for radical Islamism.

How will President Bush explain an American city blown to dust or a plague staring in California and sweeping eastward, courtesy of the Palestinian operatives in linkage with all other Terrorist organizations? The new state called Palestine, coalescing ultimate International Terror, will be the historical legacy of the Bush family to America and to the World. Granted their short view is that somewhere on this bloody ''Yellow Brick Road Map'', Israel will meet the wicked witch of the North and the Jewish State will be eliminated - unless they ignore the Bush Road Map.

There is a belief that achieving this bloody goal will, of course, pacify and deter the radical Islamists from making war against the rest of the non-Muslim world and particularly America -- or so the dream goes. Bush, like Clinton, has virtually promised Yassir Arafat, his clones, cronies and successors, that there is no act of killing that will be viewed by the Bush Administration as sufficiently heinous to deter him from being the surrogate father or godfather of this new State dedicated to Terror. The Bush family has a long history of crooked Road Maps which end nowhere.

We all hope the son has broken away from the habit of building roads that are intended to profit the multi-national oil companies and American military/industrial complex but, require that other nations be sacrificed to satiate that greed. President George W. Bush, the Bush family (and father Bush's former cronies), Secretary of State Colin Powell insist that Israel must allow such a Terror State to be built in Israel's vulnerable underbelly. This is the fork in the road offered to the Jewish State of Israel who is desperate for friends. But presently, Israel is ignoring all those obvious warning road signs telling her to turn around, ''Danger Ahead!'', ''Bridge Out!'', ''Road Washed Away!'', ''Turn Around''!

Lest you think that the Bush Road Map is only that of the Bush family, think again. Other participants include the United Nations, the European Union, the U.S. State Department, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin (both of whom have Institutes funded by the E.U. - More on this in a later article.)

Israel will, no doubt, be a massive loser if another Arab State of Terror called Palestine will rise within Israel's heartland. But, America will lose also. Surrounding nations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will fall to Terror once the new Arab State called Palestine is established and reaches its full potential. PLO Terror cells will metastasize and float easily into free America, Europe and wherever Muslim enclaves can create critical mass within these nations. I can see President Bush holding his head in consternation, repeating the words of Neville Chamberlain who said on his death bed: "If only Hitler hadn't lied to me."The homily comes to mind: "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions."This Bush Road Map is a Road to Hell for Israel.

Think about it, President Bush. They say you are a devout new born-again Christian. Is it your religious destiny to father a Terrorist State and, in the process, destroy the Jewish State of Israel? Is this then to be your legacy in the history of the world?


1. "The Spider''s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq" by Alan Friedman Bantam Books NY 12/93

2. "The High Cost of Peace: How Washington''s Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism"by Yossef Bodansky Forum/ Prima Publishing California 2002


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst and research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by Boris Shusteff

Only a few weeks have transpired since Sharon's announcement of new elections, but all the signs are already in place, indicating that Israelis are going to be taken for the familiar ride of empty promises and slogans. If the current situation continues, this will also mean that the new government that takes office will also not resolve the problems that Israel faces, just as its four predecessors did not.

The main reason for this is the fear of leaders of the Israeli national camp to present a real alternative to the people. To be more precise, they must explain to the people that the only practical alternative to the suicidal Oslo process is the resettlement of the Arabs outside of western Eretz Yisrael. It is understandable that these kinds of statements are not going to come from Sharon or Netanyahu, especially during their contest for leading the Likud. And it is exactly for this reason that the rightist camp cannot wait any longer.

It is important to note that assigning Sharon to the rightist camp is a little farfetched. He is a typical centrist with very strong fists, but holding to the old Mapai party ideology. There is no doubt that the majority of Israelis sees him exactly this way. The best proof of this are poll results, published on November 8 in the Israeli daily "Yediot Aharanot." They showed that the Likud, headed by Sharon, would receive from 2 to 4 more Knesset mandates, than if it were to be led by Netanyahu. What is important here is that the seats lost in the case of Netanyahu would go to the Labor party. Translated into words, this means that a very large group of Israelis do not see a real difference between Sharon and the Labor party. More evidence of this is the recent declaration by Shimon Peres that he would welcome the creation of a centrist party led by him and Sharon.

However, the person who finally dispelled all doubt is Sharon himself. On November 13, speaking to Israeli TV Channel 2, he said that "actually the Palestinian state already exists." This transparent hint means that Sharon is ready to acquiesce to the transformation of the de facto Palestinian Arab state into a de jure one. Apparently, this is the sacrifice that Israel will have to make, and about which he constantly speaks. Sharon said that "Israel and the Palestinian Autonomy will have to agree to mutual concessions" and that "the signing of the peace agreement with the Palestinians - is the only way for the country to overcome the extended economic crisis."

While there is nothing new in Sharon's pronouncements, the faithful supporters of the national camp must be undoubtedly disappointed by some of Netanyahu's slogans. His promise to expel Arafat is very reminiscent of Sharon's admission that "he promised to President Bush not to harm Arafat, and he will stick to his word." It is just enough to look at the members of Arafat's murderous gang vacationing in Europe after their "deportation" from the Church of the Nativity, in order to understand that threatening to expel Arafat is about as serious to threatening a fish with being thrown into water.

The way that Israel's leaders have dealt with Arafat represents their inability to take upon themselves the responsibility for the fate of the Jews and the Jewish state. Since there is more Jewish blood on Arafat's hands than on anyone's since Hitler's time, the best he should be able count on is a quick meeting of an Israeli military tribunal, which will unanimously declare him guilty for crimes against the Jews and humanity and will speedily apply the death penalty.

Another one of Netanyahu's declarations, to the effect that after Arafat's expulsion an opportunity will emerge to find a pragmatic leader among the Palestinian Arabs with whom to negotiate about Palestinian autonomy, is either from the same category of irresponsibility or a pre-election gimmick. If the latter is the case, and he is trying to attract those who are afraid to make sharp turns to avoid capsizing the ship of Arab-Israeli relations, he is dead wrong. The latest polls show that when asked who will do a better job negotiating with the Arabs, the majority prefers Sharon to Bibi.

If Netanyahu plans to succeed in Likud's primaries, he must prove to the Likud electorate that he has learned his lessons from his first term as Prime Minister. The appearance on the Israeli political scene of the new "Yisrael Aheret" (Another Israel) party and Amram Mitzna's landslide victory in Labor party primaries unequivocally mean that Israelis are tired of familiar faces and endless promises and declarations.

The fact that Mitzna and "Yisrael Aheret" represent the left wing of Israeli politics only underlines the huge gap in the national camp. Certainly, the appearance within the Likud of Moshe Feiglin and his "Manhigut Yegudit" (Jewish Leadership) movement is a breath of fresh air for everybody who yearns for a genuine Jewish state. However, even Feiglin himself does not believe that he can succeed in the Likud's primaries this time. Nevertheless he hopes that by gaining experience in this struggle, his movement can eventually come to lead the Likud.

If this approach were taking place in any other democratic country, and not in one where people are desperate and eager to listen to any false idea, it would be very appropriate. But in Israeli circumstances it could prove severely detrimental. It would be a must for Feiglin to lead this kind of battle if he were 100% sure that Netanyahu would defeat Sharon in Likud's primaries. However, what about Sharon's victory in the primaries? Did Feiglin consider that in the case of the emergence of a Palestinian Arab state, even on 42% of the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (as constantly hinted by Sharon), the Arab-Jewish equation in the Middle East would take a drastically different shape? It would be the first time in modern history that this primordial Jewish land would obtain legal status as an indisputable sovereign land of an Arab state recognized by the international community. And let us not deceive ourselves, 42% will very soon become much closer to 80-90%. Is it safe to assume then, that the leader of Jewish Leadership will be satisfied with a Jewish state that lacks the land that gave the Jews their name, and which is the soul of the Jewish people?

Moshe Feiglin's sincerity is unquestionable, as well as his strong faith in the rightness of the route that he has taken. He genuinely believes in every single word from his November 7th appeal, in which he declared,

For the first time in the history of the State of Israel the Jewish nation has been given the right to vote for a Jewish State.... Even if the majority prefer to remain in the prison cell of the current consciousness, even if the majority will still not make use of the key to freedom that we are offering, from this moment on the key lies in its hands. There will be elections again in another year or two and then the Jewish nation will make use of the key and choose leadership that expresses its nature.... Those who are pressuring us to remove our candidacy because they think that they will gain something from Netanyahu are in fact proposing to improve the jail conditions at the price of losing the key.

Feiglin is correct, there will be elections again in another year or two, and it is exactly then that he and his movement will be in an excellent position to fight for leadership, after becoming much stronger. However, it does not mean that today he must stop struggling "because they think that they will gain something from Netanyahu." The political problem must be framed completely differently. What should be the essence of this struggle? What must Feiglin do in the current situation to help Netanyahu win this election, while preparing his own victory in the next one? At the heart of the matter lie not the gains that can be obtained from Netanyahu, but the foreclosure of the option of just another Arab state. Therefore Feiglin and his movement must demonstrate the highest level of responsibility and help the Likud to remain in the rightist camp and not to shift toward the center if Sharon wins the primaries.

Feiglin must never forget that he is first of all struggling against the party apparatus. Stalin's example in the former Soviet Union demonstrated the might of such an apparatus and the ruthlessness with which it destroys anyone who tries to change it. Therefore, instead of putting himself in conflict with Netanyahu, whom the apparatus also considers to be a newcomer, Feiglin could move closer to his goal if he considers Bibi not as an opponent, but rather as an ally in the struggle for the creation of a strong national camp.

Before it is too late, Feiglin should consider entering negotiations with Bibi as an equal partner. In exchange for the support that he and his movement will offer Bibi, Feiglin should request ironclad guarantees in writing that the direction, which Netanyahu will take as a Prime Minister, will coincide with the ideology of the Jewish Leadership. Recalling the fact that the polls still favor Sharon, it follows that Netanyahu will inevitably be interested in such a partnership.

It is worth remembering that one of the main reasons why the rightist camp did not see Netanyahu in the role of a rightist prime minister between 1996 and 1999 was the fact that during his tenure the rightist camp was completely dormant. Though Bibi, while abandoned by everybody, miraculously defeated the Likud apparatus, he was unable to do anything against the Israeli bureaucracy at the state level.

Feiglin will commit a terrible blunder if he decides that, after he defeats the bureaucracy of the Likud, he will be slated for an easy victory against the apparatus of power of the country itself. Today almost all rightist groups and parties make the same mistake of underestimating the bureaucracy (except the Israel Beiteinu-Tkuma-Moledet union). Only Avigdor Liberman, who has experienced the might of the apparatus firsthand, knows better than anyone in the rightist camp the importance of the unity of all the rightist forces.

Unfortunately for the national camp, his desperate attempts to bring Mafdal (the National Religious Party) into the rightist coalition, have failed so far. And again this happened due to the strength of the apparatus. This time it is the internal apparatus of Mafdal, which still cannot resign itself to the fact that Effi Eitam, the newcomer, is the leader of the party. Therefore, while Eitam was ready for an alliance with Liberman, the bureaucracy of Mafdal opposed the merger under the false pretense of the purity of its religious views and the impossibility of a union with a secular party.

And if religious and non-religious groups will squabble within the nationalist camp, then it is completely useless to try to unite it. Especially since Liberman did not even suggest that Mafdal abandon its ideology. The parties that Liberman planned to bring together were meant to unite into a national camp with each one keeping all of its principles intact.

The situation that we observe today would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Not long ago, in order to unite the national forces, the Yamin Yisrael party was courting Feiglin, while he, in turn, was calling on Yamin Yisrael to merge with his Jewish Leadership movement within the Likud. And today both Feiglin and Yamin Yisrael prefer complete independence.

All this is extraordinarily painful since today the national camp possesses a unique opportunity. Acting simultaneously in two directions: Moshe Feiglin within the Likud party establishing a strong ideological kernel for Netanyahu, and the united front of national forces from another direction, in the upcoming elections these two national groups could win close to the 60 mandates needed for establishing the government.

Instead of blaming each other for this or that mistake, recalling who promised whom what and did not deliver, arguing whose program is better, and accusing each other of the imperfectness of their goals, all the parties of the national camp (Yisrael Beiteinu, Tkuma, Moledet, Mafdal, Herut) and all the small parties and groups (Yamin Yisrael, Gamla, Women in Green, Professors for a Strong Israel. etc.) ASBSOLUTELY MUST unite into a strong national front. And the sooner this achieved, the better.

Two main principles should be placed in the union agreement. The first one must include a declaration by each participant that they will not abandon the union at least for four years. This will allow the country to have a stable government for a length of time recently unprecedented in Israel. The second principle must include the unequivocal declaration that there will never be an Arab state created even on a single square inch of the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the eternal birthright of the Jewish people, and that the emigration of Palestinian Arabs out of these lands will be encouraged. The consolidation of the national camp will become a balsam for the souls of the war-weary and absolutely disoriented Israelis. And without any doubt during the upcoming elections they will reward the politicians for this move with extra Knesset seats.

This consolidation will also open the road to the concrete development of a real alternative to the suicidal Oslo process. The leaders of all the aforementioned groups and parties (Liberman, Elon, Eitam, Kleiner, Feiglin, Eidelberg, Leshem, and others) will easily find a common language on the issue of relocation of the Arabs from Western Eretz Yisrael. United, they will have an excellent opportunity to educate Netanyahu on this subject, by bringing the topic of Arab resettlement into the arena of public discourse and making it a legitimate theme for discussions.

The idea of Arab resettlement outside Western Eretz Yisrael will be stillborn as long as it is not presented as a viable option among other possible solutions. A difficult struggle awaits us on the road to its implementation. However, the first step must be taken now, in the wake of upcoming elections, through the consolidation of all national forces. It is impossible to wait any longer. Too much time has been wasted. Too much blood has been spilled.



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



The Jerusalem Post


By David M. Weinberg

(The writer is director of public affairs at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.)


They say that an interim government is a weak, immobilized entity; powerless to make substantive policy changes.

Nevertheless, in my opinion there is ample room for the provisional Sharon-Netanyahu-Mofaz government to set a few things in order. Here's ten tips for our prime minister, and the new foreign and defense ministers:

1. Stop calling Israelis who live over the irrelevant Green Line "settlers" - a purposefully-deprecating term that legitimates Palestinian terrorist hunt-and-shoot operations against 250,000 Jews. This fleeting government is not going to decide our future borders. But at least government spokespeople can begin to use the language of "rights" when defending the country to foreigners - Jewish historical, religious and national rights to Judea and Samaria.

2. Either significantly boost the budget for the so- called security fence along the "seam line" - so that it might really have a chance of proving effective - or freeze the misadventure. At present, the seam line administration in the Defense Ministry says that it needs another NIS 400 million just to finish the first section of the fence from Salam to Kfar Kassem, on top of NIS 600 million already invested. This doesn't include any funds for manpower to patrol the line, for high-tech surveillance equipment or for maintenance, without which the fence will be totally ineffectual.

3. Settle for nothing less than overwhelming, sweeping, almost cosmic reform of the corrupt Palestinian Authority before even approaching a discussion of political "road maps" for the future. Don't let European or American intermediaries hoodwink you into accepting the nonsensical notion that anybody appointed by Arafat ever will have real control. Stay away, in particular, from Arafat's new Interior Minister, Hani al-Hassan, who we remember as one of the most radical, nasty anti-propagandists of the 1970s and 1980s, and who now is peddling the "okay-to-kill- settlers" line.

4. Transfer no tax monies to the PA! The US is still pushing us to release into Yasser Arafat's coffers some $1.6 billion in various taxes and customs duties collected by the Finance Ministry on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. I say: the notion that Israel owes anything to Arafat is both outrageous and absurd. On the contrary, Arafat's regime owes us a lot more money than we supposedly owe it. The PA and its global supporters should pay, in hard cash, for the economic and financial damages to Israel over the past 27 months caused by Palestinian terrorism.

5. Promptly fire anybody in the Shimon Peres-Avi Gil Foreign Ministry that can't or won't bring himself to vigorously defend Israel's tough anti-terror and proud foreign policy line. Especially bureaucrats who leak nasty gossip about Netanyahu. The people paid to be our diplomats, especially abroad, and the academics sent abroad on speaking tours by the ministry, should hew to the government hasbara line, or pack it in. From experience, I know that there is significant house-cleaning to be done.

6. Go after the IBA and ITV. Force senior personnel changes meant to re-introduce Zionism as a belief system at these media fortresses. Don't be ashamed of taking such steps openly, even now, despite predictable howling by the press and legal types who will call it undemocratic. Netanyahu made a big mistake in his term as prime minister by not acting forthrightly in this regard.

7. This is an easy one. I don't think we'll anymore have to hear the arrogant political line, which Shimon Peres used towards the end of every interview and debate, about the Clinton parameters being the inevitable, inescapable and eventual outline of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, no matter what else anyone thinks.

8. Shut everybody up about Iraq. Sharon repeatedly has made this call, but now itās time for serious enforcement. Impose a personal fine of $100,000 on any minister or military official who uses the word "Iraq" in public conversation or who relates to Israel's strategic planning and options for the Gulf War.

9. Start talking-up the need to go after Iran, once Iraq is liberated. Teheran is at least as great a sponsor of regional and Palestinian terror as Baghdad has been. The Ayatollahs make no apologies about their goals in obtaining weapons of mass destruction to hit the Zionist enemy. Netanyahu and Mofaz can play lead roles here.

10. When fighting terrorism and responding to the Palestinian brutalities of recent days, act as if you were not an interim government. Keep American Gulf War concerns in mind. Don't convulse the region right now with earthshaking military operations against the PA - but don't let the temporary nature of the election period hamstring you in doing what is necessary to protect Israeli lives!

(c) The Jerusalem Post




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

During aristocratic ages, man's moral center of gravity is the chest -- the seat of "honor." A gentleman's honor was more than mere probity, and far more than prestige. As late as the 18th century, the lexicon defined "honor" as a quality that "supposes in a gentleman a stronger abhorrence of perfidy, falsehood, or cowardice, and a more elevated and delicate sense of virtue, than are usually found in [ordinary decent men]."

A gentleman's honor was therefore his most sacred possession. An insult to such a person, if unanswered, could result in his and his family's ruin. The manly response to offended honor was the duel.

As mankind became less aristocratic and more commercial, dueling, as an affair of honor, was outlawed. The clash of steel was replaced by libel laws, the violation of which might entail monetary loss rather than loss of life.

With the ascendancy of the consumer society, however, man's center of gravity has descended from his chest to his abdomen. Laws against defamation of character have lost much of their efficacy, especially now with unrestrained freedom of speech and press, the pride of flatulent democracies.

Indeed, so sacred and secure are the print and electronic media in an era of unfettered freedom of expression, and so prohibitive is the cost of a libel suit, that certain well-placed individuals can engage in character assassination without risking their lives or their fortunes. Enter "men without chests."

Men without chests are the product of consumptive as opposed to deliberative democracy. Those who control the political institutions and communications media of an all-consuming democracy do not engage their opponents in honest democratic debate but rather seek to destroy them by verbal voodoo. i.e., by one-word slanders. And they do this while posing sanctimoniously as democrats. In fact, it is precisely in the name of "democracy" that one can now defame an individual without fear of retribution.

A recent and most notorious victim of this abuse is the late Rabbi Meir Kahane (himself a talented word-monger), who was constantly reviled as a "racist" and a "Nazi." Any Lilliputian can resort to such vilification, and the media, especially in Israel, will gladly purvey the slander, free of all restraints -- legal, political, or moral. Never has pusillanimity, now garbed in righteousness, enjoyed such protection by the laws and institutions of society. Honor is the first casualty of abdominal democracy.

More interesting than Kahane is the hysterical hatred he aroused among Israel's political and intellectual Yahoos. It were as if this one man and his Kach Party constituted a serious threat to the power, prestige, and privileges of those who have long dominated Israel's political, economic, military, educational, and cultural institutions! And so, when Rabbi Kahane was elected to the Knesset, these men without chests hastened up and down the country trying to indoctrinate high school students and soldiers with the fatuous slogans of "democracy" on the one hand, while slandering Kahane as a "racist" on the other. (The same sort of hysteria and defamation followed the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.)

I said that the first casualty of abdominal democracy is honor (so odiously displayed by those who clasped the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat). The second casualty is truth, which is why I referred to those who called Kahane a racist or a Nazi as "Yahoos." For to use the language of Swift's Houyhynhnms -- who have no word for falsehood -- Yahoos "say the thing which is not," namely, the truth about the militant nature of Islam and the Arabs' deeply ingrained hatred of Jews.

I am alluding to Israel's anti-racist legislation, which makes it a criminal offense to tell the truth about Israel's domestic enemies. Thus, suppose some full-chested Jew was to recount the well-documented fact that Arab leaders can easily inflame Muslim masses, who add to a religious fanaticism, a latent hatred of Jews. And suppose he reminded people of how 62 percent of Israel's Arab citizens openly supported Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War despite his threat to incinerate Israel including themselves. Furthermore, suppose he uttered these truths because he believed -- rightly or wrongly -- that it would be in the best interest of democracy for the government of Israel not only to prohibit Arab parties that pursue Arab nationalist aims, but to disenfranchise any Arab who, by word or deed, denies Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state. That Jew could be imprisoned for five years under the so-called anti-racist, but really anti-Jewish, legislation in question.

To be sure, a government that possessed, along with a modicum of honor, the courage to adopt the policy just mentioned, would surely be committed to making Israel an authentic Jewish State. This would have a profound affect on Israel's Arab inhabitants. The more Israel became Jewish, the more Arabs would leave the country, though I dare say many would remain, secure in their personal , civic, economic, and religious rights.

On the other hand, given a government consisting of men without chests, Jews who advocate such a policy will be shamelessly slandered as "racists." How strange, when one considers these words of a most famous political Zionist: "We shall try to spirit the penniless Arab population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries while denying them any employment in our own country."

The author of this statement is none other than Theodor Herzl, the man whom Israel's Declaration of Independence refers to as the "spiritual father of the Jewish State"! Herzl, it seems, did not belong to the species of "men without chests."




by Boris Shusteff

He was elected to defeat terror. Nothing else was expected from him. Everybody knew that he was not an economic guru, but the economy was not the issue. The country was bleeding, and the people chose him to stop the suicide attacks, well known for his toughness and military genius.

Almost two years later and several thousand more Jews killed, maimed and wounded he has miserably failed at the only job he was given to perform. By the time he called for new elections the country was not only bleeding - it was reeling from terror. The atrocities inflicted on the Jews by the Arabs during his leg of the "peace process" have exceeded anything that Israel had seen since the day of her creation. Suicide bombings have become the norm, shooting of children in their cribs and beds has become a routine event, and drive-by shootings have become so widespread that if only a single person is murdered the press does not bother to talk about it, apparently treating it as a minor nuisance.

During the 20 years between 1967 and 1987, the number of terror victims in Israel was 305 people. The Six Day War toll on the Jews constituted 759 killed and almost 3,000 wounded. Sharon's short tenure has seen over 620 killed and more than 3,500 wounded. These numbers speak for themselves. It is the worst performance by any Israeli prime minister since the creation of the state. Sharon's impotence in defending the Jews is so obvious that it is impossible to understand how in the world he still wants to keep his job.

His defenders say that one of his biggest accomplishments is his excellent relationship with the American president. They argue that Sharon has achieved a huge success, which allows the Israeli army to operate in Judea, Samaria and partly in Gaza without the world community even speaking up. They say that he made Arafat persona non grata in the White House. All this is true, but none of these achievements decrease the number of murdered Jews; on the contrary, the red trickles of Jewish blood have become gushing rivers. Therefore, these achievements are false, and aren't worth a penny, because Jews are maimed and killed daily along the road to them.

Now, one may ask: What is so good about this "excellent relationship" with Bush? Is it the American Administration's "road map," which proposes an Israel shrunk to the Auschwitz borders, with half of Jerusalem - the half that is sacred to the Jews - brutally severed from the Jews? Or maybe it is permission to sit in sealed rooms, wearing gas masks, with hands tied in order to avoid responding to possible attacks by Saddam Hussein? Or, perhaps, it is Bush's declarations about his vision of a Palestinian Arab state on primordial Jewish lands?

Israel already possessed all of these goodies in 1967. Only at that time, nobody even mentioned anything about creating another Arab state, and no Iraqi rockets were aimed at Israel. It also makes sense to recall that the mood of the Israeli Jews was slightly better than today. Then, after a miraculous victory, the Jews believed that they were destined to live forever in this Holy Land. Today they do not even know if they can survive until tomorrow.

Certainly the deterioration of the situation in the last ten to fifteen years is not completely Sharon's fault. But this in no way absolves him from the responsibility for the butchery of the Jews that has taken place during his tenure. People called on him to save them. He has failed and does not have the courage to admit it.

All the arguments in Sharon's defense are well known. One might say that he cannot act because the international community will not allow him to reply with full force, and that world public opinion will not tolerate the death of numerous "innocent Palestinian civilians" during an Israeli response. On the other hand, perhaps one could ask what is so innocent about them? Perhaps it is the fact that they have not yet taken the opportunity to put on a belt with explosives and walk into a kindergarten?

The vast majority of them are eager to murder Jews and support suicide bombings everywhere where Jews live. The father of the Arab who murdered eleven people, four of them children, in a Jerusalem bus explosion on November 21, was very proud of his son's deeds. He said: "I thanked God when I heard that my son had died in an operation for the sake of God." And added: "We are all one people fighting against the common enemy - the Jews." Talking to an Associated Press correspondent he and the mother of the killer said that they have 4 boys and 9 girls and that "they could only hope for such martyrdom for all their children."

At the same time, why all this fuss about the international community? Does its silence during the Holocaust give it the right today to help spill more Jewish blood by protecting the "innocent Arabs?" The fury of anti-Semitism in Europe is not a sufficient reason to complement it with the non-stop murder of Israeli Jews. Let any of Israel's critics first endure proportionally the same number of casualties that Israel has suffered, before claiming any moral right to condemn Israel. Could anyone imagine a situation with 6,740 murdered Britons, or 6,741 murdered Frenchmen, or 9,388 Germans, or 16,351 Russians, or 31,342 Americans? These numbers correspond to 680 Israeli Jews murdered by the Arabs since September 29, 2000, when Arafat started his war against Israel. Even 680 murdered citizens in any of these countries would draw a response far exceeding any present Israeli action, which these countries so vocally denounce.

The ongoing Arab war against Israel, in terms of the September 11th attack on America, is proportionally equivalent to ELEVEN such attacks. This means that during the last two years, every 71 days Israel experiences a 9/11-scale disaster! The huge United States of America, the world's only superpower is still recovering from just one such tragedy. How can the hypocritical world demand from Israel that she spare her enemies, who repeat these devastating attacks every two months?

Sharon was called by the Jews to DEFEAT the enemy. But he has been conducting a very strange war. It is the first war in history, in which the superior side is afraid to use its weapons even to one tenth of their full potential. His main goal has become to spare the enemy at the price of the lives of his own people, to care more about the interests of others than about the interests of his own country, to listen more to the world's public opinion than to the cries of the Jews.

Sharon was destined for failure from the very beginning, because he did not strive toward victory. His was a war of attrition. He wanted the enemy to give up, rather than to be destroyed. Because otherwise there would be nobody with whom to conduct "peace talks." His blunder was in believing that it is possible to eliminate terror by destroying the terrorists, while leaving intact the fertile ground of hatred against the Jews. The latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem has proven once more the futility of such an approach. The 23-year old Arab who committed the massacre was previously unknown to Israeli intelligence sources. He was groomed into his role within the few months that Israel left Bethlehem unsupervised, after withdrawing from there under international pressure.

Instead of drying out the swamp, Sharon is pursuing individual mosquitoes. He has failed to understand that the longer the swamp exists the more mosquitoes will grow there. The longer the Arabs sit on primordial Jewish land the more reluctant they will be to abandon it. The longer Israel drags her feet, and abstains from sending the Arabs packing back to Arab lands, the more blood will be spilled.

Israel has failed to understand that she must deal with the Arabs exactly as they would have dealt with Israel if they were in her shoes. The Arabs construe any other type of response as proof of Israel's weakness. And in the current situation the Arabs would have expelled the Jews if they had the military potential that the Jews have today.

It is worthless to apply universal principles of morality to the war between the Arabs and the Jews. No common denominator exists in this struggle, because the Arabs want to defeat the Jews and the Jews want to achieve peace. In these circumstances, even after oceans of Jewish and Arab blood have been spilled and the Jews temporarily prevail in achieving peace, the Arab desire for revenge will never subside. They will still try for victory and at the first appropriate moment will rekindle the war again. The whole history of Arab-Jewish relations proves this without the shadow of a doubt.

Only a complete and unequivocal Israeli victory can guarantee peace to the Jews. And this victory can be achieved ONLY THROUGH THE REMOVAL OF THE ARABS from western Eretz Yisrael. The Arabs must live through this defeat. They must understand that this defeat is irreversible. They must realize that their settlement in the Jewish land, that started in earnest not more than one hundred and fifty years ago, is over. They must understand that, the Jews, as the eternal owners of this land, have finally exercised their God-given right and settled the land forever.

Sharon is not ready for this Jewish vision. He has become a politician. He can desperately strive for a peace that the Arabs will not give him. He is not ready for a complete victory.



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



The Jerusalem Post, Nov 6, 2002


By Michael Freund

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


Israel's Right, it would seem, should be just about preparing to declare victory.

Less than a decade after the signing of Oslo, the agreement has collapsed just as the Right said it would. Israel's great ideological debate of the 1990s - whether and how to deal with Yasser Arafat as the embodiment of Palestinian nationalism - has been decided, as history bears out the Right's thesis that one cannot negotiate with terror.

The American government, which backed and promoted Oslo for so many years, has never been more understanding of Israel's desire to abandon the accords, thanks to its systematic breach by the Palestinians. The same goes for American Jewry, most of which now accepts the necessity of moving beyond the failed peace.

The Left, by contrast, has never looked so feeble, as it pays the price for Oslo's demise, splintering apart amid mutual recriminations and name-calling. And with the Labor Party back in opposition, where it looks doomed to spending a lengthy spell, the Right would appear to be precisely where it wants to be - poised to assume sole leadership of the country for years to come.

And therein lies the problem. For, as much as Israel's Right has been vocal about Oslo, it has been equally silent about various other issues of national concern.

Indeed, the Right's greatest failing is that it has been consumed by its singular success. In the process, it has done little to forge a comprehensive philosophical framework beyond the issue of territory. It has focused so intently on the issue of land that it has neglected to grapple with all of the various other odds and ends of running a country.

To fully appreciate this, take a look at America, where the divide between Left and Right covers a wide range of issues. From the size of government, to its role in the life of the individual, to judicial activism to abortion, there is a lively and vigorous debate at work, one in which the Right offers the public a competing viewpoint on nearly every policy question that touches their day-to-day lives.

Punchy periodicals such as National Review, the Weekly Standard and Commentary all fuel an intellectual conservative atmosphere that is both animated and wide- ranging. They debate Iraq and foreign policy, but they also look at school vouchers, the tax burden, monetary policy, and other, seemingly more mundane, issues too.

Compare this situation with that of Israel, where the intellectual vacuum is as gaping as it is profound. There is no right-wing cultural conversation taking place, one that seeks to identify and solve the myriad of social and economic problems confronting the country. There is no searing indictment being made of the country's bloated public sector, no stinging call for a reduction in taxes, and no insistent demand for less government, rather than more.

Israel's Right has failed because it has not waged an overarching war of ideas against the Left, which is arguably just as crucial to the country's future as the war of the hilltops now being fought in Judea and Samaria. It has all but abandoned the public debate, directing the bulk of its energies in one direction to the detriment of all others.

To be fair, Israelis face the type of existential questions that perhaps leave little room for the luxury of debating the finer points of fiscal prudence.

Nevertheless, that has not stopped the Left from developing a well-honed intellectual infrastructure of its own, so there is little reason why Israel's right-wing cannot do the same.

Pioneering efforts in this regard have been undertaken by think-tanks such as the Shalem Center, whose intellectual journal Azure is second to none.

But until there exists a broader array of such groups, from a right-wing B'tselem to a conservative Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Left will continue to dominate the popular discourse.

Consequently, even when Israel's Right takes power, it does not know how to put that power to use, for the simple reason that its policy horizons are so utterly narrow and incomplete.

In this respect, the leaders of the Right would do well to recall the example of one of the most influential conservative American leaders of the past century - Ronald Reagan. As former White House senior domestic policy analyst Dinesh D'Souza notes in his new book Letters to a Young Conservative, Reagan was a successful president because "he had a Euclidean certainty about what he believed and where he wanted to take the country."

"Reagan," D'Souza adds, "was a determined man who was making some big and important claims. [he] wanted to halt the growth of the welfare state at home, and he wanted to dismantle the Soviet empire abroad. These were enormously ambitious goals."

And they were goals which he accomplished, because Reagan knew where he was headed and what he hoped to achieve.

To emulate that success, Israel's Right will have to do more than just assume power. It must first decide what it wants to be when it grows up.

The rest will surely follow.

(c) The Jerusalem Post




by Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University

18 November 2002


I am the faculty advisor of Israel Council at Purdue, a student organization dedicated to combating misrepresentations of Israel. On Sunday, November 17, the day of our major conference, THE ETHICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT, an article appeared in our Lafayette, Indiana newspaper about the Hebron massacre of Jewish worshipers two days earlier. The title of the AP (Associated Press) piece, written by Nasser Shiyoukhi, was "Palestinian Militants Kill 12 Israelis."

Here is the way in which the systematic murder of Jewish worshipers by Arab terrorists was described in the article. First, the killers were identified as "militants." Curiously, if the article had been about an Al Qaeda attack upon Americans emerging from prayer it would surely have referred to "terrorists." In this connection, I don't recall the September 11th attackers being sanitized in the press as "militants."

Second, the victims were not described as men, women and children, or even as Israelis, but as "settlers." The innuendo is clear. "Settlers" are not innocent human beings; rather, at best, they are monstrous usurpers, neocolonial oppressors of the vulnerable Arab masses. Even the infants. In essence, when one reads between the lines, one can hear the words: "They had it coming to them."

Third, the writer makes clear that the attackers had a distinct and possibly permissible rationale. Islamic Jihad, says Nasser Shiyoukhi, was "avenging the killing of its northern West Bank commander, Iyad Sawalha, by Israeli troops" several days earlier. So the terrorists and those who fight terror are presented on exactly the same moral plane. The violence of the defenders is no better than the violence of the murderers. Terrorism is no worse than counterterrorism.

Fourth, the special volatility of Hebron is explained in terms of unique intergroup orientations. According to Shiyoukhi: "The Muslims here are among the most devout, and the Jewish settlers among the most radical." Now, one might ask, why aren't the adjectives reversed? Why aren't the Muslims described as "radical" and the Jews as "most devout?" And, again, why "settlers?" The answers are obvious.

Fifth, the writer ends his piece with a reference to a recent Israeli defensive operation in Anzar, a Palestinian village near the West Bank town of Jenin. Here, says Shiyoukhi, "Israeli troops killed Mahmoud Obeid, 28, an ACTIVIST in Arafat's Fatah movement." An "activist." Not a terrorist. Not even a militant. What was the revolutionary specialty of this "activist?" It was the premeditated murder of Jewish women and children, by shooting and burning. The writer must have forgotten to mention this.

I am reminded of the always wonderful novel and movie EXODUS. Awaiting hanging at the end of a British rope, the elder Irgun leader reminds his small band of followers: "Jews and justice can never be uttered in the same breath." Truer words were never spoken. These words should never be forgotten by friends of Israel, not until much has changed on this dangerous planet.

And what words shall we associate with Palestinian "militants" and "activists?" What words do they use in dealing with what they sometimes openly call "The Jewish Problem?" Here are some current examples:

"Kill the Jews, wherever you are, in any country." This is the advice of Sheikh Ahmad Abu-Halabaya, in a recent sermon in Gaza, a sermon that was broadcast repeatedly on official Palestinian Authority television. The Sheikh is part of the Arafat-appointed clergy.

Some more words of Arab "militants" and "activists." PA schoolbooks teach that "all Jews are evil." PA newspapers print cartoons of bloodthirsty, hook-nosed Jews hovering threateningly above Arab women and children. The PA newspapers portray Jews as insects or animals. Palestinian Authority radio programs openly accuse all Jews of atrocities and warn insistently against Jewish conspiracies to poison Arabs. PA summers camps train Arab children to "slit the throats of Jews." Streets in PA-controlled cities are named after murderers of Jews. The PA sponsors rallies honoring the murderers of Jews as "heroes," "martyrs," and "stars."

Jews and justice? Hardly. The grotesque inversion of right and wrong is made even worse by the witting or unwitting complicity of "liberal" and "enlightened" Jews with their enemies. Even now, even after the manifest deception of Oslo is plain for all to see, many Jews - either through indifference or group self hatred - identify openly with those who despise them. This inexcusable identification can be found in Europe, in the United States, and even in Israel - wherever Jews are unable to understand the meaning of an implacable enemy.

Jews and justice? The juxtaposition does not have to be ironic or inconceivable. There can be justice for Jews in this world, but only after each individual Jew feels a responsibility to fight back against pertinent journalistic manipulations and to recognize the still-exterminatory goals of Arab war and terror. A "Final Solution" for the Jews is an ineradicable part of certain Arab/Islamic strategies against Israel. To pretend otherwise is to ensure the utter meaninglessness of "Never Again."


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and has published widely on international law and Israeli security issues. He is the author of twelve books and several hundred articles in scholarly journals. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

It is clear that Arab/Muslim killing teams have been dispatched to kill Americans and Israelis - or any soft target of opportunity.

There was a three pronged coordinated Terror day on November 28th, Thanksgiving Day in America. A. strike on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya killed15 dead (so far), including two young children, a brother and his sister there for a Bar Mitzvah. 80 people were wounded by this car bombing and the Israeli owned holiday hotel was burned down. At 8:30 A.M. a car with 3 homicide bombers was turned back by security. The car rammed the hotel and exploded a time bomb packed with plastic explosives.

The simultaneous attempt failed to take down an Israeli Arkia airliner Flight 582 taking off from Mombasa at 7:40 A.M. with 2 shoulder-fired missiles (SAM 7s - Soviet Strellas similar to the U.S. Stinger). The rocket launchers were found near the airport. They have been used by Al Qaeda but are widely dispersed among Terror groups all over the world. 271 Israelis landed safely at Ben Gurion Airport, escorted by Israeli fighter jets.

These 2 coordinated Terror attacks were closely followed by a shooting and grenade attack in Beit She'an, a northern city in Israel during Israel's Likud primary election that killed 5 and more than 30 wounded (more than 10 seriously), including 3 sons of former MK David Levy. The Terrorists attacked a bus stop and Likud polling center in the development town during the Likud election primary.

These 3 nearly simultaneous attacks are a clarion call to action. Hopefully, we will not now and never again hear President George W. Bush or Secretary of State Colin L. Powell issue a call for Israel to restrain her just retaliation.

Let us talk about some solutions:

As much as it goes against our sense of justice, both America and Israel will now have to send out their own teams to conduct summary executions of the equal opportunity Terrorists. Catching radical Islamists with the usual techniques of gathering sufficient evidence to arrest, interrogate, indict and then spend years in court will just not work to stop dedicated Terrorists.

Clearly, time is of the essence if the freedoms of civilization as we know it, if we are not to be submerged in wave after wave of Arab/Muslim Terrorists.

Israeli Intelligence knows who the planners of Terror are and can often track them and kill them. When America used an unmanned aircraft to track and kill a key Terrorist with a Hellfire missile, they knew he was a Terrorist and would be responsible for planning future Terrorist operations unless stopped. Appeasers and pacifists howled that due process was not employed.

Some may recall that, after Arafat's Black September murdered 11 Israeli athletes in Munich, Germany during the 1972 Olympics, Golda Meir sent out a team to track and kill the killers.

This, unfortunately, is the wave of the future. Arafat has been training children from the age of three years old and up to hate and kill Jews as soon as they are able. These children who were incubated as future killers are now grown - with more on the way. They are brainwashed to be drawn to killing by the drug of radical Islam. They deeply believe that killing for Islam will guarantee entry into Allah's paradise. To be alive after you die and get all the rewards denied them on earth is like living on hallucinogens.

We are talking about the cultivation of an entire civilian population under the umbrella of Islam to be a virtual army of potential Terrorists. Children, old men and women, family men with children, teenagers, 10 year olds, - all become the Terrorists' resource to be called upon to do the unthinkable.

The civilized West is in a war with Islam and is only slowly coming awake to the danger. Regrettably, we are still behind the curve in pre-empting Terrorists. We are still playing by polite rules of war delineated by the U.N.'s Geneva convention.

Israel has been restrained by Washington from taking the harsh responses necessary to put down a full blown revolt. The Palestinian Arabs and Arab Muslims from around the world have made it clear that there are no civilians in this war. All are considered fair targets, including children, babies, teens, shoppers, bus passengers, tourists, all nationalities, etc.

It is sad that Arafat, the Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis and all their proxy Terrorist organizations, have pulled us all down to their level. But, that is where they are and, if we don't kill them, they will kill us!

The Israelis have an appropriate phrase: "Ein Breira!" (No Choice). We should listen and act.


Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



The Jerusalem Post, November 19, 2002

15,000 AND COUNTING ...


Though hardly anyone seems to have noticed, Israel recently set a new world record. It is unclear when precisely it occurred, or what the exact circumstances were. But at some point earlier this month, Israel became the first country to endure its 15,000th terrorist attack in just over a two-year period.

That's right, you read that correctly. According to statistics compiled by the IDF, as of November 17, 2002, there was a total of 15,298 Palestinian terror attacks against Israel since the intifada began in September 2000.

That works out, on average, to nearly one terror attack every hour of every day over 25 consecutive months.

But that is not what qualifies Israel for a place in the record books.

After all, many countries have experienced periods of civil unrest, subversive violence and lethal terrorism, albeit not nearly as intense or as prolonged as that which Israel has known of late.

What truly puts the Jewish state in a category all its own, however, is its willingness to tolerate this ongoing terror campaign, which should have been defeated long ago.

Everyone, it seems, knows what the answer is to the current predicament. Everyone, that is, except for the government, which has neither the courage nor the vision to move into Judea, Samaria and Gaza and topple the Palestinian Authority once and for all.

Instead, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon prefers to play ping-pong with the terrorists, sending in the army only to withdraw it a few days later, bouncing back and forth with no long-term plan and certainly no clear-cut strategy.

INDEED, MUCH of the military activity undertaken by the army seems purely reactive in nature, coming only after Jews have been killed, rather than before.

Take, for example, the recent IDF response to the terror attack on Kibbutz Metzer, in which a member of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction murdered five Israelis.

Two hours later, Israeli helicopters fired four rockets into a car-repair shop in Gaza City that was being used as a clandestine weapons factory. Army spokesmen said that terrorists were using it to manufacture explosive devices and mortar shells.

If Israel knew that the place was a death factory, one in which the terrorists were actively producing tools to murder the innocent, then why did we wait until after the Metzer attack to knock it out? The minute the intelligence information regarding the garage's true nature was confirmed, why wasn't it taken out of commission forthwith?

Similarly, after last Friday's massacre in Hebron, when terrorists killed 12 Israelis near the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the IDF re-entered Palestinian-controlled portions of the city which it had evacuated just three weeks earlier, on October 25. According to a statement issued by the IDF Spokesman's Office, the purpose behind retaking the city was "to continue the determined action against the Palestinian terror infrastructure."

That sounds good, except for one nagging question: if Hebron's terrorist infrastructure was still in place, why did the army withdraw last month? Why did it leave the job only half-finished? Israel's critics at home and abroad suggest that the government's response to Palestinian terror is immoral because it results in the needless deaths of innocent Arabs. Frankly, I think they have it all wrong. If the government's policy qualifies as immoral, it is because it results in the needless deaths of innocent Jews.

For, by allowing the intifada to continue, and by refraining from taking the necessary steps to dismantle the PA and defeat the terror organizations, the government has undermined Israel's security and that of its citizens, leaving the terrorist threat in place to regroup and fight another day.

But we, the public, must also acknowledge our share of the blame for the current situation. We have been too silent in expressing our outrage over Palestinian terror and the government's feeble response. There have been no demonstrations in the streets, no hunger strikes, no prayer vigils, no mass awakening of indignation or fury.

Histadrut workers went on strike recently over a 2.1% cost-of-living increase, which amounts to just NIS 70 per month, but many people are unwilling to protest when it comes to the 73 Israelis who have been killed by terrorists over the past three months.

It is incumbent upon us to wake up from this nightmare. With elections approaching, we have an opportunity to use all the democratic and legal tools at our disposal, and to send a clear signal to those running for office. We must let them know that the people of Israel have had enough, and that we will no longer tolerate a continuation of the current policy, which amounts to little more than a series of tired and half-hearted measures.

The time has come for Israel to sweep into the territories, reassert control, and eliminate the terrorist infrastructure and those who sponsor it. Arafat should be led away in handcuffs and put on trial, along with the rest of the Palestinian leadership. We must stop being afraid of what the world might say, and start being more concerned about what the terrorists are doing to us, day in and day out.

Israel has already passed the 15,000 mark when it comes to Palestinian terror. If the current trend continues, we will hit the "milestone" of 20,000 some time early next summer. That is one record we cannot afford to break.


The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.

(c) The Jerusalem Post




By Shawn Pine

As Israel prepares to conduct its most fatal election since the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, its existential war with the Palestinians is entering its third year. There is a consensus among political observers of Israeli politics that the upcoming Likud primaries will determine the next Prime Minister. The failed Oslo Process, that culminated in Arafat's categorical rejection of the Barak proposals in the summer of 2000, and his subsequent rebuff of the Clinton Administration's proposals in January 2001, signified the effective end of the Oslo Process.

Both proposals would have created a Palestinian State in some 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza and would have functionally divided Jerusalem. By rejecting these proposals, while simultaneously initiating the intifada, Arafat finally persuaded most Israelis to conclude what opponents of the process have been arguing since 1993, namely that the strategic goal of Arafat is not a two state solution. Rather, it is the establishment of a Palestinian State from the banks of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea.

Today, only the most delusional proponents of the peace process continue to believe that a real and lasting peace can be reached with the Palestinians under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Unfortunately, notwithstanding unfolding events over the last two years, it appears that there is still a significant minority of Israelis that continue to delude themselves. This was manifested in the most recent Labor primaries in which Amram Mitzna, an advocate of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an unconditional return to negotiations with Arafat, easily won the Labor primaries. Should Sharon win the Likud primaries Israel will have to decide whether to continue Sharon's war of attrition with the Palestinians or Mitzna'a policy of capitulation.

Benjamin Netanyahu, by advocating expelling Arafat from the territories, and stating his unequivocal opposition to the creation of a Palestinian State, has proposed a third alternative. Netanyahu, is staking a position to the right of Sharon and is offering to lead Israel to victory in its war with the Palestinians. One would think that such a position would be the natural manifestation of any Israeli leader that came to the realization that a Arafat-led Palestinian government is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State. The problem with Netanyahu is that he suffers from a credibility gap. Likud critics of Netanyahu have not forgotten his acquiescence to the Wye Accords, which led to further Israeli withdrawals from the territories, and his failure to deal decisively with Arafat. However, if put into perspective, it is important to note that Netanyahu was operating under a host of geopolitical restraints imposed upon him by the Clinton administration. Since 9/11, Sharon has been generally unencumbered by such constraints yet has refused to apply the requisite military force to destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and to bring the war to a swift and decisive conclusion.

Sharon, having the dubious distinction as serving as Prime Minister during a period in which more Israeli citizens have been killed or wounded than at any other time in Israel's history, can point to few successes. Sharon's main claim of success is that he has solidified Israel's relationship with the United States. Given historical perceptions of Sharon that is indeed a noteworthy accomplishment. However, it is important to note that the improved relationship between Israel and the United States was more a function of unfolding events since 9/11 and not due to Sharon's political acumen. Sharon missed an historic opportunity to decisively destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. One can only speculate whether Netanyahu's better understanding of the American psyche would have allowed him to seize the opportunity.

If, as expected, Sharon continues to serve as Prime Minister, he will undoubtedly see his reelection as giving him a mandate to continue his war of attrition against the Palestinians. However, such a policy poses a number of dangers. The most immediate danger in the Israeli - Palestinian war of attrition is the lost of civilian life. Since the beginning of the current intifada, Israel has suffered more than 4,500 casualties, most of them civilians. While Sharon's policies targeting assassinations, limited military incursions, and attrition has allowed Israeli to maintain critical support from the United States it has violated the most sacrosanct tenets of governance, namely the obligation of a government to protect the security of its citizens. Moreover, it can be argued that Sharon's attrition policy has so prolonged the conflict that it has had a far more deleterious impact on Israel than if it had used overwhelming force at the beginning of the intifada and immediately crushed the terrorist infrastructure in the territories. While Sharon's supporters might argue that he lacked the requisite support from the Bush administration in the beginning of his tenure, he certainly had an excellent window of opportunity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when the American public had little sympathy for Islamic terrorists.

Another danger is that the international community will tire of this tit for tat and will feel compelled to enforce an agreement. The establishment of the "group of four" nations to move towards the establishment of a Palestinian State is just one such manifestation of this phenomena. As the United States expands its war against terrorism, and the war of attrition between Israel and the Palestinians continues, the four nations will come under increasing pressure to impose a settlement. It is important to note that the Oslo Process was widely embraced by the international community who came the view the process as more important than the substance of the agreements and supported the creation of a Palestinian State regardless of whether Palestinian obligations were met.

Thus far, the Bush administration has proven to be very sympathetic to Israel's plight. However, it is important to remember that in the months following the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the administration vacillated daily on its position vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians. This indicates that US policy could be circumvented by perceived myopic, ephemeral interests. This has been manifested in the decision by the United States to set a date for the establishment of a Palestinian State. While the United States has theoretically made the establishment of such a state contingent upon serious and fundamentally reforms with the Palestinian political and security structure, the reality is that these reforms will no more be fulfilled than the vacuous promises and commitments undertaken by the Palestinians in a myriad of agreements under the aegis of the Oslo Accords. It is important to remember, the failure of the Palestinians to fulfill any of their obligations under Oslo did not prevent continuation of the process, or the continuous certification by the US State Department that the Palestinians were indeed in compliance with its obligations to eschew terrorism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ironically, Sharon and Netanyahu have reversed roles. It was Sharon that was swept into office by a desperate Israeli polity that was looking for a leader with the fortitude to take the requisite steps to bring security to a beleaguered nation. Unfortunately, by any objective measure Sharon has thus far failed in this obligation. While it remains to be seen if the Sharon attrition policy will succeed, Israelis should be asking themselves at what price, in terms of human lives as well as their economy, must they endure. In the final analysis, Netanyahu's rhetorical vision comes much closer to what will ultimately be the solution of the conflict. Namely, the expulsion of Arafat from the region, and the functional eradication of Palestinian terrorist groups. However, given Netanyahu's political acumen it is difficult to discern whether he is merely engaging in political hyperbole or whether he is capable of demonstrating the requisite will to use the force needed to deal the decisive blow to accomplish these missions. Given that the two alternatives are Mitzna's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (as the Labor led Barak government did in Lebanon), and an unconditional return to negotiations (thereby allowing Arafat to continue his policy of unfettered support for terrorism without political or military repercussions), or Sharon's bleeding policy of attrition, perhaps it is time for Israel to give Netanyahu one more chance to function in an environment much more conducive than that which he operated during his last tenure as Prime Minister.


Shawn M. Pine is a military/strategic analyst for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He served for 9 years on active duty in U.S. Army Intelligence as well as the Israel Defense Forces. He recently returned from Israel where he was a Ph.D. candidate in international relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East.




By Richard H. Shulman

My associate attended a speech given officially in behalf of Israel. You tell me whether the speech is uplifting and inspirational, as from one who loves the near-miraculous Jewish state, which is confronted by a near-demonic Arab jihad.

The youngish Israeli public relations man started by admitting that Israel has lost the public relations war. He attributes the Arab victory to photographs showing occupation. My associate suggested not allowing the photos to be published. The speaker replied, that that's not democratic. Israel, a country without direct election of legislators, separation of powers, a restrained judiciary, independent or diverse media, or independent industry, worries about wartime censorship as being undemocratic? The US and Britain know how to keep the media from doing too much harm at the battlefield. Why doesn't Israel?

Why doesn't Israel make the case of its not being occupiers? The answer is that half the Israelis think they are. They either don't know the history and the issues or have a Diaspora mentality that appeases foreigners at their own people's expense.

Take that young speaker, for instance. He concedes that "two peoples have claims to one land." "Both sides have their rights and wrongs, so they must compromise." What we castigate as CNN, the Arabs castigate as "ZNN." Points of view are relative, he supposes.

I don't think that morality is relative or that points of view based upon morality and the historical record are relative. No believing Jew should, either. When the Jews lose their religious underpinning, they get swept away.

There is no question but that the European branch of CNN has gone out of its way to present the Al Qaeda and other anti-Western, anti-Israel viewpoints. This has been well-documented. The opinion, or, rather the propaganda, of the Arabs, totalitarians who constantly seek sympathy as victims and who complain that whoever isn't totally with them is totally against them, should not be taken seriously. Therefore, one expects Israeli P.R. speakers to challenge the Arab line, not give it equal credence with Israel's. One cannot win a war by conceding that a barbaric enemy has comparable rights and behavior. Nor would one be correct.

The Arab jihadists are trying to conquer the world. Their claims to the Land of Israel are poor ones, used as cover for jihad. The P.R. speaker inadvertently reveals the problem with Israel's foreign policy, and fails to challenge it. The problem is that Israel is not fighting the Arabs, except to stave them off. It is trying to appease them. Peres offers them all of Yesha and much of Jerusalem. Sharon wants them to stop fighting long enough so he can pretend terrorism has abated, and then offer them half of Yesha. Each thinks that the Arabs would be satisfied. Neither is taking into account the Arab goals. Jihad's goal is all or nothing. The Arabs are fanatics. Appeasement of fanatics always fails. They must be defeated and destroyed.

"Compromise?" Jordan was created in a previous, giant compromise, which failed to bring peace. There is no reason to attempt further compromise with fanatics who advance phony claims, such as that Arafat's Arabs are a separate people or are deserving of anything. To compare the two sides as both having rights and wrongs, when the Arabs are murderous, aggressive bigots, and the Israelis are law-abiding, civil, humanitarians, at least towards the Arabs, is ridiculous and unfair.

Built into the type of compromise suggested for peace are the seeds of the next Intifada. Each time a compromise is made or suggested, a large Arab population would be left among the Jews. That Arab population then demands independence.

The speaker's biggest surprise was that, while many US Jews boycotted the "NY Times" for its anti-Israel bias, he endorsed it as a source of information. In my Internet news commentary of seven pages each weekday, I devote much attention to "Times" bias.

The "Times" uses phony pictures, misleading headlines, value-laden vocabulary, uncritical presentation of unverified Arab statements and Israeli Army studies presented as if in doubt, more space and sympathetic wording for the Arabs, false statements of history, omissions of stories that would show the Arabs offensive and Israelis the victims, value judgments in news columns, and other kinds of deception.

Did he know that the "Times" has been anti-Zionist for decades? The owners feared that if they were perceived as Jewish nationalists, their US citizenship would become suspect. The publisher formed an anti-Zionist organization (the American Council for Judaism). He was an ally of the anti-Zionist Palestinian, Judah P. Magnes. The paper recently apologized for having minimized the Holocaust, lest it be seen as being a "Jewish" paper. (Such bending over backwards is not anti-Zionism but is distinguishable from antisemitism.) The current publisher enshrined "advocacy journalism" rather than objective journalism as its ruling doctrine.

The "Times" shares the State Department's subtle policy for the destruction of Israel, which meshes with the Arabs' phased plan for the destruction of Israel. The idea is to get Israel whittled down, so the Arabs can do the dirty work and administer the coup de grace. That's the "NY Times" that the speaker "loves!" How can Israel make effective propaganda when its spokesmen mistake their enemies as their friends?

By half surrendering, the speaker legitimizes Arab claims. No wonder Israel is losing at public relations! The Israeli Foreign Ministry makes the Arabs' case!



National Post of Canada  -


by Alan M. Dershowitz

If a visitor from a far away galaxy were to land at an American or Canadian university and peruse some of the petitions that were circulating around the campus, he would probably come away with the conclusion that the Earth is a peaceful and fair planet with only one villainous nation determined to destroy the peace and to violate human rights. That nation would not be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran. It would be Israel. There are currently petitions circulating on most North American university campuses that would seek to have universities terminate all investments in companies that do business in or with Israel. There are also petitions asking individual faculty members to boycott scientists and scholars who happen to be Israeli Jews, regardless of their personal views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. There have been efforts, some successful, to prevent Israeli speakers from appearing on college campuses, as recently occurred at Concordia University. There are no comparable petitions seeking any action against other countries that enslave minorities, imprison dissidents, murder political opponents and torture suspected terrorists. Nor are there any comparable efforts to silence speakers from other countries.

The intergalactic visitor would wonder what this pariah nation, Israel, must have done to deserve this unique form of economic capital punishment. If he then went to the library and began to read books and articles about this planet, he would discover that Israel was a vibrant democracy, with freedom of speech, press and religion, that was surrounded by a group of tyrannical and undemocratic regimes, many of which are actively seeking its destruction. He would learn that in Egypt, homosexuals are routinely imprisoned and threatened with execution; that in Jordan suspected terrorists and other opponents of the government are tortured, and that if individualized torture does not work, their relatives are called in and threatened with torture as well; that in Saudi Arabia, women who engage in sex outside of marriage are beheaded; that in Iraq, political opponents are routinely murdered en masse and no dissent is permitted; that in Iran members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Jews, are imprisoned and sometimes executed; that in all of these surrounding nations, anti-Semitic material is frequently broadcast on state-sponsored television and radio programs; in Saudi Arabia apartheid is practiced against non-Muslims, with signs indicating that Muslims must go to certain areas and non-Muslims to others; that China has occupied Tibet for half a century; that in several African countries women are stoned to death for violating sexual mores; that slavery still exists in some parts of the world; and that genocide has been committed by a number of countries in recent memory.

Our curious visitor would wonder why there are no petitions circulating with regard to these human rights violators. Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza -- an occupation it has offered to end in exchange for peace -- worse than the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Are the tactics used to combat terrorism by Israel worse than those used by the Russians against Chechen terrorists? Are Arab and Muslim states more democratic than Israel? Is there any comparable institution in any Arab or Muslim state to the Israeli Supreme Court, which frequently rules in favor of Palestinian claims against the Israeli government and military? Does the absence of the death penalty in Israel alone, among Middle East nations, make it more barbaric than the countries which behead, hang and shoot political dissidents? Is Israel's settlement policy, which 78% of Israelis want to end in exchange for peace, worse than the Chinese attempt at cultural genocide in Tibet? Is Israel's policy of full equality for openly gay soldiers and members of the Knesset somehow worse than the policy of Muslim states to persecute those who have a different sexual orientation than the majority? Is Israel's commitment to equality for women worse than the gender apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia?

Our visitor would be perplexed to hear the excuses made by university professors and students for why they are prepared to delegitimate Israel while remaining silent about the far worse abuses committed by other countries. If he were to ask a student about the abuses committed by other countries, he would be told (as I have been): "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel now." This reminds me of an incident from the 1920s involving then-Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell. Lowell decided that the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be reduced because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus, Judge Learned Hand, pointed out that Protestants also cheat, Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews."

It is not surprising, therefore, that as responsible and cautious a writer as Andrew Sullivan, formerly editor of The New Republic and now a writer for The New York Times Magazine, has concluded that "fanatical anti-Semitism, as bad or even worse than Hitler's, is now a cultural norm across much of the Middle East and beyond. It's the acrid glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis. They all hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed."

Our intergalactic traveler, after learning all of these facts, would wonder what kind of a planet he had landed on. Do we have everything backwards? Do we know the difference between right and wrong? Do our universities teach the truth?

These are questions that need asking, lest we become the kind of world the visitor would have experienced had he arrived in Europe during the late 1930s and early 1940s.


Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard and author of Why Terrorism Works. This essay is based on a speech he made at a United Jewish Appeal forum in Toronto.

© Copyright 2002 National Post



The Jerusalem Post, November 29, 2002


By Martin Sherman

Since the time of Dr. Goebbels [head of the Nazi propaganda machine] there has never been a case in which continual repetition of a lie has borne such great fruits... Of all the Palestinian lies there is no greater or more crushing lie than that which calls for the establishment of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank...

(Excerpt from "Palestinian Lies" by former Meretz minister of education, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, in Ha'aretz, July 1976)

A Palestinian state would be a deadly threat to Israel. This is not an empty political slogan, but a well-founded strategic truth. Accordingly, any sign of support for - or even reluctant resignation to - the eventual establishment of such a state is inconsistent with the preservation of Israel's vital national interests.

Any ambivalence on this issue - any policy other than resolute rejection of the very notion of an Arab state on the fringes of the Greater Tel Aviv area having total topographical control over the urban sprawl in the coastal plain, and full hydrological control over a third of the country's water resources - is a grave strategic error.

The approach that Israel should refrain from repudiating the idea too sharply - lest it be branded "extremist" by world opinion - is badly misguided. For this means sacrificing long-term strategic values for short-term tactical expediency. It means subordinating vital security considerations to diplomatic convenience. It means transferring the burden and the responsibility for safeguarding the national interest from diplomatic representatives in well-pressed suits in foreign capitals, to the combat soldiers in sweaty battle fatigues on the front line.

This is a total inversion - indeed perversion - of the proper order of things. After all, diplomacy is supposed to be a tool to serve and promote national policy, not a constraint which dictates this policy.

In this regard, there is ample reason for severe reprimand of those who have administered Israel's foreign policy in recent years. The grave dangers involved in the transfer of Judea and Samaria to sovereign Arab rule are so stark, so tangible and so blatant that is seems inconceivable that any foreign service worth its salt (and taxpayers' money) could not be capable of conveying to the world that the establishment of a Palestinian state would constitute an unreasonable, and hence unacceptable, risk for Israel.

No country that wishes to survive can be expected to acquiesce to such a measure; no leader who cannot repel pressures for its implementation should be allowed to continue to govern. The fact that the idea of a Palestinian state has gathered widespread international support does not testify to the merits of the idea or the inevitability of its eventual implementation. Rather it testifies to the quality - or the lack thereof - of the performance of those charged with promoting Israel's interests abroad and the necessity for their rapid replacement.

THE DEADLY threats that would confront Israel in the event of the establishment of a Palestinian state manifest themselves along every conceivable dimension: width, length, height and depth. Width - because Israel will be left with less than the minimum territorial depth required for the deployment of a modern military defense system to protect the coastal plain in which 80 percent of the country's population and 80% of the economic activity are located; length - because Israel will have to contend with the creation of a permanent border, hundreds of kilometers long, on the very approaches of the Dan region and adjacent to the nation's major urban centers; height - because from the highlands of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians will have total topographical control over all the infrastructure (civilian and military) in the low-lying coastal strip, including airfields, seaports and power plants; depth - because the Palestinians will have hydro-strategic control over crucial groundwater sources, creating a situation in which Israel's water problem could be transformed from a grave but manageable crisis to an insoluble catastrophe.

Detailed explication of these dangers go beyond the above points. However, it was none other than Shimon Peres who encapsulated their essence, in the following apt, articulate and accurate warning (in his book, Tomorrow is Now): "If a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passersby, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain." (my translation - M.S.)

Is it possible the present leadership of the Likud has forgotten what the past leadership of the Left once knew?

Indeed, in this regard, the "National Camp" would do well to adopt the proud, assertive position, expounded in the past by a prominent member of the left wing, Prof. Amnon Rubinstein. In a 1976 Ha'aretz article, Rubinstein, a foremost expert on constitutional law, said: "The claim that the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael have the right to determine for themselves how to organize their political [sic] must be rejected. Israel has a right and a duty to state its own position - and to take measures to have this position adopted."

His words were valid then. They are still valid today.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.

(c) The Jerusalem Post



[Editor's Note: The Freeman Center has always appreciated the exceptional wisdom of Yoram Ettinger. A special Kol Hakavod for the article below.]


By Yoram Ettinger

*Has the Department of State reflected the position of the US President, Congress and public toward Israel?

*Has the Administration expressed - in an exclusive or a dominant manner - the US position on Israel?

*Has Israel's defiance of Administration's pressure undermined US-Israel relations, and have the bilateral relations been advanced by Israel's succumbing to pressure?

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LEADS THE EXECUTION OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, BUT it acts under the President and it is supervised by Congress. THE DOVISH LEANING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SHEDS LIGHT ON THE DISCONNECT WITH MOST OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. Thus, the Department of State opposed the 1991 war on Saddam, which was supported by the public. In contrast to US public opinion and to positions upheld by the majority in Congress, the Department of State opposed the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, it pressured Israel to cede the Negev and to internationalize Jerusalem, it has pressured Israel to withdraw to the 1949 Lines and it has been preoccupied with theestablishment of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River.

THE POSITIONS OF SECRETARY POWELL ON CHINA, RUSSIA, NO. KOREA, IRAQ, IRAN, BALLISTIC MISSILES, THE U.N., COMBATING TERRORISM, THE PLO, ISRAEL, etc.HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, MOSTOF THE PUBLIC AND CONGRESS. When Powell announced, early in 2001, his intentions to soften US policy on Iraq, President Bush reaction was expressed via a massive bombing of Iraqi military headquarters. That was a loud and clear signal on the identity of the chief policy formulator. The Department of State has opposed the White House attitudes toward Arafat and Israel's incursion into PLO-controlled areas, but it has had to accept a policy determined by those who espouse a non-Foggy Bottom world view.

Rarely has the influence of the Department of State been as limited as of the one headed by Powell, who lacks the special clout possessed by Baker, Schultz, Kissinger and even Albright.


While the White House has been shifty on Israel since 1948, Congress has been a bastion of CONSISTENT FRIENDSHIP toward Israel since the establishment of the Jewish State, REFLECTING PUBLIC OPINION in the United States. President Clinton aimed at cutting foreign aid to Israel beyond Israel's own voluntary phase-out ($60MN annually), but Congress prevented the excessive cut. Congress played a similar role when Clinton suggested to reduce the funding of ballistic defense, including the US-Israel Arrow project. The Administration rejected Israel's request, in 1991, for an emergency aid package, covering cost caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the resulting Gulf War. However, Congress forced the Administration to approve a comprehensive aid package, including a $650MN in cash and $700MN in military hardware (Drawndown Authority).

UNLIKE THE ISRAELI/EUROPEAN POLITICAL SYSTEM, where the Prime Minister and Cabinet Members are the leading legislators, the US system prides itself with a genuine SEPARATION OF POWERS, CHECKS AND BALANCE and Independence of the legislature (legislators owe their election, mostly, to constituents rather than to the President). While the President is the chief policy-shaper and executor, implementation of policy depends on Congressional Power of the Purse and the Power of Oversight. Congress may approve a budget, cut, add or suspend it. The Senate possesses the powers of Advise and Consent, Ratification and Confirmation, approving or rejecting treaties and top appointments. Thus, the current Senate has opposed and precluded a series of judicial appointments, as was the fate of Clinton's appointments to the head of the CIA (Tony Lake), ambassador to Mexico (Gov. Weld), etc. Congress has become much more assertive in the area of foreign policy, and has the privilege of SELF-EMPOWERMENT. Congress may create/ban executive agencies, may delegate/suspend authority to the president, may obligate/stop foreign policy programs, may summon top administration officials for criss-cross investigation, may mandate the executive to submit periodical reports (as a precondition for policy implementation), may initiate policy, may trim/suspend/extend the duration of administration policies and programs, may approve/disapprove/'precondition or initiate the transfer/sale of military systems and the extension of foreign aid programs, may order the development of weaponry and the initiation of military cooperation programs, may establish/close military bases, may mandate studies on foreign policy and defense programs, etc. SOME 12,000 PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL STAFF MEMBERS assist Congress in its oversight duties.

WHILE THE PRESIDENT ENJOYS A NATURAL EDGE, OVER CONGRESS, IN THE FORMULATION AND EXECUTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICIES, THE JEWISH STATE HAS NOT BEEN PERCEIVED AS A GENERIC FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE. Israel has been perceived by most Americans, and therefore by most of the legislators onCapitol Hill, as well as by President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and other top administration officials, as a special domestic/international issue, embedded in the foundations of US culture, Judeo-Christian values, Western democracy, pluralism and patriotism, a role-model in the defiance of natural and ideological challenges and the willingness to sacrifice short-term convenience for long-term principles.

THE SEPTEMBER 2001 TRAUMA HAS BOLSTERED THE SPECIAL AFFINITY TOWARD, AND THE COMPREHENSION OF, ISRAEL'S OWN PREDICAMENT. 9/11 has further accentuated the gap between Foggy Bottom and the American public as far as worldview in general, and attitudes toward Israel in particular. The traditional sources of anti-Israel sentiments (such as the major oil companies, some of the multi-national companies, etc.) have usually been outperformed by SHARED VALUES, JOINT INTERESTS and MUTUAL THREATS (Islamic terrorism, Iraq, Iran, ballistic missiles, etc.) binding together the leader of the Free World and its Sole Soul Ally in the Middle East, the Jewish State.

CONTRARY TO THE SUPERFICIAL OBSERVATION, succumbing to administration pressure has not necessarily led to the improvement of US-Israel relations, and standing up to pressure has not necessarily worsened the LONG-TERM binational ties. For instance, the 1989 BOMBING OF IRAQ'S NUCLEAR REACTOR triggered a US military embargo on Israel, but - in the long run - it has dramatically enhanced the strategic status of Israel in Washington. 1948-1992 was characterized by a systematic disagreement between Israel and the US on the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. All Israeli prime ministers (from Ben Gurion to Shamir) have fended off administration attempts to coerce Israel to undertake painful, sweeping and reckless territorial concessions. However, US-Israel LONG-TERM strategic relations were improved drastically during the same period, while bickering, tensions and SHORT-TERM crises featured frequently in the headlines of US and Israeli media. The most comprehensive strategic agreement was signed in April 1988, at the height of the Intifada, while Israel and Prime Minister Shamir were castigated by US officials and media. A major strategic agreement was concluded in 1983, while Israel was severely criticized for its war against PLO bases in Lebanon. Thus, short-term considerations were overtaken by mutual long-term principles and interests, and the wider regional and global context (USSR and radical threats) outshined the narrow context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

US-ISRAEL RELATIONS HAVE NOT EVOLVED AROUND THE OSLO PROCESS OR THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT. US-ISRAEL SPECIAL TIES HAVE BEEN NOURISHED BY A MUCH WIDER CONTEXT (HISTORICALLY, GEOGRAPHICALLY, CULTURALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, MILITARILY, EDUCATIONALLY AND POLITICALLY) OF SHARED VALUES, JOINT INTERESTS AND MUTUAL THREATS. The US would not benefit from a wimpy ally, which can hardly withstand the pressure of the tiny Hizballah, the weakling Lebanese government, the regionally despised PLO/PA, despotic Egypt, etc. The US would rather have, on a rainy day, an determined conviction-driven ally, willing to withstand any pressure (even that exercised by the administration), in order to pursuit its just principles and interests, and ready to pay ANY price for the preservation of its own sovereignty and long-term concerns.

*Has the Department of State reflected the position of the US President, Congress and public toward Israel?


Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post


By Evelyn Gordon

(The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.)

...Reports by two Israeli Arab groups paint a dangerously false picture...


Over the last two years, Israelis have understandably devoted most of their attention to the war being waged in their streets. Yet the war being waged in the public- relations arena is potentially equally deadly - and nothing better illustrates this than the twin reports by two Israeli Arab groups, the Nazareth-based Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) and the Haifa-based Mossawa Center, that were mailed last month to 12 international organizations, including the European Commission, the European Parliament, the UN and the US Congress.

The reports, partly financed by Jewish money via the New Israel Fund, are one long string of lies, half-truths and misleading omissions - whose goal, as Jonathan Cook, co-author of the HRA report, explained in the International Herald Tribune last week, is to prove that Israel is not really a democracy; it is "a democracy only if you are a Jew."

HRA's report paints police interrogations of Arab MKs as political persecution by either omitting the reasons - as in Muhammad Barakei's call for Israeli Arabs to join Palestinian violence against Israel - or distorting them. For instance, it describes "a meeting MKs Ahmed Tibi and Muhammad Barakei had with Yasser Arafat in Ramallah in November 2001. Although the meeting took place when there were no military restrictions imposed on Ramallah, the prime minister asked Attorney-General Elyakim Rubinstein to investigate the MKs. Rubinstein questioned the MKs over the fact that a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was present in Arafat's room." Omitted is the fact that the PFLP had assassinated an Israeli cabinet minister just the previous month, and that a meeting with this organization's leader thus violated the law prohibiting contacts with terrorist organizations.

Similarly, the report avers that MK Taleb a-Sanaa was questioned because he termed a Palestinian shooting attack on the Kirya (Israel's Pentagon), which wounded eight soldiers and two civilians, "an act of special quality, since it was not directed against civilians - it was aimed against soldiers in the heart of the State of Israel." That is largely a statement of fact, and thus an absurd pretext for an interrogation. But the document omits the continuation: "This is the legitimate struggle par excellence of the Palestinian people." One can only imagine the response had an American congressman termed al-Qaida's attack on the Pentagon "legitimate." Yet a-Sanaa, though questioned, was neither prosecuted nor deprived of any of his parliamentary privileges.

The report also alleges that Jewish MKs receive preferential treatment: "In a case where Avigdor Lieberman was accused of threatening a police officer, a simple apology was all that was required to cancel the investigation." In fact, the attorney-general decided to indict Lieberman for his statements - a decision he has made only once against an Arab MK. He settled for an apology only after indictment was ruled out by the Knesset's decision that calling a policeman an "anti- Semitic racist" did not justify lifting Lieberman's parliamentary immunity. Many Arab MKs have made similarly offensive statements to public officials without even being questioned, much less threatened with indictment and forced to apologize to get the case closed.

CITING SEVERAL cases in which Arab MKs who accused policemen of assaulting them during demonstrations were later themselves accused of assaulting the policemen, the report says the credence given the policemen's testimony is proof "of the degree of racism towards Arabs in Israeli society." It fails to mention - as numerous demonstrators against the Oslo Accords could testify - that policemen also frequently level assault charges against Jewish demonstrators who accuse them of brutality, and are believed in these cases as well.

It claims that MK Azmi Bishara represents "the first time that the Knesset has lifted the immunity of an MK in a case not involving criminal activity or corruption" - omitting the fact that his immunity was lifted because he was charged with a crime (advocating violence) - and blasts a commission of inquiry's finding that Sheikh Ra'ad Salah helped incite riots without mentioning what prompted this finding: the Islamic Movement leader's oft-repeated canard that the government is planning to destroy al-Aksa Mosque.

But perhaps the worst distortion is the statement that "on May 15, 2002, the Knesset passed three amendments... allowing [the Central Elections Committee] to use new criteria for banning individuals or political parties from running for election. The grounds for barring candidates include explicitly or implicitly denying that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state; engaging in racist incitement; and supporting the armed struggle of an enemy country or a terrorist organization." These amendments, the report claims, will effectively bar Arab parties from running, since "all Arab parties have adopted platforms denying that Israel can be both truly democratic and a Jewish ethnic state." Yet it somehow fails to mention that the "Jewish and democratic" and "racist" criteria have been on the books since 1985 - and the only party they were ever used against during these 17 years was Kach, a Jewish party.

Only the "armed struggle" provision is new - and the charge that it will be used to ban Arab MKs because they "have continued supporting the Palestinian Authority and its chairman Yasser Arafat" is ludicrous. Many Jewish MKs from Labor and Meretz also support the PA's continued existence and consider Arafat its legitimate leader. What the law forbids is "supporting the armed struggle" - which is hardly unreasonable. What democracy would permit its legislators to actively encourage armed attacks on its citizens?

Since Israel's reputation as the region's only democracy is the basis for most of its support in the West, it is easy to see how damaging this report could be if its lies were believed. Combating such vicious propaganda must therefore be a prime objective for Israelis of every political stripe.

(c) Jerusalem Post



New York Post, November 5, 2002


By Daniel Pipes

Arab Voice, an Arabic-language newspaper published weekly since 1993 from Main Street in Paterson, N.J., appears to be just another one of America's many ethnic publications.

Its news pages are replete with items about Palestinian travails and possible war with Iraq. Its featured columnist is James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. Its publisher, Walid Rabah, modestly describes himself as "an activist with the Palestinian Writer's Guild in the United States." Its pages are filled with ads hawking Arab-owned restaurants, travel agencies, real-estate offices, retail stores and doctors' offices.

It all appears achingly ordinary. But it is not.

For some weeks now, the Arab Voice has been serializing an Arabic-language version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in its pages (but not - revealingly - on, its Web site).

And "The Protocols" is no ordinary book.

It purports to be the secret transcription of a Zionist Congress that met in Switzerland in 1897, as taken down by a tsarist spy and first published in St. Petersburg in 1903.

At the meeting, Jewish leaders allegedly discussed their plans to establish Jewish "sovereignty over all the world." "The Protocols" includes their boasts of being "invincible" and plans to establish a "Super-Government Administration" that will "subdue all the nations."

In fact, "The Protocols" is a fabrication forged by the tsarist secret police, the Okhrana, in about 1898-99. This pseudo-document had limited impact until 20 years later, after World War I and the Russian Revolution, when a receptivity had developed for its message about a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world.

"The Protocols" quickly became a best-seller on appearing in German translation in January 1920. The former German royal family helped defray publication costs, and deposed Kaiser Wilhelm II had portions of the book read out loud to dinner guests. Translations into other languages quickly followed. Henry Ford endorsed the book, as did The London Times.

Although the book's forged nature was established by 1921, somewhat reducing its appeal and reach (the Times and Ford both retracted their endorsements), it remained a powerful force. A 1926 study found that "no piece of modern literature has even approximated the circulation of 'The Protocols.' "

The historic importance of "The Protocols" lies in permitting anti-Semites to reach beyond their traditional circles and find a huge international audience. Its vagueness - almost no names, dates or issues are specified - was one key to this success. The purportedly Jewish authorship also helped to make the book more convincing.

Its facile embrace of contradiction - Jews supposedly use all tools available, including capitalism and communism, philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism, democracy and tyranny - made it possible for "The Protocols" to extend its insidious ideas to both rich and poor, Right and Left, Christian and Muslim, American and Japanese.

Its hold on the extreme right prompted a hitherto cautious Adolf Hitler to endorse the book, refer often to it and make it a centerpiece of Nazi Jew-hatred and a key argument in justifying his murder of 6 million Jews. In the words of historian Norman Cohn, "The Protocols" served as the Nazis' "warrant for genocide."

The forgery has since polluted public life wherever it appeared; as Italian novelist Umberto Eco explains, it was "self-generating; a blueprint that migrated from one conspiracy to another."

The process continues; this week, an Egyptian television station begins airing a 41-part blockbuster Ramadan special, "Knight Without a Horse" spreading "The Protocols' " defamation to a vast new audience and creating new legions of anti-Semites.

That a forgery that helped cause the Holocaust is now openly published in New Jersey points to two important realities:

* Arab and Muslim institutional life in the United States remains as radicalized after 9/11 as it was before.

* Arab and Muslim institutions are now the primary advocates of anti-Semitism worldwide, including in the West.

To prevent "The Protocols" from making further inroads in the United States, advertisers, James Zogby and the newspaper's printer must immediately and completely disassociate themselves from the Arab Voice. In addition, Arab and Muslim groups in the United States must explicitly denounce "The Protocols" and condemn all those who forward it, whether the Arab Voice or Egyptian television.

Not to do so makes them complicit in the prejudice and villainy of this foul tract.



Excerpts from an interview with Tzali Reshef - Ha'aretz Magazine 8 November 2002


By Ari Shavit

[IMRA: For some reason this item was published in the hard copy English edition but not on the Ha'aretz website. Given that Reshef openly admits Peace Now did reveal its goals in the past, an interesting follow-up is what the true final goals of Peace Now are and if the wealthy American Jews who have been helping to pay for the "trip" all these years have a clue what they have been actually supporting.]

Our idea was to talk to the public in a language it was ready to listen to and not try to foist on it ideas it was not ready to accept. I called it the principle of the bus: not to argue now about what the end of the journey will be, but to invite aboard everyone who is ready to travel to the next stop. If we had written in the officer's letter of 1978 that in order to obtain peace, we will have to return all the territories and go back to the 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem and recognize the human aspect of the refugee problem very few people would have gone along with us. We would have remained a pure but marginal left-wing group.

Therefore, I was insistent that our message not be radicalized and I didn't want to have my photograph taken too often as part of the human rights struggle. What gave Peace Now its great strength was our external image as patriots and as people who do not represent the other side. We were able to create a label ("brand") that spoke to a great many people. That label is our success. The result was that while the left wing movements in which my parents were members had dozens or hundreds of people, tens and hundreds of thousands of people support our movement.

Question: Isn't there a manipulative element here?

Of course there is. I was a manipulator when I was 24, but a manipulator in a positive sense of the word. I knew back then that if we said what we thought it would be taken badly. To say we have to make concessions is bad. That is why we went with the officer's letter. That I why we took Yuval Neria, who was awarded the Medal of Valor in the Yom Kippur War, and placed his name at the top of the list. Do you really think that I thought Yuval understood more than I did because he got the Medal of Valor and I didn't?

We did it in order to combat the negative image and to talk to people in a language that would make it possible for them to identify with us. You can call it manipulation and there were some who called it opportunism. But in my view, it was a farsighted strategy. I think it was smart.

Ha'aretz (Magazine Section) 8 November 2002


Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail: POB 982 Kfar Sava)





By Bernard J. Shapiro

The following chart demonstrates clearly how closely the positions of APN parallel those of Arab/PLO positions. (Written and published originally in 1993.)


Position or Policy Peace Now Arab PLO Freeman Center
1. Israel should return to 1967 borders YES YES NO
2. Status of Jerusalem should be negotiated with Palestinians YES YES NO
3. Jews have the right to settle in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza NO NO YES
4. Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria, & Gaza are illegal YES YES NO

5. Supported linking the loan guarantees to a freeze in settlement

6. Favors American pressure to force an Israeli withdrawal to '67 borders YES YES NO
7. When an Arab mob attacks Israeli soldiers and some Arabs are killed, this situation is described as: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION SELF-DEFENSE

8. Israeli control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is the cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

9. Slander Israel in the Media and International Conferences YES YES NO
10.Wish to strip Israel of the strategic mountain ranges in Judea, Samaria, & Golan making it vulnerable to attack YES YES NO






By Steven Plaut

1. Haaretz is the far-leftist anti-Zionist Israeli newspaper, more extreme than the other two main Hebrew leftist dailies. In recent months, Haaretz columnists, all of whom are far leftist except one token non-leftist allowed per week (creating a ratio of pluralism of 150 lefties per non-leftist article), have been increasingly coming out openly for ending Israel's existence as a separate country. In the past the two most anti-Jewish columnists in Haaretz, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, have openly called for Israel to cease to exist and instead to be "merged" into some larger Palestinian "bi-national" state, headed by the PLO and stretching from Tel Aviv to the Jordan River. Guest Op-Ed columnists from among Israel's tenured traitors have written similar calls in Haaretz.

Today, a slightly less extremist regular columnist for the paper, Meron Benveniste, joins the trend and writes a column endorsing the ending of Israel's existence. (Nov 7)

Meanwhile, Amira Hass's regular sidekick in demonizing the Jewish settlers in Haaretz is Yair Sheleg. Today he has a "news story" in Haaretz about religious Jews supposedly marching about chanting sentences from the Bible about killing the enemy, like Samason's, while waving knives in a bloodthirsty manner, all directed against the poor innocent Palestinian terrorists. Even worse, one of the religious Jews who had been murdered in a terrorist attack near Hebron in the summer had requested in his will that he be allowed to be buried with his army dagger. More bloodthirsty religious Jews!! Of course, Sheleg's honey Amira has already been convicted of libel and lying about the settlers so perhaps Yair's turn is not far off.

2. It may be a first. A judge in Jerusalem just convicted an Arab from East Jerusalem for "incitement" and "racism", the terms usually reserved for JDL-Kach types. All he had done was scream at a rally "Massacre all the Jews" and "Hizbollah - Annihilate Kiryat Shmona."

The Left and Moshe Negbi are no doubt outraged - after all, this is protected free speech.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments