Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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




EDITORIAL NOTES...Bernard J. Shapiro

In the 21st Century the Freeman Center will still be fighting for Eretz Yisrael








FATALISM? ....Boris Shusteff


THE BOMB IS TICKING....Ruth and Nadia Matar

CNN: IT'S NEWS TO ME....David Bar-Illan

Are U.S. 'Investments' in the Mideast 'Peace Process' Giving the Arabs a New War Option? .... Center for Security Policy

GOLAN AND PEACE... Boris Shusteff

When One Begins To Praise His Enemies, He Ends Up Condemning His Heroes.....Gary M. Cooperberg

HAVAT MAON... Boris Shusteff




THE RAVIV COVERUP...Dr. Aaron Lerner + Assorted Material






Excerpt from Friday's Sermon on the Temple Mount Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, November 5, 1999



Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

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


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

(c) 1999 Bernard J. Shapiro




In the 21st Century the Freeman Center will still be fighting for Eretz Yisrael

1. We will work to PREVENT the loss of the Golan and its 30% of Israel water plus strategic mountains

2. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has already agreed to recognize a Palestinian state. We will work to MINIMIZE the damage that will result.

3. We will actively OPPOSE the return of hostile Arabs west of the Jordan.

4. We will SUPPORT a unified Jerusalem as Israel's sole capital.

5. We will DEMAND the right of Jews to worship on the Temple Mount and support a policy that returns the whole area to Jewish control.

6. We will EDUCATE the Jewish and non-Jewish community on issues of importance for Israel's security.





As a public service we will translate the remarks of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak from politically correct NEWSPEAK (first described by George Orwell in his book 1984) to easily understood English.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak vowed to push ahead with the final-status talks that begin in Ramallah at 10 this morning. "Israel's fight against terror," he said, "is like a boxing match... You punch, and you get punched. At the end, however, I assure you there is going to be a knockout." Barak stressed that severe as the attack was, he does not intend to slow down the pace of the peace process because of it.

UNOBFUSCATED ENGLISH TRANSLATION: We will not allow terrorists to interfere with our surrender to terrorists. We intend to dismember Israel and turn over territory to terrorists in order to prevent terrorism. We realize that very parcel of land we turn over to Arafat's terrorists becomes a "safe haven" for terrorism against Israel. We sincerely plan to crush terrorists who interrupt the Oslo process of appeasement of terrorism. I hope that is clear now.


The aid earmarked for implementation of the Wye Surrender Agreement was passed in the House this morning. Apparently the Israeli leadership has sold out the Jewish People's birthright in Judea and Samaria for $1.3 billion and plans to sell the Golan for $20 billion. There may already be secret negotiations to sell the rest of Israel to a conglomerate of Arabs, Europeans and Americans. Perhaps $100 billion will be the price for the illegal sale of the Jewish State. The Freeman Center will continue to inform our readers that Eretz Yisrael belongs to Am Yisrael (the People of Israel) in perpetuity. The disposal of that Land by Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, and Barak constitutes the sale of stolen property and someday proper judicial charges will be brought against them.


A peace criminal is a person or organization that uses the eternal seductive lure of peace to aid the enemies of Israel, who wish to destroy or replace her and expel or exterminate its Jewish population. Peace Now is the preeminent example of a peace criminal organization. In the near future we will present a full discussion of the peace criminal, their organizations, and propose legislation to end their depredations on Israel and the Jewish people.



History has proven the Freeman Center correct in its analysis of Oslo. Of course, as Joe Samuels, publisher of the Jewish Herald-Voice told me back in 1993, " Bernard, even if you are proven correct, the leadership of Israel and the American Jewish community will never admit it or give you credit." Please read the press release below from 1993 and then Bar-Illan's article. You decide.


Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) September 2, 1993, p. 6

Freeman Center says rush to embrace
PLO is foolish and ultimately dangerous

‘...nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel’

Asserting that the rush to embrace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is both foolish and ultimately dangerous, the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies has declared: ”The pro-Israel community should react with extreme caution to the moves in Jerusalem to recognize the PLO.”

Bernard J. Shapiro, director of the center also said: “The proposed Gaza-Jericho plan worked out between Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and representatives of the PLO, a terrorist organization, is nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel. We should not forget that the PLO has violated and trampled on every agreement it has ever made during its nearly 30-year history. This includes agreements and solemn pledges made to the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the United States and the United Nations.”

According to the Freeman Center, the PLO instituted a reign of terror, rape and murder locally as well as attacks on Israel in the two Arab countries where it gained a kind of ‘self rule.’”

Shapiro continued: “Despite the media hype surrounding these developments, let me make something very clear: A leopard does not change his spots. You can say a berachah (blessing) over a ham sandwich, but that doesn’t make it kosher. And a deal with the PLO is like a dance on quicksand - before you realize it, you have sunk into the muck and slime."


Please note that this Press Release was issued on September 2, 1993, a full 11 days before Oslo was signed on the White House lawn (September 13, 1993). Everything it said has come horribly true. We at the Freeman Center properly analyzed the momentous events in the Middle East and we have been fighting the Oslo Appeasement Agreement ever since.

Please help us in our battle to save Eretz Yisrael.

Bernard J. Shapiro, Director
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



Eye on the Media: Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of November 26, 1999


By David Bar-Illan

An article of faith shared by virtually all the media is that the Palestinian body politic is divided: The majority are pro-peace moderates, supporters of Yasser Arafat and the PLO, opposed by anti-peace extremists, followers of the Islamist Hamas. And since most journalists seem to feel their mission in life is not just to report the news but to help the cause of peace, the result is inevitable. They minimize or ignore news that may harm Arafat and the PLO, and bash their opponents. Like all Western governments, they are convinced that if Arafat is weakened the extremists will prevail, and the hope for peace will vanish.

The only trouble is that the premise of this theory is false. The simplistic good guys-bad guys division is divorced from reality. A study soon to be published by the Palestinian Media Watch confirms what observers of the Palestinian scene have known for a long time: The differences between the PA and Hamas are over the role of religious law in society and government, and over who should be in power.

There are no differences on issues related to Israel. Both the PA and Hamas deny Israel's legitimacy, both define Israel as the occupying power of "all of Palestine," including the area currently known as the State of Israel, and both want the elimination of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.

Nor do they attempt to conceal the commonality of their purpose. True, the Islamists believe that the Oslo agreement retards and inhibits Palestinian mobilization against Israel, and that only a relentless armed struggle can achieve Israel's destruction. And the more pragmatic Arafat views Oslo as the first stage in "the plan of stages" formulated by the PLO in 1974, which advocates the use of diplomacy as well as violence in an incremental war against Israel. But the ramifications of these disagreements are strictly tactical.

AS THE Palestinian Media Watch study demonstrates, the similarity between Hamas doctrine and PA rhetoric is striking. PA Communications Minister Immad Falouji, himself a Hamas member, summed up the common goal only last week in the PA official newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadida (November 18).

"Our nation is full of hope for the future. The occupying power will not continue to exist, no matter how powerful and arrogant it maybe," he said. Four days before, Chief of Preventive Security in Gaza Muhammad Dahlan made clear that the argument with the Hamas was solely over tactics. "We believe that military action at this stage definitely does not serve the national interest, which is why we shall not permit action motivated by emotion." (Al Hayat Al Jadida, November 14.)

It is instructive to compare the formulations of the Hamas covenant with the language used in sermons by PA-appointed imams. The covenant states that "Palestine is Islamic Wakf (sacred) land, for all generations of Moslems until Judgment Day." It declares that "the liberation of Palestine is the duty of every Moslem wherever he may be," and that no one is permitted to "abandon or concede any part of Palestine - the robbery of Palestine by the Jews makes Jihad imperative."

In his sermon on April 30, Yusef Abu Sneineh, the PA's imam whose sermons are broadcast on The Voice of Palestine, made identical assertions: "The land of Palestine is Wakf land for all Moslems, east and west. The liberation of Palestine is the duty of all the peoples of Islam, not only the Palestinian people. The land of Moslem Palestine is one unit, indivisible. There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, Lod and Ramallah, Jerusalem and Nazareth. There is no religious sanction for dividing Palestine into districts and recognizing the occupation. No one is allowed to give it up or divide it."

Arafat himself has often emphasized the inevitability of Jihad. He told his newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadida in January, "The agreements will not liberate the land. Every centimeter demands a struggle, the land demands blood." Nor does the PA lag behind the Hamas in expressions of classic antisemitism. The Hamas covenant decries "the Nazi Zionist practices against our people."

Al Hayat Al Jadida editor Hafez Bargouti refers to "Israeli attempts to perform Nazi massacres on us." The Hamas charges that "[The Jews] have used their money to dominate the international media, the news agencies, press, broadcasting and publishing houses." The official PA newspaper states, "The Jews' success is no accident. It is a result of long years of planning and huge efforts to achieve control of the world's news media."

SUCH SIMILARITIES are hardly accidental. Article 27 of the Hamas covenant explicitly describes the relationship between the Islamic organization and the PLO: "The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, brother, relative, friend. Can a Moslem turn away from his father, brother, relative or friend? Our homeland is one, our calamity is one, our destiny is one and our enemy is common to both of us."

Nor is the feeling unrequited. Arafat, who in his youth belonged to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, has made no secret of his filial relationship with the Hamas. He embraces and kisses its leaders, declares that all Palestinians must aspire to follow the footsteps of the martyr Yihye Ayyash (the notorious "Engineer" responsible for 50 Israeli deaths who was assassinated in 1995). He shelters Ayyash's successor Muhammad Deif, and refers to Hamas's spiritual leader Sheikh Yassin as "my brother."

Israel's intelligence agencies repeatedly assert that Arafat has no intention of confronting the Hamas or its military wing. His activity against terrorism is restricted to preventing actions that can be traced to PA territory, and even these restrictions apply only "at this stage," according to Dahlan. Fatah central committee member Hani Hassan put it aptly two years ago: "Our unity is like a building, and we must distribute the work among the builders." (Al Ayyam, August 31, 1997.)

All this makes the media treatment of the Arafat story one of the great puzzles of our time. In the past 30 years Arafat has allied himself with every anti-Western and anti-American regime and organization on earth: the USSR, East Germany, Cuba, the Red Brigades, Bader Meinhof, the Japanese Red Army, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and the Iranian ayatollahs.

He has ordered the murder of children, the kidnaping and killing of athletes, and the execution of American and other Western diplomats taken hostage by his gunmen. Now he is a certifiably corrupt tyrant who tortures and executes real and imagined opponents at will. He identifies with Hamas, an extremist, antisemitic, anti-Western organization sworn to Israel's destruction, and he matches the virulence of its rhetoric by heaping medieval blood libels on Israel.

Yet he is celebrated and lionized throughout the world, hailed by governments and the media as an astute and moderate leader, the world's best hope for peace in the Middle East. Just to keep him happy, the government of Israel gives him a personal grant of close to $100 million a year, and the US, Europe and Japan make huge contributions to his regime. If he declares a Palestinian state next year, he will have the support of almost all the world's governments.

There must be a story here somewhere?



The Freeman Center supports the public declaration below.

This declaration is being distributed by a number of right-wing organizations, including Women in Green, Gamla Will Not Fall a Second Time, and others. The Hebrew version will be printed in the Israeli press sometime next week. Anyone wishing to support this declaration and sign it is asked to email Elyakim Haetzni <> immediately. Please pass this on by email, websites, etc.


On the threshold of fateful decisions, we do declare:

The Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish People by virtue of our Forefather's legacy.

Recognition of a Palestinian State contradicts the very purpose of a Jewish State creating a mechanism for evicting Jews from their land and planting an alien regime within her boundaries.

An endorsement by an Israeli government of the premise that Eretz Yisrael is the sovereign homeland of an alien people will not obligate the Jewish people, nor will it recognize the legality of such a decision.

We call upon every coalition party with a sense of duty towards the Jewish People not to share responsibility for such a decision.

We call upon the citizens of Israel to refuse to participate in this betrayal of trust in any way. Do not become accessories to this crossing of the red line, which even a majority cannot cross without violating the rules that hold us together as one nation in one state.

We view the very notion of uprooting Jewish men, women and children from their homes as an act of brutality, violence and barbarism that is palpably illegal as a violation of fundamental rights of human dignity and liberty.

The world has never witnessed an act of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a nation upon itself. No nation would tolerate such an action and no democracy would acquiesce to it.

We express our readiness to make our stand in a totally not-violent struggle, against anybody who dares to transfer Jews from their homes anywhere in the Land of Israel, on order to hand it over to foreigners.

We call upon the political parties of Israel to deny a majority to any government which conspires to such action, and thus to prevent a tragic and irreparable rift in the Jewish people.

We call upon every person and citizen of Israel to avoid taking part in any capacity whatsoever in the criminal acts which the uprooting of Jews represents.

Each one of us in each and every generation bears his share of responsibility for the Jewish fate. Everyone is but a link upon which the fate of the entire chain is dependent. Therefore, we are obligated to participate in this struggle.

We will not allow a Jewish Prime Minister to bring upon the Jewish people in the Land of Israel what foreign conquerors perpetrated upon us during our history.



Reprinted from the NEW YORK POST -- October 24, 1999


By David Bar-Illan

THE reason American aid to Israel is renewed every year is simple: It benefits both giver and receiver. For Israel it means an enhanced ability to deter potential aggressors and provide shelter to persecuted Jews. For the United States, Israel serves as "an unsinkable aircraft carrier," as one military expert put it, in an unstable region vital to American interests.

An effective bulwark against Soviet expansionism during the Cold War, Israel is now a vital democratic outpost in a region plagued by radical anti-American regimes, fanatic Islamic movements, and terrorism. The American public seems to understand this. U.S. grants to Israel over the years - the largest awarded any country - have not diminished public sympathy for the Jewish State.

But some Israeli leaders on both sides of the political spectrum want Israel to wean itself from aid. Dependence of any kind is addictive and unhealthy, they reason, and Israel cannot afford to worry about its benefactor's concerns whenever the country's security is on the line.

It is precisely this dependence on American approval that the State Department wants to perpetuate. It considers Israel's vulnerability to American pressure essential to a Pax Americana in the Middle East. It also needs Israel to keep the whole foreign-aid package alive. For while there is always a large bipartisan majority in Congress for aid to Israel, there is little support for aid to other countries, including Egypt, whose aid package is linked to Israel's.

Israel is thus used as a lever to aid a regime which Foreign Minister David Levy accused last week of "blocking every attempt by Israel to improve its relations and cooperation with Arab countries." It is a regime, moreover, that has nurtured a virulently anti-Semitic environment ever since the Israel-Egypt peace treaty was signed 20 years ago.

A similar problem now bedevils the combined aid package for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Congressmen who do not relish granting $400 million to the corrupt and oppressive Palestinian regime, which refuses to crack down on the terrorist infrastructure and continues anti-Semitic incitement, find themselves opposing a grant of $1.2 billion for Israel.

But many Israelis worry about more than the free ride for the Palestinian Authority. They wonder about the nature of the peace process if such vast amounts must be spent on military substitutes for forfeited land. Peace agreements are expected to reduce military expenditures, not raise them. This applies even more acutely to the projected withdrawal from the Golan, for which Israel expects to need an estimated $20 billion. That Congress will grant this colossal sum, plus a substantial package of benefits for the Syrian dictatorship, is doubtful. That such an enormous Israeli indebtedness will not conduce a healthy relationship between Jerusalem and Washington is certain.

The reliance on American largesse also distorts Israel's ability to calculate risks. Presuming that the United States will always be there to compensate for relinquished land, Israeli leaders tend to belittle problems money cannot solve. The guerrilla-terrorist warfare now waged in Lebanon, where the Israeli army - the most powerful in the region - cannot vanquish a few thousand Hezbollah gunmen, is an illuminating example. If the areas turned over to the Palestinians become another Lebanon near Israel's major population centers, no addition of sophisticated weaponry will replace the lost geographical and topographical advantage.

Perhaps most worrisome is that converting the concept of "land for peace" into "land for dollars" will be harmful to Israel's image and deterrence capacity. Such a trade-off may seem a reasonable compromise to Westerners. But to Israel's neighbors it appears like a readiness to trade a national birthright for money. It reinforces their conviction that Israel's presence in the region is as transient as it is illegitimate, a conviction which is the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Copyright 1999 NYP Holdings, All rights reserved.




By Boris Shusteff

"The right way, to my mind, is the way of the Irgun, which does not reject political effort but will not give up a yard of our country, because it is ours."......Dov Gruner, a letter from prison (1)

Who are we, the Jews? Are we the people that was chosen by God to spread ethical monotheism through the world and to live as a moral "light unto the nations" (Isaiah 49:6)? Or maybe we are a "doomed and sinful nation., corrupt and evil people" (Isaiah 1:4)? What is our destiny? Are we going to be the nation that will live forever in Eretz Yisrael? Or maybe we are destined to be violently transformed into dust and ashes that will cover the tiny sliver of land where we were born as a people? Will our memory keep us going, and will it strengthen our resolve to proudly fight for our ideals? Or maybe we will try to escape from it, thus forfeiting our future and tearing away from the book of nations a page with the name "Jew" on it?

It appears that we will not wait long to answer all these questions. The answer will be given very soon, perhaps within couple years. Either the Jewish state will awaken from this terrible nightmare called "Oslo," or it will end up in the dustbin of history. No other choices are possible. It is we the Jews - the Jews of Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora - who will give the answers to these questions. Every single one among us will have to answer to his conscience and will either help to save the Jewish state and the Jewish people or, through indifference, complacency, fear, self-delusion or whatever other reasons, collaborate in extinguishing of the flame of our national life.

It already happened once in our history - in this century. We lacked the will to fight; we were ready to accept the looming disaster. We froze up waiting for the ax of the executioner to do its work. In May 1939 at a meeting in Warsaw Zeev Jabotinsky predicted our tragedy:

"The most terrible thing is what I see among a great many Eastern European Jews: indifference, fatalism. People behave as if they are sentenced. This kind of submissiveness to fate is unknown in history; even in novels I have never encountered anything like it. It is as if somebody put a small group - some twelve million - into a cart and pushed the cart toward a cliff. The cart continues moving toward the cliff and the people inside - some weep, some smoke, some read newspapers, some pray - and it does not occur to anyone to take the reins and turn the cart. It is as if the people are anesthetized."

He tried to smash our illusions, he wanted us to do something, to run away at least. He begged us:

"I come to you with a last attempt. I call to you! Wake up! Try to stop the cart, try to jump off, to jam the wheels somehow, do not go like cattle to the slaughter! Even sheep try to run away when a wolf kills one or two from their flock. And here, O Lord, and here is an enormous cemetery!"

And a cemetery it became! Six million European Jews were gassed, shot, starved to death, executed, annihilated, slaughtered, put to death using every means known to mankind. Did we try to escape, to run away? We did, and we didn't. We wanted to believe the tales we were told. We waited for the miracle to happen. We wanted to be ignorant to what was already happening to our brethren.

How terrible are the images that are floating in our memory. The year is 1944. The Hungarian town Kluj. "There were only twenty Hungarian gendarmes and one German S.S. officer guarding the twenty thousand people in the ghetto. And there are thousands of able-bodied young Jews among the condemned. The border, and freedom, are only three miles away" (2). They did not overcome these twenty-one guards. They did not even try. Because they were betrayed, they were told by Rudolf Kastner and other Zionist leaders "No resistance! We are your leaders. You have nothing to fear. Everything is under control. Do not listen to the hotheads. We your leaders, are the only ones who can save your lives" (2).

The leaders saved their lives, their own lives. Their twenty thousand listeners were driven to death. They were clubbed and bayoneted into train compartments. Eighty Jews rode in every compartment. Where there were children, the Germans did better, they jammed one hundred twenty into each car.

"The eighty Jews must stand all the way to Auschwitz with their hands raised in the air, so as to make room for the maximum of passengers. They must urinate and defecate in their clothes. They must continue to burn with thirst until they arrive at the gas ovens. Arrived in Auschwitz - a hiss of gas, a roar of flames, and the multitude of lives are ashes (2)."

We calmly accepted our fate and quietly went into oblivion. "There was little hysteria among the doomed. Rich, poor, learned, ignorant, the yellow-badged Jews walked quietly in their streets, held their heads up, smiled at each other, dreamed of saving their children, and still tried to arouse the human conscience of their fellow citizens" (2).

Our instincts of self-preservation became nonexistent. We ourselves signed our own death sentences and strictly followed them. What can be better proof of this than the episode which happened with a group of EIGHTEEN Jewish men and women who fled the Warsaw ghetto. The episode was described in the diary of Tzalik Parachodnik, a Jewish ghetto policeman who was killed in Warsaw, and whose diary was published only a few years ago. He wrote of these eighteen Jews,

"Since they had nowhere to go, they stopped in a field, not far from Karczew. Several hours later, a gendarme was crossing the field, and he saw the group of Jews and ordered them to lie down on the ground. One shot was fired, a second, and a third, and then the rifle suddenly refused to obey him. It turned out that he had no more bullets in his magazine. He sent a Polish youth to the Commissariat of Karczew with instructions to bring him back the needed ammunition, and then he sat down and waited, entirely unarmed "(3).

The next several sentences in Parachodnik's diary are simply impossible to read. They tell us what happens to people who are self-programmed for inevitable death.

"And what did the Jews do? Did they attack him to avenge the blood of their loved ones? Perhaps they turned and fled? They continued to lie there, with their faces to the ground, and they waited. They waited more than half an hour for the bullets to be supplied -- the bullets that would bring them deliverance, apparently. Finally a Polish policeman arrived with the ammunition. The gendarme shot the rest of the Jews" (3).

How prophetic were Jabotinsky's words: "People behave as if they are sentenced." Did he really picture in his mind the kind of nightmare described by Parochodnik? If so, what would he say about today's Israel? What would he say about the indifference and fatalism that shrouds in mist a Jewish state tired of fighting for its survival? Is Israel waiting for her deliverance like the eighteen Jews in Karzcew?

It happened once, it happens again. We again lack the will to fight. We are ready to acquiesce to the establishment of another Arab state on the land that was not only promised to us by God, but was also given to us by the League of Nations, which encouraged our "close settlement on the land" there. We are ready to sacrifice our national interests in order to fit Israel, sized like a coffin, into the New World Order. We want "Peace" so much that we forgot that the soldier's duty is first and foremost to save the life of his country and only then his own life. Our enemies kill us with bombs, bullets, and knives. Since the beginning of the "peace process" more than 300 of our brothers and sisters have been killed, several thousand have been wounded, but we keep licking our wounds and crawling on our knees to a safe place, hoping that when we give our enemies everything that they ask for, they will give us peace. "We hoped for peace and a time of healing, but it was no use; terror came instead. .Our enemies have come to destroy our land and everything in it, our city and all its people" (Jeremiah 8:15,16).

Where are the followers of the Maccabeans? What happened to the spirit of Bar Kohba? Do the names Dov Gruner, Dov Rosenbaum, Mordechai Alkoshi, Eliezer Kashani mean anything to us? Why do we lie with our faces to the ground and wait? Is it because our leaders have told us that we have nothing to fear, that everything is under control, that we should not listen to the hotheads, and that they, our leaders, are the only ones who can save our lives?

The leaders are usually the ones that survive, while the people pay off their bills. Ben Hecht tells us in Perfidy how Rudolf Kastner and three hundred prominent Jews safely escaped and 800,000 ordinary Hungarian Jews were gassed in Auschwitz. During Kastner's trial the Attorney General defending Kastner's actions said that "Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and. he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the few." (2). However, Moshe Silberg, the Supreme Court Judge, rejected this line of defense. He said, "Can a single man, even in cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without knowledge of 800,000 other people? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?" (2).

How dare the Israeli leaders today to despair on behalf of millions of the Israeli and the Disapora Jews and continue along the road of selling out Eretz Yisrael? Who contracted them for the construction of a Palestinian state? How dare they squander the eternal patrimony of the Jewish people? How dare the Israeli leaders deprive the millions of Israeli Jews from the knowledge of real Arab intentions? Do they decide instead of God?

"All the leaders, who are supposed to warn my people, are blind! They know nothing. They are like watchdogs that don't bark - they only lie around and dream. These leaders have no understanding. Every one of them does as he pleases and seeks his own advantage" (Isaiah 56:10,11). It is we who have chosen our leaders and if they lead us towards destruction it is we and only we who should be blamed.



1. Menachem Begin, Revolt.

2. Ben Hecht, Perfidy.

3. Eliakim Haetzni: "Waiting for the Bullets," October 1999


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




(Details Below)

Reprinted from Ha'aretz of November 1, 1999

Barak Will Offer Statehood to
Palestinians in February Accord

PM to Demand Palestinian Recognition of
West Jerusalem as Israeli Capital

By Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz Correspondent

The framework agreement to be signed by Israel and the Palestinians this coming February will include Israeli acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state in part of the territories, according to the results of informal contacts between Israel, the United States and the Palestinian Authority.

The actual establishment of the Palestinian state will occur on the eve of the signing of the detailed final agreement, which is slated for the end of next year. Senior diplomatic sources explain that Israel prefers to sign an agreement with a recognized state rather than with a temporary authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has signed agreements until now. [Editor's Note: Will the stench of Jewish blood be less noticeable on Arafat's hands if you call his terrorist organization a state?]

Prime Minister Ehud Barak would prefer that the implementation of the framework agreement take place only after the signing of the fully detailed agreement, but he does not object to the principle of the Palestinians' establishing their independent entity in any way they choose - including a sovereign state - as part of the framework agreement.

As a result of recent contacts between the parties, it appears Barak wants the framework agreement to include several key points:

* There will be no return to the 1967 borders [Editor's Note: more correct to say a substantial return to 1967 borders.]

* Settlements around Jerusalem and along the Green Line will be concentrated into three main blocks

[Editor's Note: Like ghettos? Nu? Did Jews return to their Holy Land to be herded into ghettos?]

* Settlers choosing to remain in the Palestinian-controlled areas will get special rights - as will Palestinians choosing to remain in the Israel-controlled areas. [Editor's Note: The primary right of Jews in Palestinian areas will be to be murdered and ethnically cleansed at the earliest possible moment.]

* Jerusalem will remain undivided but will be expanded to include Palestinian neighborhoods, with the Palestinians recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. [Editor's Note: Since when did Israel need Arab approval for its capital? (No decision has been reached on the fate of the Old City.[Editor's Note: Perhaps the brilliant thinkers who have put the Old City as well as Jerusalem on the negotiating table could also suggest that the conversion of Jews to Islam should also be decided by negotiation.] According to one proposal, offered by Ministers Yossi Beilin and Haim Ramon, the Old City would remain on the negotiating table for future talks.)

* The Palestinians will give up the right of return to territory inside the Green Line [Editor's Note: What right??? Is Barak giving them a right that they never had in order have them give it up and then he can say he got a concession from them?], but the refugees from 1967 will be allowed back into the territories according to the new entity's ability to absorb them. Israel will compensate the refugees from 1948 for their lost property and will enlist international support for their rehabilitation outside Israel.[Editor's Note: There seems to be no mention of the property of Jews forced out of Arab countries. As for Arab refugees, I don't believe any exist. If you live somewhere for 50 years you are not a refugee, you are a resident. Even if they did, they were victims of a war forced on Israel by their leaders and any compensation is due from Arab not Jewish sources.]

* The Palestinian state will be demilitarized, and will not sign any military agreements with states hostile to Israel. [Editor's Note: This is a joke and Barak knows it. The Palestinians ALREADY have 50,000 men under arms and a rapidly growing arsenal of APC's, rockets, morters, heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft weapons and more are being smuggled into Gaza via tunnels from Sinai (with Egyptian cooperation).

* The two sides will establish security arrangements to protect both states from external threats.

[Editor's Note: The terrorist-state of Palestine is already a big threat to Israel. Does anyone believe Arafat is going to help Israel with threats from Iran, Iraq, Egypt or Syria?]

So far, the United States is backing the Palestinians' position calling for implementation of the framework agreement immediately upon its signing in February 2000. According to an Israeli source close to the Palestinians, PA negotiators Abu Mazen and Abu Ala convinced PA Chairman Yasser Arafat that operative moves toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, even within temporary borders, should begin immediately after the signing of the framework of principles.

Barak knows that it is difficult to make a deal between a sovereign state and a national liberation movement. Such a deal is bound to last only as an interim agreement in which one side remains the occupier and the other remains the occupied. None of the agreements signed since Oslo, through the Sharm el Sheikh agreement, touched on the issue of sovereignty. So far, all the agreements have dealt with the division of responsibility, whether civilian or military, between the state of Israel and the temporary Palestinian Authority. The Americans maneuvered within this assymetric equation by referring to them as "the Israeli side and the Palestinian side."

But final status agreements are different. The PLO cannot be a partner to an international agreement that settles the conflict between two sovereign states. For example, the PLO cannot commit the Palestinian entity to refrain from military alliances with elements hostile to Israel.

Thus, heading into the final status talks, the issue of the partner has raised the question of the Palestinian state. How can Israel sign an agreement with a state before it is established? Especially when Israel's agreement to the establishment of such a state is an important negotiating card.

Barak's solution is found in the two-stage framework laid down at Sharm. A Palestinian entity will be the first article mentioned in the framework agreement to be signed in February. That will allow Arafat to establish an independent state within the temporary borders of Area A on the eve of the signing of the final, detailed agreement - and allow the prime minister to head into a referendum with a draft treaty with a state, not with a former national liberation (terror) organization. [Final Editor's Note: One should not take seriously any agreement with Arafat or any other Arab leader. In short, they are liars and have never kept any previous agreements with Israel. What will happen is that all the concessions of Israel will be pocketed and they will become the starting point for new demands. The conflict will not end until Israel disappears. It is an old story. A little peace for a little land. Final peace for all the land.]

(c) copyright 1999 Ha'aretz.




By Ruth and Nadia Matar

There is no getting away from it. Ehud Barak is acting in an unacceptable and irresponsible manner with regard to the safety and security of Jews in Israel. The risks that Barak is taking are totally incomprehensible and dangerous; the prospects for peace with Arafat as a peace partner are nil; Arafat's record as a murderer and one who has never fulfilled a commitment agreed to in writing should be clear to everyone, even Barak. The latest Arab shootings of a child and four other visitors to Hebron, and the usual Arab escape into Arafat's Hebron haven, is but another bitter example of the impotence and intolerable weakness of the Barak Government. The ritual dance of demanding that Arafat produce the attackers who fled into his area will result in the usual zero results. There is little doubt that if Arafat was serious about the peace process, with the large number of his police force in the area, these terrorists could be easily found and turned over. That he does not do so, is an obvious indication to everyone, but Clinton and Barak,that peace is not one of Arafat's objectives.

Barak, no doubt, will trot out the same tired phrases of the need to take "risks for peace" after this recent attack. Peres, during the wave of Arab murders and bombings that occurred during his regime, specialized in such an approach. The public turned him out of office as a result. Barak resorts to the same empty and meaningless phrases. He tells us that such terrorist acts as the recent shooting are meant to derail the "peace process" and he will not allow that to happen. What a hacknayed old tune that is! Barak, as usual, is not being honest with us. He knows the attackers can be readily apprehended, but chooses not to come down hard on Arafat.

What can we expect of a Prime Minister who bows to Arafat and releases murderers with blood on their hands from our prisons? Barak simply will not take the decisive steps necessary to fight terror; instead he gives terrorists a "safe passage". Less than a week has passed since the "safe passage" road opened, and already 17 potential terrorists from Gaza who used this road have chosen to disappear within Israel. Yet Barak is not upset by this startling turn of events. Rather, unabashed, he has announced that he will allow Hawatmeh, the Arab murderer of the Maalot children, to enter Israel, because that is what Arafat demands.

Hawatmeh has not changed his murderous views as a condition for getting permission to enter Israel. In fact, Hawatmeh has stated in an interview in Jordan that "armed struggle" is an acceptable tool to "liberate land occupied by the Zionist enemy". Doesn't Barak realize that Hawatmeh would receive a hero's welcome for the violent approach he is advocating, and that he would incite Arabs to violence and to be against Barak's "peace process"?

Barak talks firmly and authoritatively, but his actions are inconsistent with what he says. By his failure to act with regard to the recent shootings near Kiryat Arba; by continuing to allow the "safe passage" despite Arab misuse; by opening the King David (Shuhada) street in Hebron, thus exposing its Jews to mortal danger; and by allowing the murderer Hatwatmeh to enter Israel, he is leading us to a predictable explosion. The bomb is ticking. Unfortunately, Barak has placed plugs in his ears, so as not to hear the dire warnings of what is about to happen.


Ruth and Nadia Matar are co-presidents of WOMEN FOR ISRAEL'S TOMORROW (WOMEN IN GREEN)


Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of November 5, 1999

Eye On The Media:

By David Bar-Illan

An amusing phenomenon in the media business is CNN's claim to fairness in its coverage of Israel. There are certain things the network probably cannot help. It should not be held responsible, for instance, for the palpable hostility on its reporters' faces when they talk to Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria - those unspeakable "settlers."

Nor can the network be blamed for the arrant ignorance displayed by its Israel bureau chief about the history of Jerusalem. One can attribute his contempt for facts to trendy relativism and multi-culturalism, which have substituted political correctness for historic accuracy. After all, if National Geographic can publish childish nonsense about the Canaanite origins of the Palestinian Arabs, there is no reason why CNN should avoid insulting the intelligence of its viewers.

But the network does have to take responsibility for acting like the propaganda arm of Israel's extreme left and the Palestinian Information ministry (the two are seldom distinguishable).

Example: When Binyamin Netanyahu was prime minister, CNN would invite mostly leftist, anti-government guests to appear on its programs. The excuse was that the government view was amply represented by the prime minister and his spokesmen.

But the same criteria do not apply now. In the past three months (beginning August 1 and ending October 27) not one spokesman of the opposition was invited to appear in a CNN telecast. Not one. Altogether there have been 47 guest appearances by Israelis during this period. Of these, 45, which included six appearances by Ehud Barak and nine by Haim Ramon, ranged from left of center to the extreme left (Yossi Beilin, Ran Cohen, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Leah Tsemel). Only one guest, Eliezer Waldman, who appeared twice, could be described as right of center, though he too is a member of the ruling coalition. During the same period, the Palestinians and other Arabs appeared 39 times.

This kind of bias is even more disturbing on the CNN Internet website. Unlike a quickly forgotten news story, an archival website is a permanent fixture, a primary source of information for researchers. It has the authority of a reference library. To peruse the CNN archive is to realize that facts no longer exist as independent entities. Like trendy "docu-fiction" novels, which incorporate real personalities and actual events into a fictional narrative, the political "profiles" section of the CNN website includes only facts compatible with the portraits CNN wishes to paint.

According to CNN, Cairo-born Yasser Arafat devoted his teen years to "a study of Jewish life, associating with Jews and reading the works of Zionists such as Theodor Herzl." One can only wonder where in the Cairo of 1946 Arafat found Arabic translations of Zionist writings (he spoke no other language). Perhaps they were distributed by the Moslem Brotherhood as Samizdat.

These writings must have had a positive impact on young Arafat, for in the mid 1950s he and others formed Fatah, "dedicated to reclaiming Palestine for the Palestinians."There is an unintended poignancy to this sentence. It was indeed in those years that the Arab leadership realized how much more effective they could make their efforts to "throw the Jews into the sea" if they became Palestinians rather than Arabs.

By then, the Jews of this country (the only people called Palestinians before the War of Independence) were named Israelis. By adopting the name "Palestinians" the Arabs succeeded in converting the Arab-Israeli conflict from a war of annihilation against the Jewish population to a struggle of dispossessed natives against colonialist invaders. It was a spectacularly effective canard, eventually adopted by Israel's own fiction weavers, the "new historians."

One can only wonder what turn history would have taken had King Abdullah I of Jordan not been prevented by the British from calling his kingdom Palestine. Or if Israel's founding father had heeded the advice of a young American journalist (whose name, ironically, is Sidney Zion), and called the new Jewish state Palestine.

CNN's Arafat may have been a Zionist scholar, but "his activities troubled Jordan's King Hussein," the website tells us. The activities themselves - blowing up hijacked passenger planes on Jordanian soil, agitating against the Jordanian government, and inviting a Syrian invasion - are left unmentioned. The innocent reader may be forgiven for wondering why the king was troubled.

Arafat goes on to win the Nobel Peace Prize, with no mention of the two Israelis he happened to share it with. (Why complicate a perfect fairy tale?) But he is not the website's only hero. Syrian ruler Hafez Assad, in whose capital CNN is eager to have an office, is almost as admirable. After leading a bloodless coup, Assad "became Syria's president, repealed martial law, gave freer rein to the press and enacted other civil rights. International trade was liberalized and Syrians were permitted to travel abroad. He launched a five-year economic development plan and encouraged the development of private enterprise. Assad also admitted into his government representatives of opposition groups.

"In international affairs, Assad tried to improve relations with his neighbors. In October 1973, he and his close associate, Egypt's Anwar Sadat, launched a joint attack on Israel in an attempt to recover territory lost during the Arab-Israeli war of 1967." Gasping with admiration for these sweeping reforms, readers must wonder why they have never thought of improving relations with their neighbors by attacking them.

It may be downright rude to point this out, but the CNN bio never mentions the Hamma massacre, where civil rights proponent Assad had 20,000 civilians killed, thus depriving them of at least some of their civil rights. Nor does it include the litany of his unmatched brutalities in Syria and Lebanon. It even refrains from recalling one of Assad's unique distinctions. His is the only regime on earth that has officially commended army officers for beheading prisoners of war.

After all the praise the article heaps on Assad, it is quite unsettling to find in the last paragraph a brief reference to his support for "the violent terrorist organization Hizbullah," and to Syria's inclusion in the state Department's list of countries that support terrorism. No wonder Arab leaders claim the State Department is run by Zionists.

Earlier this month, CNN deviated from its dedication to errors, Arab propaganda, and nonsensical observations, and stated on an Internet webpage called "At a glance - facts and figures on the State of Israel" that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. But when a new organization, "American Moslems for Jerusalem," protested, CNN instantly capitulated. The web was changed, and Jerusalem was converted from capital to "largest city," leaving Israel the only country in the world without a capital.

CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America) pointed out to CNN that Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital is recognized by an act of Congress. The network's reply was unequivocal: "CNN does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel." When the choice is between Congress and "American Moslems for Jerusalem," CNN has no problem deciding.


David Bar-Illan was formerly editor of The Jerusalem Post and then communications and public policy adviser to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

(c) 1999 The Jerusalem Post



Publications of the Center for Security Policy No. 99-D 126 DECISION BRIEF 28 October 1999

Are U.S. 'Investments' in the Mideast 'Peace Process' Giving the Arabs a New War Option?

(Washington, D.C.): One of the predictable upshots of today's meeting between Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy will be a joint appeal to Congress for the appropriation of the full $1.9 billion pledged by President Clinton to reward the parties to the Wye River agreement for "taking risks for peace" and to facilitate the implementation of that agreement. The foreign ministers are obliged to address this subject because the U.S. legislative branch has had the temerity to question the wisdom of this expenditure -- with good reason.

The PA Remains Uncommitted to Peace

The fact is that Israel's "partner" in the so-called "peace process" -- Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) -- is systematically violating its commitments under the Oslo, Hebron and Wye accords in ways that demonstrate the Palestinians' abiding hostility to and determination to destroy the Jewish State. Considering the following tell-tale indicators:

terrorists still find safe haven in Palestinian-controlled areas; the Palestinian Authority's "police force" remains far larger and more heavily armed than it is supposed to be, constituting (like the "disarmed" KLA in Kosovo) what amounts to a prohibited proto-army; incitement to acts of violence against Jews and Israel remains a staple of the PA-controlled press, officially sponsored events and even the text books used in Palestinian schools. (An example of the latter includes the following text: "In your left hand you carry the Koran and in your right hand an Arab sword....Not even one centimeter will be liberated without blood. Therefore, go forward crying: 'Allah is great!...Explain how this poem represents the reality currently experienced by the Palestinians.")

the official use is routinely made of maps that depict "Palestine" as comprising all of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel.

Enter Yuval Steinitz

A newly elected Member of the Knesset (MK), Yuval Steinitz, has issued an important warning about the implications of such activities for the security -- and perhaps even the existence -- of the Jewish State. In an essay entitled "When the Palestinian Army Invades the Center of Israel" (a version of which will be published in the December issue of Commentary Magazine), this former member of Peace Now-turned-Likud MK, Dr. Steinitz writes:

An analysis of optimal courses of action will show that the deployment of Palestinian forces in the immediate proximity of the Israeli rear is liable to transform them into a decisive factor in a comprehensive regional conflagration, if those forces advance quickly towards the nerve centers of Israel's civilian and military rear, in a scenario imagined by one of Israel's greatest strategists, Mr. Shimon Peres, who sounded this alarm: 'The influx of a Palestinian fighting force (more than 25,000 fighters) into Judea and Samaria [would mean] excellent starting point for mobile forces to immediately advance towards the infrastructure vital to Israel's existence'....

If [such an operation enabled] Arab armies [to] advance just a few kilometers past the...ceasefire line of 1949 at the outset of a comprehensive offensive (as the Iraqis did when conquering Kuwait), they could achieve a total conventional victory over the State of Israel by preventing the mobilization and equipping of reserves and by interrupting other vital systems.

What About Egypt -- and Syria?

The danger posed by what would amount to an Arab light army operating within Israel is greatly exacerbated by the growing power of the Egyptian military -- a principal beneficiary of the "peace process" begun at Camp David. Thanks to the tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance showered on Cairo in the ensuing decades and the access to advanced American weapon systems -- including, the manufacturing under license of M-1 main battle tanks -- Egypt has acquired the capability to pose a serious threat to Israel.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak has also done little to cultivate in the minds of its people the need for peace and reconciliation with Israel. To the contrary, the officially sanctioned incitement of hatred towards the Jewish State is of a piece with that of the Palestinian Authority. As Dr. Steinitz points out, moreover, starting in the aftermath of the Oslo accords, Mr. Mubarak has personally and repeatedly suggested that Egypt retains the option of resuming its war against Israel.

In other words, the formula that has been adopted as the essential lubricant to Middle East diplomacy -- i.e., tying aid to Israel to America's largesse to her one-time enemies -- is having the perverse effect of reconstituting the "war option" for Arabs unreconciled to the presence in their midst of a Western enclave, to say nothing of the detested "Zionist entity." Reportedly, this ominous phenomenon has been the subject of high-level discussions between Israeli and American officials.

This approach will become even more reckless if next applied to Syria. Were the United States to succeed in its efforts to get Israel to return the Golan Heights to Hafez Assad,(1) then to rebuild his increasingly decrepit Soviet arsenal, the Arab war option against Israel may become so attractive as to become irresistible. This could be the case thanks to the combined effects of the loss of critical strategic depth and the improved offensive power that Syria might obtain should it gain access to aircraft, armored vehicles and other hardware that may (at least in combination with Egyptian and other Arab armies, if not in its own right) mortally imperil Israel's irreplaceable "qualitative edge."

The Bottom Line

Before the U.S. Congress agrees to add to the $500 million it has already poured into the corrupt and unaccountable PLO, it should at a minimum insist upon the Palestinians' full and unstinting compliance with their responsibilities under the various "peace" accords. Delinking Israel's aid (and, for that matter, aid for a compliant Jordan) from aid for the Palestinian Authority is not only warranted on the grounds that the PA is neither adhering fully to the letter, to say nothing of the spirit, of its treaties with Israel, however. It is also a necessary corrective to the practice that appears to be facilitating the emergence of dangerous new military threats to Israel.

1. See U.S. Forces on the Golan Heights: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs (25 October 1994).


NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the Center's Board of Advisors.

(c) 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy




By Boris Shusteff

On September 28, Susan Korda, who arrived from Britain and settled down in the Golan 12 years ago, said in an interview "We will have to give up the Golan if we want to avoid wars with Syria" (1). Although there are a lot of Israelis who share Korda's point of view it is very difficult to find any kind of logic associated with it. While Korda came to the Golan only in 1987 it is doubtful that she is unaware that the Six Day War started from a position when the Golan was Syrian territory. Since Israel did not "avoid war with Syria" in 1967, what makes people assume that if the Golan is surrendered the threat of war will disappear?

The major differences between the years 1967 and 1999 are that during the last 32 years the Syrians have accumulated mountains of destructive weapons, and Hafez Assad has moved from the Defense Minister's chair into the Presidential one. Syria's hatred toward Israel has only increased during this time. Even then, in 1967, Assad could not wait to see the day when Israel was destroyed. On May 22, 1967 he declared in Damascus: "Our forces are now entirely initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." (2)

Assad did not talk about the liberation of the Golan Heights - they were in his possession - he talked about the liberation of the "Arab homeland" from the "Zionist presence." Since the Zionists are still present in the Middle East, what makes people think that Syria will be satisfied with the Golan Heights?

Dr. Bashar Assad, the son and probable heir of the president of Syria, said in an interview with a Saudi weekly "that the proposed peace will be highly restricted. There will be a formal peace agreement but the possibility of conflict between the two countries will remain, requiring Syria to continue arming itself." (3) Is it really to Israel's advantage that this time Syria will be armed with American and not with Russian weapons?

As a matter of fact, the Syrians are not hiding their persisting intentions to destroy Israel. A clear example is a recent editorial in the Syrian press on the anniversary of the 1973 War. The political editor wrote, "On the anniversary of October war, Syria is going on her crucial and important political battle equal to October war. It is represented by peace battle, which has the same aims of October war and it is another extent of it." (4) It would be helpful to refresh the memory and recall the Syrian "aims of October war." The British writer, researcher and defense commentator Edgar O'Ballance wrote:

 "Basic disagreement existed between Egypt and Syria on the goal of Operation Spark. By accepting United Nations Resolution 242, Egypt had virtually recognized the existence of Israel, but Syria has not and refused to do so. President Sadat's aim for operation was simply to recover the occupied territories, while Syria's goal was to dismantle the state of Israel."(5)

 If one thinks that Syria has changed her goals, one should listen to the Syrian leaders. In their speeches and interviews they openly show their attitude toward the Jewish state. The Syrians see Israel as an enemy of the whole Arab and Islamic world. A country that wants to swallow the entire region. Syrian Vice President Abd-al-Halim Khaddam was very frank in an interview he gave in January of 1998. He said,

 "From our point of view, the conflict is not between Syria and Israel. The conflict is between Arabs and the Israelis.. The Israelis are targeting the Arab homeland and the Islamic world at large;. All Arabs are targeted. We are targeted as an Arab nation and homeland. Israel's objectives go beyond the Arab region and extend to the Islamic world and Central Asia. .Anyone who believes that he is safe from Israeli threats is entertaining a great illusion." (6)

 It is absolutely unrealistic to assume that after the Jewish state relinquishes the Golan Heights the Syrians will stop viewing Israel as targeting "the Islamic world and Central Asia," as a state whose objective according to Khaddam "is to establish a Torah Israel., to establish greater Israel - a strong and domineering state to which nations and peoples come in capitulation without carrying arms against it." (6)

It is unfortunate that the Israelis do not understand that, in spite of all their moral and territorial surrenders, the Arabs still view her as a strong state. If it were otherwise, and the Arabs thought that they are stronger, they would have started another war for Israel's destruction long ago. So the simple conclusion is that if peace is possible it is possible only in possession of the Golan.

Actually, why does Israel have to relinquish the Golan? Who has determined that Syria's claim to Golan is more legitimate then Israel's? Syria's desire to have the Golan is completely equalized by Israel's desire to have it. From any other perspective Israel has many more rights to the Golan then Syria.

In 1920 the League of Nations included the Golan Heights into the original British Mandate for Palestine. The territory of the Mandate, where "the close settlement by Jews on the land" was encouraged, was tailored on the geographical borders of Eretz Yisrael; therefore, the Bashan region (the biblical name of the Golan Heights) was an inherent part of the Mandate. Although the terms of the Mandate were confirmed on July 24, 1922 by the Council of the League of Nations, and the mandate was supposed to come into operation in September 1923, the British, in violation of the Mandate, gave the Heights to France in March 1923, and they became a part of the French Mandate of Syria-Lebanon.

The Golan fell under Syria's jurisdiction only in 1944 upon the termination of the French mandate. Since Syria controlled the Golan for 23 years and Israel has it for 32 years, it is hard to understand why a 23-year long claim should be considered more valid then the 32-year long one. Moreover, a big part of the Golan legally belongs to the state of Israel.

 "In 1892, Baron Edmond de Rothschild bought 80,000 dunam of the Golan Heights from the Arabs. . In 1957 [he] transferred the deeds to the land to the Jewish national Fund (Keren Kaemet) and from there to the Land Office of Israel and to the Government of Israel. All deeds and other documents were transferred to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs through an irrevocable power of attorney." (7)

 Syria lost the Golan in an aggressive war. It is immoral to give the Golan to Syria, thus rewarding the aggressor. If Syria's claim can be considered legitimate, then Germany should be rewarded with big portions of real estate from Russia, Poland and Slovakia. On the other hand, when in September 1948 India invaded the state of Hyderabad to force it to join India, Hyderabad's appeal to the United Nations was ignored. In 1961 when India annexed Goa the world community did not really care that "the Portuguese were deprived of their territory by armed force, and the native Goans, were never consulted on their preferences but seemed in fact to prefer Portuguese rule." (8) So if India is allowed to conquer territory in an aggressive war, why is Israel not allowed to keep the Golan, which she acquired in a defensive war?

Who has determined that it is Israel that must surrender Golan for peace? "At Madrid [then US president] Bush called on Israel and Arab countries to aim for a territorial compromise to settle their dispute. [but] didn't mention the formula 'land for peace' in his speech"(9). The formula "land for peace" is not mentioned in UN Resolutions 242 and 338 either. It was invented by the Arabs and willfully accepted by the Jews. The time has come to correct this formula, and to base relations between Israel and Syria on a territorial compromise - Syrian territorial compromise. Syria will compromise on the territory and Israel will reward this compromise by ceasing "to target it as an Arab nation and homeland" and there will be peace.

It is nice to dream of peace. However, before doing this one should recall that in "1968 the historians Will and Ariel Durant calculated that the world was war-free in only 268 of the previous 3,421 years" (10), and according to historians George and Meredith Friedman in The Future of War, in the next century "war will still be waged. And the outcome of wars will determine the fate of nations." (10)

It is doubtful that Syria will become the first country to take war out of its political arsenal. Yitzhak Rabin said in 1992 that abandoning the Golan Heights would be tantamount to abandoning Israel's security. That means that Israel needs this territory. It is Israel's military force located in the Golan and not a piece of paper with Assad's signature on it that will determine the fate of the Jewish nation. [10/31/99]


1. XINHUA News Agency, 09/28/99

2. Louis Rene Beres, "Where the shadow really falls." Internet posting 10/11/99.

3. Moshe Zak, Open Cards in Damascus, Jerusalem Post 8/27/99

4. Editorial: "President Hafez a-Assad the Hero of War and Peace Syria Will Never Bargain or Concede", Syrian news, 10/9/99

5. Edgar O'Balllance, "No Victor, No Vanquished, The Arab-Israeli War, 1973."

6. Damascus Syrian Arab Television Network 1/27/98: Interview with Syrian Vice President Abd-al-Halim Khaddam, Dubayy Space Channel, 1/26/98.

7. Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, The Golan Heights, published in the Algemeiner Journal, July 26, 1996. Internet posting by H.Maverick 8/10/99.

8. David Ziegler, War, Piece and International Politics.

9. Moshe Zak, "The Waldorf Game," The Jerusalem Post, 9/28/99.

(10) John Omicinski, "Devastating war has a future, historians are certain." Gannet News Service, 10/27/99.


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




A Voice from Hebron -- November 16, 1999

When one Begins to Praise his Enemies,
He ends up Condemning his Heroes

By Gary M. Cooperberg

When the Israeli government began to embark upon the road of self-deception which literally saw it recognize the efforts of Arafat and the PLO to obliterate the Jewish State as just and righteous, it opened the door to its own condemnation of Jewish heros as a natural consequence. How is it conceivable that, a mere ten years ago, everyone understood that Yassir Arafat and the PLO were terrorist murderers whose very existence was for the purpose of destroying the Jewish state, and today all seem to have forgiven and forgotten what they really are and treat them as "peace partners"? The self-hating Jews who blame former Prime Minister Netanyahu for the murder of Rabin and chant, "We will not forgive and we will not forget", are the first to forgive and forget the atrocities of Yassir Arafat and the PLO, and hail them as diplomats and lovers of peace.

In reaction to the efforts of Ron Cohen of the Meretz party, the Israeli Supreme court ruled that it is legal to desecrate the grave of Dr. Baruch Goldstein who is alleged to have shot down enemies of the Jewish People in the Cave of Machpelah and was himself brutally murdered there. Cohen created a law against glorifying terrorists, thus making it "illegal" to build monuments and the like to terrorists. The fact is that Dr. Goldstein was never convicted of being a terrorist or a murderer. He has been consistently labeled by Israeli courts and the press as a "murderer", yet he was never proven to have committed murder. The fact that he is called a "murderer" in and of itself is an illegal act of slander and libel which should punished by the courts (who themselves are guilty of this crime).

The fact that everyone knows but few have the courage to discuss is that Yitzchak Rabin, who never lifted a finger against an Arab, was responsible for the cold blooded murder of Jews as the commander of those who fired upon the Altelena, shooting his fellow Jews like ducks in a pond as they were swimming ashore. Certainly this dastardly act deserves even more condemnation than that given to Dr. Goldstein who gave his own life while allegedly shooting enemies of the Jewish people. Yet there is no self-righteous Ron Cohen to demand that Rabin's grave be desecrated in a similar manner to what he seeks to do to Goldstein's.

Last night, on Israeli television, Yossi Sarid haughtily condemned all of Kiryat Arba for not condemning Dr. Goldstein strongly enough for his liking. He declared that anyone who did not fully and completely condemn such an act of terror himself deserved condemnation. This is the same Yossi Sarid who personally embraces Yassir Arafat and his henchmen. The hypocrisy is enough to make anyone sick.

Our rabbis tell us that "He who is merciful unto the cruel is destined to be cruel unto the merciful." What better description can we find to describe those pitiful creatures who presume to lead the Jewish State today? Last night's headline speaks for itself, "Israel wants to give, but the PLO doesn't want to take." Israel has no self-pride and is willingly trying to give away our homeland. The PLO, on the other hand, is not prepared to accept a symbolic gesture. They want a full victory. Thus they have refused to accept the agreed upon five percent surrender in the hope that they can get the United States to pressure us into giving them more. . . without one shot being fired. Wars we can win, but with this peace we are big time losers.





By Boris Shusteff

Golda Meir once said that she would never forgive the Arabs for forcing Jewish soldiers to kill them. What would Golda Meir say now? Would she think that it is possible to forgive the current Israeli leaders for forcing Jewish soldiers to evict Jews from Jewish land? When the Israeli soldiers returned victorious in 1967 there was little joy in the streets. Golda Meir said about them:

"Each one was a picture of sadness. Not only because they had seen their brothers die, but because they had had to kill their enemies. Many locked themselves in their rooms and wouldn't speak. Or when they opened their mouths, it was to repeat like a refrain: "I had to shoot. I killed."(1)

Barak's decision to forcefully evict the Jews from Havat Maon exposed the souls of the Jewish soldiers to a psychological torture. The Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot wrote that the "soldiers and police personnel were told not to make eye contact with the settlers. A soldier [who] participated in the evacuation said: "They called me Nazi, murderer. I am heartbroken." (2) They were not only heartbroken these soldiers, some of them wept and prayed together with the settlers witnessing the destruction of the houses.

Barak's government named its action "Operation Mutual Reconciliation." [Editor's Note: Do you remember what was written above the gate to Auschwitz: ARBEIT MACH FREI (Work makes you free)? Barak has also gotten quite good at deceiving Jews.] Who can tell how deep the scars are that were left on the Jewish souls of soldiers and settlers after this "reconciliation?" "Those fortifying Maon Farm, together with infants, lined up opposite those in uniform. [One of the soldiers said] 'We felt as if we were evacuating our brothers - they saw us as enemies.'"(2)

According to MK Yuri Stern (Yisrael Beiteinu) "the entire evacuation of Jewish outposts is illegal." Maybe this is not common knowledge, but the land related issues in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) are governed by Jordanian law. Stern explained in an interview with Arutz 7 that,

"This law states that a building cannot be considered illegal unless a demolition or stop-work order was issued and delivered during its construction. It cannot be termed illegal retroactively. The Jewish outposts, therefore, cannot be considered illegal, and may not be evacuated. Only if the government turns to a court, or the ranking IDF Commander gives a personal order, can a house be termed illegal "(4).

Havat Maon was founded two and a half years ago. "The families at Maon had one goal: to work the land. They planted vineyards, an olive grove and other fruit trees" (5). Their biggest crime consisted of their desire to obey God's will and live in the heartland of Eretz Yisrael. Dov Dribben, one of the Maon founders was murdered by the Arabs because he did not want to abandon this place. "The house he had started building was finished by others, including a nineteen year old named Harel Ben-Nun, a skilled builder, who was later killed when ambushed by Arabs at the Shomron community Yitzhar" (5). Instead of constructing a memorial in Havat Maon to immortalize the memory of Dov Dribben and Harel Ben-Nun the Barak government gave an order to demolish the place. Is it much more important to allow the monument erected by the Arabs in Ashdod to stand in commemoration of the death of Arabs who fell fighting against the Jewish state during the Intifada, than to allow Dov Dribben's widow and her four small children to live in the house built by Dov and Harel?

Yuri Stern said that there are 1300 illegal Arab buildings for which demolition orders have been issued, and that these orders were confirmed by the Supreme Court. There were no demolition or stop-work orders issued against Dov Dribben's house. However, Dov's house is demolished and the 1300 illegal Arab houses are safely in place. If the Israeli government cares so much about the legality why did it not demolish the Arab houses first? Perhaps the Arabs' souls are very sensitive? Maybe it is due to this Arab super-sensitivity that the Israeli government sentenced Avigdor Eskin to two-and-a half years in prison for placing a pig's head on the grave of Izz el-Deen al-Qassam, the Arab Palestinian nationalist whose hands were covered with Jewish blood? So why then such insensitivity towards the Jews?

Barak's apologists try to find excuses for Barak's action. They say that the Israeli Prime Mimister gave the order to destroy only 12 out of 42 outposts. "He took down Maon, but not before he paved the way for many of the other outposts to turn into full-fledged settlements"(6). Hence, as the former MK and Elkana local council head Nissan Slomiansky put it "When this round is over, the situation of the outposts will be better than it was under the Likud. Under [Binyamin] Netanyahu they were illegitimate children. Barak has made them legitimate" (6). Perhaps this is how Slomiansky wants to see the situation, however, much more important is the question of how the picture is viewed by the Arabs and the rest of the world.

In Gaza, Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, the Palestinian cabinet secretary after destruction of Havat Maon "called for the removal of all Israeli settlements and said: 'It is a step forward in the process of rebuilding trust with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority"(7). Yasser Arafat himself, "has congratulated Ehud Barak on the uprooting of the Maon farm. He said that he has received a promise from Israel to uproot the remaining 41 outposts as well."(8). Certainly, Arafat is not the most trustworthy person in the world, and maybe Barak did not promise to uproot the remaining outposts. Nevertheless, the precedent is established. The Agency France Press summarized it on November 11 in this way: "the destruction of the Havat Maon outpost in the southern West Bank by the army and police was a first, in the sense that no inhabited Jewish settlement in occupied Palestinian territory had ever been removed by order of the Israeli state."

Civilized mankind likes it when the Jews perform the "dirty" work themselves. How many times in our history have we intentionally and unintentionally done everything what our enemies wanted us to do. It did not matter weather we were driven by fear, jealousy, cunning, submissiveness or any other reasons. The result was always the same: we were the losers. Joel Brand, one of the witnesses at the Kastner trial in Jerusalem, said that S.S. Colonel Von Wislisceny told him: "Our system is to exterminate the Jews through the Jews. We concentrate the Jews in the ghettos - through Jews; we deport the Jews - by the Jews; and we gas the Jews - by the Jews" (9).

Today Arafat could continue Von Wislisceny's list. He might say: "Our plan is to exterminate the Jews through the Jews. We devour Jewish land - through the Jews; we destroy Jewish settlements - by the Jews; we re-write Israeli history - by the Jews; we uproot the Jewish and Zionist values - by the Jews."

Speaking after the demolition of Havat Maon, Barak said that it was necessary "to impose the government's will on its citizens"(3). It appears that Barak is not aware that when David Ben-Gurion proposed the Law of Return to the Knesset, he said: "The state does not grant permission to Jews to immigrate here; the right of Jews to return to Israel preceded the State of Israel, and it was this right that built the state" (10)

It is not up to Barak or any other Israeli leader to "impose their will" on the Jews regarding their right to settle Eretz Yisrael. It is not only the right of the Jews, it is their obligation to do that. The right of the Jews to settle the land of Israel preceded even the ancient Jewish kingdoms. The will of God is imposed on the Jews for ever. [11/13/99]


1. Oriana Fallaci: "Interview with History"

2. Yediot Aharanot, 11/11/99

3. IMRA report: PM on evacuation, Communicated by Prime Minister's Media Adviser Jerusalem 10/11/99

4. Arutz 7 news, 10/24/99

5. David Wilder, "The Maon Homestead's Last Stand," Hebron news, 11/10/99

6. Herb Keinon, "Barak's neat tightrope walk," The Jerusalem Post 11/12/99

7. Washington Post, 11/10/99

8. Arutz 7 news, 11/11/99

9. Ben Hecht, Perfidy

10. David Newman, "Getting almost everything", The Jerusalem Post , 11/10/99


Boris Shusteff is an engineer in upstate New York. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. The Freeman Center has an archive of Shusteff articles on its web site:




Freeman Center military experts have examined the Raviv Protocol and find nothing in it that impacts negatively on Israeli security. We find exactly the opposite. We feel that Israel's democracy would be in grave danger if politicians and the GSS are allowed to coverup and suppress all evidence of unethical and anti-democratic behavior. Below is today's Jerusalem Post story on the suppression of this document. The Israeli Supreme Court justices saw fit to use a "security" excuse to ban what is obviously a matter of political censorship. This would seem to indicate that the plot to withhold the truth about the Rabin assassination has reached the highest levels of the Israeli judiciary.

Below you will find an English translation of the actual Raviv Protocol and that is followed by information on its significance.

At the Freeman Center we believe that democracy is served best by an informed electorate. Only a vigorous, free and uncensored press can provide a nation with an informed electorate capable of making wise decisions about its leadership.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of November 3, 1999


By Dan Izenberg

Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel yesterday ordered a ban on publishing the classified protocol of a meeting that took place three years ago between senior Justice Ministry officials and General Security Service agents regarding GSS informer Avishai Raviv. The ban, issued at the state's request, also extends to references from the protocol in the petition of journalist Yoav Yitzhak, to which a copy of the protocol was attached.

Raviv is currently on trial in Jerusalem Magistrate's Court on charges of having failed to prevent a crime in connection with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and for conspiracy and incitement to racism for his conduct at an alleged swearing-in ceremony for the Eyal organization. After Rabin's assassination, it emerged that Raviv had served as an informer for the GSS for many years, while, at the same time, he had instigated many extremist activities against Arabs and the Rabin government.

Freeman Editor's Note: Raviv's primary mission was to perpetrate outrageous and extremist acts that would be BLAMED on Israel's religious and Zionist citizens. This would benefit the Labor Party of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres by causing Israeli voters to be repelled by the actions of the Right. This was "dirty tricks" writ large. Rabin, in the end, was a victim of this anti-democratic madness. The true story has been suppressed though the outlines are becoming quite clear.

The state's request for a publication ban was meant to strengthen the measures taken by Attorney-General Elyakim Rubinstein to make certain that the protocol was not disclosed in public.

AN Unofficial Translation of the Document

Document dated June 16, 1996 File 403

Summary of a Meeting on the Swearing-In Ceremony of the Eyal Organization Meeting Date: May 2, 1996

In attendance: 1. Attorney-General Ben-Yair 2. Noam Solberg - Senior Assistant to the Attorney-General 3. Edna Arbel - State Attorney 4. Talia Sasson - Head of the anti-incitement unit of the State Attorney's office. 5. N. Ben-Or - Head of the Criminal Division in the State Attorney's Office 6. Leora Chavilio, Senior Assistant in the Jerusalem District Attorney's office. 7. Chezi Kallo - direct GSS handler of Avishai Raviv 8. G. Ben Ami - GSS official 9. Eli Barak - Head of the Jewish Division of the GSS after Carmi Gillon, and during the Ya'akov Perry era, head of Perry's office. 10. Ledor, Jerusalem District Attorney

Synopsis of deliberations on evidence 133/95 The swearing-in ceremony of the Eyal Organization, a document from 29.3.96 from Leora Chavilio; the summary report of the Eyal swearing-in ceremony; document from 5.2.96 from Y. Rodman

Attorney-General: We have all seen the videotape. Anyone who was there, on location, could have understood that this was not an authentic ceremony. Even the Shamgar Commission explicitly noted this in its report.

L. Chavilio: I didn't notice that the inauthentic sections were intentionally edited out of the video. I see a problem with issuing an indictment against the reporter.

A-G: Perhaps some disciplinary action can be taken against him?

C. Kallo: We are talking here about the handling of a problematic agent. The loss-benefit evaluation looks like this: He served as our agent for 8-9 years. Within this time period, he generally worked well, except for the last year. He transmitted to us thousands of pieces of information... During the last year, he lost control, and we were able to nip the problem in the bud. He underwent an initial investigation, and admitted [to his actions] We continued to employ him. As for the story of the videotape [of the staged Eyal swearing-in ceremony] - from our perspective, this is a most serious episode. Our officials deliberated on the matter, and decided that he was out of control and that it was impossible to permit him to continue operating...

But we established new rules of operation... and that he would undergo psychological examinations. It was made quite clear to him that we wouldn't continue along the same path, and that he would not receive immunity for crimes he committed. In hindsight now, if we had gone ahead and broken off our ties with him -maybe he would have given us the murderer [of Yitzchak Rabin].

A court case against him would essentially be a case against the General Security Services (GSS). We would have to reveal all of our rules operation, something that would cause serious operational damage. We have to remember that our opponents pose some serious threats today. During a trial, everything would come out into the open.

I don't remember any trial against a GSS agent that was conducted behind closed doors. Great

damage could be caused - revelation of operational strategies, etc.

N. Ben-Or: The attorney who represented Avishai Raviv will have a strong ideological bias, and it is possible that he would join forces with extremist elements, and that together, they would reveal secrets.

T. Sasson: They would do everything they could to reveal secrets.

G. Ben-Ami: As far as his criminal intentions are concerned: Did he intend to commit a crime? They suspected that Raviv was a GSS collaborator and he had to prove himself [to right-wing activists] He had to remove all their suspicions that he was an agent. Dorit Beinish gave approval for his activities next to Bar-Ilan University, to incriminate someone else who would then be caught. He had to protect himself. Any Defense Attorney will call Raviv to the witness stand.

E. Barak: Raviv was part of a violent group --- the fact is that they suspected him of being a GSS collaborator. He had to, at all times, prove that he was as "active" as them...

Ledor: We have to close the file "due to lack of public interest." An indictment [against Raviv] could seriously harm the GSS. We have to accept the GSS opinion on this. We close a lot of files in this manner, due to a "lack of public interest." The harm is clear - the trial would look crooked. Holding it "behind closed doors" just won't help.

Ben-Or: I am bothered by the criminal aspect of this - I am not sure that it won't end in a finding of "not guilty." Then we will be in a strange situation. This person was working in a problematic situation. His involvement in Eyal was illegal. They didn't allow him to bring television cameras. A police agent who is commissioned to 'buy' drugs is not allowed to smoke them himself, etc. When you're in the trenches, though, it's difficult, and sometimes [an agent] will "give himself permission" to break a law. Maybe he will argue the defense of "necessity," maybe the justification that he had to "earn the trust of those around him." I don't want to make a decision about his criminal culpability.

A-G: We see this as a serious matter. I don't dismiss the damage to the organization [the GSS]. Even the revelation of his code name caused great damage. But the additional damage is relatively insignificant, and we can make an effort to minimize it. It is possible to conduct proceedings behind closed doors. The case itself is very serious and there is a real public interest in filing criminal charges. This episode shocked television viewers and caused enormous damage, a virtual public storm! I just don't see how we can avoid beginning [criminal] proceedings.

Ben Ami: Another factor [that must be considered]: The GSS ability to hire agents, and the organization's handling of already existing agents. Our sources demand that the Service ensure that they will not be revealed. It will be hard [if Raviv goes to trial] to handle present agents and hire new ones.

A-G: Sec.(b)(1); The whole trial will take place behind closed doors. The Shamgar Commission was also held behind closed doors. It is possible.

Sasson: Let's assume that there is evidence. The television clip made an impression on me. We see from Chezi Kallo's words what kind of damage [such a trial] would cause to the GSS. I must work with the assumption that there would be such damage. We have to weigh the benefits [of bringing him to trial] against the losses. It has to be evaluated in cold [objective] terms.

E. Arbel: From the perspective of the Attorney-General and the State Attorney's office: It is impossible to evaluate the evidence when we know that what is available there does not give an accurate portrait of what went on. The man was an agent. We don't know what the true picture was at the time. We can't know the clear details of the situation until he gets up on the witness stand, and maybe he will say that he was operating according to the directions of the GSS. It is impossible to say whether there is or is not evidence against him. The file [swearing-in] was staged. The lines were not clearly demarcated for Avishai Raviv. What would have happened if he would have prevented the murder? With all the difficulties that this [decision] entails, I am not sure that we can accomplish our goal. With a heavy heart, I suggest we close the file [against him].

A-G: Section 4(a) - I don't see a problem with the evidence. I don't see any problems in terms of his criminal intent. It is impossible to close the case without public exposure.

Ledor: Some time ago, we put together a format that we could use for a situation in which we announce that a file is being closed.

Arbel: It is simpler to defend the closing of a file due to a lack of evidence; it is possible that he [Raviv] wanted to convince them that he was "one of them." I see a problem with this. And if there is a problem with the evidence, it is easier to explain things [to the public]. I don't have to wait and come to the Court for it to say all this. My desire is to issue an indictment, but the risk is so big. We can in fact explain this to the Supreme Court; it's possible to defend [such an approach].

E. Barak: In actual fact, during the entire time that Raviv served as an agent for us, there were many "incidents." He could very well testify about the [numerous] cases in which we gave him directions. The entire story of his service will be revealed, and there will be legal difficulties. Even after the [Eyal] television broadcast, they continued to employ him.

Sasson: A "lack of evidence" and a "lack of public interest" together constitute good reasons [for closing the file]

A-G: I don't want to be involved in closing the file. I won't get into explaining. In any case, we have to send a letter to the Israel Broadcast Authority in which we express our bad feelings at the video clip [the swearing in ceremony of Eyal]. We have to write something against [TV reporter] Eitan Oren. I can't be involved in this. Were I to be the only one to decide, I would issue an indictment. But, as I said, I don't want to be involved in this. I would like to request that the issue be transferred over to the State Attorney's office, that the State Attorney's office make a decision on this, and issue a statement to the plaintiffs


November 2, 1999


A "secret document" of a meeting of General Security Service and State Prosecution officials reveals that the two bodies made a "pact to hide"facts about GSS agent provocateur Avishai Raviv, according to MK MichaelEitan. It also shows that GSS agents, only a few months after theassassination, felt that "if we had cut off our connections with Raviv, maybe he would have turned the murderer over to us." Television talk show host Nissim Mishal, whose guest MK Eitan was about to reveal the contents of the document on air last night, suddenly received instructions from Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein that the document's disclosure would "endanger public security," and was forbidden. Arutz7 has learned that the document may be seen on the internet at <>

Both Mishal and Eitan reacted with surprise to the order, saying there was nothing secret about the document. Eitan said, "When you try to fight the GSS and the State Prosecution, they are just too strong - they control things in this country that not even the Prime Minister, or the government, or the Knesset, controls, and they ignore the public - they claim 'public security,' when it's really only their own internal issues." Eitan claims that Rubenstein is attempting to prevent the revelation of a pact between the GSS and the Prosecution to hide the fact that Raviv did not act on his own.

The document also quotes a GSS agent as telling the Attorney-General and the others at the meeting that a previous State Prosecutor had approved activity by Raviv at Bar Ilan University that would incriminate "someone else." The document shows that both the Prosecution and the GSS representatives were seeking ways to close the investigation against Raviv, while Attorney-General Rubenstein was against closing it.

Arutz-7's Haggai Segal notes that Rubenstein's action was fairly unprecedented. Segal said that when two GSS agents were imprisoned in Amman after the bungled assassination attempt of a Hamas leader, the head of the Mossad begged the press not to publicize the news in order not to hurt chances for a quick release - but Rubenstein did not intervene to order or ask the media to be silent.


MK Michael Eitan reacted with bitterness to the order blocking the publication of the document. He told Arutz-7 today, "Instead of answering my grave complaints about the fact that the Shabak and the StateProsecution made a pact and submitted false information to the government ministers, and concealed information from the government and the public - they accuse me of leaking classified information, so that I'll have to answer their charges, instead of them answering clearly my charges. For example, I claimed that when the head of the GSS came before the special security cabinet forum - which I convened when I was a government minister - to discuss indicting Raviv, the GSS head told us clearly that the GSS decided that it should not investigate him, and that the police found that Raviv knew nothing and was not involved in the assassination. But I tell you that this is totally misleading and false - the Shabak DID interrogate him, and the whole story was meant to mislead the ministers... They simply want to ensure that the story of Avishai Raviv not be made public... This document contains nothing that will harm state security... Do you have any doubt that Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein would trouble himself to call television stations and newspapers and threaten them if he thought that the document would not embarrass the Prosecution?!"

"The large picture," concluded Eitan, "is that this document shows that my long-time basic assumption is correct, that there is a pact between the GSS and the Prosecution to go above the levels responsible for them, and even above the law. They run things as if they are above every suspicion, and no one can ask or raise any doubts about them... How could it be that the newspapers are not rising up against threats by the Atty.-Gen. not to publish a document that has no bearing on state security! [The Prosecution] doesn't want it published because it will show how the two bodies work together to fool the government and the public, and they don't want it publicized because it's THEM. Civil rights of people have been trampled - trampled! And instead of punishing those who were guilty, and instead of leading the campaign to look out for civil rights, the Prosecution cooperated with them, became a rubber stamp, and became their partner."

MK Benny Elon said that the document shows how anxious the relevant bodies were to ensure that Avishai Raviv would not be tried, in order that he not take the witness stand: "They searched for excuses not to hold the trial, such as 'no public interest' and 'insufficient evidence,' and Rubenstein tried to disassociate himself from these ideas, and said that he doesn't want to be involved in closing the file."


On November 3, 1999 our Freeman Center Broadcast published the Raviv Document. At the time it had been suppressed (censored) by the Israeli Justice Department with the consent of the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds of "national security." We assured you that security was not an issue. Yesterday, the Israeli Supreme Court reversed its position and agreed with the Freeman Center that the document had been suppressed for purely political ends. Please read the details below.......Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

Subj: Important -

Date: 11/11/1999 12:49:43 PM Central Standard Time


Dear Mr. Shapiro,

You might want to send out an announcement to your email list to the effect that today, The Israeli Supreme Court struck down Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein's gag order on the secret Avishai Raviv document! Judges Matza and Dorner harshly reprimanded the Attorney-General for claiming that "national security" prevented the publication of the document. For a full report on the issue, readers can check Arutz-7 news at our website.



Calls continue to be heard for an official committee of inquiry into the workings of the General Security Service and/or the State Prosecution, following the publication yesterday of the heretofore-secret Raviv-Beinish document. Housing Minister Rabbi Yitzchak Levy (NRP) demands that the GSS be investigated for continuing to employ Avishai Raviv despite his activities. MK Tzvi Hendel called upon Prime Minister Barak yesterday to establish a public commission to look into the State Prosecution's role in approving Avishai Raviv's incitement against the right-wing with the purpose of "delegitimizing it and causing it to be reviled by the public."

In addition, popular calls for the resignation of Justice Dorit Beinish from the Supreme Court have been heard. Atty.-Gen. Elyakim Rubenstein, who was sharply criticized yesterday by the Supreme Court for his attempt to prevent the document's publication, issued a defense of Beinish, in light of the document's damaging impression about her. The no-longer secret protocol quotes a GSS agent as saying that because Raviv had to remove suspicions that he was a GSS agent, "Beinish approved activities by Raviv... and that he would cause someone else to be incriminated, who would be caught." Rubenstein explained last night that what actually happened was that Beinish had agreed to an urgent GSS request for Raviv to take an action that would incriminate one of the agency's operatives - with that operative's consent. It was noted, however, that the document says "another person,"and not "another operative," and that it nowhere implies that this was done with his consent.



Four years ago we published the extremely important Lerner article below. The national media and your local Jewish press refused to print this story and thus participated in the coverup of these nefarious crimes.


By Dr. Aaron Lerner ( November 19, 1995)

Will the news that Yitzhak Rabin OBM's own secret service was behind the most inflammatory activity associated with the Nationalist camp stop the international campaign to defame the Right? Only time will tell. So far we know that the head of the extreme Right Wing organization, Ayal, Avishai Raviv, was an agent of the GSS ("Shabak"). Last week Rabbi Bennie Alon first made the charge public. By Sunday all the papers confirmed the story. The 19 November issue of "Haaretz" reports that "Security sources said last night that Raviv was drafted by the GSS to serve as an agent two years ago." His code name was "Champagne".

Israel Television reporter, Nitsan Chen, revealed in an interview on Israel Radio's program "Hakol Diburim" on 19 November that Avishai Raviv distributed the infamous handbill/poster of Rabin in Gestapo uniform during the rally in Zion Square. Raviv gave a copy of the handbill to reporter Chen and returned later to make sure that the poster had been broadcast on television. Chen noted that demonstrators near Raviv begged him not to hand out the handbill or to give it to the reporter.

The poster/handbill has been the focus of attacks against Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu because he participated in the rally where the GSS operative handed them out. These handbills eventually transformed in some reports into "effigies of Rabin in SS uniform". The immediate response of the government to this bombshell came from Minister Amnon Rubenstein, who suggested that no one say anything until the investigation of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin OBM be completed.

It should be noted that the GSS operative Raviv's Ayal organization also took "credit" for the Halhoul murder. The Rabin government used the murder, which later turned out to having been committed by Arabs, to attack the Right for almost a week. In that case, the government led anti-Right propaganda continued even after the GSS had solved the murder. In fact, it continued up until the moment that the news services were authorized to reveal who the murderer really was.

For the last two years the GSS agent's "Ayal" organization was a media favorite, providing a continuous supply of activities which defamed the nationalist camp.

Likud MK Michael Eitan told Israel Radio's "Hakol Diburim" on 19 November, that he was witness to one such action by GSS operative Raviv. He was attending an event which featured a speech by Arab MK Hashem Machameed. Raviv stood up and began disturbing the speech with catcalls. MK Eitan came over to Raviv and told him to sit down and be quiet and that his actions were hurting the nationalist camp. Raviv smiled at Eitan and then continued his disturbance.

How deep is the government's involvement in such activities? It is still too early to know. Consider the following possibilities:

* An Israeli not known by any other activists participated in the first few meetings of Raanana activists planning demonstrations in the area. He urged the group to take more radical action. The phone number which he left the group turned out to be disconnected and he was never seen again after the third meeting.

* The first protester arrested in Raanana Junction when it was blocked as part of the nationwide "Zo Artzeinu" sit-down was a young man who claimed that he had finished serving in a crack Golani unit only the month before. With his long blond hair, this ex-kibbutznik looked like a picture postcard image of a typical member of the Leftist Meretz Youth. He resisted arrest and the police responded by hitting him back. Other demonstrators tried to intervene and they were also arrested. When I interviewed him afterwards, he refused to identify himself. He explained that he had never participated in a demonstration before in his life. He was on a bus from Haifa going South and saw the demonstration in progress and decided to join in. At the time it sounded like an indication of a change in the public atmosphere. After the Raviv story who knows?

* Three men approached one of the first demonstrations of Bar Ilan students on the pedestrian bridge which crosses Highway 4. The unknown men urged the demonstrators to come down and block the highway. After a few minutes they gave up, walked away, took off their kipot and ... stepped into a police van.

Did Yitzhak Rabin OBM know that the GSS was behind the campaign to defame his opponents? Who gave the orders? The government wants to freeze the story for three to four months but it is simply so hot that even the government controlled media can't hold themselves back.

It will be interesting to see if the leadership of the American Jewish community and other friends of Israel who have attacked Netanyahu and the Nationalist camp since the assassination will be sophisticated enough to realize that they have been manipulated by the GSS and honest enough to do something about it.

The first test of American Jewish leadership will be at the rally planned in New York in memory of Rabin OBM and in support of the "peace process". Jews who want to mourn the death but not support the government have been told to stay home. One can only hope that the leadership rejects GSS manipulation and opens its arms to the entire Jewish community.

For as MK Ariel Sharon said today, it is perfectly legitimate for the GSS to plant agents in radical groups to keep tabs on their activities. But it is not acceptable for a government to use its intelligence operations to carry out dirty tricks against its opponents.


Dr. Aaron Lerner is the Associate Director of Independent Media Review & Analysis.


Two years ago we again broke this shocking story of dirty tricks by the Rabin/Peres government. Their activities, with the help of Israel's Secret Service (GSS) were an assault on Israel's democracy far greater than Watergate and Nixon. While we did our job to expose this scandal in real time, the media including your local Jewish press made the decision to ignore it.


November 17, 1997



This shocking expose proves that Yitzhak Rabin bore ministerial responsibility for the incitement leading to his own assassination. It also demonstrates that Labor/Meretz leaders conspired with investigating Judge Shamgar following the Rabin assassination to suppress this information. Their criminal purpose was to use the assassination to slander the Right and religious Jews, incite the country against them and therefore win the Knesset Elections of 1996. The incitement by Raviv and his violent acts constitute one set of crimes against the people of Israel. The coverup by Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid and other Labor/Meretz personalities constitutes a another set of crimes. Perhaps even more serious, since the election was so close, they could have defrauded the people of Israel by stealing the election. They came very close to destroying the country's democratic basis.

The Freeman Center strongly condemns:

* the undemocratic behavior of the Left...

* the incitement by the Left against the Right and religious Jews...

* the slander by the Left of the Right and religious Jews...

* the lies and the cynical charges by the Left against the Right and religious Jews...

The Freeman Center strongly condemns the COVERUP by the Left of these facts.

The Freeman Center strongly condemns the attempt by the Left to UNDERMINE Israeli democracy.

The Freeman Center calls for swift, honest and vigilant prosecution of all of those involved in the above crimes. As a start, Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid and all those involved should be placed under detention until proper judicial proceedings can be held. The immunity from criminal prosecution that is normally afforded Knesset members should be withdrawn because of the likelihood that their presence in the Knesset is the result of fraud and criminality.




By Emanuel A. Winston

Despite a Herculean effort by the Israeli GSS (General Security Services), the Labor Party, the Courts, the suspicious events surrounding Yitzhak Rabin's assassination are beginning to surface.

While the investigative journalist, Barry Chamish, has been the most persistent gadfly on this issue, his questions have been fudged over by a flurry of counter accusations attacking him as to his objectivity. However, the questions he raises are reasonable and not wild accusations as contended by those who seem most involved or those who have the most to lose. His book "Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin: The Shocking Treachery that Altered the Face of History" (1) (A Must-Read Book!)

But, now something quite extraordinary has occurred. Dahlia Rabin-Philosoff, daughter of the late Prime Minister, now a Member of Knesset, shares her doubts about the Government's explanations about his death in an interview with the writer Sarit Yishai-Levi for the Olam Ha-Isha magazine. She speaks about questions raised in conversations with her mother, Leah Rabin, which occurred immediately after the assassination. She asks who shouted: "These are blanks!" Why didn't the Shamgar Commission determine who shouted that the shots fired were blank cartridges?

(Later Dalia finds this reminiscent of the Kennedy assassination and of how Oswald was immediately murdered.) She goes on to question why they separated her mother from her father when Leah Rabin was driven away in a different car while Rabin was driven to the hospital. "Why," Dalia asks, "did they tell her (mother) this was an exercise?" "Why didn't they kill the assassin?" She speaks of Channel Two investigative reporter Matti Cohen, who told her of his findings. But his report was never shown to the public and she describes a suitcase of documents which were shown to her. (2)

Even Leah Rabin (upon her return from Oslo) has now publically admitted that there were still many unanswered questions surrounding the death of her husband. In an interview on November 3rd by Dalia Yairi on Kol Yisrael, Channel 2, Leah Rabin made that remarkable comment in response to a fax from Nadia Matar and the Women in Green. (3) Their doubts were echoed by her brother, Yuval Rabin, in a radio interview later in the day.(4) I think Leah, Dalia and Yuval Rabin can expect a visit from high personages, first from Israel and then from the U.S., pleading with them to no longer make public statements on Rabin's death.

Some may recall that Rabin was killed just before the probable early elections. Oslo was not doing well with the public. 78% of the public wanted a National Referendum to authorized the continuation of the "Peace Process" and Rabin was being booed at rallies. Rabin's chances for re-election were at substantial risk and he was showing signs of disillusionment over Arafat's non-compliance with the Oslo agreements. More than 300 Jews were murdered since Oslo and it looked like Netanyahu would win the next elections with his theme of "Peace with Security."

Shimon Peres and Bill Clinton had a lot on the line politically as they pushed their "Peace Process." If ever the need for political dirty tricks were needed to win an election , that was the time. A sensationally staged but an unsuccessful assassination attempt would have done wonders for Rabin's political standing before the elections. Recall that the GSS reported directly to Rabin through then GSS Head Carmi Gillon (who has just been hired to run the Peres Peace Center). Recall also that at that time the GSS had Avishai Raviv (code-named "Champagne") employed as an 'Agent Provocateur' inciting young people to violence and acting as if he were someone from the political right. Raviv had been reported as having been in the employ of the GSS for eight years and was hardly an unknown to the planning circles of Labor or Prime Minister Rabin.

Shimon Peres, Rabin's wife Leah, daughter Dalia and the entire machinery of the Labor Party vilified the Right, the settlers and the religious, for these incendiary incidents that GSS agent Raviv set up. But it was Raviv, their employee acting as an "Agent Provocateur," who was harassing the Arabs; it was Raviv who printed the posters of Rabin in an SS Gestapo Nazi uniform and then had some kids pose with it after Raviv prompted the TV announcer to film them - with Bibi in the distant background as if he approved. The film staging was clever because it gave the viewer a sense that Netanyahu was orchestrating the event, even though he couldn't see the poster from the second floor balcony.

The Right was blamed, with Labor Leftist newspapers chiming in and blaming Netanyahu. They defamed as radical those on the Right, i.e., those who opposed Oslo and a failing "Peace Process" which entailed giving away land to the PLO with no reciprocation. The Left through the accommodating Media, beat the drums labeling the Right as opponents of Peace. Their campaign was successful but, with the death of Rabin, this vicious campaign of vilification took a quantum leap to the extreme.

The Shamgar Commission never bothered to investigate how posters condemning the Right for Rabin's assassination came to be printed, distributed almost overnight - as if they were expecting such an attempt to be made.

When Rabin was assassinated, all the previously built up anger against the Right for what Raviv, had done, as well as others in the employ of Labor and the GSS boiled over. Leah Rabin was shamelessly used, as was her daughter to display their grief and anger against the Right. The Right and Netanyahu denied their accusation of incitement, but the shouts of the Left and the very controlled media overcame any denials. Many of the citizens of Israel were led to believe that the assassination of Rabin was due to incitement by the Right. People were being hauled in for questioning if they were overheard in public, questioning the "Peace Process" or commenting on politicians from the Left because every word of dissent or disapproval or disagreement with the "Peace Process" was labeled 'incitement'.

But now, four years later, many people are beginning to see that maybe it was Labor and the GSS who just may have arranged it all. Avishai Raviv, who should have gone to trial four years ago, was protected by the GSS and only now has there been one feeble attempt to bring him to trial. But, even here, they have managed to postpone the trial. The charges arranged now by Atty. Gen. Elaykim Rubenstein are so minimal that even if Raviv were convicted, the deeper truths would remain hidden.

Perhaps, Raviv will never reach the witness stand if it is up to Attorney General Rubenstein, the GSS, the Labor Government and a Supreme Court which has shown itself inclined to promote Leftist positions politically. Even the renowned former Chief Justice Meir Shamgar who conducted the Rabin assassination investigation in a closed court is under suspicion for what now appears as a very thin or else manipulated investigation.

Closed hearings in Israel are a favored method of guiding the outcome in politically sensitive cases. Only what is leaked or offered to the Media allows the public to judge for itself. When the Courts conspire with the Government and the Media leans to the Left, the truth is hard to find.

But, in another startling exposť which the Court ordered suppressed, a document has made its way into the public which tells the minutes of a meeting where the discussion revolved around suppression of evidence on Avishai Raviv. (5)

Even Rabin's daughter, with the official status of a member of Knesset asks why Shamgar never bothered to find the GSS agent who shouted "They're blanks!" Later, MK Dahlia Rabin-Philosoff recounts her mother's confusion when the GSS agent would not allow her to accompany her husband to the hospital. Instead, they put her in another car, assuring her "everything was OK and the "attempted" assassination was only an exercise!

More questions arose from a supposedly amateur video film made of the shooting by Roni Kempler who worked for the State Controller's Office and as a body guard in the Army Reserves. Why did Rabin's security detail allow him to film from a nearby roof top? In his film Kempler shows Rabin being shot from a meter away from his back - but the GSS report says he was shot at point blank range. However, there were no powder fragments on Rabin's jacket which should occur at that range. Nor did Rabin show any signs of being hit, except to look back at the sound of a shot.

He was supposed to have had his spine shattered (according to the first pathology report) but the film showed him taking several steps into the car. A shattered spine causes instant collapse. The first pathology surgeon's report speaks about other bullet holes in the front of Rabin's body, and then the next day the report is altered. This is reminiscent of the Kennedy magic bullet that traveled in so many different directions.

Later, his GSS driver Yoav Kuriel was reported to have committed suicide - except he was killed by several shots, not consistent with suicide. Then his body was buried in a closed casket which is inconsistent with a Jewish burial - even forbidden. His burial was also conducted in secret. (6)

For many, it appeared that a politically inspired, staged assassination turned into the real thing. The next questions are: Who could have arranged the switch from blank bullets to real ones or were the fatal shots actually fired in the car? Who benefitted politically? Who had so much invested in the process of Oslo that a Prime Minister with qualms about the give-aways would better serve the "Peace Process" and the coming election as a dead martyr?

There has always been suspicion that this was intended to be merely an unsuccessful assassination attempt in order to elevate the flagging prospects of Rabin's reelection. But, something went wrong - not by accident, but by intent. Rabin had become disenchanted with the Olso Peace Process initiated by Peres, possibly in cooperation with foreign interests (U.S., E.U., U.N., et al), denials notwithstanding. A dead Rabin with Peres as his automatic successor, would allow Oslo to continue. Oslo was the main overriding objective of Peres and Clinton. Would the death of one man stand in the way of a regional plan, supported by economic interests in the U.S. and Europe? I don't think so. The subsequent government explanation and the follow-on investigation were so deliberately botched that no thinking person could accept the published results.

Sometimes an event does not come into focus until you back away and see what happened before the event and then what followed. Look back to 1983, when Rabin, Peres and other Labor Party leaders met illegally with Yassir Arafat to cut a deal which was later the basis of Oslo. Then and in between we see the American policy of appeasing the Arabs - driven by the U.S. Arabists in the State Department playing a powerful role.

Now, look forward to Clinton's later attempt to virtually buy the election for Shimon Peres. When that failed, greater forces and money were marshaled to denigrate and delegitimate Binyamin Netanyahu, assisting his fall from office, while again pouring great amounts of American money and expertise into buying power for Ehud Barak. From 1983 to 1999 the prime objective was the so-called "Peace Process" (Note! Not Peace but the "Process") even when Peace no longer played a role. Nothing would stand in the way of this political initiative.

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, while spectacular and tragic in itself, was merely one event in a chain of events. Dear Reader, when some expert in disinformation tells you conspiracy theories are merely fantasy, take them to the local library and pick out any history book at random. Turn to any page and you will see that every scintilla of history was 'merely' a conspiracy of men to take power, to destroy the status quo of others in power and to rule as they wished. Look at today's newspapers and TV. See the power struggles of China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt - all submerged in conspiracies to take power. And then track the Clintons. That is an instructive lesson in conspiracy to gain power. So whatever 'geniuses' tell you that conspiracies are the exception, not the rule, just laugh in their faces.

I strongly recommend you read the book "Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin: The Shocking Treachery that Altered the Face of History" by Barry Chamish. He details the questions which were so sensitive, that one of Israel's largest bookstores, Steimatskys, was pressured by the current government to remove the book from view. Public pressure, even from the Left, forced the book store to once again put it out on display. The Rabin family members are at long last asking the questions that have troubled many of us for the last four years. It will be difficult if it turns out that the "friends" around them conspired to assassinate Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister, husband and father. It will take remarkable courage for Leah Rabin who has so brutally condemned Netanyahu and the Right to face this reality.

There are more questions than answers. Who will answer them?

The Freeman Center has a limited number of copies of this book, Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin: The Shocking Treachery that Altered the Face of History" by Barry Chamish. It is available for sale to our readers for $12.95 + $3.00 postage and handling. Please mail your check to the our address above.


1. "Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin: The Shocking Treachery that Altered the Face of History" by Barry Chamish Feral House 1998

2. "Princess? Spoiled? Me?" by Sarit Yishai-Levi Olam Ha-Isha Magazine Issue 193 Nov. 1999

3. Interview with Leah Rabin by Dalia Yairi on radio Kol Yisrael, Channel 2 November 3, 1999

4. "Rabin Family Raises Specter of Conspiracy" by Dan Izenberg

5. See the unofficial translation of the classified document, date June 16, 1996, File 403, Summary of a meeting on the Swearing-in Ceremony of the Eyal organization meeting date May 2, 1996 at

6. Chamish ibid p. 86 & 110


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



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of November 19, 1999



By David Bar-Illan

Hillary Rodham Clinton's failure to react to Suha Arafat's speech in Ramallah last week should not have surprised anyone. Clinton has been an enthusiastic supporter of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian "revolution" ever since she entered public life. Like many of her political associates in the US and their Peace Now [i.e. Peace Criminal -- See below] counterparts in Israel, she perceives the PLO not as a vanguard in the war against Israel's existence but as a true liberation movement. Serving as chairwoman of the New World Foundation in the 1980s, Clinton directed contributions to PLO-affiliated groups. In the White House, she entertained pro-Hamas American-Moslem groups, received gifts from them and spoke at their functions. Her advocacy of a Palestinian state in May 1998 was surprising only because it exposed the administration's true sympathies and undermined its position as honest broker.

Nor is Clinton alone in her pro-Palestinian "tilt." Many in the American media, and practically all mainstream Israeli journalists, not to mention the trendy "new historians," are her kindred souls. Even former Labor hawks now feel, like her, more comfortable with the corrupt, despotic and ruthless leadership of the PA than with the "settlers" or the haredim. Only against this background can one understand the Ramallah incident and the dismal failure of the media to fathom its meaning. THE COLD facts were plain enough. Clinton went to Ramallah to avoid making the impression that the trip was aimed at pandering to the New York Jewish vote. The visit, billed as "official" and subsidized by the American taxpayer, had to be balanced.

Mrs. Arafat greeted her with a speech prepared by Yasser Arafat's office. It contained vicious, baseless and irrational charges against Israel that amounted to a blood libel. Suha Arafat said Israel used poison gas against the Palestinian population, which caused the death of women and children from cancer and other horrible diseases, and that Israel poisoned 80% of the water used by Palestinians. Clinton had her earphones on, listening to the simultaneous translation. As Arafat began reciting Israel's genocidal crimes, Clinton nodded in approval. Then her face froze into a polite smile. When Arafat finished, she hugged and kissed her, uttering not one word of criticism. Only after the White House alerted her to the unfavorable reaction to her conduct did she issue a statement. It did not refer to Suha Arafat but commended President Clinton's plea to all sides (including the US!) to refrain from provocative statements.

Clinton later explained the delay by stating that the simultaneous translation was "unclear" and "incomplete." But most of the journalists present listened to the same translation, and they all heard Arafat's charges. Reuters correspondent Deborah Camiel was particularly accurate in her report, but most other reporters, too, seemed to have no trouble with the translation. Correspondents for CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New York Post, Knight Ridder and others got it right. TO BE SURE, some reporters tried to help Arafat by explaining that she probably meant tear gas, and others tried to help Clinton by reporting that she sharply rebuked Arafat when in fact she never referred to her by name.

If there was any serious distortion, it appeared in newspapers that drastically edited the wire service reports to suit their politics. The International Herald Tribune, for example, published a drastically curtailed AP story which described Clinton's statement from Petra the next morning not as a response to the Arafat speech but as criticism of "Palestinian officials" for "pushing the issue of statehood into the spotlight." The first reference to the speech came only in the fourth paragraph: "Suha Arafat ... used a speech introducing Mrs. Clinton to criticize environmental and health damage that, she asserted, had been caused by tear gas and other means to control crowds during Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands." The story even distorted the Israeli reaction, describing it merely as "saying such issues should be placed on the negotiating table." It ignored the government's statement that such comments have "no connection to reality" and that they "poison the public atmosphere." Saeb Erekat could not have given it a better spin.

But while the distortion and omission of facts was minimal, most reporters tried to control the damage by giving Arafat's remarks an environmental spin. After all, almost everyone is guilty of pollution: from smokers who disregard the health hazard they pose to others, to industrial plants that contaminate rivers.

In turning this spin, foreign journalists were helped by Ha'aretz, which headlined its front-page story "Suha Arafat: Israel polluted air and ground in the territories." Environment Minister Dalia Itzik unintentionally reinforced this impression by inviting Suha Arafat to inspect the incalculable environmental damage caused not by Israelis but by the reckless and anarchic practices of the Palestinian Authority.

Only a few in the media realized that what Arafat said had nothing to do with environmental pollution. Among them were The New York Post, Washington Post columnist George Will (appearing on ABC-TV's This Week on Sunday), New York Daily News columnist Sidney Zion, and Washington Times columnist Cal Thomas. Unlike most other journalists, they understood that Suha Arafat's speech was just the latest installment in a systematic, calculated campaign of blood libels. The Zionist Organization of America has compiled a litany of these libels. Following are a few examples:

* On March 16, 1997, Yasser Arafat's representative to the UN in Geneva, Nabil Ramlawi, lodged a formal complaint accusing "the Israeli authorities" of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus.

* In June of that year, Abdel Hamid al-Qudsi, deputy minister of the PLO's Palestinian Authority Ministry of Supplies, declared: "Israel is distributing food containing material that causes cancer and hormones that harm male virility and also spoiled food products in the Palestinian Authority's territories in order to poison and harm the Palestinian population.

* "We absolutely feel that it is an organized plan and conspiracy which is under the auspices of the Israel Defense Forces. This is a planned and initiated war against the Palestinian people."

* Six months later, Maher al-Dasouqi, director of the Palestinian Authority's Committee for Consumer Protection, declared in Arafat's official newspaper, Al- Hayat Al-Jadida:"Citizens must be vigilant regarding chocolate from England, especially Cadbury's, which is very popular in Palestinian markets, since the milk used in the production of all types of chocolate was infected with mad-cow disease.

"The sale of this chocolate is forbidden in England, but it was smuggled into the Palestinian regions by Israeli merchants ..."

* Last year, the same paper quoted Arafat's consumer-protection chief: "Israel floods our markets with hundreds of thousands of food products unfit for human consumption ...the purpose of which is to spread disease, debility and slow death in the Palestinian body ... Children are the main target of this plan."

* Earlier this month, on November 9, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida charged that "Israeli chemical companies are using the Palestinians and their land for experiments ...deciding according to the results if these chemicals should be marketed in Israel."

* And commenting on Suha Arafat's speech in Al Hayat last week (November 15), columnist Fuad Abu Hadjla wrote: "We understand the American position ... in defending Israel and its right to oppress our people and murder them with poison gas, since these gases and most of the murderous Zionist technologies originate in American industry."

* To pinpoint the progenitor of these blood libels, it would be necessary to go back to the Middle Ages, when Jews were accused of causing the Black Death by poisoning the wells.

But the media have deliberately ignored this campaign of anti-Semitic incitement. The charitable explanation is that they have sacrificed truth and professional integrity for the sake of the peace process. It is probably also the excuse for failing to put the Suha Arafat story in context. The media have even failed to notice that the PA, refusing to apologize to Israel, proffered an apology only to Hillary Clinton - not for the anti-Semitic calumny, but for any embarrassment the speech might have caused her.

The press is not alone in this obtuseness. Neither the Israeli government nor the administration seems willing to recognize that the only governments that propagate and encourage antisemitism today are the Arab regimes. For some unfathomable reason, these regimes are never criticized, let alone censured, for a crime deemed totally unacceptable by civilized society. Is there a racist double standard at play? Are Arab regimes expected to act as if they are living in the Middle Ages? Are they too immature to be held responsible for their actions? To answer these questions all one has to do is imagine the reaction in Israel and abroad had Suha Arafat's words been uttered by, say, Joerg Haider or Pat Buchanan.



THE FREEMAN CENTER agrees 100% with this report on Hillary from AFSI:

1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128
Contact: Helen Freedman
Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717;;

Nov. 12, 1999


When Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI was forced to burn Hadassah membership cards in protest against Hadassah's decision to give the Henrietta Szold Zionism award to Hillary Clinton, there were many who were shocked by our action, although there were thousands who sided with us. Hadassah claimed that they were citing Hillary for her "contributions to the welfare of women and children."

Now Hillary, the supposed great champion of health and welfare, listened to Suha Arafat, wife of Israel's "peace partner," accuse Israel of "the intensive daily use of poison gas which has led to an increase of cancer cases among Palestinian women and children." Mrs. Arafat also accused Israel of using "chemical materials to contaminate 80% of the Arab water supply."

According to all reports, Hillary registered no reaction to this horrendous libel. Hillary, the Hadassah health honoree had nothing to say. Neither did she respond when, according to Uri Dan, reporting from Ramallah, "another PA official said that he looked forward to seeing her soon in the state of Palestine and 'its capital city of Jerusalem.'"

We told you so! Americans for a Safe Israel put out the talking points on Hillary Clinton in July, 1999. We told you that: she was giving money to the PLO in the 1980's, when it was a terrorist organization; she has entertained Muslim leaders at the White House who are apologists for Hamas terrorists; both Hill and Bill have embraced Islamic radicals and Muslim leaders who have defended militant Islamic fundamentalism, rationalized terrorism, and issued anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic statements. Hillary's May, 1998 statement supporting a Palestinian state was re-stated in February 1999.

In light of the above, Herbert Zweibon, AFSI chairman, states, "Hillary Clinton is no friend of Israel and no friend of the Jews. We expect that she will come up with some Clintonesque double-speak explanation of her silence on the Arafat 'blood libel' against Israel; it will be unacceptable. We call on all Americans and the American Jewish leadership to denounce her silence."



Excerpt from Friday's Sermon on the Temple Mount

Al Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem
Friday 27-Rajab-1420, 5 November 1999

"The Muslims neglect to mention how sinful those Muslims are who "make peace" with the Jews, the occupiers of this Mosque, or those Muslims who take these Jews as friends and supporters.

The Muslims neglect to mention to their rulers how the Jews are occupying not only al-Quds (ed: Jerusalem) but the whole blessed land from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river, that this land as a whole is a blessed Islamic occupied land. The liberation of this land by Jihad is the responsibility of all Muslims, and not only the people of Palestine.

This land has been an Islamic land ever since the Prophet Muhammad had made his journey by night to its Mosque, and since the Khalifah Omar had opened it, and ever since it was liberated by the Muslim Kurdish leader Salahud'deen al Ayyoubi.

This land is an Islamic land with their being no difference between al-Quds or Haifa, or between Lod or Asqalan - for which the Prophet Muhammad called the pride of Paradise and in another hadeeth he said about her "May Allah send his Mercy on the people of the graveyard" in Asqalan. The Prophet Muhammad said this even before this land was opened by Muslims. So this land will remain Islamic land until the Day of Doom. This reality will not be changed even if some of the traitorous rulers have given up the land and signed treaties for that purpose.

Not only was al-Quds the source of great Islamic scholars like Ibn Qudama alMaqdisi, but Nablus was also the origin of great Muslim Scholars like Abdul Ghani alNabulsi and Asqalan her son the great scholar Ibn Hajar al Asqalany, with yet still many more from other cities in this blessed land. There are great virtues for this land that I will not mention because they are so many, and because I do not want to sound like a man who defends patriotism. Rather we are ideological Muslims that demand that Islam be given the rule in this land and in every other Islamic land.

I remind you all, and I remind the rulers with what Omar Ibn alAhss said to the son of Heracules when Omar was on his way to open this land: The son of Heracules, whose name was Palestine, said to Omar Ibn alAhss: Oh the prince of Arabs, we are cousins so why should we fight? This land that we are fighting for was shared by our fathers and our grandfathers, so we had taken what we had taken and you had taken what you had taken. What was the reply of Omar Ibn alAhss? He replied: I have nothing to do with this relationship that you claim. But I came today with regards to this unfair "distribution of estate" that you have talked about and I am coming today to correct it.

The liars and the traitors (your rulers) in the 20th century claim that there is a relationship of cousins between us and the Jews. They are telling you that Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu are your cousins. I say to them - wait, the new Omar Ibn al Ahss is coming soon to correct the situation even after all these treaties and treason with the Jews. He will liberate all of Palestine from the Sea to the River as well as other Islamic lands. We hope that Allah will make al-Quds (ed: Jerusalem) the new capital of the Islamic Khilafah State."



BOOK REVIEW reprinted form The Jerusalem Post of November 23, 1999


By Yosef Yaakov

ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT by Yossef Bodansky. Shaarei Tikva, The Ariel Center for Policy Research, and Houston, The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. 200 pp. Price not stated. The thesis of this book is that antisemitism, i.e. anti-Jewishness, is intensifying throughout the Moslem world, ranging from Morocco to Malaysia, promoted by governments, Islamic terrorist organizations, and the media.

The evidence cited is chilling and goes beyond Arab populist agitation for the destruction of Israel, to a campaign to demonize all Jews. There is a highly detailed reference of sources by the author, who is the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. The Islamists, he writes, are at present the most vibrant and rapidly expanding segment of the Moslem world, and assert that the very existence of the independent Jewish state of Israel constitutes a contradiction of major Koranic tenets. Jews (and, for that matter, Christians) are categorized as inferior-status "dhimmis" who, while coexisting in Moslem-ruled states, recognize the superiority of Islam.

The book quotes Maryam Jameelah, an American-Jewish woman who converted to Islam and now lives in Pakistan, as writing that the rise of the modern Zionist movement brought more than a thousand years of friendly Moslem-Jewish

relations to an abrupt end. In contrast, Professor Bernard Lewis observed that, under Islam, Jews "were never free from discrimination." Today, Islamist leaders cite "the Jewish global conspiracy" as their excuse and justification for the backwardness of the Moslem world, the loss of power and economic failures vis-ˆ-vis the West. Mohammed Heikal, the noted Egyptian journalist and confidant of Nasser, said the acceptance and legitimation of Israel is simply inconceivable, irrespective of diplomatic treaties, while the former Jordanian officer Abdullah el-Tal wrote that the Arab-Israeli conflict is an extension or aspect of the profound struggle between Judaism and Islam.

With the rise and spread of Islam, the Arab armies established a huge empire and imposed Islamic civilization. Hostile relations ensued with the Jews, the specific hatred against them deriving from the legacy of the experience of the Prophet Mohammed who fought the Jewish tribes of Arabia that refused to regard him as a prophet. The Moslems also turned their violence against the Hindus of India, subjecting them to extreme cruelties. The Koran accused the Jews and the Christians of tampering with their holy books so that the text of the Bible is corrupt, and vilified Judeo-Christian traditions and historical events.

Islam took on the role not just of a religion but a way of life encompassing statehood. As such, the Jewish dhimmis during Islam's Golden Age, who reached unprecedented levels of education and professional status, were still never accorded equal rights. In modern times, European and American missionary and educational work among the Arab middle classes had an impact on the political fabric; the most important and influential nationalist intellectuals in the Levant were Christian Arabs. The influence of Christian European antisemitism burst into the open in 1840 during the Damascus blood libel when Christian officials, supported by the French consul-general, accused leaders of the local Jewish community of killing a Christian and using his blood for baking matzot. (In recent times, the current Syrian defense minister, Tlas, wrote a book endorsing the blood libel and said the matzot, made from Christian and Moslem blood, were for the Jewish Yom Kippur [sic!]).

In order to gain popularity and acceptance for their pan-Arab doctrines, the author writes, the Arab Christian activists emphasized the low common denominator they shared with the Moslem population - with anti-Judaism and anti-Jewish postures emerging as central themes. In Palestine, during the British Mandate, the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, engaged in virulent anti-Jewish incitement, as distinct from anti-Zionism, and called for the slaughter of the Jews, while in Egypt the Moslem Brotherhood called for boycotting Jewish-owned stores and "casting them out, for they have corrupted Egypt and its population."

The Arabs expected Nazi Germany to defeat the British and the French, and to annihilate the Jews, and the mufti sought support from Hitler and the Bosnian Moslems for a jihad to wipe out the Jews of Palestine. The mufti spent the Second World War in Germany and Italy. The author comments that it is not by accident that Yasser Arafat considers Haj Amin an inspiration and claims to be a relative of his.

The establishment of Israel and the Arab defeat - the "naqba" - were a shock prompting the anti-Israel/Jewish cause to become the one absolute subject that unified regimes, leaders, the masses, and the Islamists.

The Zionists in Israel are regarded as the forward post and vanguard of a global conspiracy. A Moroccan writer, Sa'id Ghallab, wrote that "the worst insult a Moroccan can make to another is to call him a Jew." A wide variety of anti-Jewish literature - books, newspaper articles, movies - flooded the Arab world. Abdullah el-Tal said that Zionism and the Jewish religion were based on two firm foundations, the Torah and the Talmud, while he considered the third to be the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

On the eve of the Six Day War, Heikal stressed the urgency of destroying Israel before it destroyed the Arab world, since the Jews were the implacable enemies of all humanity and therefore the Arabs were actually fighting in the name of all humanity. Without indigenous roots of anti-Jewish sentiment, the Arab governments introduced it to serve their political interests, and this fell on fertile ground given Islamic incitement and hostility toward Israel.

Another theme of Arab thought was that the Jews were inherently responsible for what was coming to them - from the Holocaust to Arab hostility. The Egyptian Anis Mansour, in Sadat's time, wrote that "instead of avenging themselves on the Germans [the Jews] picked on the Arabs." He added that "if five million Jews have succeeded in dominating the US, they can certainly control the entire Western world." To intensify the struggle against Jews, extremist Arabs and Moslems turned to terrorism. Wadi'a Haddad of the Popular Front sent the terrorist Carlos to London, where he attempted to assassinate Lord Sieff, a Jewish community leader. In addition, there were attacks on distinctly Jewish objectives (synagogues and schools), and not only on Israeli targets.

In the cold peace between Egypt and Israel, there has been a distinct increase of antisemitic propaganda in the state-controlled media; this is no coincidence. Anis Mansour explained: "We have cultivated hatred of the Jews." Much the same prevails in the state-controlled media throughout the Arab world, with the distinction between Zionism and Judaism blurred. The rector of Al-Azhar University in Cairo identified the Jews as Islam's "worst enemies...the friends of Satan, indeed his best friends in our age." In Iran, after the Islamic Revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini ordered his aides to verify that certain foreign high officials were Jews, to explain their hostility toward Iran. A Saudi paper said the idea of Communism began with a Jew, Karl Marx, "and the Red Revolution in Russia was begun by the Jews....We know that Communism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin." Arab and Moslem leaders and regimes that feel compelled to follow Washington's lead, demonstrate their real attitudes to the masses by their anti-Jewishness and allegations of Jewish international control; in this way, they can blame the Jews for all the trials and crises afflicting the Arab world.

Jewish "blackmail" was typified by Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. And in our day, Jewish Americans are behind the conspiracy. Monica Lewinsky is Jewish, an Egyptian commentator pointed out - therefore international Zionism was behind the conspiracy to further Jewish objectives beyond the Arab-Israeli issue. Arab governments prefer to fuel grassroots hostility by using virulent anti-Jewish incitement as an excuse for not pursuing normalization of relations with Israel.

The overall Jewish threat affects the world according to the Islamists and is perpetrated clandestinely through the Freemasons with the declared goal of destroying Christianity. Professor Dr. Salih Hassan al-Maslut, of Al-Azhar, considers the Masons to be "a clandestine Jewish organization" whose primary objective is to destroy non-Jewish nations and governments in order to establish a global Jewish government.

The Istanbul synagogue and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires were targets of state-sponsored Iranian Islamic anti-Jewish terrorism. Meanwhile, in this decade, Arab governments and Moslem organizations from all over the world have been flooding the UN and affiliated international organizations with memos and complaints, often quoting from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and including allegations that Israel sponsored the spread of AIDS. There is no Jewish community in Moslem Malaysia, but educated Malays and the media voice hatred of Jews.

This is a thought-provoking book. Policymakers in the West would be well advised to peruse it.


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

Please send ______copies @ $12.95 (each) + $3 (USA) postage to



Mail check to:

The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies
P.O.B. 35661
Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016