Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 11             B"H   DECEMBER 2003             NUMBER 12

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


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


GENEVA SELLOUT....Charles Krauthammer


"GENEVA ACCORD" Alternative Version....Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons


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 2003 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




Will We Be Maccabees Or Victims?

By Bernard J. Shapiro

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

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

Jews in their own land, with their G-d, have great power, much more than the sum of arms and men. For example during Israel's War of Independence, some 6000 Jews were killed. A horible number and a great sacrifice, but ONLY 1% of the Jews of the Yishuv. Compared to the Holocause we see a great transformation in the power of the Jews to defend themselves. Unfortunately with the advent of Oslo in 1993, the price of Jewish blood is again becoming cheap.

During Chanukah we should recall the legacy of the Maccabees. Remember how two "Hellenized Jews," Jason and Menelaus tried to destroy Judaism and force assimilation on the Jewish population. For generations we have taught our children about the evil Antiochus and his attempt to suppress the Jews. In reality, there were traitors among our own people who led the way for Antiochus.

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

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

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

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

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

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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

OK, sometimes I do get frustrated. I spend all my time and energy bringing the truth about the harsh realities facing Israel and the Jewish people. Many good people, like the readers of IsraelNationalNews and The Maccabean Online, understand my feeling of despair at our total lack of influence in centers of power in Israel. We are searching for a new course of action that is more effective. Short of a miracle I don't know what to do. For the sake of history this editorial will review the relevant facts. It is my fond hope and prayer that some one in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office will read and understand our message:


We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls.

It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a pseudo-peace that is really the wolf of war wrapped in sheep's clothing. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. Why do some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated PEACE with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers?

Israelis my age have fought in five wars and I understand their desire to be free of constant conflict. Unfortunately there is no magic cure. I wish I could write more optimistic words. Beyond the neighboring states that Israel is negotiating with now lies another ring of unmitigated hostility led by Islamic fundamentalists like those in Iran.

As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.

In blood and fire was Israel born and on a hot anvil was she forged. The brave young soldiers of Israel must take a quick glance back to the crematoria of Auschwitz and then go forth to face the enemy knowing that there is still no alternative (ein briera).


Just as bigots obscure reality about certain groups in an evil way, reality can be obscured by the seemingly well-meaning, who are deluded. This self-delusion, or self-deception, can sometimes have tragic consequences. Unfortunately, Jews throughout history have deluded themselves about their position in society. They pursue utopian solutions to complex political problems and disputes. Jews rejoiced as the enlightenment spread across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many were eager to give up their Jewishness and become German, French, Italian, and English. In the final analysis those societies viewed them as Jews. Self-delusion came into collision with reality and left us with the stench of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz. Many Russian Jews eagerly supported the communist idea of a worker's utopia with no nationalities and no religion. Reality taught them that their neighbors still considered them Jews.

The left-wing in Israel suffers from gross delusions about Arabs. In the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary they believe peace is possible. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Benjamin, said it best:

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"

I wish someone would explain to me why ANY INTELLIGENT Israeli could believe the nonsense (Oslo, Road Map, Geneva) its leaders are expounding. Professor Mark Steinberger (Department of Math and Statistics, State University of New York in Albany, New York) supplied the best answer I have ever heard:

"I would say that leftists must inhabit an alternate universe, except that we wind up having to pay the consequences for their detachment from reality. But while we do live in the same objective world, their vision of it seems to have nothing in common with ours. They do not comprehend reality as we see it, and when challenged with evidence that would seem to buttress our view, they seem either to dismiss it for theoretical reason or ignore it completely. One can list various dangers in the agreement, and give objective evidence that Palestinians have no desire for peace, but still want to drive our people into the sea. What is the reaction? They will tell you that self-determination and prosperity will change the Palestinians' outlook and behavior. On what do they base this? Not on evidence from Arab societies. Rather it is based on theory.

To me, this looks like an unwillingness to deal with reality, and it echoes the unwillingness of the Jewish community of the thirties to recognize the threat posed by the Nazis. Indeed, it seems we have learned nothing at all from our experience with Nazism. The Holocaust has become little more than a tale to frighten children: demons in a morality play. They have turned the Holocaust into an image divorced from real world happenings. Millions more Jews could die in Israel, but they refuse to even imagine the possibility. They will not allow reality to interfere with their myths."


The answer is YES But only after mind-boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.


The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems. Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam.

2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

Islam divides the world between Believers and Infidels. Jews and Christians are relegated to the status of Dhimmis or second class citizens. The Koran clearly calls on Moslems to degrade and humiliate both groups.

The Arab/Moslem world will have to develop a tradition of respect for women, minorities, and human rights in general before they will be ready for peace with Israel. It seems a bit odd that our State Department is pushing democracy and human rights from one end of the globe to the other WITH THE REMARKABLE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Why are the Arabs insulated from pressure to democratize their societies?

It is obvious that no peace agreement would be worth anything with people believing in the above Islamic tenets, failing to practice democracy or show respect for minorities and human rights.


Great issues of war and peace as related to Israel are being debated by Jews in Israel and America. There are strong opinions on both sides of the Atlantic as well as both sides of the major issues. Professor Paul Eidelberg of Bar-Ilan University, reviews the historical facts:

"Between 1945 and 1978 the longest time without a war going on someplace was a mere 26 days. On an average day there are 12 wars being fought somewhere on earth. The consensus of scholars has been that the norm of international relations is not peace but war. As Eidelberg reports, "Indeed, the occurrence of 1,000 wars during the last 2,500 years indicates that "peace" is little more than a preparation for war. Which means that peace treaties are WORTHLESS, to say the least."

Eidelberg then quotes from a book by Lawrence Beilenson, entitled THE TREATY TRAP, saying, "After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties are made to be broken. In fact, he shows that treaties for guaranteeing the territorial integrity of a nation are useless to the guaranteed nation, and worse than useless insofar as they engender a false sense of security. Such treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient." [This also goes for the recent Oslo and Geneva treaties.]


Midge Dector on "peace" "What I want to say is something that virtually the whole history of the 20th century teaches us and yet something we refuse to learn. And that is , when applied to the affairs of nations, peace is an evil word. Yes I said evil. And the idea of peace as we know it is an evil idea. From the peace of Versailles to "peace in our time" at Munich...each declaration of peace or expressions of longing for peace ended in slaughter. Not necessarily immediately and not necessarily directly, but slaughter all the same..."

"For there is no such thing as making peace. Nations who are friendly do not need to do so, and nations or people who are hostile cannot do so. To cry peace, peace when there is no peace, the prophet Jeremiah taught us long a go, is not the _expression of hope, not even superstition but a reckless toying with the minds and hearts of people whose very future depends on their capacity to rise every day to the harsh morning light of the truth."


The Land of Israel was given to Abraham for the Jewish People in perpetuity. David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and founder of the Labor Party, said the following about the Jewish People's connection to Israel:

"No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish People over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish People has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."


We find all the expressions of horror at the recent Rabbi's ruling concerning a soldier's obligation to avoid abandoning army bases and settlements to terrorists, to be hypocritical, self-serving, and unfortunate. The Israeli government is in rebellion against everything that Israel, Zionism, and Judaism are all about. They are the ones causing the rift in the body politic and they will be totally responsible for any resulting violence.

When will the Nationalist Camp realize that we are "at war already" with the left-wing tyranny that rules Israel [though seeming not the ruling party]? At what point will Israelis realize that the CIVIL WAR they fear, IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE LOSING? The monopoly on power must be broken or there is no hope.

History is usually written by the victors but truly there are seldom universally accepted moral standards. We can say with absolute certainty, however, that the Jewish return to Zion and our struggle today for Eretz Yisrael are more righteous than any other struggle for national liberation in the history of the world.

Following my five weeks of research in Israel, I spelled out (May-June 1994 issue of THE MACCABEAN) the nature of this inevitable conflict:


1. The Palestinians expect and will demand that every Jew be removed from their areas of control including the whole of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

2. The Jews of YESHA not only plan to stay in their homes but will fight for them militarily. This obviously conflicts with #1.

I also stated: "The number of Jews in YESHA is about 144,000 (now over 240,000). Not counting women, children, and men over 50 leaves about 50,000 men capable of resisting a PLO armed force. These men are all IDF veterans and reservists with army issue UZI's or M-16s with at least two clips (30 rounds per clip) of ammunition per gun. All Jewish villages are on the hills with a commanding view of the area. The Arab villages control the roads creating a strategic situation similar to the pre-state fighting of 1947-48. During my visit I toured the whole area, and emphasized the need to get past the shock of the government's disregard for their interests and make serious preparations for the coming battles."

Among other things I recommended the following: (1) bring ammunition supplies up to a minimum of 300+ rounds per gun (2) stockpile food, medicine and water supplies for 30 days in case the roads are impassable (3) all vehicles that have been equipped with shatterproof window to deflect rocks need to be re-equipped to become fully bullet-proof (4) Each community needs several trucks armored to withstand 60 caliber machine gun fire, small grenades and some protection from roadside bombs (5) begin constructing bunkers and hardened firing positions.

Nine years have passed since that report and events are playing out exactly as I predicted. The military struggle is about to begin in earnest. If anyone believes this to be unlikely, stay posted and we will see how the future plays out. The Jews of YESHA should not leave their physical well-being to the good graces of Arafat or Sharon.

The Jews of YESHA must not be passive pawns in the political surrender of their homes. They must fight the Arabs, where necessary, to maintain their travel, water, and land rights. When the Israeli government retreats, leaving them behind PLO battle lines, they must be prepared to go on the offensive militarily to secure safe contiguous areas of Jewish control. The defeatist Israeli leaders, who are willing to surrender our Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, should be told that there are still proud Jews in YESHA who will give up neither their inheritance from Abraham nor their right of self-defense.

Should the Jews of YESHA be forced into military combat they would be fully justified. They will be fighting for the security of Israel and the future destiny of the Jewish people. These brave Jews would be continuing the long tradition of Hebrew Warriors, including Joshua, David, the Maccabees and Bar Kochba, who fought against all odds to save their people and their country.

The glorious Hebrew Warriors who defeated five Arab armies in 1948, three in 1967, and two in 1973 must not surrender their Jewish homeland to an evil terrorist, who delights in killing Jewish woman, children, even babies. The Brave Heroes of Zion must not limit themselves to passive civil disobedience. At this great time of trial and apocalyptic threat, the safeguarding of the future of the Jewish people's right to Eretz Yisrael must take precedence.


(1) The most fundamental flaw is the renunciation of Jewish claims to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel is God-given and cannot be renounced by a transitory Israeli government. The present government has no right to deprive future generations of Jews and Israelis of their legal patrimony.

(2) Yasir Arafat's PLO is incapable of providing Israelis with the cessation of violence they so dearly crave. The PA is, in fact, the primary source of terrorism and coordinates with Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist factions that will continue to kill Jews.

(3) Without the presence of Israel's internal security force (Shin Bet) inside Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it will be impossible to halt terrorism or even keep it within present levels. The Israel Defense Forces maintain tremendous power but are of little importance in day-to-day terrorism.

(4) Arafat's signature on any agreement and the PLO acceptance is of no consequence as Arafat is a documented liar. Muslims are permitted to lie to non-Muslims and break agreements with them under the Koranic law of HUDAIBIYA. Treaties and contracts with them are worthless.

(5) By virtue of these appeasements, the Israeli government has validated Arab claims to the Land of Israel. Decades of fighting Arab propaganda and distortions of history are trivialized and discounted.

(6.) These appeasements put the status of Jerusalem on the negotiating table. Every previous government of Israel steadfastly stood by the principle of Jerusalem being non-negotiable.

(7) All of Israel's military and civilian communications could be easily monitored from the hills of Judea and Samaria.

(8) While Israeli radar and military installations are limited by these current appeasements, the future is less certain. Eventually the Arab population will force the Israelis out.

(9) Whether they admit it publicly or not, Israeli leaders know that this is the first step to a Palestinian state.

(10) The "Palestinian right of return" has been acknowledged for the first time by the Israelis and could result in a flood of Arabs to Judea and Samaria.

(11) The inevitable increase in Arab population will result in tremendous pressure on Israel's water supply. As Arab wells are dug in the Judean and Samarian hills, the natural mountain aquifer that supplies much of Tel Aviv and the coastal plain with water will be serious depleted. Such depletion will cause the salt water of the Mediterranean Sea to penetrate Israel's coastal strip, thus destroying all water supplies. This process can be witnessed in California, where sea water has already penetrated five miles into the coast.

(12) Some 70% of Israel's population and industry is concentrated in a small strip of coast and greater Tel Aviv. That population will be immediately threatened by Kaytusha or Quassam rockets. Fired singly from the hills of Judea and Samaria, and set with timers they will be virtually impossible to stop. The Israeli government plan to coordinate with the Palestinian police is akin to working with the fox to guard the henhouse. The Palestinian police are being recruited from among the terrorists who delight especially in murder and mutilation of bodies. Will they arrest and turn over a terrorist who kills Israelis and then escapes to Gaza?

(13) Judea and Samaria have geographical features that are extremely significant for Israeli security. Most important is the Judean-Samarian mountain ridge running north and south and parallel to the Jordan river. From the Jordan to the top of the ridge the elevation is very sharp and fast causing a channeling of enemy forces into five passes easily controlled by much smaller Israeli forces on the mountain top. On the other hand, the slope from the top down on the western slope to the coast makes it possible for enemy troops to attack Israeli cities on the coastal plain with the IDF being unable to anticipate the route of attack, channel it and destroy it.

From the top of the mountain ridge Israeli radar is able to see as far as Iraq providing an early warning of hostile military activity. In other words, the Judean-Samarian mountains are not just a barrier but also a radar point. To surrender of such a strategic asset with great topographical significance for defending Israel from attack from the East would be the height of foolishness.

(14) The Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will no doubt be victims of ethnic cleansing. The Arabs will insist on a Jew-free country like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The government has already begun confiscating the weapons of Jews, which could cause them to become vulnerable to massacre like the Bosnians.

(15) The air and seaports planned for Gaza will facilitate the entry of weapons and terrorists, threatening the security of Israel.

(16) The proposed "safe passages" for the PA will facilitate the movement of terrorists and weapons from Gaza to Judea and Samaria.

(17) And finally these appeasements place biased anti-Semites in charge of Israel's security and compromise Israel"s sovereignty.

Is there any need to say more? Please copy and distribute this information as widely as possible. Please urge Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to read it and respond correctly and urgently to the dangers presented.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, The Maccabean Online ( He also edits the Freeman Center's daily email broadcast The Freemanlist.




Supporters of Oslo, the Road Map, the Geneva Appeasement - The blood of your brothers is on your heads. HaShem is the final Judge of us all....The Editor


IDF Spokesperson
30 November 2003

For the period from 29 September 2000 through 29 November 2003:

Killed: 632 Civilians + 266 Security Forces = 898 Total Israeli Killed

Injured (maimed): 4,257 Civilians + 1,746 Security Forces = 6,003 Total Israeli Injured (maimed)
Total Attacks*: 8,118 West Bank + 10,743 Gaza Strip + 775 Home Front =19,636 Total

* Does not include attacks with rocks or firebombs.
** "Israeli" includes tourists and foreign workers.


For purposes of comparison:

Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks Since 1978
Communicated by the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, September 11,1998

Year; # of Israelis killed in terror attacks
1978: 12
1979: 14
1980: 10
1981: 5
1982: 2
1983: 6
1984: 7
1985: 14
1986: 7
1987: 5
1988: 14
1989: 32
1990: 23
1991: 26
1992: 39
1993: 38 (thru Sep.9)
15 years before Oslo: 254




GENESIS 15:17-18:

And it came to pass, that when the sun went down and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace and a Flaming torch that passed between these places. That day the lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:



DAVID BEN GURION, founding father and first Prime Minister of Israel, had this to say about territorial concessions (Zionist Congress of 1937, Basle, Switzerland): "I say from the point of view of realizing Zionism it is better to have immediately a Jewish state, even if it would only be in a part of the western Land of Israel. I prefer this to a continuation of the British the whole of the western Land of Israel. But before clarifying my reasoning, I have to make a remark about principle. If we were offered a Jewish state in the western Land of Israel in return for our relinquishing our historical right over the whole Land of Israel, then I would postpone the state.

"No Jew has the right to relinguish the right of the Jewish people over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish people has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."



Below is the letter from the Jewish leader Simon, the only survivor of the five Maccabee brothers to the Seleucid king Antiochus, whom they had just defeated. Antiochus demanded the return of the 'occupied territories' that is territories the Maccabees liberated during their recent war.

Simon writes: "We have neither taken foreign land nor seized foreign property, but only the inheritance of our fathers, which at one time had been unjustly taken by our enemies. Now that we have the opportunity, we are firmly holding the inheritance of our fathers."


Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party in his book A PLACE AMONG THE NATIONS writes the following when told that Judea and Samaria are foreign "occupied" lands:

"This land, where every swing of a spade unearths remnants of the Jewish past and where every village carries the barely altered Hebrew names of old; this land, in which the Jews became a nation and over which they shed more tears than have been shed by any other people in history; this land, the loss of which resulted in an exile of the Jews such as has been suffered by no other people and the spilling of a sea of blood such as has been spilled by no other nation; this land, which never ceased to live as a distant but tangible home in the minds of Jewish children from Toledo in medieval Spain to the Warsaw ghetto in our own century; this land, for which the Jews fought with unsurpassed courage and tenacity in ancient as in modern times this is the "foreign land" that world leaders now demand be barred to Jews and that Israel (should) unilaterally forsake.

The answer to such absurd demands must be a resounding NO!"



The Jerusalem Post, November 21, 2003


By Caroline Glick

Two weeks ago, recently resigned Palestinian cabinet minister Abdel Fattah Hamayel told the BBC that the Palestinian Authority shells out $50,000 a month to members of Fatah's Aksa Brigades terror cells. Hamayel said that Yasser Arafat is aware of these payments.

The BBC reporter then sat down with Ata Abu Rumaileh and Zakariah Zubaidi, the respective heads of Fatah's political and terrorist wings in Jenin. Together the men explained to the BBC reporter that "there is no difference between Fatah and the Aksa Martyrs' Brigades." The men also explained that Arafat commands both. What we learn from this report is that, as is the case with Hamas and Hizbullah, there is absolutely no difference between the political and terrorist arms of Fatah. This is rife with implications regarding the Palestinian Authority because, as one Palestinian journalist explained to me this week, "There is one ruling party in Palestine - Fatah - headed by Arafat."

His statement is not hyperbolic. It is a simple fact. It was, after all, the Fatah Central Council, acting on Arafat's orders, that approved new PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei's cabinet. Almost every single member of that cabinet is a member of Fatah's political wing, which is inseparable from Fatah's terrorist wing. And we know that they are one and the same not because the IDF says so. We know this because Fatah leaders say so.

What does this mean? It means that when the US and the rest of the international community tell Israel to ease up on its counter-terror operations in order to shore up Ahmed Qurei's new cabinet, Israel is being told to strengthen a terrorist organization. Yet this report - the most stunning revelation in the mainstream Western media about the nature of the Palestinian terror war - made not one iota of difference to anyone. Why?

The simple answer is that in Israel, as in the rest of the Western world, we have been otherwise occupied. We have the Geneva Accord and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh understandings and the IAF pilots' refusal to bomb terror targets and the former heads of the Shin Bet and the Road Map to consider. Our heads are full, our attention span is limited.

How can we pay attention to reality when we are inundated with fiction?

How can US Secretary of State Colin Powell attend to the fact that the PA is a terrorist organization when he is being bombarded by reports from his department that Israel isn't dismantling mobile homes with Jewish residents in Judea and Samaria? How can he notice that there are serious implications to the fact that Fatah and Fatah are both Fatah when he hears that Yossi Beilin has signed away Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount to Yasser Abed Rabbo?

How can Prime Minister Ariel Sharon be expected to contend with the fact that the PA is a terrorist organization when Bush, pushed by Powell, who is pumped by Beilin, who is funded by the EU, tells him to get moving on the "settlements" and stop building fences and start being a good neighbor to Fatah's newly appointed "prime minister?"

How can the Israeli public take notice of the fact that the PA is a terrorist organization when, in her Pravda-inspired TV show Fact, "journalist" Ilana Dayan shows us a film in which Beilin and his friends breathlessly argue with their Palestinian counterparts over who gets to control the parking lot outside of the Old City's Dung Gate? How are we to absorb the fact that Beilin and company get their money from the Swiss government and the EU, who jointly concocted this deliberate attempt to undermine the power of the democratically elected government of Israel?, November 28, 2003


By David Bedein

Last Wednesday, President George W. Bush, addressing a crowded press conference in London in the presence of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, called on Israel to stop what he termed the "daily humiliation" of Palestinian Arabs at checkpoints where IDF troops and Israeli police conduct security searches of Palestinian Arabs before they can enter Israeli cities.

I asked a U.S. consular official in Jerusalem why Bush would claim that Israel was subjecting Arabs to humiliation at checkpoints. The U.S. consular official took offense at the very question. "I think that it is obvious that if my staffers from Bethlehem are made to wait an inordinate amount of time in their cars at the checkpoint, then that would be a clear matter of humiliation," he retorted.

The U.S. consular official went on to say that his staffers had clear IDs as to who they are and where they worked. Since Bethlehem is well known for spawning industries that produce countless counterfeit documents, I asked the consular official if it was not understandable that Israeli security officials be extra careful in examining all identification, as an added measure of caution, before allowing vehicles to pass into the nation's capital.

The U.S. consular official took even greater offense at that question, indicating that he hoped I would not write about this issue. I could only take that as a blessing to explore the matter further. What was of particular concern was that the U.S. consular official did not seem to be aware of what had transpired on Tuesday at one of the checkpoints between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

The incident took place at 6 o'clock Tuesday morning at the checkpoint near Beit Jalla, just south of the tunnel road that goes through Beit Jalla into Jerusalem. The sun had just risen. A Palestinian Arab from Bethlehem, who looked familiar to the young IDF troops at the checkpoint, proceeded to get out of his car with a prayer blanket. This was the last week of Ramadan, and the young, devout-looking man made a hand signal that he wanted to pray. The IDF troops at the checkpoint afforded him the opportunity to pray and did not conduct a security search of his vehicle nor his person. The man then knelt to the ground, spread out his prayer blanket, and proceeded to pull out an AK-47 and murder two young IDF troops at point blank range. Moshe Belsky, age 23, who was speaking on his cell phone with his mother, and Shaul Lahav, age 20, the checkpoint commander, were killed instantly.

The killer then hopped into his car and sped back to Bethlehem, where he donned his uniform as an officer in the Palestinian Authority police force. The news media overseas only reported that two Israeli soldiers had been killed at the entrance to the Jerusalem tunnel by a "militant." Arafat's Fateh Tanzim took credit for the murder on the official PBC Voice of Palestine radio.

Israel had granted the PA the use of Israeli radio air waves in 1993 and still does so in order to foster a "voice of peace" for the PLO. The message communicated on the Voice of Palestine over the past ten years has hardly been a "a voice of peace."

I met Shaul Lahav on the day before his death. I had stopped by the checkpoint for a few minutes with tourists from the U.S., and they were pleased to meet Shaul, because he knew English. His parents had moved to Israel at roughly the time that I had moved to Israel, in the early 1970's. He was the oldest son in the family, their first "sabra," and was almost the same age as my oldest son (who just turned 21 and also serves in an IDF combat unit). Shaul interrupted his conversation with us at the checkpoint to receive a call from his girlfriend from his Kibbutz. Shaul might have married, raised a family and led a happy life. At the age of 20, everything is just ahead of you. What can be more of a "humiliation"? A young man cut down by the PLO in the prime of his life or the enforcement of strict security measures so the PLO does not murder another young man in the same exact place?

Other examples of alleged Palestinian "daily humiliation" at the hands of the IDF, duly reported to the U.S. consulate, are the IDF's strict searches of Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances. People tend to forget that the Red Crescent is run by Fatchi Arafat, Yasser Arafat's brother, and that the IDF has reported numerous instances in which the Red Crescent ambulances were used to smuggle armed terrorists and weapons in a terror campaign that has seen 20,000 armed attacks in Israel in three years.

Most recently, Jerusalem's Alternative Information Center, funded through the Ford Foundation and the New Israel Fund, and run by self-proclaimed Trotskyite Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, provided a film for the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem. The film documented the "humiliation" Arabs in East Jerusalem must endure at these security checks. It depicted an iron gate that Arabs have to go through for security checks that lead into the East Jerusalem offices of the Israel Ministry of Interior and the Israel Ministry of National Insurance. Both of these offices provide vital health, education, registration and welfare aid to the local population.

What the Alternative Information Center film "forgot" to illustrate was that the iron gate and the severe security restrictions on entering Israeli government offices in East Jerusalem did not exist until three years ago. That's when Aish Kodesh Gilmore, a part time Israeli security guard, was shot in the neck and killed by an officer in Arafat's Fateh Tanzim militia. The Fateh Tanzim issued an immediate press release to the media, praising the murder of Aish Kodesh Gilmore, the same as was done after Shaul's murder.

I knew this young man, Aish, whose unusual name stuck with me. He was named for a Rabbi known as the Aish Kodesh - A Rabbi in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II. His weekly stenciled prayer sheets and Bible commentaries kept up the spirits of the starving Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto throughout their ordeal until Aish Kodesh was himself banished from Warsaw. (He later perished from famine.) Aish Kodesh's writings were found preserved in a jar after World War II and were of great inspiration to the musically inclined Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, who was the Rabbi of Colorado-born Reuvein Gilmore.

Reuvein Gilmore later became one of the founders of the Moddiin collective community that Rabbi Carlebach's students pioneered just north of Jerusalem. Inspired by Rabbi Carlebach's stories of the Aish Kodesh, Reuvein gave the name of his little boy Aish Kodesh. I remember him well as a little fellow with long blonde curls, who would sit on Rabbi Carlebach's knees and listen as the Rabbi played songs of hope and Hassidic inspiration on his guitar. I had lost contact with Aish Kodesh, until I heard of his murder. I interviewed his young widow, shortly after the tragedy.

When I went to interview Zahava Gilmore, Aish Kodesh's widow, just one month after he was murdered in his role as a security guard in East Jerusalem, the person who ran to greet me at the door was Talia, Aish Kodesh's orphaned three-year-old daughter. Zahava explained that Talia always runs to the door, expecting her father to come home. If that is not the ultimate of humilation, what is?

Aish Kodesh's widow remarked that Aish was proud of the special role he performed in helping the people of East Jerusalem get the government benefits that they deserved.

You sometimes have to ask over and over and over: Which is the greater "humiliation": a young man cut down by the PLO in the prime of his life, or the enforcement of strict security measures so that the PLO does not murder another young man in that exact same place?

President Bush must be understand that the staff of the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem may need to take some lessons on the meaning of "humiliation" during a time of war. U.S. troops are busy learning the lesson of constant terrorist harassment the hard way in Iraq.

After all, Bagdad and Basra are not very far from Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Shaul and Aish Kodesh were no different than American boys serving their country against a lifelong sponsor of terrorists. And Moshe Belsky's mother feels the pain as much as any dead soldier's mother maybe more so, since she was speaking to him at the moment of his murder.

President Bush should know well that Israel deserves the right to protect its sons at the checkpoints. Ask the mothers of Shaul, Moshe and Aish Kodesh.

A security check is not humiliation. It is protection.



HaAretz Editorial/Commentary:


By Yoel Esteron

The most venomous and dangerous attack on the State of Israel's right to exist hails from New York, of all places. Tony Judt, a New York University history professor, has published an article in the prestigious New York Review of Books (October 23) in which he makes a seemingly well-defended case in favor of establishing a binational state on the ruins of the State of Israel.

In Judt's eyes, Israel is an anachronism from the late 19th century. In his brave new world, there is no longer room for such a thing as a nation-state. Germany, France, Italy, Japan and all the rest - none of these disturb his peace of mind. Only Israel.

Sixty years after the attempt to wipe out the Jewish people in Europe, after which the countries of the world were kind enough to allow Holocaust survivors to build a national home for themselves, along comes a historian who specializes in Europe and proposes that the Jews commit suicide. That they once again become a minority, only this time a minority in a Palestinian nation-state wedged between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Can an idea be ludicrous and dangerous at the same time? Judt proves that the answer is yes. His article, which tries to conceal his hatred of Israel within the folds of scholarly analysis, does not explain how two peoples who have not been able to talk to one another for generations, except through bombs, will suddenly be filled with love and establish a warm and courteous neighborly relationship.Sheikh Yassin is probably laughing his head off.

And yet the idea is also a dangerous one, because it is chalking up supporters in high places. The article is being talked about in intellectual circles in the United States as if it were some kind of bold attempt to defy convention. People who have despaired of any breakthrough in the Middle East stalemate are naively saying: Wait a minute, maybe there's something here. And they are being joined, of course, by certified anti-Semites, haters of Israel and other garden-variety Israel bashers. Even Amos Elon, the author of "Herzl" and "The Israelis," wrote a letter to the editor brimming with praise from his home in Buggiano, Italy. Judt "should be lauded for cutting through a forest of cliches," as Elon put it.

Of course, not everyone is in awe of this pseudo-erudite theory. Leon Wieseltier, one of America's leading intellectuals, has rescued the honor of those Americans who understand a thing or two about Middle Eastern affairs, easily crushing Judt's argument (The New Republic, October 27). But this idea, as often happens with ideas, is already living a life of its own. Some are for and some are against. The debate is raging. There are people who think that the State of Israel has to go, and others who believe in its continued existence. Not in the amnesia-struck cultural salons of Europe. In America.

The idea of a binational state is not new, of course. In the 1920s and 1930s, it was proposed in one form or another by intellectuals from across the spectrum, from Martin Buber to Ze'ev Jabotinsky (although scholars are divided over what he really meant). It reared its head again toward the end of the 20th century: Edward Said dreamed about it in New York and Azmi Bishara is still dreaming about it here. Meron Benvenisti has written about it on these pages. Maybe he is desperate, too. There is no need for surveys to know that the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians reject the idea of a binational state. It is an amazingly bad idea for the Jews to become a minority under the wing of Hamas. As everyone knows, the Palestinians also want a state of their own - now, as soon as possible, not years from now when demography is victorious over the Apache helicopter gunship, as promised. But do we have a right to gamble with the future? Is it not better to snuff out the idea of a binational state before it flourishes?

At the moment, it is thriving not because of intellectuals and historians. Those responsible for making it bloom again are people who are actually appalled at the very thought. Ariel Sharon and Avigdor Lieberman and Effie Eitam and Yosef Lapid - they are the ones who are watering the idea of a binational state and bringing it back to life, by doing nothing to advance the one solution that could stand in its way: two states for two peoples.

The Israeli right and its government, along with tens of thousands of extremists who have put down stakes in the heart of Palestinian population centers, are responsible for the despair and hatred that have revived the debate over Israel's right to exist. The tanks of occupation have armed old-new anti-Semitism.

It is easy to say to Judt and his ilk that they should experiment with binational states elsewhere - in Germany and France, for example - before they start forcing it on Israel and the Palestinians. But what will we say to ourselves when one day historians ask what we did to avoid waking up in a nightmare? Unless we go back to where we were in 1967, we may find ourselves back where we were before 1948.

Send letter of protest to:
Tony Judt,
c/o Director, Remarque Institute, NYU
Also address your letters to him at this address:




by Boris Shusteff

The verdict is in. An unprecedented majority of Israelis supports transfer for the purpose of achieving peace between the Arabs and the Jews. In case you missed them, let us briefly recapture the highlights of the events that must inevitably bring us to this conclusion. Polls conducted in February 2002 in Israel demonstrated that 46% of respondents supported the transfer of Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza while 60% were inclined towards the transfer of Arabs from Israel proper.

In October 2003 the Israeli left announced the drafting of the so-called "Geneva Initiative," which is supposed to be officially signed on December 1. The core idea of the document is to facilitate the transfer of 4.5 million Arabs and half a million Jews in an attempt to separate Jewish and Arab populations for the sake of peace. Yossi Beilin, the ideologist of the Geneva transfer initiative, plans to distribute the document to every Israeli household. According to the latest polls 25% already support the initiative. Since most of them are situated on the left flank of Israel's political spectrum, knowing the ratio between left and right in Israel, it is safe to assume that the number will grow to 30-35%. That means that more than 90% of Israelis in one way or another support the transfer idea. The only difference is that the majority of them prefer for the transferees to be only Arabs, and the minority sees both Arabs and Jews among the transferees.

Disregarding for a moment the ethnic origins of the people subject to relocation, let us stress again the great importance of this point. Israelis both "left" and "right" are overwhelmingly keen on the idea of transfer. Moreover, if Jews are included in the population group that must be transferred, the world community immediately weighs in with its wholehearted support of the transfer. Even prior to the news of the "Geneva Initiative" the international community eagerly endorsed all the plans that were in works including the "Road Map." And it is no secret that the "Road Map" has as its endpoint the transfer of several hundred thousand Jews (as a result of dismantling Jewish "settlements" in the disputed territories). Clearly, those who claim to oppose the transfer of Arabs because 'it is wrong to forcibly move people out of their homes' cannot truly believe in this principle, if they simultaneously support forcibly transferring Jews out of primordial Jewish lands.

Let us pause for a moment in order to clarify some misunderstandings in terminology and misconceptions associated with the word "transfer." In his article on November 11 in "The American Conservative" Doug Bandow criticizes American syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro for stating that "if you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza and Israel proper." As is typical of those who oppose this sort of policy, Bandow claims that Shapiro is "advocating forced ethnic cleansing."

The term "ethnic cleansing" is relatively new. As Drazen Petrovic demonstrates in his article "Ethnic cleansing -- An attempt at Methodology" it did not exist before 1992, and was introduced in order to describe the military operations conducted during the civil war in former Yugoslavia. He writes that the term "has its origin in military vocabulary. The _expression 'to clean the territory' [literal translation from Serbo-Croatian] is directed against enemies, and it is used mostly in the final phase of combat in order to take total control of conquered territory. ...The word 'ethnic' has been added to the military term because the 'enemies' considered to be the other ethnic communities." The word "ethnic" was added, the military aspect of the operations was dropped, and the usage of the term became much looser, meaning any action that had as its goal the expulsion or relocation of any ethnic majority or minority group of people from a certain location. This kind of action is not new in world history. It was employed by nearly all modern democracies at some stage of statebuilding, and later with their approval toward the successful resolution of several international conflicts [between Greece and Turkey, India and Pakistan, Germany and Poland, etc.]

Since the term is not defined in international law it appears that it receives a negative or positive connotation only in the context of its usage. For example it is negative when the Jews consider the transfer of the Arabs out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. At the same time it is positive when the world community supports the proposal to transfer several hundred thousand Jews as envisioned by the "Road Map." Although in this case the term 'ethnic cleansing' is shyly replaced with some politically correct synonym such as 'dismantling settlements.' Even more telling is the fact that the world democracies are ready to support the transfer of the Arabs as well. This can be perceived from their approval of the "Geneva Initiative."

The document envisions a forced transfer within a certain period of time of 4.5 million Arabs from the so-called "refugee camps" into several Arab and other countries. One must realize that the transfer of the Arabs that Yossi Beilin, Amram Mitzna, Amos Oz and other authors of the document have in mind will be involuntary. The Arabs' "permanent place of residence" will be "determined by the International Commission" and the Arabs will have only two years to submit an application for the selection of the place to which they will be relocated. Even the people who do not submit such applications will be forced to move from the refugee camps somewhere else in search of a means of sustenance. In language void of political correctness, this is called a mass relocation (i.e. transfer) of 4.5 million Arabs.

This means that the negative connotation assigned to the term "ethnic cleansing" by Bandow is of a purely political nature. If the "ethnic cleansing" of Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza -- transferring hundreds of thousands of them -- is viewed by the world community as totally acceptable, the transfer of the Arabs from the same land must be considered acceptable, as well. It should not matter whether one "cleanses" territory of Arabs or of Jews. The connotation of the meaning of the word should stay the same. If one differentiates between them, only one possible explanation suggests itself - anti-Semitism.

In addition to "ethnic cleansing' another label commonly attached to the word "transfer" is "genocide." One does not have to spare a lot of efforts to squarely reject any connection between the terms. Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines as genocide

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

This definition is absolutely inapplicable to the transfer of the Arabs envisioned by the Jews. Especially since the main purpose of the Arab transfer from Judea, Samaria and Gaza is to save as many lives as possible, and not to destroy them.

The existence of so many misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the transfer idea proves that the time is long overdue to approach the issue in a serious and responsible manner. Since the supporters of transferring Jews have an open forum all over the world in advocating their case it would be only fair to allow the voices of those who support the transfer of Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza for the sake of peace in the Middle East to be heard too.

It is time to hold an International Transfer Conference where proponents of both options will openly bring forward their arguments in support of their respective positions. It is also important to remember that transfer should not be an idea in itself. Its main purpose must be the achievement of peace between the Arabs and the Jews. This in its turn raises many questions that must be objectively answered. For example, those who advocate the transfer of several million Arabs into Judea, Samaria and Gaza must honestly prove that the Arab state, which they want to create on a meager 2,200 square miles of land can be viable.

It is the world community that will foot the bill for any population transfer operations, and it must wisely choose between investing the money and throwing it into a sewer. One must understand that an Arab state on the minuscule land areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will be the most densely populated country in the world, with millions of people living in dreary substandard conditions, with rapidly dwindling last available resources of drinking water, in a surrogate semi-state that will not be independent. This option does not even deserve a comparison with Jordan, a real state of Palestinian Arabs (who comprise more than 65% of its population) which is not only 20 times bigger in size, but is already a full-fledged independent country.

Another, even more poignant point that nullifies the main incentive for transferring Arabs into Judea, Samaria and Gaza must also be considered. The transfer idea, with all hardships that it involves, makes sense only if it leads to a decrease in tensions between the two ethnic communities. However, the exact opposite will be achieved if more Arabs are relocated into Israel's backyard.

The unanimous conclusion of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff that a majority of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza must remain in Israel's possession in order for her to defend herself is well known. An Arab state, if created there, will rob Israel of vitally needed strategic military assets. Instead of increasing Israel's defensibility this will severely hamper it, making Israel much more vulnerable in the eyes of the Arab world, thereby further delaying any chances for real peace. At the same time it is easy to demonstrate that the transfer of the Arab population from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will substantially increase Israel's defense capabilities achieving true separation between the Arabs and the Jews, and giving realistic chances for lasting peace in the region.

The raging fire of the Israeli-Arab confrontation can indeed be extinguished by means of population transfer. Instead of running away from this option, it is time to look at this legitimate mechanism of achieving peace in the Middle East. The suggested International Transfer Conference must commence a series of deliberations on serious issues. Freedom of speech does not prohibit any kinds of discussions, especially with peace between the Arabs and the Jews as the incentive. The blood of the victims on both sides of this continuing conflict demands that all people of good will work to start the ball rolling. It is a task of the utmost urgency.

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



Jewish World Review:


By Barbara Amiel

A trapped bluebottle circled the conference room, flying lazily towards the tall windows through which New York's East River could be seen. It flew over the chair where the representative for the International Organization for Migration sat fiddling with his UN, Japanese-made, ergonomically designed earpiece, passed over the African Union and Commonwealth Secretariat and settled somewhere by the Holy See's seat.

Outside, it was a cold New York day. Inside, where these members of the UN's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural matters) gathered, the room was bathed in a comfy buzz of well-being, engendered when like-minded people gather together.

The topic last week in Conference Room 1 of the UN was human rights in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- a part of the world where human rights are fulfilled by simply waking up alive and where democratic republics are anything but.

The UN Special Rapporteur found no improvement in Burundi. Children were still being recruited as soldiers; mass rape had increased and now was aimed at young boys as well as girls. The latter was "a new phenomenon", said Rapporteur Ms. Keita-Bocoum.

In neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, where three million people have died in the past five years of fighting, another UN Special Rapporteur described it as the "worst human rights situation in the world". She footnoted a special concern for the unlucky children named as "sorcerers", who were maimed or killed for their witchcraft.

It was business as usual. Before the early break for Ramadan, Burkina Faso, the Congo and Zimbabwe co-sponsored human rights resolutions. Sudan introduced one. The atmosphere remained clubby and cordial as the Ambassador of Israel came to the microphone to present a resolution on behalf of Israeli children.

Ambassadors don't normally present resolutions at committee level, but since Israel had not presented one since 1978 (and that was withdrawn after the Syrians tied its future to negotiations with the PLO), it was a bit of a first. The Israeli resolution was a mirror copy of one sponsored by Egypt and passed (88-4, 58 abstentions) in the General Assembly three weeks earlier, underlining the need to protect the rights of Palestinian children.

That resolution was a bit of a first, too: no other group of children had been singled out for protection by the UN -- not the child soldiers in Burundi, not the raped and mutilated girls and boys of the Congo, nor children in any other of the world's impoverished or warring nations. By tacit agreement, children have always been considered universally at the UN.

The delegates were polite as Ambassador Dan Gillerman spoke. He asked for security for Israeli, Palestinian and all children of the world. He spoke of a "false reality" that pretends one side has a monopoly on victim status. He wished, he said, to prevent the blatant exercise of a double-standard in the UN.

He mentioned the deliberate bombing of discos, pizza parlors and school buses, almost exclusively used by children. When he finished, the session chairman did not ask the names of co-sponsors for the Israeli resolution. Because there were none.

A discussion followed. The Syrian delegate strenuously opposed assistance of Israeli children and said the resolution was procedurally wrong. The Palestinian Authority's lady complained that the Israelis had "copied" their resolution. The situation of Palestinian children was "unique" she said -- which it may well be, since most children of the world are not used as human shields for terrorist camps or encouraged to be suicide bombers so their pictures can be put up in grocery stores as "martyrs".

It is as if British children in the Second World War had not been evacuated to the countryside but rather placed around the War Office and anti-aircraft embankments. Afterwards, the PA lady confered earnestly for 20 minutes with a French delegate over procedurally thwarting the Israeli resolution so it would not come to a vote. The bluebottle returned to the most heated part of the committee room.

The session ended with a report by the Special Reporter of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on "human rights in the Palestinian territories since 1967". Mr Dugard, who had been a courageous campaigner against apartheid, missed out when jobs were given away in the new South Africa and lost election to the International Criminal Court. Without apartheid to fight, he has demonized Israel to fill the gap. This transference of all ills to Israel's doorstep is a psychiatric condition common in, though not confined to, members of the UN.

Down the hall, in Conference Room 2, the Second Committee (Economics and Finance) was discussing "the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over their natural resources", or how to stop thuggish Israel looting them. The Fourth Committee (special Political and Decolonization committee) regularly considers the atrocities of Israelis in their role as imperialist running dogs.

Unesco, Unicef and UNRWA spend much of their time visiting Israel and condemning it. The General Assembly, unable to pass a single resolution condemning Palestinian terrorism, routinely condemns Israel and calls emergency sessions especially for the purpose.

The reality of the Middle East is that the very existence of Israel is considered a nakba -- a catastrophe. This being so, the Israeli Ambassador could present a resolution recommending all people be encouraged to breathe -- and it would be unacceptable to that part of the world. Does the UN matter? Only insofar as the record matters. Certain things must be done not because they will make a difference but to set the record straight. This week, Third Committee delegates will consider deleting anti-Semitism from the new UNHCR resolution on racial and religious intolerance, thus giving new life to old canards.

The UN is not furnished luxuriously, but it is a congenial place. Sitting in one of its lounges, sipping an iced chai latte, one could see the irony of the situation. If the Arab world has any legitimate case against Israel, it is not the occupied territories, which are in Israeli hands only because of wars the Arabs launched. It is what they see as the initial injustice behind the Jewish state's founding.

The world's response to the Nazi holocaust and centuries of European persecution of Jews -- including Tsarist-inspired pogroms and, indeed, French anti-Semitism, whose Dreyfus Affair inspired Theodor Herzl's Zionism - was to give away a slice of Arab Muslim land to the Jews. While one fully appreciates the Jews' historical and religious connection to the land of Zion, it must be said that insofar as the Arab case has any persuasive merit, it is on this initial point.

But the Arabs have had a great revenge. They have taken over the very body that was responsible for this -- the United Nations -- with the hope that the organization that created the injustice may well be the instrument of its undoing. And that, as the bluebottle on the wall could tell you, is a story that has not unfolded yet.



Jewish World Review (, Nov. 28, 2003 / 3 Kislev, 5764


By Charles Krauthammer

On Monday, a peace agreement will be signed by Israelis and Palestinians. This "Geneva accord" has gotten much attention. And the signing itself will be greeted with much hoopla. Journalists are being flown in from around the world by the Swiss government. Jimmy Carter will be heading a list of foreign dignitaries. The U.S. Embassy in Bern will be sending an observer.

This is all rather peculiar: The agreement is being signed not by Israeli and Palestinian officials, but by two people with no power.

On the Palestinian side, the negotiator is former information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, who at least is said to have Yasser Arafat's ear. The Israeli side, however, is led by Yossi Beilin, a man whose political standing in his own country is so low that he failed to make it into Parliament. After helping bring his Labor Party to ruin, Beilin abandoned it for the far-left Meretz Party, which then did so badly in the last election that Beilin is now a private citizen.

There is a reason why he is one of Israel's most reviled and discredited politicians. He was the principal ideologue and architect behind the "peace" foisted on Israel in 1993. Those Oslo agreements have brought a decade of the worst terror in all Israeli history.

Now he is at it again. And Secretary of State Colin Powell has written a letter to Beilin and Rabbo expressing appreciation for their effort, and is now planning to meet with them.

This is scandalous. Israel is a democracy, and this agreement was negotiated in defiance of the democratically (and overwhelmingly) elected government of Israel. If a private U.S. citizen negotiated a treaty on his own, he could go to jail under the Logan Act. If an Israeli does it, he gets a pat on the back from the secretary of state.

Moreover, this "peace" is entirely hallucinatory. It is written as if Oslo never happened. The Palestinian side repeats solemn pledges to recognize Israel, renounce terror, end anti-Israel incitement, etc. -- all promised in Oslo. These promises are today such a dead letter that the Palestinian side is openly bargaining these chits again, as if the Israelis have forgotten that in return for these pledges 10 years ago, Israel recognized the PLO, brought it out of Tunisian exile, established a Palestinian Authority, permitted it an army with 50,000 guns and invited the world to donate billions to this new Authority.

Arafat pocketed every Israeli concession, turned his territory into an armed camp and then launched a vicious terror war that has lasted more than three years and killed more than 1,000 Israelis. It is Lucy and the football all over again, and the same chorus of delusionals who so applauded Oslo -- Jimmy Carter, Sandy Berger, Tom Friedman -- is applauding again. This time, however, the Israeli surrender is so breathtaking it makes Oslo look rational.

A Palestinian state, of course. Evacuating every Jewish settlement in new Palestine, of course. Redividing Jerusalem, of course. But that is not enough. Beilin gives up the ultimate symbol of the Jewish connection and claim to the land, the center of the Jewish state for 1,000 years before the Roman destruction, the subject of Jewish longing in poetry and prayer for the 2,000 years since -- the Temple Mount. And Beilin doesn't just give it up to, say, some neutral international authority. He gives it to sovereign Palestine. Jews will visit at Arab sufferance.

Not satisfied with having given up Israel's soul, Beilin gives up the body too. He not only returns Israel to its 1967 borders, arbitrary and indefensible, but he does so without any serious security safeguards.

Palestine promises to acquire and buy no more weapons than specified in some treaty annex. This is a joke. Oslo had similarly detailed limitations on Palestinian weaponry, and nobody even pretended to enforce them. Last year, a massive illegal boatload came in from Iran on the Karine A. What did the world do about it? Nothing.

Today, however, Israel still has control over Palestine's borders. Under Beilin, this ends. Palestine will be free to acquire as much lethal weaponry as it wants.

And on the critical question that even the most dovish Israelis insist on -- that the Palestinians not have the right to flood Israel with Arab refugees -- the agreement is utterly ambiguous. Third parties (including among others the irredeemably hostile Syria and its puppet Lebanon) are to suggest exactly how many Palestinians are to return to Israel, and the basis for the number Israel will be required to accept will be the mathematical average!

This is not a peace treaty, this is a suicide note -- by a private citizen on behalf of a country that has utterly rejected him politically. That it should get any encouragement from the United States or from its secretary of state is a disgrace.



Asian Times:


By Nir Rosen

BAGHDAD - When Imam Mahdi al-Jumeili of the small Hudheifa mosque in Baghdad's Shurti neighborhood met three American officers to resolve a dispute over soldiers entering the grounds of his mosque, his first question to them was "are any of you Jews"? When he was satisfied that none were, he allowed the meeting to proceed. Prior to the arrival of the Americans, he made his prejudices about them clear: "We are sure they came here to steal the country and protect Israel," he said, adding that "Judaism and Masonism are at war with Islam".

These views are common in Iraq, where references to "al-Yahud", or "the Jews", are made everywhere and they demonstrate the degree to which the outside world is misunderstood and feared by Iraqis whose views were shaped by years of authoritarianism, control and fear, with little access to information not dictated by Ba'athist or religious sources.

And the prejudices appear to still flourish. For a journalist, not a day goes by without mention of Jews and Israel. Even taxi drivers talk about the Jews when they grumble about the occupation. "We are Muslims!" one declared proudly during an evening ride to a hotel, "and Jews come to our land?" When asked who he was referring to, he said, "They are all Jews. The Americans are all Jews and mercenaries. We know their religion." When asked if he wanted a Sunni or Shi'ite leader in Iraq, this driver said. "We are all Muslims, it makes no difference. Only the Jews want to separate Sunnis and Shi'ites, they are non-believers."

Another taxi driver explained that "America and the Jews are one. We know this from their interests, their relationships and America's defense of the Jews. They don't give rights to Arabs, only Jews. America and Jews are the same because they have the same goals and the same faith." A third taxi driver explained that the Jordanian embassy was bombed because Jordan was organizing the migration of Jews into Iraq.

In the market of Abu Ghraib, a town west of Baghdad, when asked about the Americans, one angry man replied: "Saddam was better. At least he was a Muslim. Isn't that better than Jews?" When pressed on the issue, he explained that "the Americans are Jews, their work is Jewish. Nobody accepts them". The prayer leader of Abu Ghraib's local mosque agreed. "They are all Jews and Christians, these occupiers," he said.

Signs on the walls of the Abu Hanifa mosque warn Iraqis that Jews have come to the Ekal Hotel and they plan to purchase land, just as they did in Palestine, to drive Iraqis out of their country. "Do not stab your fellow Iraqis in the heart" by selling land to the Jews, exhorts the sign. A visit to the Ekal Hotel proves that it is closed for renovations and has no guests. The same signs warning of Jewish real estate agents invading Iraq are distributed by university students.

On the walls of the mosque in Maalef, a Shi'ite slum in Baghdad, large spray-painted graffiti says, "Kill the Jews". In Baghdad's Mansour district, at the Rahman mosque, faithful Shi'ites heard Sheikh Ali al-Ibrahimi condemn a recent decision by the Iraqi Governing Council to permit certain non-Iraqi citizens to obtain Iraqi citizenship. Ibrahimi warned that "if Jews reside in Iraq then they will become Iraqi citizens and they will own Iraq and we will be their guests". He explained that the founders of the US initially feared letting the "owners of money" enter the country, but that "this happened when the Jews came. The Americans and others became their guests".

In the large slums of Sadr City, Seyid Hasan Naji al-Musawi, the leader of the Muhsin mosque in this Shi'ite neighborhood declared that the Mahdi, Islam's version of the Messiah, "will be coming soon and when he comes he will kill the Jewish leadership", which he equated with the Americans, adding that Julius Caesar was Jewish, and the Jews were the Romans. Al-Musawi quoted a verse from the Koran prognosticating the eventual defeat of the Jews.

A common belief in Iraq and the Arab world in general is that when held to a mirror and reversed, the Coca-Cola logo says "No Mecca No Mohammed". This is attributed to the alleged Jewish ownership of Coca-Cola. It is said that all night long trucks smuggle Iraqi oil through Jordan into Israel. And the rumors continue ad nauseam. The fact that the Old Testament contains references to Jewish hegemony over the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates does little to ease concerns.

Works purporting to be scholarly are available in every book market, elaborating on themes of the Jewish threat. The ubiquitous Protocols of the Elders of Zion detailing a Jewish plot to rule the world, long proven in the West to be a fabrication written at the behest of a Russian czar, is sold in Arabic. Volume one and volume two. Another book called The Crimes of the Jews is on display on Baghdad streets alongside a book about Drugs and the Sons of the Devil. On further reading, the book reveals that the Jews are the "sons of the devil" the title refers to. A book in Kurdish is also available, its cover bearing a Star of David, and inside it a monster with blood dripping down its fangs. The book is called In the Jaws of the Jews.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, sells a book called Jewish Nights, refuting various Jewish claims about their history, and in Najaf, the office of the cleric Seyid Muqtada Sadr sells a book called Ali and the Jews,detailing Ali's conversion of Jews to Islam.

Iraqis are clearly very concerned about Jews. Islam is traditionally ambivalent to the Jews, condemning them often in the Koran but mandating a modus vivendi with them at the same time, relegating them to an inferior and protected status called dhimi. Hostility between different religions is a normal phenomenon, resulting from their competition for the same market of believers and their inherent belief that their religion purveys the truth and therefore the others are necessarily false.

As the oldest of the three monotheisms, Judaism was viewed with derision by the other two for its rejection of their newer prophets. In the Christian West, this led to anti-Semitism, the belief that Jews are a race or nation to be disparaged. Judaism was a stain that could not be removed by mere conversion. Martin Luther lamented the existence of Jews whom he viewed as a "damned, rejected race". In Islam, with its explicit rejection of races, it led only to anti-Judaism, the belief that the Jewish religion was the problem and if individual Jews became Muslims and recognized Mohammed, then they were no longer Jews and these individuals would be treated just like any other Muslim.

With the creation of Israel, the Jewish state, and with its successful defeat and occupation of Arabs and Muslims, as well as its oppression of occupied populations, Jews became a threat rather than an anachronistic and vestigial relic. Arab and Muslim authors incorporated European racist and anti-Semitic theories about Jewish conspiracy theories to explain the existence and strength of Israel, as well as its influence over American policy. While the Koran is a vast book with statements that can lead to variegated interpretations, those seeking them can find many verses in the Koran to give these theories religious blessing and validity.

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and pagans" instructs the Koran in 5:85, implying that Jews and pagans are of equal stature and that Jews are the enemies of Muslims, leading to the conclusion that they are therefore God's enemies as well since they are the enemies of those who believe in him. In 2:97-8 God declares that he is the enemy of whoever is the enemy of the Angel Gabriel. And this is generally interpreted to refer to the Jews.

The Koran, the Old Testament and the New Testament are all quoted to prove the treachery of the Jews. The Jewish worship of the golden calf after God had made a covenant with them (2:92-3) and their recurring violations of pacts made with the Prophet Mohammed (8:56-8) prove that Jews are not to be trusted. In 2:96 Jews are unfavorably compared with idolaters. "Of all people the most greedy for life - even more than the idolaters" are the Jews. In Verse 88 of "the Cow" chapter, the Koran describes Jews as follows: "They say our hearts are the wrappings (that keep God's words) nay God's curse is on them for their blasphemy. Little is it they believe." Verse 2 of this chapter asks "is it not that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throw it aside?" In 2:58 the Koran attributes punishments wrought on the Jews for their blasphemy: "and abasement and poverty were pitched on them, and they were laden with God's wrath; that because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain prophets unrightfully; that because they disobeyed, and were transgressors".

Jews are viewed as unbelievers, disobedient and treacherous, rejecting God and his messengers. In 2:87 the God states "and we gave Moses the book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; we gave Jesus the son of Mary clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what you yourselves desire not, you are puffed up with pride? Some you called imposters and others you slew." In 4:157 it is stated that "they boasted 'we killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God'." In verse 58 of "the Table" chapter the Koran states that God himself has cursed the Jews. Verse 86 of that chapter implies that Jews "shall be the companions of hell fire". Verses 79 and 80 describe the "evil" works and deeds of Jews. Verse 51 of the chapter "women" accuses Jews of believing in evil.

In 5:66, God scolds the Jews for not obeying their Torah and therefore rejecting both Jesus and Mohammed. Verse 56 of "the Spoils" chapter describes how Mohammed fought and defeated the Jews at the battle of Khaybar. In 5:78 both David and Jesus curse the Jews for "disobedience" and "excesses".

Thus the basis exists, for those who choose to use it, to promote the hostility and palpable fear of Jews that confront journalists in Iraq on a daily basis. The many Iraqis who now have access to satellite television can also watch a Syrian Ramadan series aired on the Lebanese Hezbollah-owned channel "Al-Manar" that provides a tendentious version of recent Jewish history. "Al-Shatat" or "the Diaspora", as the series is called, tells the story of Zionism from 1812 until the establishment of Israel. The series contains familiar themes of Jewish plots to dominate the world. The first episode began with a description of a 2,000-year-old Jewish creation of a world government and attempts by Jews to provoke wars among non-Jews. Subsequently, Jews are shown plotting to kill non-Jews, dominate various countries, oppose other religions, and incite Germany to enter a succession of wars. Actors play famous Jewish figures, such as the wealthy Rothschild dynasty, the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl and the falsely-accused Alfred Dreyfuss. Jews are shown committing brutal acts of murder and dismemberment against non-Jews and Jews who betrayed the race. Such a program is consistent with a wide body of literature produced in the Arab world, including recent Iraqi newspaper articles.

After the war, with the flowering of new Iraqi publications, newspaper articles contained numerous Jewish themes, helping to spread the panic that Jews were indeed invading the country. The independent Iraqi daily al-Yawm al-Aakher reported, that "the frantic campaign to resettle the Jews [in Iraq] has aroused the annoyance of Iraqis, particularly the clerics". Al-Adala, a newspaper published by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, warned that "a number of Jews are attempting to purchase factories in Baghdad". The article went on to describe an eyewitness who observed Jews purchasing factories. In fact it seems nearly everyone in Baghdad has a friend or relative who was an eyewitness to Jews buying land.
An editorial in al-Rassed also warned that Jews were attempting to purchase land as a result of the occupation. Dar al-Salam, a newspaper owned by the Iraqi Islamic Party, reported that Mosul's association of clerics issued an edict prohibiting the sale of land to non-Iraqis because it may end up in the hands of Jews. Meanwhile, al-Sa'ah warned Iraqis to check Taiwanese and Chinese-made appliances for concealed Stars of David because the Israelis would be surreptitiously selling their products in Iraq.

Another rumor going around is that Michel Aflaq, the now-hated founder of the Ba'ath Party, was a secret Jew who had converted to Christianity. It is also rumored that in Israel, Jewish brothels are built to look like mosques, even with the minaret, or tower. Shi'ites believe that a final battle between Jews and Muslims will occur when the Jews come to the city of Kifil on the Euphrates to visit the tomb of an alleged Jewish prophet. Here Muslims and Jews will fight, and the Jews will hide behind rocks, which will speak and say "there is a Jew behind me", and the Muslims will be victorious.

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact for information on our sales and syndication policies.)




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Clump-clump, clump-clump, clump-clump, hark, I hear the sound of the goose-stepping Bolshevik Israeli thought police in the distance.

Ultra-leftist Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On is at it again. This time she's going after Arutz-7 - the Israel National News - Hebrew website. It's not good enough that the Israeli Left-Wing Thought Police, hiding behind the smoke and mirrors of legalism, have managed to silence the most significant independent voice on the airwaves, Arutz-7 Radio. The erstwhile MK, "guardian of the public," wants to protect the innocent from hearing other views different than those she hears in her Leftist Ghetto. She claimed that an opinion article published on their website entitled, "Expulsion, not Transfer" constituted a violation of laws against incitement, and called on Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein to investigate into it, and he is.

Clump-clump, clump-clump, clump-clump, MK Zahava Gal-On, just a couple months ago, asked the Attorney General to look into a Jerusalem Post editorial she said had "words of incitement to murder" in it. The Jerusalem Post editorial said, "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly as possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative." Where is Freedom of the Speech? Where is Freedom of the Press? When was it ever "incitement to murder", to call for the death of the enemy in wartime? Only in Israel, only on the Bolshevik Left, only to shut people up and divert attention from discussing the real issue, Arafat's war against Israel. By the way, in the end the Attorney General found nothing prosecutable in the editorial. Freedom of Speech 1, Thought Police 0.

Back in May 2003, MK Gal-On called on the Attorney General to "warn" members of the Yesha Rabbinical Council against releasing a Halachic - Jewish law - ruling against the Road Map "peace" plan. Well, what are they supposed to issue, an economic impact report, they're rabbis? What? They're not allowed to think differently from Zahava?

And what does Gal-On think? Well for one she thought that after 12 Jews were killed in Hebron last Nov. 2002, the deaths be exploited to expel the entire Jewish community of Hebron from the city. That's what she told an Israel Radio interviewer, just days after the slaughter. And she thinks it's just fine to meet with the leader of the enemy during wartime. That's right she's met Arafat several times in the last three years. Now that should be illegal!

Though Arutz-7 does not endorse the opinions it publishes in its op-ed section, Arutz-7 noted that the sentence MK Gal-On questioned was taken out of context, and does not incite to murder. "Incitement" you should know, is the new catchall phrase the Left has invented since the Rabin murder, to frighten all those who would think differently than them. In fact, the author, Gil Ronen, writes in the article, "no one will have to take the law into his own hands." So, where's the incitement? I went to check out this article myself on Arutz-7's Hebrew site. But frightened of further persecution, it seems Arutz-7 deleted the listing from the current articles list, and the page itself, although they forgot to delete the title from Ronen's archive list. "Expulsion, not Transfer," the now "ghost" article, ran on October 28th.

According to Arutz-7, the article's basic assumption was that since there is no chance for reaching peace with the Arabs of Yesha - Judea and Samaria, the West Bank and Gaza - there is therefore no alternative but to "remove this 'nation' from our midst." Isn't that National Union MK Benny Elon's plan? Ronen wrote that he does not support transfer, as "the Palestinians are not European Jews, and we are not Germans." Instead, he suggests a "gradual deterioration" in which the war against terrorists expands, including more targeted killings, more house demolitions, and more air raids. Sounds good to me, in fact I've written several such articles, for example calling on the Israeli government to use attack helicopters against Hamas political-rally funerals - "The Call of the Israel Apache" - and suggested that, "There is Only A Military Solution." I dare Gal-On to "investigate" me. It seems our dear "guardian of the public," a child Olah - immigrant - from the former Bolshevik S oviet Union - hasn't learned a thing about democracy, freedom of speech or the press in her life! And as a policy analyst, that is my professional opinion.

"No one will have to take the law into his own hands," Ronen writes. "It's enough that officers and soldiers interpret their instructions as broadly as possible and employ maximum force," noting as an example that if a Jewish neighborhood is fired on, the military response should not be limited to one specific window or house, but to the entire row of houses from where the attack emanated. The sentence that troubled MK Gal-On so much reads, "The only ones who will die will be Palestinians, and whoever doesn't want to die, will be forced to run away." I disagree with Ronen, it should become government policy, not just the purview of individual soldiers; by the way, in wartime the goal is to kill the enemy and not be killed. And, an overwhelming majority of Israelis consider this wartime.

Gal-On implied that Ronen's call to abandon dangerous house-to-house searches for terrorists, in favor of air-bombings, is a form of incitement "to genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians." Notice her exaggeration to justify suppression. House-to-house searches have claimed many Israeli soldiers' lives in the past three years. Why chase after political commentators and media outlets? Why doesn't she take her beef to where it really belongs, with Sharon and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)? They've used air-bombings several times already, against Hamas targets, rather than go into the houses to get the wanted men.

By the way, several public figures including MK's have also expressed the opinion that air-bombings should be stepped up. For instance, in Dec. 2001, National Union MK Eliezer Cohen said, "This is war, not just terrorism, and we must fight back accordingly. They are fighting us with all of their resources and weaponry, and we must do the same. Our army knows exactly what to do, and it is time to do it." And in Dec. 2002, National Union leader MK Avigdor Lieberman called for a "decisive military victory." So why save Arab terrorists and their supporters, when you can save the life of Jewish soldiers?

Zahava, they didn't teach you that in Bolshevik training school did they? Clump-clump, clump-clump, clump-clump, here come those thought police!

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2003/5764 Pasko




By Yehoshua Mizrachi
10 June 2002

30 years - that's all I ask to prove to you that the American Jewishcommunity is dying.

I am not referring to the recent New York Post article that reveals a string of Islamic fundamentalist attacks against the Jewish community over the last 12 years; nor I am referring to the near pogrom at San Francisco State University, or even the admission by Ahmed Rahman Yassin that the original target of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. No, American Jews are not being murdered to extinction, we are committing suicide.

There, I've said it. I have broken the taboo that community leaders know and dread to utter. For 100 years or more, five full generations, American Jews have experienced a vacation from Jewish history: unfettered freedom, complete civil liberties, economic opportunity, the virtual absence of anti-Semitism, and social mobility. But what have we done with our advantages? Let's take a dispassionate look at the condition of the American Jewish community.

In 1970, there were 6.7 million Jews in the US, according to the Britannica Book of the Year. By 1990, according to the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) of that year, there were 5.2 million Jews. As the results of the 2000 NJPS have been delayed in publication (tremulous fear, perhaps?), some estimates put the current figure at 4.3 million. If current demographic trends hold (and there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that they won' t), within 50 years there will be perhaps 1.5 million Jews, mainly Chareidim and mainly in New York. Concomitantly, the power and size of the Arab-American community is growing. They currently number approximately 6million, and are taking careful notes on how the American Jewish community organizes and exerts it's electoral clout. What are the implications of this counter-phenomenon?

Many American Jews point proudly to their pro-Israel lobbying efforts and argue that large-scale aliyah of American Jews would jeopardize US support for Israel. However, when there are 10 million Arab-Americans and only a million Jews, which lobby will carry the day in the corridors of power? David Bonior is not a singular pro-Arab Congressman from Michigan; he is the harbinger of the future. There is another democratic country, once strongly pro-Israel, which now hosts a population of 6 million Arabs and only 600,000 Jews. Ever heard of France? Study it well, my American friends - the synagogue bombings, the attacks upon Jews, the public policy, all of it -for that is the road you are treading.

Let's look a little deeper. By virtue of it's size, Conservative Judaism has been popularly regarded as mainstream, normative Judaism; and by virtue of its position, it claimed to moderate between the Reform on the left and a small but indomitable Orthodox community on the right. Since the direction of American Jewish communal life has largely been steered through the influence of the Conservative Movement, it is instructive to see how the Movement is doing. At the recent Conservative Movement Convention, which claims a membership of 2.1 million Jews, Dr. Neil Gillman, a Professor of Philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary, noted the absence of "G-d talk" within the Movement. Rabbi Jerome Epstein, Executive Vice President of United Synagogue, admitted publicly that "...large numbers of Conservative Jews do not live the life or values we teach." Conservative Jews tend to either drift left, towards the Reform, or, if they do live Jewish values, tend to develop into Orthodox Jews. There is also a push within the Movement to invigorate the liturgy, which is widely regarded as stultified and devoid of meaning. Finally, Rabbi Silverstein, by urging the Movement to be more "demographically pro-active," hinted at the great, unspoken specter that haunts the Conservative Movement: the average age of the Conservative congregant is skewed into the 60s or 70s, and there are few young people entering the Movement to replace them. So 50 years hence, their 800 congregations will be churches, mosques or bingo halls. The Conservative Movement has no direction, no mission, and - very soon - no congregants; in short, the Movement is not self-sustaining.

The Reform Movement, on the other hand, is thriving for now; and why shouldn 't it? As the Judaism of "individual autonomy," it demands nothing of it's adherents, except of course expensive dues and building fund pledges. According to recent estimates, only 50% - 60% of Reform Jews are halachically Jewish. Reform Judaism will continue the drift to the left, resembling Christian Unitarianism, only with Jewish iconology. It will aggressively advocate political action in the realms of diversity, radicalfeminism, militant gay rights and socialism. So it will continue to thrive in American life for a while, as the only address in the Jewish community that de-stigmatizes intermarriage and positively celebrates and accelerates assimilation. Eventually, though, the Reform will so successfully divest themselves of the vestiges of Jewish identity, that they will find their pews empty, too. More church buildings available at bargain prices.

American Orthodoxy is also not without it's problems. Increasingly, secular values and images, the seductive culture of youth, and the appeal of instant self-gratification have made insidious inroads into even the most august observant homes. We seem unable to convey to many of our children the Jewish notion of ritual fused with meaning; unable to answer convincingly, against a backdrop of unlimited choices, why a teenager should choose to be a Jew in this day and age.

To avert this disaster, we must return to our Divine calling.

"V'Ata Kadosh, Yoshev Tehilot Yisrael" - "And You are Holy, enthroned upon the praises of Israel."

Yoshev - suggests Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

Tehilot - suggests Torah.

Yisrael - Klal Yisrael.

The living interconnection between the Land, the Torah and the People is the great secret of Jewish survival. They are the tripod of G-d's throne, as it were, and a stool with only two legs is no stool at all. American Jewry is self-destructing because we have attempted to base our Jewish identity on any two, or sometimes only one of them. Our liberal Jewish brethren who have discarded both Torah and the Land find it difficult to understand why their adherents can't find much use for the People, either. Our Orthodox communities emphasize Torah and Klal, but attach almost no significance to Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Our secular Zionist brethren have demonstrated the abject failure of the People and the Land without Torah.

We point to our impressive institutions, Federations and synagogues, built out of necessity, with such painstaking effort and at such staggering cost. But we are like the proverbial castaway who, when offered the chance of rescue, is reluctant to return to civilization; reluctant to leave the crude instruments of survival he engineered and so lovingly built with almost superhuman effort. We are reluctant to abandon our desert island for a life

in Israel where being Jewish is normative, where Jewish continuity is taken for granted, where the ground , the air, the water is suffused with the spirit of G-d. We can no longer afford to ignore the historical imperatives that drive us towards our destiny: the People, loyal to G-d and Torah, living on the Land sworn to our ancestors, fulfilling the mission of bringing G-d's holiness into a weary world desperately in need of it.

Those few Diaspora Jews who happened to have found themselves in shul recently heard the story of the meraglim, the 12 spies, who made a pilot trip to Israel, but preferred their life in chutz l'aretz. Consider the words of G-d directed at those who rejected the Land of Israel: "And your young children of whom you said they will be taken captive [in Israel], I shall bring them; they shall know the Land that you have despised. But your carcasses will drop in this wilderness." - Bamidbar 14:31, 32 Think about that before you sign up for that fat 30 year mortgage.

From Gush Etzion, where we are living your dreams.


Yehoshua Mizrachi is a writer living in the Gush Etzion. His forthcoming book deals with Jewish renewal and rediscovering our Divine mission.



(An open letter to President Bush)

by Boris Shusteff

Dear Mr. President. You are the leader of the only superpower that dominates the world. When you speak, people listen attentively to every word that you utter. When lay people make mistakes, usually it is only they who bear the consequences. When the leader of a superpower makes wrong pronouncements, if they become enshrined in the policies of states, millions could end up suffering.

On November 19, speaking at Whitehall Palace in London, you said that "in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world." Two more times in your speech, you mentioned the word "justice." First, when declaring that "lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance." And a second time, when speaking about the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict you said,

"We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long. We seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long."

These are brilliant words, Mr. President. If one takes them out of context and uses them as slogans, nothing can be more just and desirable. However, there is one small problem. If they are implemented, the word "justice" will immediately crumble like a sand castle, because the "state for the Palestinian people" that you described is meant to exist on primordial Jewish lands. World leaders are fond of making politically correct pronouncements. Very few of them are ready to honestly say the truth. One who was not afraid to speak the truth was Winston Churchill. He wrote in his memoirs:

"Ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917 I have been a faithful supporter of the Zionist cause. I never felt that the Arab countries had had anything from us but fair play. To Britain, and Britain alone, they owed their very existence as nations. We created them; British money and British advisers set the pace of their advance; British arms protected them."

When you referred to "others," speaking of the long betrayal of the "Palestinian people" you forgot to mention that these others were first and foremost the Arab countries that were created at the same time that the world powers promised the Jews a state. Now, it appears that you suggest correcting the injustice committed by the Arab countries against their brethren at the price of instituting injustice upon the Jews. Do not misunderstand me; do not read ingratitude into these words. Your demand for "security and recognition for the state of Israel" is priceless. However, is it not strange, that after 55 years of existence, Israel must still prove that she has the right to exist? Is it not strange by itself that the President of the strongest country in the world has to appeal to the world community to allow the Jewish state to live? Is there any other country in the world whose right to life is questioned? Yes, Mr. President, you are absolutely correct. Israel deserves to live in security and be recognized by her neighbors. But the price for this recognition should not be to forfeit the soul of the Jewish people. You cannot speak in the same breath about justice while demanding that "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts... and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences." Why in the world should Jews not be allowed to build and live in Judea? As a Christian you are well aware that God gave this land to the Jews. As a student of history you know very well that the British Mandate, the only legally binding international document pertaining to this piece of real estate, in Article 6 encourages "close settlement by Jews on the land."

You are concerned about the "daily humiliation of the Palestinian people" by Israel. This humiliation is the direct consequences of the policies of those you named yourself: "Palestinian rulers who ... maintain their ties to ... terrorist groups, the old elites, who time and again had put their own self-interest above the interest of the people they claim to serve." It is because of this same "elite" that Israel is forced to build "walls and fences," in order to stop the murderers who have taken the lives of more than 1200 Jews since the beginning of the Oslo process. By invoking the word "justice" you must be fair in everything. If you speak about the "humiliation of the Palestinian people," why are you nearly mute about the humiliation of the Jewish people? The virulent anti-Semitism that is spreading like wildfire all over the world not only humiliates them but also takes away their lives. Sorry, but simply using the word "anti-Semitism" twice in your speech will not suffice. It is too little, too late. You were wrong, Mr. President, when you said that anti-Semitism "poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East." It is not "public debate" that it poisons, but rather the minds and the hearts of people all over the world. It spreads hatred towards the Jewish people. It spews enmity against the Jews, with prominent public figures like Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis's stating that "today, we can say these little people [the Jews] are the root of all evil." It beats the drums of a new Holocaust if 59% of Europeans name the Jewish state the greatest threat to peace in the world, at a time when the leaders of Iran feverishly work to obtain nuclear weapons, for the declared purpose of annihilating the Jewish state.

Mr. President, you said in your speech that "Americans have, on occasion, been called moralists who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has been inspired the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury." This great man was among the first Christian Zionists who advocated the return of the Jews to their homeland. When Lord Aberdeen, Britain's prime minister at the time, asked him, "If the Holy Land should pass out of the hands of the Turks, into whose hands should it fall?" Shaftesbury's reply was unequivocal: "Not into the hands of other powers, but let it return into the hands of the Israelites." Lord Shaftesbury wrote in 1876,

"The old time will come back... the country [Palestine] wants capital and population. The Jews can give it both. ...To England then, naturally, belongs the role of favoring the settlement of the Jews in Palestine... The nationality of the Jews exists; the spirit is there and has been for three thousand years but the external form, the crowning bond of union, is still wanting. A nation must have a country. The old land, the old people. This is not an artificial experiment; it is nature, it is history."

Shaftesbury was not a lone advocate of justice in Palestine. It was a most natural act to restore the people who were brutally expelled from their land but never completely left it. You are absolutely correct, Mr. President, Americans knew how to tell apart right and wrong long ago. In 1818 American President John Adams wrote, "I really wish the Jews in Judea an independent nation." And in 1863 another great President, Abraham Lincoln said, "Restoring the Jews to their homeland is a noble dream shared by many Americans." Mr. President, it is hard to comprehend that a devout Christian like yourself could suggest conducting an artificial experiment in the Holy Land. Shaftesbury mentioned the three-thousand-year-long connection between Jews and the Holy Land. Palestinian Arab Professor Rashid Khalidi admits in his book "The Palestinian Identity" that the "Palestinians did not exist as a people before the First World War." Judea is the ancient homeland of the Jews, Mr. President. It is the old land of a very old people. This is the main reason why the experiment of trying to artificially implant artificially created people is destined to failure. Mr. President, you hinted at a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict yourself:

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. ...In the past [we] have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold."

It is easy to define what has been wrong with policy in the Middle East: attempting to artificially carve an Arab state out of the Jews' biblical and historical heritage. Justice cannot be done by committing new injustice, and it would be unjust, Mr. President, to rob the Jews of that heritage. "A viable, independent state for the Palestinian Arabs" cannot be created by expelling Jews from Jewish lands. It does not even make sense from a practical standpoint, because such a state would be neither viable, nor truly independent. If indeed the Palestinian Arabs need a new state, it certainly cannot be in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. You are right, Mr. President: we must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East.

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




As this is being posted, the so-called "Geneva Accords," an offshoot and continuation of the cursed Olso, Hebron and Wye Accords, are being signed in Switzerland. According to latest IDF figures: From 29 September 2000 through 29 November 2003: 898 killed, 6,003 injured, 19,636 attacks.

Presently I am proud to post "Geneva Accord: An Alternative Version-Model for a Permanent Israel-Arab Agreement", by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons. It is slightly longer than regular postings, but it is well worth the reading. The document includes detailed footnotes.

....David Wilder

"GENEVA ACCORD" Alternative Version:

Model for a Permanent Israel-Arab Agreement

by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Kiryat Arba-Hebron

November 2003


Mandatory Palestine will be divided into two states to be called Palestine and Israel.

Palestine will be given 77% of the land area and will be situated east of the Jordan River. i.e. the area of the country today known as Jordan.

Israel will be given the remaining 23% and will be situated west of the Jordan River. i.e. the area at present under Israeli law and order, together with the whole of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip.

Arabs at present living in the designated Israel will, on signing a declaration recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to Palestine.

Likewise Jews living in the designated Palestine will, on signing a declaration recognizing Palestine as an Arab state, be allowed to remain. Otherwise they will move to Israel.

Part 1 - Background

The Mandate for Palestine

In April 1920, the San Remo Conference decided to assign the Palestine Mandate under the League of Nations to Britain.The area known as Palestine in this Mandate document extended from the Mediterranean to the eastern border of what is today known as Jordan. Article 6 of this document stated that an aim of the Mandate was to "encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency,... close settlement by Jews on the landArticle 25 allowed the Mandatory Power, with the consent of the League of Nations, "to postpone or withhold application" of certain articles of this Mandate in the area known as Transjordan In March 1946, Britain acting unilaterally and contrary to Article 5 of the Mandate, detached the area of Transjordan from the Mandate and set up "a sovereign independent State" named Transjordan On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution dividing up Palestine west of the Jordan River into two independent states, a Jewish one and an Arab oneWest Bank") was occupied and annexed by Jordan, and Egypt captured the area known as the Gaza Strip. The only countries in the world to recognise Jordan's annexation were Britain and PakistanThe Six Day War.

In June 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria made an unprovoked attack on Israel. As a result of this attack, the Six Day War broke out. During the course of this war, Israel succeeded in acquiring Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.

In the following years, leading international lawyers discussed Israel's international rights to Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, and they concluded that Israel has a better title to these areas than any other country in the world. These legal authorities included, Professor Julius Stone Since the Six Day War, Israel has built settlements in these areas (including east Jerusalem) and towards the end of 2003, there were about 400,000 Jews living there The late Eugene Rostow, who was Professor of Law at Yale University and U.S. Assistant Under-Secretary of State, wrote, "Since the Palestine Mandate conferred the right to settle in the West Bank on the Jews, that right has not been extinguished, and, under Article 80 of the [United Nations] Charter, cannot be extinguished unilaterally.

Jews from Arab Countries

Jews have lived in Arab countries for thousands of years. They were often persecuted and such persecution greatly intensified from the end of 1947. Three quarters of a million Jews fled to Israel, either having their property and assets confiscated or having to abandon themTransfer of population has been successfully put into practice in the 20th century in different parts of the world. Here are some of examples of such transfers:At about the same period there was an exchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria.

After Pakistan split from India in August 1947, 8 million Hindus went from Pakistan to India and 6 millions Muslims in the reverse direction. This was an operation which had broad international support.

A discussion of the advantages and moral aspects of transfer of population is given in Part 3 of this paper.

A Historical Survey on Transfer of Arabs from Eretz Israel

It is a common misconception that the idea of transfer of Arabs from Eretz Israel originated with Rabbi Meir Kahane. In fact this idea stems from Theodor Herzl himself. In his private diary entry in June 1895, he wrote regarding the indigenous non-Jews in the Jewish State, "We shall try and spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries whilst denying it any employment in our own country. Herzl was not the only Zionist leader to make such proposals. David Ben-Gurion repeatedly made such proposals in his private diary. Chaim Weizmann, the liberal, told the British Colonial Secretary that "the Jews ... will help in getting Arabs out of Galilee.

The Six Day War with its consequent large increase of Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction, spurred on further transfer proposals. In a Cabinet meeting held a week after the war, Abba Eban and Pinchas Sapir called for the transfer of the Arab refugees residing in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip to the neigbouring Arab countries Such proposals were not limited to Jews. It was President Franklin Roosevelt who stated that "Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in itWestern Palestine should be handed over completely to the Jews, clear of Arab population.... In 1939, Mojli Amin,, a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine, put forward a proposal to transfer the Arabs of Palestine to Arab countries in exchange for Jews then living in Arab countries. This proposal was published in Damascus and distributed among the Arab leadersAnother British public body to propose transfer was the British Labour Party who, in a Resolution at their Annual Conference of 1944, overwhelmingly voted for the encouraging of the Arabs of Palestine to move out.

Part 2 - The "Accord"

Borders of the two states

Palestine will receive 77% of the area of Mandatory Palestine and its borders will be those of the country today known as Jordan..

Israel will receive the remaining 23% of this area and its borders will be those of the area at present under Israeli law and order, together with the whole of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip.

Both Palestine and Israel will have constitutions and an unalterable paragraph in the constitution of Palestine will be that it is an Arab state. Likewise an unalterable paragraph in the constitution of Israel will be that it is a Jewish state.

Population of the two states

All Jews will be allowed to live in Israel.

An Arab wishing to remain in Israel will have to sign a declaration that he fully recognises Israel as a Jewish State and that he will always act in accordance with his declaration. This declaration would then be published twice in a newspaper in both Israel and Palestine, with an interval of one month between each publication.

Such an Arab will then be allowed to remain in Israel. However, should at any time in the future, he not honour his declaration, he will immediately be transferred to Palestine, without any compensation whatsoever for his assets.

A similar procedure would apply to a Jew wishing to remain in Palestine.

Those Arabs in Israel not wishing to sign such a declaration, will, within three months of the establishment of the State of Palestine, move to Palestine. They will be able to take all their movable assets and all their removal and transport facilities will be provided at public expense. They will be given every assistance in packing their effects and other arrangements involved with their moving.

Arabs having immovable assets within the borders of Israel will be compensated with the assets of Jews who left the Arab countries leaving their assets behind. Such Jews will have to sign a waiver for such assets and in return will receive immovable assets of the transferred Arabs. It goes without saying that these Jews will be able to sell or otherwise dispose of these assets in any way they desire.

A similar procedure will be implemented for Jews moving from Palestine to Israel.

Part 3 - Answers to Objections to "Accord"


It is naive to expect that there will be no objections to this "accord" from the world and from the Israeli Left. Let us therefore try to anticipate these objections by giving our answers here.

Is not transfer "racial cleansing"?

a) Many people erroneously believe, that population transfers originated with the Nazis who adopted large-scale transfer of national minorities as part of their "New Order" in Europe

In fact, well before the Nazi era, successful and beneficial population transfers took place. The reason for such transfers was summed up in an article on the exchange of populations appearing in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The mixture of populations had led to so much political trouble in modern times that this unmixing process must be regarded as a very considerable advantage.

A classic case of such a transfer took place between Greece and Turkey soon after World War I. This transfer was proposed by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Fridtjof Nansen and it involved the transfer of about two million persons.

It was so successful that the British Royal Commission, under the Chairmanship of Lord Peel, when considering the Palestine problem in 1936/7, introduced it as a precedent in Palestine.

Over 65 years have passed since the Royal Commission made this recommendation. Today relations between the Arabs and the Jews are no better than they were then. If anything, terrorism and the negative relation of Arabs to the State of Israel are increasing from year to year. In the early years of the State of Israel, there were two Arab parties in the Knesset allied to the dominant Mapai (Labour) party. These two parties had a total of 5 seatsb) Of course, mass transfer of population, or, for that matter, transfer of individuals is not to be undertaken lightly, but it is sometimes the only solution to a problem. It was a former director of the Pan-European Union who wrote of population transfer, "To cut the cancer from a sick body is not cruel, it is necessary."

Let us not pretend that transfer is not painful. People are uprooted from their homes, moved to a different location and then have to reorganise their lives. But what is the alternative? Continual wars, terrorism, numerous people who are killed and maimed for life. As the Jewish writer Israel Zangwill wrote on this question, "One single act of compulsion is better for both sides than perpetual friction."

c) One should mention here that the Government of Israel has forcibly transferred Jews. This was done with the full support of the Left, who made no suggestion that it was "ethnic cleansing"! This occurred in 1982 when Israel transferred the thousands of Jews living in the various settlements in the Sinai peninsula, including the entire city of Yamit. This was absolutely against the will of those settlers and they were even removed in cages! They were given no option to remainJudea. Samaria and the Gaza strip will be compulsorily transferred to within the borders of their intended State of Israel

Why not the pre-1967 borders?

One might well ask why not make the borders of Israel identical to those prior to the Six Day War and those of the Palestine state the areas of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip?

There are a number of answers to this question:

a) In the partition plan of November 1947, Palestine west of the River Jordan was divided into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state, and the plan precisely defined the borders of each of these states. As a result of the Arab attack on the emerging Jewish state, the War of Independence followed and Israel acquired part of the area of the intended Arab state, (we shall call the resultant borders the "1949 borders"). As a result of a further attack in 1967, Israel acquired the remainder of the area allocated to the intended Arab state, (and we shall call the resultant borders the "1967 borders").

One could call the United Nations 1947 borders, borders which were recognised by this world body. However, the areas acquired in the War of Independence and in the Six Day War, have the same status - namely, areas acquired during a war. One could therefore understand (although not agree with) those wanting to fix the borders of the Jewish and Arab states according to the 1947 borders. But why should those on the Left choose the 1949 borders, rather than the 1967 borders, for the future borders of Israel?

b) One does not require a degree in War Studies to realise that the 1949 borders of Israel were indefensible. There was the very narrow waist - a mere 15 kmminimum area included about two thirds of the area of Judea and Samaria and the entire Gaza Stripe) A few days before the outbreak of the Six Day War, Jordan, (who then thought she would conquer Israel!) told the Security Council, "The [Armistice] Agreement [of 1949] did not fix boundaries; it fixed the demarcation linef) It was Abba Eban, who was on the left-wing of the Israel Labour Party, who said, "We have openly said that the map will never be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz


There have been enough wars, bloodshed, killing and maiming during the last hundred years in the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs.

The time has more than come to put an end to this. It can be done by implementing this "accord" and in this way both Arabs and Jews will be able to live unmolested by each other in their own states.


The Israel-Arab Reader. third revised edition, ed. Walter Laqueur, (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), p.34.

Israel's Heritage, [n.d.]), p.6.

The Israel-Arab Reader, op. cit., pp.113-22.

"Administered Territories", Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, vol. 1, 1971, (Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University), p.264.

"Samaria", Israel Law Review, vol. 3, no. 2, April 1968, (Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), p.294.

"East Jerusalem and the West Bank", New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 5, no. 3, Winter 1972, p.495.

London: The Goodhart Press, [n.d.]), pp.20-26; Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, (New York: Steimatzky, 1985), pp. 33-37.

Jewish Post (New York), (Internet:

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, vol. 19, (Chicago, 1963), pp.58-62.

Theodor Herzl, Handwritten Diary entry 12 June 1895, (Central Zionist Archives (CZA) H ii B i) ; The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, trans. Harry Zohn, (New York: Herzl Press, 1960), vol.1, p.88.

Journal of Palestine Studies, (Berkeley), vol.XXII no.2 (Winter 1993), pp.44-45, (English translation).

e.g. David Ben-Gurion, Handwritten Diary entries 12 July 1937, 10 December 1938, (Ben Gurion Archives ).

Minutes of Meeting Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, vol.25/3, no.65a, 10 July 1936, p.3, (CZA). 12 June 1938, afternoon session, pp.8-9 aleph, (CZA).

The Middle East Journal, (Washington D.C.), vol.40, no.1, Winter 1986, p.91; Michael Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion - A Political Biography, vol. 2, (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1977), p.775.

Bar-Zohar, op. cit., p.776.

"Hamahapach", Al Hamishmar, (Tel-Aviv), 5 April 1985, Pesach supplement, p.29; Yoram Nimrod, Patterns of Israeli-Arab Relations: The Formative Years, 1947 - 1950, Doctoral Thesis, (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1985), p.268.

Minutes of meeting between Ormsby-Gore and Weizmann, 19 July 1937, (Public Record Office London (PRO) Colonial Office (CO) 733/328/4 6029); Minutes in Handwriting of Ormsby-Gore, (PRO CO 733/352 75718/21).

Al Darcei M'dinateinu, (Tel-Aviv: Central Office of Ihud Poalei Zion - Hitahdut, 1938), pp.179-80.

Leo Motzkin, "Unsere Palastinapolitik", Juedische Rundschau, (Berlin), no.28, 12 July 1912, p.261; Sefer Motzkin, ed. Alex Bein, (Jerusalem: Zionist Executive & Executive of World Jewish Congress, 1939), pp.163-64.

"Ben-Eliezer" (pen-name for Nachman Syrkin), Die Judenfrage und der Socialistische Judenstaat, (Bern: Stieger & Cie, 1898), pp.59-61; Writings of Nachman Syrkin, arr. Berl Katznelson and Yehudah Kuperman, (Tel-Aviv: Davar, 1939), pp.53-54.

"Lecture by M. M. Ussishkin before Journalists", Doar Hayom, (Jerusalem), 28 April 1930, pp.1, 4.

20 December 1940, pp.1090-91, (CZA A246/7) ; Yosef Weitz, My Diary and Letters to the Children, (Ramat Gan: Masada, 1965), vol.2, pp.181-82.

Minutes of Meeting Jewish Agency Executive (Jerusalem), vol. 27/1, no.14, 21 November 1937, p.3, (CZA). 15 November 1937, (CZA S25/10060).

The Diaries of Edward R. Stettinius Jr. 1943 - 1946, ed. Thomas M. Campbell and George C. Herring, (New York: New Viewpoints, 1975), p.170.

Hoover Urges Resettling Arabs to Solve Palestine Problem", World - Telegram, (New York), 19 November 1945, p.1.

Notes on Meeting between Weizmann, Shertok, Namier and Philby, 6 October 1939, p.1, (Weizmann Archives). 21 May 1939, (CZA S25/5630).

Palestine Royal Commission Report, Cmd. 5479, London, July 1937, Chapter xxii, (henceforth Peel Report), para.43, 44, pp. 391-92.

Report of the Forty-third Annual Conference of the Labour Party, (London, 1944: Transport House), p.140.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.19, (Chicago, 1955), p.56

Peel Report, para 40, p.390. This Commission was chaired by Lord Peel, a former Secretary of State for India. The five other members were Sir Horace Rumbold, one of the ablest men in the Diplomatic Service with wide experience as Minister and Ambassador in many countries of the world; Sir Laurie Hammond, a distinguished Indian Civil Servant; Sir William Morris Carter, an ex-Colonial Chief Justice, better known for his searching analysis of the problems of native lands and interests confronted with an immigrant community, both in Rhodesia and Kenya; Sir Harold Morris, the universally acclaimed Chairman of the Industrial Court in Britain; and Professor Reginald Coupland, Professor of Colonial History at Oxford, whose knowledge and study of Colonial administration in the then British Colonial Empire and in other colonial spheres was well known to students throughout the world.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Herbert Hoover.

Edmond de Rothschild; Chairman of the Jewish Agency Administrative Committee, Felix Warburg and the British industrialist and Zionist, Israel Sieff.

Florida, Claude Pepper and the English philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell.

Israel, State of (Political Life)", Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 9, (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971) cols. 667-68.

Schechtman, op,cit., pp.374-75.

The Jewish Chronicle, (London), 27 February 1920, pp.18-19.

Beilin et al., op.cit., pp.20-21.

The Meaning of "Secure Borders", (Tel-Aviv: Israelis Reply, [n.d.]), p.13.

Map of minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes. Secret memorandum sent by Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense on the subject of Middle East Boundaries, (JCSM 373-67).

The Israel-Arab Reader, op. cit., p.365.

quoted by Blum, op, cit., p.291.

5 November 1969, by David Bedein, "Abba Eban: the June 1967 map represented Israel's "Auschwitz" borders, (Internet:



Monday, December 1, 2003


Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
For illustrations:

The security fence would not have been needed had there been no terrorism against innocent Israelis.

The fence is not a border. The border will be determined by negotiations.

The Palestinians will not be cut off from their fields, places of commerce and urban centers.

The terrorists target their victims for death. Death is irreversible. Inconveniences caused by the fence are reversible.

The right to live free from terrorism must take precedence.

A legitimate temporary security measure, the fence will help to end terror and restore calm - steps that are necessary for renewing the peace process.


More than 900 people were murdered in attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists since late September 2000.

Thousands of Israelis have been injured, many of the victims maimed for life. The terrorists infiltrated Israeli cities and towns and carried out attacks - including suicide bombings - on buses, in restaurants, shopping malls, and even private homes.

No other nation in the world has before this time faced such an intense wave of terror, especially in the form of suicide bombings.

In almost all of the cases, the terrorists infiltrated from Palestinian areas in the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership has done nothing to stop them and has even encouraged them.


The security fence - a temporary defensive measure, not a border.

A fence, not a "wall".

As a result of the unceasing terror, Israel decided to erect a physical barrier. The absence of such a barrier makes infiltration into Israeli communities a relatively easy task for terrorists. No terrorists have infiltrated from the Gaza Strip into Israel in recent years, because an electronic security fence already exists there.

The Government of Israel has an obligation to defend its citizens against terrorism. This right of self-defense is anchored in international law.

The security fence will not annex Palestinian lands, change the legal status of the Palestinians, nor prevent the Palestinians from going about their daily lives. It will not establish a border, which is to be determined by direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Despite the many pictures being shown in the international media of a tall concrete wall, more than 97% of the planned 720 km. (480 mile) security fence will consist of a chain-link fence system. Less than 3% of the fence will be constructed of concrete. The short concrete sections are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to block them from shooting at Israeli vehicles traveling on main highways alongside the pre-June 1967 line.

The security fence forms a strip approximately the width of a four-lane highway. At its center is the chain-link fence that supports an intrusion detection system. This technologically advanced system is designed to warn against infiltrations, as is the dirt "tracking" path and other observation tools.


The decision to build the security fence was taken only after other options were tried, but failed to stop the deadly terrorist attacks.

Despite its numerous commitments, the Palestinian Authority has failed to fight terrorism. The obligations that were violated by the Palestinian Authority were contained in the Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements, as well as in the Roadmap that was presented to the sides in May 2003.

Had there been no terrorism, Israel would not have been compelled to build a fence to protect its citizens.

The Palestinians must dismantle the terrorist organizations, confiscate weapons, arrest the planners and perpetrators of terrorist acts, stop incitement and resume security cooperation with Israel; all these steps are required by the Roadmap. These measures are imperative for renewing the peace process.


The route of the fence has been determined solely on the basis of security needs and topographical considerations.

The fence is being built in such a way that, if necessary, the relevant parts can be moved to different locations. In this context, it will beremembered that when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, in fulfillment of UN Security Council Resolution 425, the UN delineated the border between Israel and Lebanon. Israel moved its security fence, sometimes only a few meters, to comply with the new border.

Israel has made the use of public lands a priority in building the security fence, in order to avoid, as much as possible, the use of private lands. If this is not possible, then private land is requisitioned, not confiscated, and it remains the property of the owner. Legal procedures allow every owner to file an objection to the use of their land. When private lands are used, owners are offered full compensation, in accordance with the law; this compensation is offered both as a lump sum and also on a monthly basis.


Taking into consideration Palestinian humanitarian needs.

In addition to its efforts to ensure the security of its citizens, Israel attaches considerable importance to the interests of the local Palestinian residents. Israel recognizes the necessity of finding an appropriate balance between the imperative need to prevent terrorism and defend its citizens, and the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians.

Most Palestinians will be on the eastern side of the fence. They will not be cut off from their commercial and urban centers.

No Palestinians will have to relocate. Israel will make every effort to avoid causing hardship and interference with their daily lives.

Dozens of crossing points have been set up to enable the movement of people and goods. The security fence was located, to the greatest possible degree, on unused land to avoid harming agriculture. Palestinian farmers will have access to their fields and will reach them through special gates that are being built into the fence. Trees affected by the construction will be


Saving lives must always come first!

The security fence has only one purpose: to keep the terrorists out and thereby save the lives of Israel's citizens, Jews and Arabs alike.

The security fence is not an obstacle to peace, as the Palestinians are trying to portray it. In fact, by providing a barrier to terrorism, it will help restore quiet to the region and thereby increase the chances of achieving peace. It will not create permanent facts on the ground that will affect the outcome of negotiations.

The Palestinians seek to blame Israel, the victim of terrorism that is taking a purely defensive measure. Moreover, they ignore the hundreds of innocent victims murdered by Palestinian terrorism emanating from the West Bank. There would have been no need for a security fence had there not been an orchestrated campaign of terrorism that targets Israeli men, women and children for death. Death is permanent. It is irreversible. The inconvenience caused to Palestinians by the security fence is temporary and reversible, once terrorism stops and peace is achieved.




by Emanuel A. Winston,

Middle East analyst & commentator

We have learned that nothing is as dangerous as a politician who has reached the top of his particular career and is threatened with rejection by the public.

The two politicians I have in mind are President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Each is on the edge of a political disaster of his own choosing but, in many ways, they are each linked to the other. Both are trapped in a corner and desperate to escape.

PM Sharon came to office on his record in a landslide vote as a General who was well known for defending the nation in Six Wars and the Terror in between. Then he became a political figure and his previous straight-forward values seemed to change. He cut off all his previous friends and contacts who had worked hard to put him in office. As I said, he became a politician and is now desperate to retain the office he had finally won.

President Bush is facing his own dilemma in an election coming Fall 2004 - which, at first, looked like a guaranteed shoe-in. But now, with the body bags of American soldiers moving steadily toward the number of 500 - coupled with a downward spiral of the economy, he, too, is desperate to retain office.

Clearly, sacrificing an ally, Israel, on the chance that his Road Map will look successful is one of his choices. Both Sharon and Bush seem ready to do desperate things to win the prize of office. Desperate men see things differently. Their value systems are those of addicts who have overdosed on the glories of office.

Ariel Sharon gives every appearance that he is ready to sacrifice large parts of the historic ancient ancestral homeland of Eretz Yisrael, the roots of the Jewish State of Israel. He seems ready to abandon the sovereignty and the security of the Jewish nation to satisfy the demands of President Bush to keep to the Road Map Bush proposed. The State Department redesigned it - with the rest of the Quartet (the U.N., E.U. and Russia) - so that, if it were ever really enacted, its parameters would totally destroy the Jewish State.

One sleeper in the planning stages for years is a European Rapid Deployment (or Response) Force led by France, Britain and Germany - with the U.N.'s blessings. As I have pointed out several times (1) over the past 3 years, such a Force would first be headed toward the Middle East under the guise of a "Peace-Keeping Mission". Expect this Force to begin as a modest 1500 but to rapidly escalate to some 60,000 as planned earlier by the E.U. This may be Israel's first defensive battle with Europe in the near future. (2)

I recall when Sharon, in a rare moment of political honest moral clarity, stated plainly: "Israel will NOT be the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia sacrifice to the Arabs". This drew an angry response from Bush and the State Department because that was exactly what was planned to happen. Many of the nations who had tried to appease Adolph Hitler's Nazi Fascism by giving him the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia are now the same nations who are preparing to trade Israel for a brief peace with the world of Islamic-Fascism,

The nations of Europe, particularly France, England and Germany are in an agonizing panic because of the flood of unruly Muslims immigrants into their countries, many of whom are 'Jihadists' pressing these nations to accommodate strict Muslim Shariah Koranic laws - or else! They too are desperate and are grasping at the straws of appeasement by trying to sacrifice the Jewish State of Israel. The Sudetenland formula is definitely in play.

To further illustrate the hypocrisy of this short-sighted policy, Bush is upping the pressure on Sharon to cease building the security barrier which has proven its effectiveness in blocking most Terrorists trying to enter Israel from Gaza.

Concurrently, Bush, as a matter of comparison through the Patriot Act for Homeland Security, is further tightening American borders, scooping up illegal Muslim aliens through the National Immigration Agency and deporting them back to their countries of origin. Here again, the threats to cut loan guarantees have been made unless Israel allows Arab Palestinians into Israel, opening the checkpoints - even as Bush increases the security checkpoints in Iraq.

Arik Sharon has accepted the onerous terms of the Road Map as it has been re-designed by the U.S. State Department and the Quartet - dropping his government's numerous legitimate objections. But, Yassir Arafat and his interconnected Terrorist organizations detonated any rational basis for accepting the Road Map. In effect, the Road Map has not only failed but was actually never begun, because its first clause demanded that Arafat demolish his Terror infrastructure, collect his army's illegal weapons and cease Terror attacks.

Later, Abu Mazen, Arafat's first PM appointee, refused to engage the Terrorists and now Arafat's second PM appointee, Ahmed Qureia (aka Abu Ala), has plainly stated that he will make no attempt to disarm any of the Terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, Arafat's second proxy, Qureia, has cancelled a meeting with Sharon, demanding that Sharon pre-agree to release of Terrorist prisoners, removal of key checkpoints, etc. Qureia, on the directions from Arafat, acts as if he believes Bush is sufficiently desperate to agree with Qureia's terms.

Sharon, in what looks like abject obsequiousness to Bush's unreasonable demands, continued to speak of the Road Map and its necessary "painful concessions" as if it was still alive and operational. Well, folks, the Road Map by the Quartet is dead and buried along with the countless "sacrifices for peace", all the innocent men, women and especially the children who have been murdered by fire, bombs, truck and car bombs, road-mines, firebombs and guns given by Peres to Arafat.

To Bush it's imperative that his Road Map was not viewed as a failure by the American electorate. Moreover, the White House was already in a panic as orders (which leaked to the public) went out from Arafat's Murata HQ in Ram'Allah to continue Terror operations full tilt.

Arafat first appointed Mahmoud Abbas (ala Abu Mazen) as Prime Minister of the 'Palestinian Authority' in deference to pressure from the White House. Abu Mazen could not force Arafat to release his grip on the 14 or so Security Forces who were also Arafat's Terrorist arm, intended to keep operational contacts with the other Terrorist groups operating primarily in Gaza. Those would include but not be limited to Al Aksa, Tanzim, Hamas, Hezb'Allah and many believe also Al Qaeda.

President Bush desperately needed some sort of Middle East claim of success as Iraq and Afghanistan became an albatross around the President's neck. Even his War on Global Terrorism was not entirely successful - as yet. (Note! In this writer's opinion Bush did the right thing in declaring the War against Global Terrorism.) However, he is doing the wrong thing by offering a different policy for stopping Arab Palestinian Terrorists who continue to attack Israel.

At the same time, PM Sharon was facing similar desperate times. The Terrorists kept coming while he was receiving considerable pressure from the White House and State Department to reduce his military response to incoming Terror. Israel's successful interdiction of Terrorists through their aggressive IDF military force irritated the Arab nations, the U.S. State Department, the E.U. and the U.N.

The need to put a good face on the failed Road Map was imperative for the President coming into the 2004 elections . But, despite Israel's anti-Terror actions, the Jews of Israel were still being murdered and they looked to Sharon to intensify his War Against Terror. Sharon, still trying to please Bush, has just announced that he will unilaterally follow the Road Map, notwithstanding the on-going Terror which has infuriated members of his own Party and Cabinet - as well as the people of Israel.

The public threats to Sharon from the White House/State Department were 'polite' and seemingly understanding of Israel's difficult situation as suicide bombers blew up restaurants, buses with children and shoppers as their main targets. Each suicide event brought a public statement from the Bush Administration, expressing condolences and speeches about the need to aggressively confront Terror.

But, their 'back channel' (i.e., non-public) threats were more mean-spirited. Loan guarantees were stalled; contracts were threatened with cancellations; intelligence would be cut off; spare parts for U.S.-made aircraft would be slowed down or stopped; aviation fuel supplies would be shut off - along with the spare parts which might ground much of the Israeli Air Force. The State Department, writing the Bush foreign policy, has pulled out every threat possible to make Sharon fall into line - despite daily Terror attacks, deaths and grievous injuries.

Since the signing of Oslo September 13, 1993, more than 1500 Jews (including at least 43 Americans) have been slaughtered with tens of thousands more wounded - many maimed for life - including too many children.

Avi Dichter, Director of the Shin Bet (Israel's Secret Service) said that in the last 6 weeks alone, 14 suicide bombings were foiled and the number of Terror alerts has increased recently from some 30 per day to 50 per day.

Israel, in the meantime, was aiding American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with Intelligence, methods of fighting Terrorists, including the training of American Forces with intercity warfare and the re-fitting of American ships at Israeli ports. (Israel was of substantial assistance to American Forces, offering aerial protection during the 6 month mobilization before the first Gulf War, key intelligence, and training - all vital services which were not acknowledged by then President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker.)

There was more but that should give you the picture of the pressure put upon Israel.

As the Bush/Quartet Road Map was looking like a great liability to the President, another initiative began which would move the Road Map off of Bush's political plate and over to the U.N. Bush would then be removed from the Road Map debacle and the dirty work of compromising Israel's security and sovereignty would be done by the U.N., the E.U., and the rest of the Quartet.

This scheme, in many ways, was coupled with what is now called the "Geneva Initiative or Accords". This newest suicide pact was first started in Britain 2 years ago as a document of appeasement to the Arabs, to be closely monitored by the E.U. who actually funded the planning by illegal, self-appointed representatives of the Israeli government, Yossi Beilin, Avraham Burg, Avrum Mitzna - all Labor Party politicians rejected by the Israeli people - and Yasser Abd Rabbo also illegally representing the Arab Palestinians. Shimon Peres acted as the guiding 'elder' statesman - as he did in shaping the Oslo Accords. In effect, 'Geneva' followed the same 'secret' format of failed Oslo - only this time there were the fingerprints of the President and State Department. Even Paul Wolfowitz, bowing to Bush Administration pressures, suddenly found the 'Geneva' document very interesting and acceptable. (I hope he proves me wrong about him.)

So now, Israel is faced with the double threat of both the Road Map and the Geneva Accords converging, which will transfer the controlling power back to the United Nations, as recently submitted by the Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite Sharon's personal appeal NOT to involve the U.N. Within the Geneva Accords (a 112 page document recently mailed to all Israelis - paid for by the E.U.) is an even more hostile version of capitulation than the failed Oslo Accords. The Geneva Accords are supposed to be signed on December 1st by what can only be called the "Sudeten Conspirators".

The Beilin-European Geneva Initiative minimally called for the division of Jerusalem, the abandonment of the entire territories of YESHA and the transfer of at least 220,000 Jewish citizens, the evacuation of the Jordan Valley - considered an irreplaceable natural barrier to invading Arab nations from the East, the Judean/Samarian Water Aquifer that rests under the hills and supplies 30% of Israel's water, the release of thousands of convicted Terrorists ready to renew their Terrorist activities - and much more. (As an aside, Bush complained bitterly about Saddam's release of convicted criminals who have now joined with other Terrorists, both Iraqi and other nationalities, to kill American soldiers.)

Ariel Sharon gives every indication that he is preparing to compromise Israel's security and sovereignty - as Josephus did when he went over to the Romans. (Again, I hope he proves me wrong.) It is inconceivable that Sharon, the Warrior 'par excellence', now an elder statesman, will betray the trust of the Jewish nation, merely to keep the power of his position. Clearly, with the influence of his Leftist sons, he has deluded himself that creating another Arab Palestinian State is good for the Jewish nation - despite ongoing Terrorism and more promised. Various Terrorist groups have stated plainly that, with or without another Arab Palestinian State, they'll continue their war until Israel ceases to exist, whether it takes 100 or 1000 years. Remember, Islam's written aim for Global Domination is preached by the Mullahs in every Arab/Muslim nation. Everything Sharon now says is suspect and considered a 'trial balloon' to test the political atmosphere. The questions that swirl in his head are by their nature, unanswerable. If he moves to please Bush to help his image for the 2004 elections, will Bush be grateful? Probably not. Once he is elected to a second term, he won't need to be 'nice' to the Jewish State to pander to those States needed for their Jewish majorities in electoral votes.

If Sharon creates another Arab State of Palestine by forcibly removing the settlements, will the Jewish people be grateful - particularly if there is more Terror? Of course not.

The follow-on question is: Would the Palestinian Authority or Arab Palestinians be grateful? Unlikely and more likely to copy the Iraqi model of ingratitude as they kill Americans with their new freedoms.

Will whatever he does allow him to remain as Prime Minister or will he be forced to leave in permanent disgrace?

Is Sharon relying upon the idea that the Left, that is, Peres, Beilin, Sarid, Burg, Lapid and the Europeans will want to keep him in office with the belief that only Sharon of the Likud (and the Commander who dismantled Yamit) could possibly dare to use the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) to force out the settlers of YESHA - just like they cut down their radio station Arutz 7, the only free radio voice in Israel?

It would seem prudent NOT to wait for Sharon to make up his mind as to whether he is the old Sharon or Josephus. It would be better to democratically change governments now and allow Sharon to retire in dignity.

Two Desperate Politicians, trapped by circumstance, cannot be trusted to make rational decisions for the safety and sovereignty of their nations but, only for themselves - regardless of who must be sacrificed.


1. "European Union Want to Use NATO Against Israel" by Emanuel A. Winston 8/27/03

"E.U.- Rapid Deployment Force Aimed at Israel" by Emanuel A. Winston 12/22/02

2. "Blair, Chirac Unite on Peacekeeper Plan" by Ed Johnson AP CHICAGO TRIBUNE 11/24/03

3. "Palestinian Official Delays 1st Meeting with Sharon" by Evan Osnos CHICAGO TRIBUNE 11/24/03


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

HOME Maccabean comments