Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"
VOLUME 10       B"H FEBRUARY 2002       NUMBER 2




THE JERUSALEM POST Editorial: The Moment of Truth
ANCHORS AWAY: Israel And The Foreign Press....Yossi Klein Halevi
ARAFAT'S NAVAL ADVENTURE: It's Time For Him To Go....Tom Rose

THE JERUSALEM POST Editorial: Clinton's Flawed Symmetry
TERROR'S GLOBALIZATION....Manfred Gerstenfeld
OC INTELLIGENCE: US Sees Arafat As 'Lost Cause'....Nina Gilbert

THE MORALITY OF TRANSFER Part 1 of 2....Boris Shusteff
THE MORALITY OF TRANSFER Part 2 of 2....Boris Shusteff



THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright © 2002 Bernard J. Shapiro * Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3) *




Wishful Thinking By Bernard J. Shapiro

Let's face it, things have not gone well for Israel since Sharon was elected. While we all cheered his election and had very high expectations for his government, the reality has been shocking. Although he was elected by a national/ Zionist/religious coalition, Sharon seems to have undergone a radical transformation. With great skill he seems to have sacrificed his natural coalition on the right in order to curry favor with Arafat and the Israeli left. The Labor and Meretz leaders are having a rollicking good time watching Sharon trying to out-Peres Peres. Sharon seems to have mastered the "give Arafat anything he wants" trick that we all thought was peculiar to the previous government.

Conspiracy theorists are also hyperactive these days with "explanations" for Sharon's bizarre conversion to the philosophies of the suicidal left. Here are some rumor categories for easy reference:

1. The American Connection: Bush and the State Department have exerted pressure of such magnitude that Sharon could not withstand it. The visible support from Bush was just a cover. In this theory, Arab money, the oil lobby and ex-government officials like James Baker are providing the incentive and intellectual cover for selling Israel out.

2. The Trilateral Connection: Men like David Rockafeller and Henry Kissinger, agents for the Trilateral Commission, "bought" Sharon in the 70's. Under this theory, the late Yitzhak Rabin was also bought so that they would have control of Israel regardless of which party was in power.

3. The Empty Shirt Theory: This theory holds that Sharon despite his brilliant military record is all "bulldozer". Once in office, it is revealed that he has no ideology and is a weak reed "blowing with the political wind."

4. The PLO A-Bomb Theory: About a year ago the Freeman Center received confirmation that Iran had bought four nuclear devices from the Former Soviet Union (two from Russia, one from the Ukraine, and one from Kazakhstan). There is speculation that Arafat smuggled one into Israel via a tunnel from the Egyptian Sinai into PA Gaza. A Palestinian VIP with permission to enter Israel without having to go through security, smuggled the bomb into the Tel Aviv area and buried it. Sharon was told by Arafat that if the Oslo process did not go forward to his satisfaction, Tel Aviv would be destroyed.

5. The Alien Abduction Theory: Many of our readers who watch the X-Files on TV have written to me convinced that Sharon was abducted by aliens. They insist that Sharon doesn't even exist and the image we see of him is projected telepathically by one of the "aliens" who abducted him.

For the record, I don't believe any of those theories. I have a simpler solution to the Sharon riddle. Sharon is like my computer; he needs to be rebooted periodically. For those not familiar with computers, let me explain. Every once in a while computers get confused and they freeze up. The screen stops working, the mouse has no effect and generally you can't do anything. The solution is to turn the computer off and then turn it back on. This is called rebooting and by some mysterious process everything begins to work properly. All the electrical connections suddenly know exactly what they are supposed to do.

Sharon's problem is that he is basically a good Right thinking politician who somehow has become frozen in a defective policy (Oslo), and all his cognitive and operative controls are refusing to function. So we must reboot Sharon in order to save Israel and ensure security. Here's my plan:

Sharon needs to give up being Prime Minister for a period of six weeks. Three members of the cabinet, Uzi Landau, Michael Kliener, and Natan Sharansky, will share the duties of PM during this period of time. They will be trusted (by the rational public) with this responsibility because of their high integrity and proven devotion to Israel. Sharon will go to a quiet peaceful place -- perhaps Safed, where he will be rebooted. Great Zionist thinkers, historians, philosophers and religious leaders will each spend one whole day with him discussing the major issues facing Israel's future. Elyakim Ha'etzni and Yohanan Ramati might spend Mondays with him and Shmuel Katz and Arie Stav on Tuesdays. David Wilder and Gary Cooperberg would come from Hebron on Wednesdays. Zionist leaders like Morton Klein and Herb Zweibon from the US; Dan Nimrod from Canada; and Conrad Morris, Joe Gellert and Christopher Barder from England would come to visit Sharon on Thursdays. On Fridays, Sharon would be blessed by a visit from Ruth and Nadia Matar. Rabbis Eliezar Waldman and Zalman B. Melamed would conduct Shabbat Services and meet with Sharon every Shabbat. Dr. Aaron Lerner will spend Sundays with Sharon going over all Oslo documentation.

If all goes according to my plan, Sharon will emerge from the six weeks retreat, rebooted and ready to be a Maccabean leader of Israel. He will have become a proud Jew, unafraid of the U.S. State Department, Mubarak, Arafat and the Israeli leftist fifth column. He will go forth with the blessing of Hashem, to blow the shofar loud and clear to all the world: There is a new Israel. We will pursue our destiny with great vigor and without apology.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE




By Avi Davis

Yasser Arafat has gone to great lengths over the past two weeks to identify with Christians living in the Palestinian Authority. In his televised address he made clear to the world that he represents Christians as well as Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian Authority and then cried foul when the Israelis barred him from attending Mass in Bethlehem. This was, of course, a pathetic masquerade. Not only has Yasser Arafat done nothing to bolster and protect the rights of Arab Christians in the Palestinian Authority. He has embarked on a ruthless campaign to erode and dismantle their rights.

The fate of Bethlehem offers a fine example. Since 1994, when Arafat first came to administer Bethlehem the Christian population has gradually been reduced from a 60% majority in Bethlehem to a mere 20%. This Arafat ensured by first gerrymandering the municipal boundaries of the city, extending them to include the neighboring refugee camps – Dehaisheh, El-Ayda and El-Azeh and adding a few thousand from the Ta'amarah Bedouin tribe.

Concurrently Arafat fired the city council which was composed of 9 Christians and 2 Moslems while appointing Muhammed A- Hjabari, a Moslem from Hebron as mayor. The entire political structure of the city – in the bureaucratic, security and political spheres were eventually cleansed of Christians. Today the Bethlehem region is in reality run by the local Fatah leader and his thugs.

The physical and psychological intimidation of Palestinian Chrisitian Arabs throughout the territory then proceeded rapidly. Mosques were erected in close proximity to churches in order to obscure and dominate them. This is the case with the Al Khanga and Abdul Malek mosques which today tower over the Church of the Nativity. Christian cemeteries, convents and monasteries were desecrated, their personnel intimidated and in places, their land confiscated. Moslem gunmen, shooting at southern Jerusalem from neighboring Beit Jalah have regularly located their positions either in or next to Christian homes, churches and hotels in order to provoke a harsh Israeli retaliation that could then be interpreted by the world as an attack on Christians.

Then there is the rapid Lebanonization of the West Bank and Gaza. In the 1970s the PLO occupied southern Lebanon, carrying out a campaign of terror involving summary executions of perceived Christian collaborators, rapes of Christian women and theft of Church property. Christian Palestinians in such towns as Bethlehem, Beit Sakhur and Beit Jallah live with similar fears. Rapes of Christian women have occurred repeatedly in Beit Sakhur while the Palestinian police turn a blind eye. Christian shopkeepers and businessmen, who are among the most prosperous Arabs in the region have seen their businesses devastated by the violence of the Intifada - the lucrative tourist trade being practically wiped out. Added to this privation is the protection money now demanded by Fatah activists who insist that Christians must be shielded from the excesses of Muslim fundamentalists. Is it then any wonder that close to 40,000 Christian Arabs have fled Bethlehem in the past eight years?

Not that it wasn't expected. The late Christian mayor of Bethlehem Elias Friej warned that the implementation of the Oslo Accords would result in Bethlehem becoming a town with churches but no Christians. For over seven years Christian Arabs in East Jerusalem and other West Bank towns have besieged Israeli officials with requests for Israeli I. D. cards knowing full well that the institution of Palestinian rule would result in the kind of extortion and corruption seen wherever the PLO has hoisted its tent.

Those who know something about persecution of Christians throughout the Arab world will not be shocked by what has occurred in the Palestinian Authority. In Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, Christian populations suffer from both direct and indirect state sponsored discrimination. In other Muslim countries such as Nigeria and Indonesia there is open persecution of Christians while in the Sudan it is estimated that close to two million Christians have lost their lives in the course of a bitter civil war.

In spite of Yasser Arafat's sniffles for Bethlehem there is no evidence that he cares any more for that town or its Christian population than he does for Israelis killed by Palestinian violence. Yet the true irony that grips the Middle East is not that Yasser Arafat now has power over this hapless population; it is that many western governments who could have significant influence on Arafat, still fail to understand that Judeo-Christian values, so fondly nurtured in their own countries, are mocked by a unrepentant malefactor who operates in the very heartland in which those values came into existence.


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



This piece was commissioned by the Los Angeles Jewish Journal as a counter to Rabbi David J Froman of Rabbis For Human Rights. The good rabbi's piece can be found at


By Avi Davis

Scottish philosopher David Hume hit the nail on the head when he observed that "the heart of man always attempts to reconcile the most glaring contradictions." Hume, of course, wasn't thinking of Palestinian apologists back in 1749. But he certainly wouldn't have been ashamed of applying his pithy aphorism to their persistent bouts of moral confusion. These groups and individuals inhabit a universe not always readily accessible to those of us with less sensitized moral antennae. It is a plane of existence that in fact thrives on contradiction- where falsehood doubles as truth, iniquity moonlights as righteousness and aggression masquerades as peace-making. This is the blurry world of the human rights organizations and their uneasy relationship with the State of Israel.

Among the more aggressive crusades from these groups in recent weeks has been the attack on Israel's decision to bulldoze Palestinian houses suspected as fronts for a smuggling operation. While the outcry has lingered for weeks, not one of these same organizations has successfully challenged Israel's claim that the houses were being used for smuggling weapons. Nor have they allayed the suspicion that one day those same weapons would be employed in the killing of Israelis.

And therein lies the glaring contradiction. One only needs to examine the antics of many of these same organizations in Durban, South Africa last September to understand how the words "human rights" lose all moral weight when hurled against the Jewish state. How else to explain the time and energy expended by the organizations, including the venerable Rabbis For Human Rights, to have Israel singled out and isolated from among 200 other countries as a racist state, even while slavery still thrives in Africa, while genocide is perpetrated in Europe and while women throughout the Muslim world are treated as little more than chattels?

Viewed in the context of its neighborhood and current dire circumstances, Israel is, in fact, a model in the protection of human rights. Its Basic Laws, religious and press freedoms and vibrant democracy give minorities rights they couldn't dream of possessing in surrounding countries. More conspicuous are the failures of the same human rights organizations to address violations when they are suffered by Israel. In its ten page 2001 report on Israel, Human Rights Watch devotes precisely 20 words to Palestinian killings of Israelis - apparently finding it inconsequential that Jewish holy places had been sacked and desecrated, that scores of Israelis had been shot dead on the way to work or that a ten month old baby's head been blown off by a sniper in Hebron. In its own report for that year Amnesty International does not mention the words " terrorist" or "suicide bombing" once to describe Palestinian violence. According to a leader of that organization those terms are viewed as value judgments that could compromise its reporting.

Did anyone mention bias? Back in the late 1980's Thomas Friedman explained the world's obsession with Israel as being tied to the expectation that it should always conduct itself in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. That view finds its phantom echo in the equally supercilious demand of the Rabbis for Human Rights that Israel should not be 5% more moral than the rest of the world but 100% more so. It is all based on the ludicrous assumption that Jews are so inherently humanistic that they should feel impelled to sacrifice their lives or security for a standard of conduct no other nation subscribes to.

Scratch a Jew and you find a martyr. Never has such a vile anachronism deserved more discredit.

The fact remains that the State of Israel is at war – not with its moral conscience, as some would like us to believe, but with an enemy as implacably committed to its destruction and to the murder of Jews as any other in the past . As George Orwell once said, there is one quick way to end a war – lose it. No nation has ever claimed victory against an annihilationist foe by wearing its heart on its sleeve or boasting of its moral scruples. The United States today makes little secret of its decision to use extra-judicial means to eliminate the terrorist menace to its population. Why should Israel be any different?


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





(January 21) - In response to Thursday night's Hadera bat mitzva massacre, the IDF has bombed the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation in Ramallah and Palestinian Authority headquarters in Tulkarm. This is the local equivalent of the old American response to terrorism: lob a few cruise missiles at empty buildings and call it a day. No one was, or is, under the illusion that such actions are more than symbolic - they are more of a substitute for action than action itself. Such symbols and signals are out of sync with the post September 11 world, in which terrorism will not be tolerated.

According to Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, "Everyone is fed up with [Yasser] Arafat." This is certainly a fair statement of the situation, and applies not only to Israelis but to the American administration and perhaps even to much of the Palestinian leadership. Essentially, it seems, Israel is waiting for one of two things to happen: the Palestinians themselves replacing Arafat or the US accepting his removal from leadership by one means or another.

The first possibility, an internal coup against Arafat, cannot be dismissed. One idea reportedly circulating on the Palestinian side is of maintaining Arafat as a symbolic leader who travels the world promoting the Palestinian cause, but of transferring his executive authority to some form of group leadership. Arafat is already reportedly preparing to be forced into exile by selling off assets that would sustain him after being cut off from the PA and its funding sources. But this is not a development anyone can count on, and waiting for it to happen does not constitute a real strategy against terrorism.

The second possibility is that Arafat is increasingly being forced toward a true moment of truth in which he must choose between ending terrorism and losing power. There was much talk of this moment having arrived early last month, following the two major terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa and the watershed in US policy, whereby the US started explicitly supporting Israel's right to self-defense rather than calling for restraint.

This, it turns out, was more of a moment of half-truth. Arafat was under greater pressure than he had ever been since launching the wave of terrorism. But when Israel proclaimed that Arafat was "irrelevant," the world, including the US, begged to differ and said explicitly it would continue to regard Arafat as the only legitimate Palestinian leader.

We are still in this moment of half-truth, because while the government half-heartedly maintains that Arafat is irrelevant, the international community - and indeed our own foreign minister - still seem to regard him as the lesser of all evils and therefore indispensable. So long as Arafat maintains this aura of indispensability, it does not much matter how much he is told he must crackdown on terrorism "or else." The only "or else" that matters to Arafat is the loss of power, and calling him indispensable is the direct opposite of threatening him with such a loss.

Luckily, there are signs in the US of recognition it is impossible to force Arafat to cross the Rubicon against terrorism with a severe finger-wagging. Yesterday, President George W. Bush reportedly sent him a telegram saying if he does not act, the US will reassess its entire relationship with him. If this is a polite way of telling to Arafat he is facing an ultimatum similar to that handed to the late Taliban regime and must choose between power and terror, we may be approaching the true moment of truth.

Approaching the moment of truth, however, is not enough; we must get there. Sharon knows Bush will not shed a tear if Arafat is forced out of power, and therefore does not feel particularly constrained by the US. Sharon does, however, feel constrained by the prospect of losing his coalition partner, Shimon Peres. If Peres were to suddenly come to the conclusion Arafat has become more of a liability than an asset and asked the US to cut off all relations with him, the US would probably oblige. The pivotal person to bringing Arafat to a full moment of truth, then, is neither Bush nor Sharon but Peres.

If Peres still believes Arafat will fight terrorism, he should be the first trying to force him into a position where he must do so. If Peres has come to the conclusion Arafat would rather lose power than confront terror, it is not clear why he or anyone would consider Arafat preferable to the alternatives.


Copyright © 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



The New Republic, January 21, 2002


by Yossi Klein Halevi

In Israel, "Operation Noah's Ark," the January 3 capture of a ship carrying weapons bound for Palestine, was an epiphany. For many erstwhile doves, it shattered the illusion-still alive despite more than a year of intifada-that they could negotiate a demilitarized Palestinian state next door.

The rest of the world treated the news with a yawn. Italy's La Repubblica restricted its discussion of the ship to a sidebar within a front-page article about Yasir Arafat's confinement to Ramallah, entitled "The Sad Days of Arafat-President in Prison." Germany's Berliner Zeitung mentioned the ship under a headline about the Palestinian Authority's (PA) arrest of six extremists. London's Observer buried the story altogether. In much of the international press, Arafat's denial of responsibility-his solemn word that he knew operatives and manned by members of his navy-has been treated as a credible counterweight to Israeli claims.

Not even the televised admission by the ship's captain that the weapons were loaded near the Iranian coast, overseen by a Hezbollah agent, and bound for the PA - a textbook example of President Bush's definition of what transforms a local conflict into global-reach terrorism - convinced foreign observers that Israel had uncovered a Palestinian-Iranian-Hezbollah triangle. Few governments considered it disturbing that Arafat was using his pledged crackdown on terrorism as a cover to acquire weapons of terror aimed at civilians - dozens of Katyushas that could be used in attacks on Israeli towns and more than 2,000 kilos of high-grade explosives, especially c-4, more powerful than any explosive used in the car bombs and suicide assaults so far. Even the State Department-desperate to preserve what was once a peace process and is now barely a cease-fire process-reacted to the Palestinian captain's confirmation of Israel's accusations with the bland assertion that it was awaiting more conclusive proof.

In Israel, by contrast, the operation-conducted more than 300 miles off the Israeli coast-was treated as an epic. Israelis consumed every detail, from how the ship was tracked after its purchase last October, to its eight-minute bloodless takeover. In its first edition after the news broke, the newspaper Ma'ariv devoted 17 news pages to the story; commentators recalled the Entebbe rescue and the bombing of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak. "Just Like the Movies," exulted the headline of Israel's largest daily, Yediot Aharonot. One left-wing columnist complained that the newspapers resembled "victory albums"-a relapse into post-Six Day War arrogance. Yet Israelis weren't gloating; we were relieved: Despite our flight from Lebanon and our stalemated war against terrorism, we were still smart and daring enough to protect ourselves.

And the operation didn't only have a profound emotional impact on Israeli society; it had an enormous political impact as well. After the suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa last month, Prime Minister Sharon increased his demands on Arafat not only to impose seven days of quiet, but also to uproot Hamas and Islamic Jihad's terrorist infrastructure, and collect the vast quantity of illegal Palestinian weapons that violate the Oslo accords.

Recently, though, Shimon Peres had begun to erode those demands, implying that a reduction in violence alone was sufficient for resuming political talks. And a weary Israeli public seemed prepared to go along. Indeed, though the Israeli press has amply reported that Arafat loyalists-mostly Tanzim militiamen and members of Force 17, Arafat's personal guard-have initiated about half of the terrorist attacks of the last year, many Israelis continued to cling to a distinction between Arafat and Hamas.

No more. "Operation Noah's Ark" has quickly returned Israel's focus to infrastructure. Defense Minister and newly elected Labor Party leader Benjamin Ben-Eliezer has warned that the relative lull in violence conceals a steady expansion of the terrorist infrastructure. Even the left-wing newspaper Ha'aretz has been forced to concede that "Arafat is preparing for a huge escalation, including the ability to equip hundreds of suicide attackers with explosives and to attack Israeli cities with rockets." And most Israelis now realize that to demand that Arafat dismantle Palestine's terrorist infrastructure is absurd: As this incident proved, the biggest terrorist infrastructure in the PA is the PA itself. And so the Oslo process has moved from ambitious negotiations over ending the conflict to pathetic negotiations over resuming negotiations to now, finally, the realization that there is no point in negotiating at all.

In delegitimizing Arafat, Sharon has the crucial backing of the army's general staff. Once a key bastion of Oslo support, the general staff's attitude has gradually shifted from skepticism over Arafat's intentions to public contempt. Following the seizure, Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz overstepped his authority and declared that it was time for the government to reevaluate its relations with Arafat-implying that Israel should label him not merely irrelevant, but an outright enemy. "This smuggle attempt emphasizes and points directly at the Palestinian Authority intention to continue a strategy of terror and violence increasing and escalating over time," Mofaz said last week. Though he has rebuked Mofaz for political statements in the past, this time Ben-Eliezer refused to join the left-wing Knesset members who justifiably criticized the chief of staff for trying to publicly influence the government's agenda. And were it not for pressure within Labor, Ben-Eliezer would probably endorse Mofaz's position himself.

But the new mood goes deeper than mere loathing of Arafat. For the first time since Oslo, you don't have to be right-wing to question the wisdom of a Palestinian state segmented between the West Bank and Gaza, with Israel wedged in between. The arms seizure has negated the most basic assumption of the Oslo process: that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized and devoid of terrorist intent. Now demilitarization no longer seems feasible. And mainstream Israeli newspapers have published maps that could have been lifted from the settlers' anti-Oslo pamphlets of the mid-1990s, showing Israel's population centers within Katyusha range of Gaza and the West Bank-maps that show most of Israel as the equivalent of the Northern border town of Kiryat Shemona, the symbol of Israeli vulnerability to constant attack.

In my conversations about the ship with friends across the political spectrum, one question recurs: If this is what the Palestinians attempt now, with Israel in control of the borders and the seas, how will we enforce demilitarization in a sovereign Palestine? Barely anyone anymore even tries to provide an answer.



The Weekly Standard, 01/21/2002


It's Time For Him To Go.

by Tom Rose

IF NEW PROOF were needed that reforming Yasser Arafat is a lost cause, the Israeli navy's pre-dawn seizure last week of a cargo vessel destined for Gaza City and packed with 50 tons of weapons supplied by Iran should have provided it. The ship was registered to Arafat's Palestinian Authority, paid for with PA funds, and skippered by a lieutenant colonel in the PA Navy who told investigators his assignment was to deliver his secret cache directly to the PA. At least 7 of the 13 crew members belonged to Arafat's private militias.

The Israeli government called it the largest and most dangerous illegal arms shipment ever attempted. Had it reached its destination, every inch of Israel would have been in range of its cargo, which consisted of long- and short-range Katyusha rockets, LAW and Sagger anti-tank missiles, long-range mortars, sophisticated mines, nearly two tons of hi-tech semtex plastic explosive many times more deadly than what the suicide bombers currently use, hundreds of high-powered sniper rifles, thousands of rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank grenades, and, most dangerous of all, an undisclosed number of SA-7 (Strella) anti-aircraft missiles capable of imperiling commercial air service into and out of Tel Aviv.

On the other hand, Arafat has been leading one terrorist organization or another for four decades. Why should a little Katyusha-running change anything? As it turns out, it won't. Israel seems to view the episode as just another public relations opportunity to be milked; the United States as a public relations challenge to be managed. Neither regards it as reason to begin the process of replacing Arafat's regime with one less malign.

Not only did the State Department refuse even to discuss breaking with Arafat, but Washington's special Middle East envoy issued no rebuke to Arafat. Quite the contrary. Retired Marine general Anthony Zinni concluded a visit to Israel two days after the boat was seized by telling reporters that he saw "a real opportunity for progress." A State Department official traveling with Zinni said bluntly, "Our mission will go on, ship or no ship."

That passing comment explains why recent American and Israeli efforts at Middle East peacemaking have so miserably failed. Excusing Arafat's criminality only insures more. If it takes the United States five days to so much as criticize the most brazen attempted violation of the Oslo Accords, what crime could ever justify Arafat's ouster?

The obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not the inability to resolve particular issues, but the violent, oppressive, and unstable nature of the Arafat regime. Until U.S. and Israeli policymakers realize that peace depends far more on the nature of a future Palestinian state than on its borders, Israelis will not know peace and Palestinians will not know freedom.

If a future Palestine were free, nonviolent, and committed to bettering the lives of its people and to living in peace with Israel, it wouldn't threaten Israel. But a Palestine that resembled the corrupt and dictatorial Palestinian Authority would be a mortal danger.

Dictators make bad neighbors, and before he is an Arab, or a Palestinian, or even a Muslim, Yasser Arafat is a dictator. When he founded the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, there was not a single "Jewish settlement" to oppose nor an "Israeli occupation" to resist, because the West Bank was ruled by Jordan and Gaza was ruled by Egypt. Arafat created the PLO to destroy Israel. He learned that first he had to consolidate his power over a fractious and scattered people. He chose to do that by killing those who challenged him and oppressing the rest.

It took an inarticulate Israeli general turned prime minister to lay bare the fatal mindset from which Oslo was born. The PLO leader, said the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was the ideal partner precisely because he was a dictator. Arafat could crack down on terrorists, Rabin said, because,"unlike us, he doesn't have to worry about elections or human rights groups." Thus, Israel itself was midwife to the terrorist-supporting tyranny now in its midst. Rather than requiring that the Palestinian Authority have an open political system, Oslo gave Arafat both the time and the resources to consolidate his rule.

Like other dictators, Arafat has to worry not about losing an election, but about losing his life, and those most likely to take it are the extremists he has armed, funded, and trained. The notion that Arafat could ever crack down on the very organizations he needs to survive is preposterous. For Arafat, upsetting Colin Powell carries little risk. Upsetting Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or even his own private militias carries the ultimate risk.

But there's another, more important reason why Arafat isn't going to crack down on terrorists--namely, that they help him. In fact, these groups provide his regime with the best insurance stolen American aid money can buy: They keep the national focus on fighting the external enemy rather than on the failings of their leader. If Palestinians could vote, things might be different. Arafat might have to defend his record. And quite a record it is.

Many people think Arafat's refusal to rein in the terrorists demonstrates his weakness. But Arafat is far from weak when it comes to dealing with those Palestinians who clamor for an end to corruption, a freer press, religious liberty, or even elections. With these opponents, his retribution is swift and merciless. While the number cannot be known for sure, Arafat's PA is almost certainly responsible for the murders of dozens of political opponents, none of them Islamic extremists.

Since its creation in 1994, his Palestinian Authority has presided over the collapse of the Palestinian economy. He was given billions in aid, and squandered what he and his cronies didn't steal. With GDP down nearly 70 percent, Palestinians have seen their collective national net worth reduced by more than two thirds. Virtually nothing remains of a once reasonably vibrant private sector. Corruption exists on a scale that even the normally approving Europeans cannot abide. Public infrastructure has disintegrated. Public health standards, just seven years ago the highest in the Arab world, are among the lowest. And the disastrously self-destructive terrorist war against Israel that Arafat started last year has reduced Palestinians to the most desperate conditions they have seen since the creation of Israel in 1948.

Arafat denies responsibility for the actions of extremists he cannot stop. Yet he alone controls the state media, whose endless torrent of incitement to murder creates the climate in which young men embrace the vocation of terrorist. A central character on Palestinian television's leading children's show is a 7-year-old boy who aspires to become a suicide bomber. The people's cry for blood, which Arafat purposely foments, Hamas and Jihad can answer, creating in the process new martyrs to fuel the cycle. Arafat and Hamas aren't enemies or rivals, they are co-dependents. Arafat needs Hamas and Jihad to divert the people's hatred, while Hamas and Jihad need Arafat to provide "moderate" cover for their murderous acts. Arafat needs terror much more than he needs Colin Powell.

It seems worth asking why neither Jerusalem nor Washington ever sought to democratize the Palestinians. Particularly in the early stages of Oslo, when Arafat was dependent on American and Israeli support, the Palestinians would have had an excellent chance to build the first democracy in the Arab world. A democratic Palestine would have been a landmark achievement. If only someone had bothered to insist on it.

But it wasn't without reason that no Israeli, American, or European government ever made such a demand. It's just that the reason is a dirty little secret. The truth is that virtually no one in either government believes Arabs to be capable of--or even worthy of--democracy. In Israel, it is the supposedly enlightened left that most passionately rejects the notion that Palestinians could govern themselves democratically. The only reason the right hasn't rejected the idea is that it has never considered it. With the exception of Natan Sharansky, the deputy prime minister who spent nine years as a prisoner of Zion in the Soviet Gulag, not a single political figure has made the case for Palestinian democracy.

How else can one explain that when Secretary of State Colin Powell finally set out his much anticipated "vision" for reaching peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he never mentioned "freedom" or "democracy"? Secretary Powell used a November 19 speech at the University of Louisville to endorse an independent Palestinian state more emphatically than any U.S. official ever had before. But he devoted not even one sentence of his 43-minute address to what kind of state he thought Palestine should be.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less about land, borders, or even refugees than it is about the inherent inability of dictators to be peaceful. It is dangerously premature to focus on where the borders of a future Palestinian state will be drawn before determining how it will be governed. For until someone gives them a chance to develop a more open political culture, the Palestinians will never taste the fruits of freedom, and peace will never come to the Middle East.





By Tom Rose, publisher of the Jerusalem Post.

(January 22) - In granting former US president Bill Clinton an honorary degree Sunday, Tel Aviv University lauded his "inspired personal efforts to achieve peace in different parts of the world, and particularly in the Middle East; his unwavering commitment to guaranteeing peace and security for Israel; and his warm sentiments for Israel and its people, who esteem him as a great leader, brilliant statesman, and beloved friend." There is no doubt that Israelis continue to be captivated by Clinton's charisma, and revel in the warmth that he is able to project. In a more profound sense, however, Clinton's presidency was a dangerous one for Israel, and his approach toward peace-making fundamentally flawed.

Bill Clinton can hardly be blamed for what Ehud Barak did at the Camp David summit in the summer of 2000; it is not reasonable to expect that an American president would more zealously guard Israel's interest than an Israeli prime minister. Nor can Clinton be blamed for the wave of violence and terrorism launched by Yasser Arafat in the last months of his presidency.

Indeed, some have unfairly criticized Clinton for "forcing" Arafat to take up the gun when he all but blamed Arafat for the failure of the summit.

Clinton, however, bears a heavy degree of responsibility for failing to switch gears when the current Palestinian offensive was launched against Israel in late September 2000. In the intervening period following the failure of Camp David, the United States appropriately put pressure on Arafat for failing to seriously negotiate, let alone make concessions approaching those made by the Israeli side. Logically speaking, the Palestinian decision to compound intransigence with violence and terrorism should have brought even greater US pressure. Instead, the Clinton administration did the exact opposite: It maintained a strict moral equivalence between the Israeli desire to negotiate and the Palestinian resort to violence.

Israelis at the time instinctively felt that their country was at a very dangerous moment. After making unprecedented concessions and ripping through almost every red line established by Labor and Likud governments alike, the Barak government was making further concessions under fire.

Again, the Barak government's desire for an agreement at almost any cost cannot be blamed on Clinton, but pursuit of an agreement is not the only explanation for Barak's behavior. Barak probably also felt that if he cut off negotiations and responded militarily to Palestinian terrorism, he would immediately lose the backing of the Clinton administration, which was constantly calling for restraint on "both sides." Israel was between a rock and a hard place, and on one of those uncomfortable sides was the United States.

There was nothing inevitable about Israel's predicament at that time, and the party in the best and most pivotal position to do something was the United States. Once it was clear that Israel was under attack, and Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was just a convenient excuse, the United States could have backed Israel's right to self-defense and drastically cut back its ties with the Palestinians. If the Clinton administration had done this, the current Palestinian offensive would have ended as quickly as it began, because prolonging it would only have increased support for Israel and Palestinian isolation.

For all his friendship for Israel, Clinton's speech this week maintained a familiar pattern of symmetry between the parties. While clearly calling on Arafat to end terrorism and violence, he also beseeched Israelis to "never give up the dream of peace." In a classic neutral formulation, Clinton proclaimed, "Leaders have to prepare people for peace by saying that compromise is honorable, not shameful, and is a sign of strength, not weakness." Even now, Clinton has to pretend that obstacles to peace are more or less equally distributed between the parties: Both sides need to be urged to compromise and make peace. This is, frankly, insulting, and Clinton of all people should know better. If anything, the main problem is that Israel's intense desire for peace has raised expectations to astronomical levels on the Palestinian side, including the hope that Israel will commit suicide for peace.

After many dead on both sides, the Bush administration finally broke with the evenhandedness it inherited from Clinton and last month started explicitly supporting Israel's right to self-defense. This was a watershed change in US policy and, if combined with a willingness to stop pretending that Arafat is indispensable, it will force Arafat to either end terrorism or relinquish power. There is no real symmetry in what is missing to create true prospects for peace. Defeating radicalism and rejectionism, whether in the form of Arafat or Saddam Hussein, could provide real hope for peace; Israeli willingness to compromise with terrorism would only fuel the flames.


Copyright © 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



January 21, 2002


by David Wilder


Yesterday was the sixtieth anniversary of the Wannsee Protocol, issued in Berlin on January 20, 1942. The protocol begins:

"At the beginning of the discussion Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, reported that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe and pointed out that this discussion had been called for the purpose of clarifying fundamental questions."

It ends: "State Secretary Dr. Buehler stated further that the solution to the Jewish question in the General Government is the responsibility of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and that his efforts would be supported by the officials of the General Government. He had only one request, to solve the Jewish question in this area as quickly as possible. In conclusion the different types of possible solutions were discussed, during which discussion both Gauleiter Dr. Meyer and State Secretary Dr. Buehler took the position that certain preparatory activities for the final solution should be carried out immediately in the territories in question, in which process alarming the populace must be avoided. The meeting was closed with the request of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD to the participants that they afford him appropriate support during the carrying out of the tasks involved in the solution."

The protocol includes a list of 32 countries containing over 11 million Jews. The countries include: Greece, the Netherlands, Ireland, England, Portugal, and Spain, among others. Of those eleven million, the cursed Nazis succeed in exterminating between six and seven million Jews.

In case you didn't notice, the other name for the Wannsee conference was the "final solution conference," or how to rid the world of the Jews.

Despite attempts by a few warped minds, trying to deny the events of the holocaust, the world recognizes the results of the Wannsee Final Solution Conference as one of the, if not the most, catastrophic event in world history. As defined by the Germans, "Jews must be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black market dealings" leading to supreme ethnic cleansing, an effort to eradicate an entire people.

One of the results of the attempt to decimate European Jewry was the creation of the State of Israel. A Jewish state, the undeniable antithesis of Wannsee, was the proverbial "slap in the face," proving not only to the cursed Germans, but to the entire world who cooperated directly or indirectly in the holocaust, that the Jews are undeletable. Do what they will, we are here to stay.

Yet it seems that the lesson is yet to be learned.

Last night Tel Aviv University, led by former Ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich, a Peres-Rabin appointee, granted former US president Bill Clinton an honorary doctorate.

In truth it is unnecessary to waste too many words on Bill Clinton's relationship with Israel – a president who publicly interfered in internal Israeli politics, who unsuccessfully tried to prevent Netanyanu's election, who promised Bibi Pollard for Wye and then backed down, and who, at Camp David, almost cost Israel Jerusalem.

This is our buddy Bill Clinton, called by Rabinovitch a "Chaver" and a "Yedid" both words in Hebrew, meaning friend.

What did Clinton have to say for himself? A few choice thoughts:

"It cannot be ignored that two people have rights to one land."

"Don't give up the hope for peace."

And finally, "Arafat missed a golden opportunity at Camp David."

That's it, hitting the nail on the head – Arafat missed a golden opportunity at Camp David. In other words, Yassir could have had 95 percent of Yesha, virtually all of East Jerusalem and a palestinian state, and all this before again declaring war on the State of Israel. Had Yassir opted to accept the US-Ehud Barak offers, look at how much more effective his war would have been.

Firstly, a sovereign state would have allowed him protection from Israel illegally seizing palestinian war vessels, or ships containing 50 tons of ammunition. After all, a sovereign state can import whatever it likes, especially weapons for reasons of "self-defense."

And of course, military control over 95% of Judea, Samaria and Gazza would make it so much easier to eliminate those pesty stubborn settlers who refuse to acknowledge the Palestinian homeland.

And last, but surely not least, 95% of Yesha in Arafat's hands would make liberation of ALL of Palestine much much easier. For example, ground to air missiles from Kalkilia would make air travel in and out of Ben Gurion airport almost impossible.

In short, western participation in the "final solution" has not yet disappeared from the stage of history. Just as their silence ensured that Aushwitz would continue to function during World War Two, so too today, continued support for Hitler number two, Yassir Arafat and the fourth reich, now renamed the palestinian authority, backs nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish homeland, the state of Israel. Arafat wants one thing and one thing alone – the end of Israel and the beginning of the state of Palestine. Clinton's choice words, namely "Arafat's missing a golden opportunity" reveal tacit support for Arafat's goal, which is virtually identical to Hitler's goal, as documented in the Wannsee protocol sixty years ago.

The major difference is that today there is a State of Israel, and in spite of those Jews who are too blind to recognize the face of the enemy, most Jews have now woken up to the fact that Arafat is not a partner in peace, rather he is a continuance of the plans for a final solution. However, just as Hitler did not succeed, despite his massive murder machine, so too, Hitler number two will not succeed, despite his massive murder machine. The destiny of the third and fourth Reich's will be identical. And the Jewish people will live on forever in their homeland, our beloved, G-d-given, Israel.

With blessings from Hebron.




By Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

A Palestinian State would be a mirror image of what Yassir Arafat created in Lebanon: a fully-fledged terrorist mini-state in the heart of Lebanon. Every refugee camp was used as an outpost, with weapons and munitions storage even in residential buildings, hospitals and schools so as to use civilians as human shields. Every corner controlled by Arafat's PLO was a tariff collection point for anyone passing by on foot or car. G-d help you if you couldn't pay the ransom.

Arafat's record has been remarkably consistent in terms of breaking agreements - there has never been an agreement that he didn't break. Against all the Oslo Peace Accords, he incites the Palestinians to 'Jihad' (Islamic Holy War). January 26th, he addressed a Hebron delegation shouting: "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!" (1)

January 29th, addressing supporters in Ramallah he said he is confident the Palestinians would soon have an independent state. "Victory is coming whether the Israelis like it or not," he said. "It is a gift from G-d to be her fighting for our holy places and bring victory for all Arabs and Muslims." (2)

Arafat has been collaborating with other terrorist nations and organizations -as proven by buying weapons from Iran on the Karnine - A; and the building of attack armories - all of which predict the future of a fully militarized Palestinian State in Israel's heartland.

The Israeli people, particularly her government so-called leaders are still suffering what the Americans called their own "Vietnam Syndrome" which they have just now overcome due to September 11th. In Israel this could be called the "Rabin Syndrome" which has saturated the minds of the Jewish people, where the people refused to speak openly and aggressively about Arafat's terrorism. There is a fear to speak out and demand harsh response to a condition which equals war but - not called war. The Israeli people, guided by the Oslo Left, have allowed their fighting spirit to be crushed by promises of peace which has not materialized.

The Left, while slowly backing away from Arafat, nevertheless, wishes to save themselves from the mark of Cain by pretending Oslo is still operative. The Left who created the abortive Oslo refuses to apologize for the vast graveyard of murdered Jews for which they are responsible - along with their ally, Yassir Arafat.

A conspiracy to resurrect Oslo and with that a Palestinian State, once swallowed, will poison the body of Israel. Even the most flagrant, misguided member of the Oslo Gang could not say with any certainty that a Palestinian State would be "Demilitarized".

Both the Americans and the European nations know beyond doubt that it is virtually impossible to demilitarize a Palestinian State - given the fact that even now, despite all the restrictions of Oslo, the Palestinians have a heavy inventory of modern arms.

However, regrettably, even with this knowledge in hand, the Europeans - with no particular fondness for Islam and the Arabs - nevertheless, expose their anti-Jewish bias by demanding a Palestinian State that they know will, in time, destroy the Jewish nation of Israel.

In every place that Arafat and his Palestinian have nested, they have accumulated an armory of weapons selected for aggressive warfare. Especially, in Jordan before King Hussein drove them out on Black September 1970 and in Lebanon where Arafat ran a 12 year Civil War that killed 100,000 Muslims and Christians - where he stocked cave after cave with so much munitions, it took hundreds of truck-loads to empty.

Now, in the areas of Israel's heartland which Rabin, Peres and Beilin turned over to Arafat, weapons are smuggled in from Egypt by tunnel and sea (with Mubarak's knowledge), from Jordan, from Syria, Iran and Iraq via sea to Gaza. The Karine-A was only one shipment which demonstrates the quantity and quality of the incoming weapons and the effectiveness of the smuggling operation. If that wasn't bad enough now with the technological aid of Iran and Syria, Arafat's Palestinian Authority has been building Kassem missiles (recently photographed) with an 8 km. range.

So once again, the mini-Terror State Arafat has established with the Palestinian Authority, enabling their stockpiling of armaments by the ton and in high quality - most of which is buried in bunkers or weapons' depots, awaiting the call for the Big War. This, of course, duplicates Bin Laden's al Qaeda preparations with cave-stored weapons presently being tracked down by U.S. forces and destroyed. In the meantime Arafat's trained killers and suicide bombers easily move with impunity into the heart of Israel's cities to commit their atrocities and escape back to their cities. No fence will prevent that.

The Europeans and the United Nations bitterly complain about Israel targeting those Palestinians who plan the attacks. They remain remarkably silent as America correctly moves with strength against terrorists with devastating effectiveness.

Regrettably, the Sharon Government still does not take off the gloves to fight with bare knuckles. Instead, in an attempt to appease the Americans and Europeans, like Barak, Sharon shoots at evacuated buildings. Sharon is fighting a weak holding action even as Arabs infiltrate Israeli cities to blow up her citizens. Even with this show of restraint, Sharon receives only condemnation from the E.U. and the U.N.

A Palestinian State created in the usual model endemic to Arab dictators, will be an exact replica of Saddam's Iraq, Khameni's Iran, Bashar Assad's Syria and Arafat's reign in Lebanon now being repeated in Gaza. They will go from being well-armed to being super-armed in a brief period of time.

In the interim, the Left will bleat and mewl that, if only Arafat or his replacement will be given another chance, peace is just over the horizon. Unfortunately, it will be a rolling horizon as more and more attacks will occur with more and better quality weaponry. The weapons themselves incite the killers to violence. There is no way that the macho Arab male could resist using such weapons - just because they are there.

Perhaps the Arab idea of a Human Shield can similarly work for Israel. Let us put Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, Ron Pundak, with all of the Leftist politicians, professors and media on the front line. Surely, Arafat would not order his Tanzim/Fatah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/PA Police to shoot through his friends and fellow partners.

A Palestinian State will be the centerpiece of Terror in a deadly necklace of nations stretching across the Arab/Muslim States from Algeria, connecting Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the Muslim states spun off of Mother Russia, e.g. Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Turkmenistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, etc.

The contiguous linkage will be a deadly combination which then will likely try to push Israel into the sea.

Should a Palestinian State actually come into being it is a certainty that they will continue a war presently called an 'Intifada'. The Sharon government should have long ago put it into the category of war and called it by that name. In any case, after a Palestinian State is declared and continues its attacks as pledged, Israel would likely be forced to take full military action. This would probably be followed by the E.U.'s (European Union) assembly what would be called a mini-NATO (not connected to NATO) and try to enforce its will on Israel via military means. Israel would, of course, refuse re-occupation by the British, French and Germans and a World War would ensue.

Dear Reader, don't think that possibility is far fetched. The E.U. is wholly Arabist, both for the oil and their history 'vis a vis' the Jewish people. This would also be an opportunity to actually pull together a fighting force, using Israel as the practice battlefield.

Regardless, Israel can fulfill the death wish foisted upon it by the Leftists of Oslo by establishing a Palestinian State. It will be a Poison Pill which, once swallowed, will end the Third Temple.

Or not.


1. "Arafat Addresses Hebron Delegation: People Opt for 'Jihad'" Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel TV in Arabic, January 26, 2002

2."Arafat Orders Fatah to Register Their Weapons" by Lamia Lahoud JERUSALEM POST January 30, 2002



© 2002

JANUARY 16, 2002


The greatest diplomatic disaster of modern times has to be the so called "Oslo Peace Accord." It makes Neville Chamberlain's Munich agreement pale into insignificance by comparison. From its inception in 1993, it has been built on unrealistic wishes, myths and outright falsehoods. Even worse, the entire agreement was based on many false assumptions.

It assumed that the Palestinians really wanted peace; that they would be satisfied with a state next to Israel; that the primary motive of the average Palestinian was economic security and that the Muslims would be satisfied with a part of Jerusalem.

The seizure of the Karine A on the Red Sea on Jan. 4 appeared certain to be the beginning of the end for the myth of Yasser Arafat, statesman. Not that anyone without an agenda would have trouble spotting the signs. Signs like 18 months of undeclared war against Israel. The lionization of suicide bombers by the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat, personally. Arafat's refusal to abide by any of the agreements he signed, as evidenced by Israel's recent declaration that Arafat had made himself "irrelevant" to the peace process. These are not the hallmarks of a Nobel Peace laureate.

Instead, they are the credentials of a terrorist – one uniquely gifted with a political facility for redefining reality that makes Bill Clinton look like a comparative amateur.

But nine years and countless murderous outrages later, Western diplomats are still trying to pretend. And this in spite of the overwhelming catalogue of evidence to the contrary. What will it take to convince the world, in general, and the U.S. State Department, in particular, that the Oslo "Peace" initiative was impossibly flawed from the beginning?

Let's examine the first assumption in the light of the well-known public record. Arafat – from the beginning – explained in Arabic to his upset Muslim followers why he signed the agreement. He spoke of "Mohammed's Qurash model" as the basis of his strategy in the Oslo Agreement. To those familiar with the Muslim holy writings of the Koran and the Hadith, this was a completely satisfactory explanation. Because it referred to Mohammed making a peace agreement with the Qurash tribe until he became strong enough and slaughtered them.

Such "moderate" Palestinian leaders as Faisal Husseini also defended their participation in the Oslo "peace" Agreement by saying that Oslo was "a Trojan Horse... just a temporary procedure... just a step towards something bigger." Husseini proclaimed until his death that the ultimate goal was a "Palestine from the river to the sea." That oft-repeated slogan is code for a Palestinian State built over the annihilation of Israel.

Clearly, Arafat has embarked on a strategy of war. The Karine A was a dangerous and desperate mission. In less desperate times, Arafat would have used the less risky network of tunnels running from Gaza into Egypt. The operation was dangerous at every level – politically, militarily, financially and diplomatically. Fifty-two tons of weapons, worth $100 million, a ship and a direct connection leading from Arafat to Khameini at a time of global high alert, while Washington is simultaneously prosecuting a war on terror and trying to create an atmosphere of peace. The smuggling operation was timed to coincide with the 4-day visit of U.S. envoy Gen. Anthony Zinni. You can't put many more chips in the game than that.

Why take such a gamble? Unless, of course, you've got nothing left to lose. Arafat has, from the beginning, operated on the principle of negotiated conflict. Whenever he wants to spark negotiations, he encourages conflict. Through negotiations, under threat of conflict, Israel has given away just about all it is prepared to, and has about reached the limit of compromise.

That was Arafat's aim all along. To obtain as much advantage as possible by negotiation, then, from his improved tactical position, serve as a Trojan Horse in as large an Arab war as he can instigate and take what remains of Israel by force.

Israeli military officials gave Washington what they describe as "incontrovertible evidence" that Ayatollah ali Khameini was aware of the weapons shipment to Arafat. Israel says Iran demanded three things in exchange for the weapons: intelligence against Israel, a letter saying Iran had provided the weapons, and authorization for Iran to build a hospital in PA-controlled territories. That last demand would grant Iran a foothold virtually in Israel's kitchen.

If the Palestinians wanted a state, they would have taken former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer, which even gave them a vital part of Old Jerusalem. No Israeli leader could offer them more.

If they wanted economic security, they could have used the billions of dollars contributed to them to set up the infrastructure – instead of buying weapons and attacking Israel.

The truth is, they are operating on the Muslim-based passion that Israel must be annihilated and the Islamic holy places must be cleansed of any Israeli presence. This is something the U.S. State Department seems to be incapable of grasping.




By Michael Freund

(January 23) - For a few hours earlier this week, it seemed as if the Israeli government had finally come to its senses.

After Thursday's shocking attack in Hadera, in which a Palestinian terrorist from Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction murdered six innocent people at a bat mitzva celebration, the army sent in tanks and troops to Tulkarm in Samaria. Wanted terrorists were arrested, illegal weapons and explosives were confiscated, and Arafat was sent a clear and fairly persuasive message he may soon find himself sharing a cave with Osama bin Laden if his anti-Israel violence does not cease forthwith.

At last it appeared Israel was upping the ante, punishing Arafat by retaking some of his territorial assets and settling in for the long haul. Our government, it seemed, had decided to act as any other country would in a similar situation. But that, however, quickly proved to be an unwarranted illusion.

For even as Israeli soldiers were bravely reasserting control over Tulkarm, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and Chief of General Staff Lieut.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz rushed to reassure the world: the government has no intention of staying in Tulkarm any longer than necessary. Speaking to reporters, Mofaz added, "We will not stay there forever."

To that all I can say is: why the heck not? In the past few months, Israel has developed this exasperating habit of waiting for a major terror attack to occur before mustering up the courage to enter Palestinian-controlled territory and attack the terrorist infrastructure. Then, a few days later, the army beats a hasty retreat, effectively allowing the Palestinians to regroup, rebuild and plan further atrocities.

While such incursions may have tactical pinpoint value in that they allow Israel to take down a handful of terrorists here and there, their effect is quickly diluted once the troops withdraw and the terror organizations are free again to operate as they please.

Israel's ping-pong policy has not gone unnoticed by the Palestinians. Speaking in Ramallah on Monday, Arafat said, "I tell these Israeli tanks this is not the first time and will not be the last time they place us under siege.... We are here to stay and will not succumb." (Reuters, January 21)

Arafat's bluster is hardly surprising - after all, he knows full well that Israel's current presence in places like Tulkarm and Ramallah is intended merely as a temporary measure. Hence, why should he be concerned? If there is truly no risk of Arafat permanently losing territory as a result of his actions, then why shouldn't he continue with his obstinacy and intransigence?

It is therefore time for Israel to reconsider its entire approach, particularly since it does not seem to be having the intended effect. If cities such as Tulkarm are serving as launching pads for Palestinian terror attacks, and if Arafat blithely ignores his responsibility to fight terror, then Israel must step in and do the job itself. And doing the job means retaking such locations not for days or weeks at a time, but forever.

By declaring Tulkarm to be under permanent Israeli control, the government will be sending Arafat a clear and unequivocal message: if you break the rules of the game, you will pay a heavy price for doing so. If Arafat takes the irreversible step of ending innocent lives, then Israel should take the irreversible step of ending his rule, city by city, village by village.

Only by marching forward, rather than constantly retreating, can Israel truly hope to bring about an end to Arafat's reign of terror.

As Gen. George S. Patton told his troops on May 31, 1944, one week before Allied forces launched the D-Day invasion: "There's another thing I want you to remember. I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anythingÉ. We are advancing constantly, and we're not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy." With those words in mind, Patton's troops went on to play a key role in crushing the threat posed to the free world by the forces of darkness and evil.

Only by adopting a similar approach can Israel hope to prevail against those who would destroy her. And only by undermining Arafat's rule, and progressively liberating the areas under his control, can Israel finally bring its nightmare of terror to an end.

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

Copyright © 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




By Manfred Gerstenfeld

(January 22) - The September 11 attacks have demonstrated again how closely linked the globalization of terror is to that of Arab and other Muslim populations. A few decades ago, the Palestinians were at the forefront of the internationalization of terror. The worldwide presence of al-Qaida has recently become its more visible aspect. Even if many Western Muslims are moderates, their communities often shield fanatics and this will remain a continual threat to the Western world.

This process of the globalization of Islam, combined with those of anti-Semitism, politics, terrorism, non-conventional weapons and the media, contains many more menaces to both Israel and Diaspora Jewry. In order to carry out counteractive measures, all the issues should be analyzed together.

In the West, voters originating in Muslim countries by far outnumber Jewish ones in many elections. This development is most advanced in France, a problematic country for Israel and the Jews. Arab leaders are attempting to create anti-Israeli alliances. Local politicians are often motivated by what they consider realpolitik which, however, has anti-Semitic undertones.

Supporters of the French Socialist Party have suggested, in light of their voting potential, that the party re-orient its policies toward Arab voters' wishes. In Great Britain and the United States, Muslim or Arab lobbies are attempting to achieve the same result.

The globalization of anti-Semitism is being demonstrated in many other ways. Since the Second World War, the cry "Death to the Jews!" in the streets of several Western European cities has mainly been heard in demonstrations by extremist Muslims. Most attacks on Jewish institutions in Europe since 2000 - the largest number since the Kristallnacht - originate in Arab circles.

The globalization of politics goes hand-in-hand with that of anti-Semitism and the United Nations, the majority of whose members are non-democratic, is providing a key platform for this.

Arab governments were the source of the defamation of the Jews in Durban, supported by many Muslim countries. Countries that turn beheadings and amputations into public spectacles are now being aligned with several progressive Western NGOs, including human rights organizations.

Recently Michel Friedman, the German president-elect of the European Jewish Congress, told Die Welt that combating anti-Semitism can no longer be done at a national level only. He expressed the fear that collaboration might develop between Islamic extremists and rightist radicals.

Another example of the globalization of politics was the exclusion of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, from the coalitions against Iraq and the Taliban.

A further threat is the globalization of communications: Every body sees the same images. Is it too far-fetched to assume that the self-censorship and anti-Israel bias of several of the global media help them operate in the Arab countries, none of which are democratic?

What can Israel and the Jewish people do to mitigate the combination of these fearsome threats? Monitoring developments must provide the basis of knowledge. Continuous interpretation of these will show how wide-ranging is the newly packaged Arab recycling of Nazi motives and methods. Many of their European allies on both the Left and the Right have reverted to other anti-Semitic attitudes witnessed before, during and immediately after the Holocaust. A much more detailed understanding of these phenomena is required to improve Jewish information policies.

Several other avenues should also be taken, including the strengthening of contacts with the few moderate Muslims who dare to participate in dialogue with Jews and Israel. One of the best-known is the secretary-general of the Italian Muslim Association, Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi. Furthermore, even if one prefers permanent friends, Israel must search more intensely for ad hoc alliances on specific issues with Western bodies who are, at best, indifferent to its cause.

Most importantly, Israel must collaborate better with its supporters.

Non-Jews are much more convincing when they stress both the heavy economic price that the globalization of terror is already exacting from Western society and the fact that serious threats to it continue to emanate from the Muslim world. They are also in a much better position to point out that Western Muslim communities often shelter fanatics who threaten every citizen, including moderates in their own communities.

Israel is a small country and, together with the Jews of the Diaspora, will remain limited in numbers. The Arabs are much more numerous and have the backing of large parts of the Islamic world. That does not mean that one must remain passive in face of the many, seemingly amorphous menaces posed by globalization. The more efforts are made, and the more creative the approaches developed, the more allies can be mobilized.

(The author is chairman of the Steering Committee of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and an international consultant on business strategy.)


Copyright © 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




By Nina Gilbert

The Jerusalem Post (January 23) - The US views Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat as a "lost cause," and is fed up with him, OC Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) said yesterday.

In the past, the US has seen Arafat as both the problem and the solution, but now has reached a conclusion he is a "problem with no solution," Ze'evi said in his first appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee since being appointed to head the Intelligence Corps. At the same time, the PA is still seen by the US as the address for continuation of dialogue, he noted.

In regional matters, Ze'evi told the committee al-Qaida fighters are "fleeing for Lebanon." He said the US is nearing the end of its war in Afghanistan and will decide on its next moves within two weeks.

He said that IDF Intelligence believes the possibility of a US move against Iraq is growing, but there are elements in the US that oppose it, arguing it is not an integral part of the war against terror. There is also fear a fatal blow to Iraq could pose a danger to Arab regimes, which could face of angry protests from Islamic elements, he said.

As for Saudi Arabia, he said the wealthy sheiks there have begun to buy assets in the US out of fear extreme Muslim elements will try to take over the kingdom and they will need to escape.

He also said nine of the 14 crew on the captured Karine A arms freighter were "innocent sailors" who tried to escape when they discovered the contents of the freight. However, they were held on the ship by Palestinian officers and were forced to cooperate.

The PA is continuing its armament efforts in all possible channels, he said. Arafat sees armament as one of the necessities of the PA to continue the struggle against Israel, Ze'evi added.

Arafat will not settle the conflict with Israel even if he gets all pre-1967 territory, including the holy sites in Jerusalem, and the implementation of the right of return for refugees, he said.

Arafat's recent efforts to calm the violence did not indicate a change in his strategic opposition to the notion of two states for two peoples, he said.

In the face of domestic threats to Arafat, it cannot be expected he will make any power play against terror groups, except for the Tanzim, even if, from a tactical point of view, it would serve his interests. "Arafat won't launch a war against Palestinian organizations," he said.

Copyright © 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




Part 1 of 2

By Boris Shusteff

"One single act of compulsion is better for both sides than perpetual friction." (Israel Zangwill).

On September 20, 1998 the Israeli daily Maariv published the results of a survey conducted among Israeli Jews. One of the questions was formulated in the following way: "Do you agree with deporting all the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza if Israel does not pay a diplomatic price for that?" 65% of respondents answered "Yes," 26% said "No" and 9% did not give their opinion. Nevertheless, it is not the fear of diplomatic complications that is the main reason why Israel does not loudly advocate the transfer of Arabs out of Eretz Yisrael. The real issue lies within the moral sphere, in which the opinion is virtually unanimous - transfer is immoral and therefore cannot be used to solve political problems.

Perhaps if this idea of transfer is taken out of the context of real life and considered in the vacuum of a perfect world, it could be seen this way. However, due to the extremely explosive relationships between Israel and her Arab neighbors and the almost biological hatred that Arabs feel towards the Jews, the transfer of Arabs from Eretz Yisrael (which includes Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza) is significantly better than the current situation from a moral standpoint. Let us look carefully at the moral issues involved. From the outset it must of course be said that transfer is certainly an extremely painful and devastating event. A large group of people must be uprooted from their homes, relocated to a new place and forced to start their lives anew, nostalgically recalling their previous "homeland". But this terrible experience must be measured against a much grater calamity. It must be weighed against unending enmity, half a dozen wars, hundreds of thousands of deaths, uncountable numbers of maimed and wounded people, the non-stop suffering of millions of people, festering hatred in people's hearts, and the constant threat of a regional war, which could very well turn into a World War.

It is not the purpose here to discuss who has the greater right to Eretz Yisrael (or Palestine, as it is called by non-Jews). The Jews will always be convinced that their claim to Eretz Yisrael is irrefutable. By the same token, the Arabs will never stop saying that their connection with Palestine is ages old. For the sake of argument, we will use the position stated in 1945 by the Reverend James Parkes.

He wrote:

"So far as rights are concerned, both Jews and Arabs have unchallengeable cases... therefore one would have to give way to the other... From the standpoint of need it seems to me clear that the decision lies in favor of the Jews" - the Arabs having "lands stretching from the Atlantic to Iran" (1).

It is this point, that "one would have to give way to the other," which is the foundation of the necessity for transfer. However, first we must take a brief look at the history of the conflict. Two groups of people claim the same territory. Since the beginning of the controversy in 1917 (if we take the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate as the starting point), one of the claimants - the Jews - has always been ready to share the territory. The other claimants - the Arabs - have remained adamantly against recognizing any Jewish rights to the territory and even now reject the historical link between the Jews and Eretz Yisrael. In 1922, with the separation of Transjordan, the Jews were forbidden to settle on almost 77% of the disputed territory, while Arab settlement went unrestricted. By 1993, the year the infamous Oslo process began, the Arab state of Jordan occupied those 77%, while Israel, the Jewish state, huddled on 18% of the original British Mandate land, with the remaining 5% of the territory still in dispute, though, technically, under very reluctant Israeli control. Unable to squeeze Israel out from the land that the Jewish state obtained in 1948 (after withstanding the bloody assault of seven Arab states at once), the Arabs never relinquished the hope of conquering the land from the Jews. After losing additional territory in 1967 and 1973 and failing to defeat Israel militarily, they are now trying regain the land through a diplomatic process. Well aware that the world community will not support blatant efforts to completely eliminate Israel, the Arabs now devote their activity to first obtaining the disputed and unallocated 5% of the lands of the former British Mandate.

They demand the lands historically known as Judea, Samaria and Gaza for the creation of yet another Arab state. Over fifty years of Israel's existence have seen immutable Arab hostility toward the Jewish state. On several occasions Israel's military might forced the Arabs to accept Israel's presence in the Middle East, but time and again the undying hope of expelling the Jews from Eretz Yisrael prodded them to initiate another military confrontation. And in order to further their unscrupulous purposes, the Arab leaders have continually and shamelessly exploited the unfortunate fate of their brethren - the Palestinian Arabs - who have been caught between the anvil of the Jews' millennia old inextinguishable attachment to Eretz Yisrael and the hammer of the Arab leaders' hatred toward the Jews.

Who are the Palestinian Arabs? Majority of them are the descendants of those Arabs who flocked to Palestine from other Arab countries in the beginning of the 19th century, hoping to obtain employment and better living standards where the Jews were beginning to reclaim and develop Eretz Yisrael. Today these Palestinian Arabs either languish in refugee camps in various Arab countries or live in misery and the worst of conditions in Arafatland. Daily and nightly they are fed by their leaders the fairy tale of "returning to their homes in Palestine." To this day they remain the fuel that is constantly being added by Arab leaders to the fire of the Arab-Jewish conflict. What is most regrettable in this situation is that the world community, unable to suppress its own anti-Semitism, instead of helping to resolve the conflict, only helps to tie this Gordian knot tighter.

Israel's existence has unequivocally proven one thing: the Jews and the Arabs cannot live together on land that both claim is theirs. If the Arabs were not under the constant ill influence of their leaders,perhaps this coexistence might be possible. But since it is impossible to remove this influence, there is no other solution except transfer.

Already in 1937 Arab enmity towards the Jews was apparent to the authors of the Peel Commission Report, which stated in its 22nd chapter that, "the existence of Jews in the Arab State and Arabs in the Jewish State would clearly constitute 'the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition' " (1). Therefore the authors of the Report were advocating transfer, stating, "If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land, and as far as possible, an exchange of population."(1).

It is no secret that the Arab attitude towards the Jews has not changed since 1937, and has even became worse in some cases. It is enough to quote only one absolutely outrageous result of a recent survey in order to understand the magnitude of the Arab hatred towards the Jews. The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem conducted this poll among Palestinian Arabs during the week of December 19-24, 2001. They found that "69% of Palestinians would not view as an act of terrorism the future use of chemical and biological weapons against Israel by Palestinians, but when committed by Israel 93% of Palestinians would define it as terror." 01/22/02


1. Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons. "A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947."


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




Part 2 of 2

by Boris Shusteff

"One single act of compulsion is better for both sides than perpetual friction." (Israel Zangwill).

It is the Arab hatred toward the Jews that makes the transfer of Arabs from Eretz Yisrael a must. The Jews and the Palestinian Arabs cannot live together. One of the parties must be resettled. We return to Rev. Parkes's words: "one would have to give way to the other." There are only two options. Either the Arabs have to vacate western Palestine or the Jews must abandon Eretz Yisrael. Since Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, the Jews have nowhere else to go. At the same time the Arabs can be resettled in one or more of two dozen Arab countries.

In the decade prior to the Second World War there were many proposals and ideas pertaining to this population exchange. Mojli Amin, a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine proposed the idea "that all the Arabs of Palestine will leave and be divided up amongst the neighboring Arab countries. In exchange for this, all the Jews living in Arab countries will leave and come to Palestine" (1).

Amin was one of a very few Arab leaders who was ready to place the famous Arab hospitality above his enmity toward the Jews. He wrote in1939, "We the Arabs are prepared to accept upon ourselves this great sacrifice for the sake of your welfare and the gathering in of your exiles and because of the generations of suffering which you underwent in Spain, Russia and other places" (1).

It is a tragedy for both Arabs and Jews that Amin's proposal was not supported by other Arab leaders. Hatred toward the Jews doomed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to live under terrible living conditions. And generation after generation of Arab youth was raised on enmity towards the Jews. Money that could have been spent for Arab and Jewish welfare has been used to buy weapons. Five destructive wars between the Arabs and the Jews have taken several hundred thousand lives, with many times more people wounded and maimed. In the face of these circumstances, how is it possible to say that transfer is immoral? Maybe it is moral for children to be raised in hatred towards their neighbors? Maybe it is moral to rob children of their childhood? Maybe it is moral to promote a culture of suicide? Maybe it is moral to doom generations of Arabs to live in poverty and misery? Under what kind of morality it is better to let people murder and be murdered instead of allowing them to start a new life in a new place?

All of this is the result of a hypocritical fear of transfer. Abraham Sharon (Schwadron), a Zionist writer who settled in Palestine in 1927, understood much more than we understand today, in the twenty first century. He wrote in 1941:

"Zionism has come and shown us a new way - a radical solution for quarrels between peoples living in one land by means of the transfer of one of the peoples to a different territory; a transfer that is not an uprooting and a destruction but a planting and an alleviation. It is certainly a very difficult and complicated solution, but it is fundamental, realistic and of enduring value" (1).

Somehow we never think that the biggest achievements in the history of the mankind happened through transfer of the people. Such stalwarts of democracy as America and Australia came into existence through transfer. Israel Zangwill, one of the rare transfer proponents among Zionists, wrote in 1904 that there would have to be a complete clearance of various false theories, such as that of migration being a tragedy."This is one of the most conspicuous falsehoods in the world. Migration is a fortunate experience. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the transferees have found their new territories to be better, more spacious and healthier" (1).

Several years later Zangwill wrote,

"As could be seen from Canada and the Transvaal leaving races put up in one territory led to trouble and friction. The World War had been fought to break up the dangerous sources of friction in Austria and Hungary. Where was the logic of creating in Palestine a minor Austria artificially? The races should separate as Abraham did from Lot" (1).

Zangwill was not the only person who realized that the elimination of sources of friction through transfer is a very viable solution. A much greater political leader made a similar proposal. Herbert Hoover, the thirty-first President of the United States wrote in 1943 in a book The Problems of Lasting Peace, "Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations... the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war" (1).

Hoover was advocating the transfer of the Palestinian Arabs to Iraq with its fertile soil and severe under-population (a transfer that a later American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, also supported). He said of this transfer, "If the lands were organized and homes provided, this particular movement could be made the model migration of history. It would be a solution by engineering instead of by conflict"(1).

Championing his transfer plan, he wrote, "I realize that the plan offers a challenge both to the statesmanship of the Great Powers as well as to the good-will of all parties concerned. However, I submit it and it does offer a method of settlement with both honor and wisdom" (1).

Hoover did not built his proposal on sand. By this time the world community had already achieved tremendous success in the compulsory exchange of population between Greece and Turkey following the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. The transfer in that case was proposed by Nobel Peace prize-winner Dr. Fridtjof Nansen who was the League of Nations' first High Commissioner for refugees. That transfer was sanctioned by the League of Nations and carried out under the guidance of a mixed commission. Altogether nearly two million people were transferred: 1,300,000 Greeks and some 400,000 Turks, and the transfer was completed within eighteen months.

The Peel Report that recommended the transfer of the Arabs, described in 1937 the world's reaction to Nansen's transfer operation: "Dr. Nansen was sharply criticized at the time for the inhumanity of his proposal, and the operation manifestly imposed the gravest hardships on multitudes of people. But the courage of the Greek and Turkish statesmen concerned has been justified by the result. Before the operation the Greek and Turkish minorities had been a constant irritant. Now the ulcer had been clean cut out, and Greco-Turkish relations, we understand are friendlier than they have ever been before"(1).

Several days after the publication of the Peel Report, Abraham Bonne, who was Director of the Economic Archives for the Near East in Jerusalem, wrote that the Peel Commission came to the conclusion regarding Palestine that "the racial antagonism between Jews and Arabs could only be settled by very radical means, i.e. by the exchange of population" (1).

It is very unfortunate that this warning about the antagonism between Jews and Arabs went unnoticed. It is a tragedy that there were no brave Israeli or world statesmen at that time who could have brought to fruition a plan to transfer the Palestinian Arabs from western Palestine [Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza] into the Arab countries. If the transfer had taken place half a century ago, Arabs and Jews would have at the very least been spared hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded people. Moreover, the maniacal Arab hope of eliminating Israel might have been dead by this time and conditions might have been ready for establishing decent neighborly relations between the Jewish Palestinian State of Israel and the Arab Palestinian State of Jordan.

The argument that Arab hatred towards the Jews would not have subsided and that the Arabs would not forget the lands that were once under their control can easily be dismissed. The example of Spain is sufficient proof. The Moslems once ruled Spain and considered it to be their land. They were defeated, left the Iberian peninsula and today they do not demand the return of these lands.

The elimination of the causes for future friction and wars is on its own a sufficient moral substantiation for transfer. The creation of another Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which the Arabs so adamantly strive for today, will only exacerbate the situation. This fictitious and non-viable entity will serve only as a bridgehead for another Arab-Israeli war, and a prologue to more bloodshed and suffering.

The cancer of conflict must be cut out. As Sir Walter Smiles, a Conservative member in British House of Commons said on November 24, 1938, during the debates on the Peel Commission Report, "No matter what sacrifice or discomfort people who were transferred were put to at one time, it might be better to get it over at once as the Greeks who left Asia Minor and went to Greece learned, rather than to be always at enmity with their neighbors" (1).

Four Nobel Peace Prize winners have proposed population transfer - Sir Norman Angell, Christian Lange, Philip Noel-Baker (in the specific case of Palestine), and Dr. Fridtjof Nansen as the proponent of the Greco-Turkish exchange. This speaks volumes about the morality of transfer. And especially in our case. As Hoover wrote in 1954 when he reached the age of 80, replying to a congratulatory letter, which referred to his transfer plan, "We were on the only sane track!" (1).

The time is long overdue to look at a transfer of the Palestinian Arabs without prejudice and bias. Political correctness must be pushed aside. After an objective evaluation of all the pros and cons, if one really cares about the future of both the Jews and the Arabs who currently reside in Eretz Yisrael, there can be only one sane track. 01/22/02

1. Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons. "A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947."


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




U.S. using Israeli airborne targeting platform in Afghanistan

Geostrategy-Direct-Week of January 29, 2002

The United States has deployed an Israeli-manufactured airborne targeting pod in the war in Afghanistan. Officials said the Litening II targeting pod is one of several Israeli systems being used in the Afghan war. The Litening, manufactured by Rafael, Israel Armament Development Authority, has been installed on the F-16 multi-role fighters in the U.S. Air Force. Officials said the U.S. Air Force is purchasing 24 Litening II-plus pods.

The new Litening is said to have a laser spot capability that an American rival does not possess. The system allows F-16 pilots to fire laser-guided missiles and bombs by locking onto a laser spot placed on a ground target by U.S. troops.

The Lantirn pod, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, cannot do the same. The Lantirn contains a laser designator that identifies targets and guides laser-seeking bombs. Lockheed Martin has launched production of its new-generation Advanced Targeting Pod.

Aging F-16s have been upgraded with Litening II pods. The system, marketeted by Rafael's partner Northrop Grumman, costs about $1.3 million.



India confident proposed Phalcon sale from Israel will go ahead

BBC Monitoring South Asia - January 15, 2002

[With thanks to Arms Trade Newswire]

India Tuesday 15 January said it was confident that the proposed sale of three Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) from Israel will go through. Discounting media reports quoted to US officials that Washington had told Tel Aviv to keep on temporary hold the sale of these advanced planes, India's Defence Minister George Fernandes told PTI: "As far as I know we are getting them. I have no idea where these reports to the contrary are coming from," Fernandes, who is leaving on a six-day visit to the US on Tuesday night said, adding that the issue could figure in his talks with the US leaders.

He was commenting on reports that US had urged Israel to defer selling arms to India because of the military confrontation brewing between India and Pakistan. Last week the visiting Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres had indicated in reply to a spate of questions on the estimated 1bn US dollar deal that it may go through. The Phalcon planes are produced by Israel and therefore do not require US approval. But because America is a close ally, Israel prefers to have all deals cleared by Washington.

An Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson said reports of pressure on Israel not to sell arms supplies to India were not correct. A similar Israeli deal for sale of Phalcon AWACS to China had fallen through two years ago when Washington objected to the sales.

Highly placed Indian air force sources here said that the Chinese sales had not gone through as along with the outright sales, the deal also entailed transfer of technology for making these highly sophisticated planes in China. They said Washington had raised legitimate objections to the transfer of technology as a number of main and sub-systems of the Phalcons were American. The sources said that they did not visualize any such hitch with India as New Delhi was only asking for outright purchase of these aircraft and not transfer of technology.

Fernandes, as well as other defence officials, did not comment on other reports that US officials had raised stronger objections to the reported interest shown by Israel to sell Arrow-2 anti-tactical ballistic missile defence system to India. The system is a joint US-Israeli venture for which Washington has provided a majority of the development funding. The US officials claimed that the Arrow sale may violate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).



TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military has approved the launch of a $390 million project to construct a communications satellite meant to link all three branches and conduct joint operations far from the country's borders.

The project was approved in principle in September and provides the green light for a feasibility study to ensure that Israeli contractors can supply the technology required to meet the demands of the military. The study is expected to be completed within weeks, at which point the military and Defense Ministry will debate whether the project should enter production.

Defense officials and industry sources said Israel's air force will head the project. They said the air force is studying a proposal for a satellite that will also provide commercial services in an effort to save money. The air force is also involved in the development and production of the Ofeq-class reconnaissance satellite.


IAI to supply new Fast Patrol Boats to the Israel Navy

15 January 2002 Defence Systems Daily

Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd. (IAI) and the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD) have signed an agreement for the supply of new generation Super Dvora Mk. II-I fast patrol boats for the Israel Navy. Under terms of the agreement, the IAI Ramta Division will design and build six of the new generation boats with options to build five additional craft.

This acquisition of fast patrol craft from IAI-Ramta is part of the Israel Navy's multi-year procurement plan in which earlier versions of the "Dabur"and "Dvora" class patrol craft, also designed and built by IAI-Ramta, will be replaced by the new generation Mark II-I. The Mark II-I has superior operational capabilities over the boats they replace with higher interception speeds against sea targets, increased operational ranges, inclusion of more advanced weapon systems, and better human engineering and accommodations for the crews.

The Israel Navy in conjunction with the IMoD carried out a comprehensive evaluation of the best alternatives to meet navy requirements for its next generation fast patrol craft. Among the alternatives was procurement of the patrol craft in the United States, using US military aid in light of the severe budget constraints in local currency. Parallel to this was a determined effort to identify Israeli currency sources to enable production of the next generation patrol craft in Israel.

IMoD director-general, MGen. Amos Yaron (ret.) requested that a detailed feasibility study be undertaken into the cost of purchasing the fast patrol boats in Israel. The results of this study clearly showed that producing the boats in Israel would save over 25% compared to the US procurement option. Production of the initial six Mark II-I fast patrol boats by IAI-Ramta has already begun, and will cover several fiscal years.

With the eventual phasing-in of the new-generation fast patrol boats, the Israel Navy will possess patrol vessels designed to intercept and counter continued attempts by terror organisations to infiltrate Israel's coastline or smuggle illegal weapons into the region. In addition, the Mark II-I boats will greatly increase the Navy's ability to respond quickly in "search and rescue" operations.


Boeing, IAI to sign joint Arrow manufacturing deal

Globes 15 January 2002

Ran Dagoni, Washington

Sources inform ''Globes'' that Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) will sign an agreement by the end of the month to jointly manufacture the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in Israel and the US.

''Defense News'' also reports in its latest issue that Israel will ask for $100 million in aid per year for four years from the US to finance the joint manufacture. The agreement will earn the two companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and will guarantee a regular supply of missiles to Israel for years.

Boeing Space & Communications Group spokesperson Marta Newhart told "Globes", she "is prevented from commenting on the agreement," but added, "Boeing has good and fruitful relations with IAI. We're constantly trying to expand them."

The two companies have settled most of the technology transfer disagreements that had caused the negotiations to be suspended last year. At the time, Boeing sources said US export restrictions and the small number of missiles intended for sale to Israel, did not justify a separate production line for the Arrow in the US.

Since then, the Department of Defense and Congress have agreed to help Boeing set up an Arrow production line. Congress budgeted $20 million to Boeing to finance the cost of the production line.

''Defense News'' reports a formula guaranteeing that Boeing's production of the Arrow will comply with Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) regulations has been set. The MTCR sets the terms for the sale of ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 300 km and warheads heavier than 500 kg of explosives, their components, and sub-systems.

Israel hopes that the Department of Defense will agree to finance production of the missiles, at a cost of $100 million a year for four years. It is unclear whether the US will agree to the request, how much money the Americans will offer, and whether the money will be part of Israel's annual military aid package or an alternative source. It will probably be impossible to use the current military aid to finance production of the Arrow, since the aid has already been budgeted for other purposes.

The Arrow is projected to cost over $2 billion by 2010. Israel hopes the US will finance 45% of the cost. The joint Boeing-IAI production agreement refers only to the Arrows designated for Israeli use. There are no export licenses to third countries.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments