Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   FEBRUARY 2004             NUMBER 2

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




IMRA'S COMMENTARY: Retreat Plan: Asking The Wrong Question...Guest Editorial....Dr.Aaron Lerner
I ASHAMED TO BE AN ISRAELI...Guest Editorial....Dr. Steven Plaut

KILL JEWS - IT WORKS!....David Wilder
ASPIRATION, NOT DESPERATION - The Islamic Blood Cult....Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
INDIANS, JEWS AND ISLAM....Nissan Ratzlav-Katz


SYRIA AND THE GOLAN....Jan Willem van der Hoeven


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 2004 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)





By David Ben Gurion

"No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel.

It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People.

Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realized."

This quotation of David Ben Gurion made at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1937, more than 65 years ago. At the Freeman Center, we quote this profound statement often.



[FREEMAN CENTER NOTE: This article was written 35 years ago. I heard the idea first directly from Eric Hoffer in New Orleans at a ZOA Convention in 1968. He spoke with great passion about the role of Israel, the Jewish People and the world. After his speech, I bought him several beers at the hotel bar. Being a longshoreman (Port of San Francisco) most of his life, he enjoyed relaxing and drinking after a hard day's work. But this time he was different. As he stared at me, his face became red and flushed, and with a quivering passionate voice, he told me that what he told the ZOA members was true and would come to pass if we didn't take decisive action. Read below the short article that expresses his views

Some truths never change. Eric Hoffer was a Non-Jewish American longshoreman and social philosopher. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.

Bernard J. Shapiro]

(LA Times 5/26/68)


By Eric Hoffer

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese - and no one says a word about refugees.

But in the case of Israel the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.

There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.

Eric Hoffer, 1968 June.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

There were many factual and analytic errors in a recent article by Alon Ben-Meir on Israel-Syrian peace possibilities. The article appeared in the Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) on January 22, 2004.

Here are a few points by Ben-Meir and my counterpoints (facts):

Ben-Meir statement: Most issues were resolved in negotiations between Israel and Syria in 2000.

FACT: The issues were not resolved and Syria rejected the very generous offers of Israeli PM Ehud Barak. There was NO deal and the government of Israel changed. It is absurd to suggest that the new Israeli government should honor offers by an opposition party defeated overwhelmingly by the Israeli electorate that brought the Likud to power.

Meir: Geopolitical changes since the defeat of Iraq make Syrian-Israeli peace more likely.

FACT: It is true that the geopolitical situation in the Middle East has changed, but this has greatly weakened the despotic, anti-Israel, terrorist supporting government of Syria. In fact, the authoritative London -based Jane's Intelligence Digest reports today that the US is seriously considering confronting Syria militarily with the aim of "regime change." Increasing pressure on Syria can be found in the recent Syrian Accountability Act signed by US President George Bush last December. Syria would certainly welcome peace talks with Israel as a way to relieve the pressure to changes its policies, including its brutal occupation of Lebanon. It should not be forgotten that American troops in Iraq are facing Syrian facilitated terrorists and weapons.

Meir: Israel would benefit from a peace of reconciliation with Syria.

FACT: The Israel border with Syria has been the most peaceful in the last 37 years. A retreat from the strategic mountains of the Golan would certainly result in renewed aggression by Syria. It would also stimulate more attacks on Israel from every hostile Arab force. The view of Israel "running" from Lebanon was a direct cause of Arafat's decision to start the Oslo war of September 2000. The reader should remember the Munich Appeasement Agreement with Hitler in 1938. Appeasement and concessions to dictators makes them hungry for more and DOES NOT lead to peace.


Moshe Arens, who served three times as Israel's Defense Minister, wrote in a recent article (Haaretz, January 20, 2004), that Syrian crime should not pay. He recounts their many crimes:

1. Two invasions of Israel, 1948 & 1973

2. Brutal shelling of peaceful Israelis 1948-67

3. Vicious torture of Israelis falling into their hands

4. And finally support for multiple terrorists organizations including Hisbullah

Arens says that to reward them by a retreat from the Golan would encourage future aggression by making it a win-win option: for example: lose territory and then get it back through negotiations.

I want to express the opinion that the time has come to clear the smoke and mirrors. There is a significant Israeli dilemma in the negotiating framework with Syria. I call this dilemma: the "Mubarak gambit." After Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat's death, his successor Hosni Mubarak discovered that Egypt could ignore its peace treaty obligations to Israel with impunity. Sadat had signed over 50 agreements and amendments to the Camp David Accords, which spelled out in great detail normalization of relations with Israel. These included trade, tourism, science, cultural and other attributes of peaceful relations. The late Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, fully believed that his sacrifice of Sinai, with its air bases and oil, was worth the inauguration of peaceful relations with the most important country in the Arab world.

From this experience Mubarak devised the "Mubarak gambit," which sets out the principle that an Arab country can promise Israel peace and full normalization as a negotiating tactic in order to force an Israeli withdrawal from territory. Then after the territory is recovered, the Arab country can ignore the normalization part of any agreement.

Mubarak first convinced terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, to try out the "Mubarak gambit." We all know what has happened, including the famous handshake on September 13, 1993. We also know that all of Arafat's promises to the Israelis, including revising the PLO Charter and stopping violence, have not been honored.

In my opinion, whether peace is possible depends upon your relative propensity to believe in fairy tales. If you believe in the real possibility of achieving utopia or nirvana; and if you believe in the tooth fairy, then peace with Syria is not only possible but desirable.

Bernard J. Shapiro
Executive Director, Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
Editor, The Maccabean Online and the Freemanlist




By Yoram Ettinger

The following document is based on Israel's Bureau of Statistics, on pre-1948 (British) Census of Palestine and on the (British Survey of Palestine. Demographic disinformation has been employed as a scare tactic to drive Israel back to the indefensible 1949 (pre-1967) Lines, as it was in 1948 to stop Ben Gurion from declaring independence, and as it was in 1900 to divert Herzl away from the Jewish Statehood idea. However, all pessimistic demographic projections crashed against the rocks of reality.

How interesting that the mentor of contemporary Prophets of Demographic Doom was Israel's Chief Statistician, who failed in his many attempts to dissuade Ben Gurion from declaring independence! His failed methodology has underlined the erroneous demographic projections by his disciples, who ridiculed the idea of Soviet Jewry Aliya (immigration) to Israel.

Seventh Bi-Weekly Full Page Ad in a series (


(part one was published on November 7, 2003)


*FACT: 80:20 Jewish majority within the Green Line since 1967, in spite of pessimistic projections, the inclusion of East Jerusalem, and unification of Arab families.

*FACT: 60:40 Jewish majority west of the Jordan River since 1967, in spite of pessimistic projections. In 2003: 5.4MN Jews and 3.7MN Arabs (1.2MN within the Green Line, 1,5MN in Judea & Samaria, 1MN in Gaza).

*FACT: In 1922 - 85,000 Jews (11%) and 672,000 Arabs west of the Jordan River, in 1948 - 650,000 Jews (35%), and by 1952 the ratio was 50:50 due to Jewish immigration, which has been severely underestimated by pessimistic projections.


*Pessimistic projections have ignored the significance of Jewish immigration (each year since 1882), the declining Arab birth rate, the rise of Jewish birth rate and Arab emigration. Prof. De La Pergolla stated on October 23, 1987 that Soviet Jewry would not immigrate to Israel. One million did! Current immigration potential is 1-1.5 million.

*Linear extrapolation has derailed pessimistic projections. It erroneously assumes that present trends would persist in the future. The longer the projection, the worse the error.

*The late chief statistician, Prof. Roberto Bacchi (the mentor of contemporary pessimistic projections), contended in 1940 that in 1970 there would be 4 million Arabs and 1 million Jews in Israel. The known Jewish historian, Shimon Dubnov (who opposed the idea of a Jewish State), stated in 1900 that by 2000 there would be a Jewish minority of 500,000 Jews in Israel.

*Linear extrapolation failed Prof. Bacchi's students, in 1967, when they projected an Arab majority west of the Jordan River by 2000.


*In 1970 there were 8 children per Arab family. In 2003 - 4 children per "Green Line" Arab family and 5.6 in Judea&Samaria.

*Arab birth rate was 3 times the Jewish rate in 1967 and less than 2 times in 2003 (2.9 children per Jewish family - the highest in the Western world).


*If the pessimistic projections were realistic, then they should also apply to the Galilee, Negev and Jerusalem.

*If Herzl and Ben Gurion would have acted in accordance with demography, there would not have been a Jewish State!





January 29, 2004

Retreat Plan: Asking The Wrong Question

By Dr. Aaron Lerner

Before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rose to read from his prepared retreat plan speeches at the Likud Central Committee and then at the Knesset, he had to sit through presentations of cogent arguments against retreat.

But his presentations never addressed the issues his colleagues raised, just as to this day he has yet to engage in a serious debate regarding the merits and consequences of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

By the same token, instead of instructing National Security Council Chairman Brigadier General (Res.) Giora Eiland, to head a team to study the efficacy of retreating, Mr. Sharon instructed Eiland to develop a detailed retreat plan.

And while Prime Minister Sharon promised in his Knesset speech that the retreat plan "will be undertaken following exhaustive discussions between the coalition parties", in truth it would appear that he would prefer to present his cabinet with a fait accomplis after making various commitments in Washington based on the detailed retreat plan that Eiland develops.

In the absence of a change in the process, the nation's planners and decision makers will never seriously consider if Israel should retreat -only how to retreat.

And this is a pity, because no one has a monopoly on wisdom.

A retreat program isn't a measure that can be readily changed once it is implemented. The consequences of bad policy could be grave.

If Mr. Sharon is so confident in the validity of his position he should be willing to argue his case and address the points made by retreat opponents instead of concentrating on how to neutralize or circumvent them.

The passage of a retreat plan should not solely be a question of backroom deals and unauthorized commitments to Washington.

This coming Sunday a number of ministers plan to ask for a conclusive cabinet discussion of the retreat concept before Sharon's Washington trip. I fervently hope our prime minister seizes the opportunity.

Dr. Aaron Lerner
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
pager 03-6106666 subscriber 4811




By Dr. Steven Plaut
Haifa University

I have spent most of the past 12 years being ashamed to be an Israeli. Israeli governments made me ashamed, and they did so by abasing, disgracing and humiliating me as a Jew and as an Israeli.

I have been ashamed for 12 years at being an Israeli because this was the period in which the governments of Israel abandoned the struggle for Jewish national survival. They stopped trying to defend me and all other Jews. They lectured me that it was my fault that the Arab fascists were attacking Jews, and that it was within my power to stop the carnage if only I would agree to demean myself sufficiently, to grovel before the terrorists of the Middle East, and to appease the anti-Semites. I could achieve peace if I would agree to place my neck in an Arab noose, but if I refuse to do so then I would be the impediment to peace and my obstinacy would be to blame for all further carnage.

For 12 years, my government pursued a policy of defending me and my family by abandoning all attempts to defend us. My government decided to pursue peace by pretending that war did not exist. After two millennia of anti-Semitism, my government decided that anti-Semitism does not REALLY exist, and that when people randomly murder Jewish children it is because they have some legitimate grievances, because they have suffered, and because Jews have shown them insufficient sensitivity.

My government implemented policies based on the presumption that the making of concessions to blood-thirsty terrorists would be rewarded with moderation and goodwill, that importing armed Nazis into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would cause them to seek peace. My government followed policies based on the notion that the Jews were evil, insensitive, and selfish. My government decided that if Jews would only "share" their land and resources with those who rule the entire territory from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia, that is, with those who refuse to agree to any "sharing" that allows a Jewish state to exist anywhere in the Middle East, then there would be peace.

My government decided that rewarding terrorists for violence would end violence, an dthen told me that there was simply no alternative to coddling terrorists and nazis.

My government pursued peace by pretending that war did not exist. My government sought peace through arming and bankrolling terrorists. My government decided that anti-Semitism can only be overcome by redressing the "underlying grievances" that it reflects. My government fought terrorism by not fighting it, and by trying to appease it. My government insisted that I must coddle anti-Semites and terrorists, and must pander to their agenda and desires for there is no other choice.

My government over the past 12 years preached to me that it was my own pride and my parochial patriotism that was the obstacle to peace. It told me I must seek peace through self-abasement and self-humiliation. My government told me that if I would show willingness to compromise, then so would the Arabs.

My government has been wrong about everything, but refuses to admit it has been wrong about anything.

My government decided that Palestinians are a "nation" and that chunks of my Jewish lands were in fact "Palestinian lands". My government decided that Arabs may freely live any place they wish anywhere in the land of Israel, but I may not live freely where I might choose if it happens to be across the "Green Line". My government instituted discrimination against me and against other Jews in the name of "affirmative action", quotas and preferences for Arabs and directed against me.

My government fought for my survival through cowardice and endless "restraint", turning my other cheek against my will, pursuing endless "goodwill gestures", which only enflamed the violence. It did so despite the fact that I and my fellow Israeli citizens voted repeatedly to revoke the "Oslo approach" and voted in favor of pursuing war against our enemies, not appeasement. My government abandoned all of northern Israel to the mercies of the Hizbollah rockets, now aimed at me in the thousands. My government abandoned the Jewish towns near the Gaza Strip to rocket barrages from the PLO.

I have spent the past 12 years cringing in shame. My government made me feel that way. But I have NEVER felt as ashamed at being an Israeli as I did this week, when my government decided to reward the Hizbollah for murdering three of my fellow citizens in cold blood. My government also abandoned Ron Arad, releasing his kidnapper, rewarding the terrorists who kidnapped him, who "sold" him to Iran and possibly murdered him.

My government decided to release nearly 450 murderers with blood on their hands in order to "buy" the release of the carcasses of three of my fellow citizens who were murdered by the Hizbollah after they had been kidnapped by it. My government had abandoned southern Lebanon to the Hizbollah and assured me there would be complete tranquility thereafter. After the farcical Israeli "withdrawal" ordered by my government, the Hizbollah has fired almost daily into Israel, has sent in terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians, and snatched the three soldiers (two Jews and one Bedouin Arab) whose bodies were released this week, after murdering them in cold blood.

Last week the Hizbollah murdered one more army officer working a bulldozer; in response my government punished some empty Hizbollah buildings. The prisoner "deal" was possible only because my government refuses to execute the murdering savages, the terrorists. My government thinks capital punishment is inhumane, and its absence has made possible the murders of 1300 of my fellow countrymen. That is like twenty two September 11ths, when measured proportional to population.

The Hizbollah also held as prisoner a man who had entered Lebanon for criminal purposes, possibly a drug deal to pay off his gambling debts. I opposed releasing any terrorists to get him released. I might have considered agreeing to release a handful as payment to the Hizbollah to keep him imprisoned there, if he is indeed a drug smuggler.

My government decided to respond to the murders of the three POWs by rewarding their murderers, not by converting three Hizbollah towns into large parking lots, not by bathing the Hizbollah leaders in napalm. My government signaled to all my fellow citizens that it was unwilling to avenge our deaths. My government let every Israeli soldier know that his life would be worthless if captured by the enemy because my government would always seek "deals" with those who murder POWs. My government made it known that by grabbing some Israelis as hostages, anyone could obtain any concession they want from my country. My government also let every soldier know that, if captured in war, he would be abandoned to his fate by my government. My government agreed to this "deal" with the Hizbollah, a deal that spit on the family of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad. The man who kidnapped and "sold" Arad has been released by my government as payment for the release of the common criminal.

My government is trying to cover its shame by boasting that it "held out tough" and refused to release the baby-murdering terrorist Samir Kuntar, the man who murdered the members of the Haran family in Nahariya. My same government boasts that it would have released this arch-murderer had the Hizbollah so much as told Israel where Ron Arad (or his grave) is.

So much for "standing tough".

My government is a disgrace. My government practices cowardice and pretends it is courage. My government displays indifference to the Israelis who will now be murdered by those released terrorists and murderers. My government had the gall to pretend it was acting out of compassion and morality when it signed this capitulation, when it placed that smirk on the face of the Hizbollah chief terrorist, boasting of his victory. To drive home the point that the "deal" proves to the world that the Jews are on the run, the terrorists blew up a bus in Jerusalem, the same Jerusalem they pretend is holy to them, as part of celebrating the stampede of Jewish flight. After all, the Hizbollah was being rewarded for terror, so why should not the Palestinians follow their lead in obtaining Israeli surrender?

The bus atrocity in Jerusalem was carried out by the "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades," a PLO terror group under the direct command and control of Yassir Arafat.

My government pretended it was suddenly acting out of Jewish ethical values.

My government would not know a Jewish ethical value if it popped up in its face. My government pretends there is a "Part B" to this capitulation, in which information about Ron Arad will be released. I do not belive them. I think my government is lying to window-dress this act of cowardice.

As I watch the victory smile on the mug of the Hizbollah Chief Terrorist, my own government makes me cringe.

My government makes me ashamed of being an Israeli.



29 January 2004


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

Moments after the latest bus bombing in Jerusalem this morning, the group claiming responsibility, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, identified its action as an expression of "freedom fighting."

Plainly, however, there is no cause on the face of this bleeding planet that can ever warrant the deliberate mutilation and murder of defenseless civilians riding on a municipal bus.

Those who can find cause for celebration amidst the mangled and burned bodies of young children must always be called by their correct name.

By any reasonable standard of civilized human behavior these celebrants support a uniquely unheroic form of slaughterer, a contemptible dreamer who discovers sheer ecstasy only in massacre and who sees in unrestrained terrorism a gloriously sacrificial form of religious worship.

What is plainly evident to reasonable human beings is also an incontestable part of current international law.

Supporters of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens frequently claim that the insurgent force is directed against an "occupation, " and therefore warrants "any means necessary."

From the standpoint of authoritative international rules of behavior, this claim is entirely incorrect.

Even where the use of insurgent force may be justified - and in the case of the Palestinians such justification is hotly debatable - deliberate attacks upon noncombatants are always illegal. Indeed, there is no more ancient and sacred principle of law than the immutable imperative to protect the innocent.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

There is no basis in law for this especially facile and shallow expression. The issue here is not one of subjective interpretation. On the contrary, there do exist precise and settled criteria that are readily available to distinguish the terrorist from the freedom fighter.

According to international law, any insurgent who intentionally causes the explosive incineration of men, women and children at lunch or at prayer or at a wedding ceremony or on a bus is a terrorist. Period.

It is true that certain insurgencies can be judged lawful.

Yet, even these insurgencies MUST always conform to the laws of war.

The ends can never justify the means in international law. Never. Where the insurgent group resorts to unjust means, as in the case of exploding a public bus, its actions are unambiguously terroristic.

How shall we know precisely when insurgent means are just or unjust?

The determinable standards that must be applied in judgment are known in law as JUST CAUSE and JUST MEANS.

These standards, and these standards alone, allow us to differentiate lawful insurgency from terrorism.

National liberation movements that fail to meet the test of JUST MEANS are not protected as lawful or legitimate.

Leaving aside the very doubtful argument that Palestinian organizations meet the standards of "national liberation," especially after the prior Barak Government offered the PA/PLO control of over 97% of West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza, it is assuredly clear that they do not meet the standards of discrimination, proportionality and military necessity.

These formal standards, applicable under the Laws of War, have been applied to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and by the two protocols to these Conventions of 1977.

They are binding upon all combatants by virtue of both customary and conventional international law.

The ends CAN NEVER justify the means.

As in the case of war between states, every use of force by insurgents must be judged twice, once with regard to the justness of the objective (in this case, the avowed objective is a Palestinian state built upon the charred ruins of a dismembered Israel)
and once with regard to the justness of the means used in pursuit of that objective.

A Palestinian organization that deliberately targets indiscriminately with intent to maximize pain and suffering can never claim to be "freedom fighters."

American and European supporters of a Palestinian State presume that it will be part of a "two-state solution," that is, that the new Arab state will exist side-by-side with the existing Jewish State.

Yet, this presumption is dismissed everywhere in the Arab/Islamic world.

Indeed, the "Map of Palestine" at the official website of the Palestinian National Authority includes all of Israel.

There are not two states on this map; only one.

Palestinian insurgents who resort to terrorism against Israel will never acknowledge that a Jewish State has any right to endure.

Why should this should be so difficult to understand today, when even the most "moderate" Palestinians themselves have been so cartographically honest on their own website?

Terrorist crimes, as part of a broader category called CRIMEN CONTRA OMNES (crimes against all), mandate universal cooperation in apprehension and punishment.

In this connection, as punishers of "grave breaches" under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute, or extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators.

In no circumstances are any states permitted to characterize terrorists as "freedom fighters."

This is especially the case for the United States, which incorporates all international law as the "supreme law of the land" at Article 6 of the Constitution, and which was formed by the Founding Fathers according to the timeless principles of Natural Law.

Palestinian terrorists are not "freedom fighters."

They are "Common Enemies of Mankind" who exceed all moral and legal authority in their persistently barbarous attacks upon Israeli citizens.

They should always be called by their correct name.

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author
of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and international law. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. Email: BERES@POLSCI.PURDUE.EDU




by David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron

Why do Arabs continue to kill Jews?

It's clear that the suicide bomber who exploded in a Jerusalem bus this morning, murdering 10 Jews (as of this writing) and wounding about 50, was acting out the goodness of his heart.

While the 'palestinian policeman' from Bethlehem, who belonged to Gedudei El-Aktza of Arafat's Fatah, was blowing the #19 bus to smithereens next to Ariel Sharon's official residence, Israel was in the process of implementing the 'prisoner exchange' with Hezbollah. Israel released, not only 400 live terrorists, but also 60 bodies of dead Hezbollah warrior terrorists. Today's terrorist attack was an attempt to even the equation. After all, we were only getting three bodies back. So the terrorist exploded in an effort to even the score. Ten killed, fifty wounded, equals 60. Plus three soldiers' bodies -- Israel comes out on top.

That's one reason to kill Jews. But of course, there are more.

Two days the Yesha Council held a unique press conference, during which they revealed the contents of 'secret discussions' between Yesha leaders and the highest levels of the Prime Minister's office. These leaders met, one at a time, with Dov Weisglass, Sharon's Chief of Staff. He offered them a seemingly, tantalizing deal. The Sharon government would 'disengage' from seven Yesha communities sometime in the near future. Those communities named were: Kfar Darom, Netzarim and Morag, in Gush Katif, Kadim and Ganim in northern Shomron, and Sa-Naur and Homesh in central Shomron. In return, Sharon promised to refrain from any other 'disengagements' until a final agreement with the PA terrorists. In addition, he promised to try and 'save' the rest of Gush Katif in Gaza.

At the press conference, the Yesha Council vehemently rejected this 'deal,' calling it a disgrace. But that's not really what is important. What is important is that the 'deal' was offered in the first place. Our Arab enemies could view this planned eviction of Jews from at least two different perspectives. On the one hand, they must have been disappointed at the small number of communities Sharon was offering to destroy. But, on the other hand, the very fact that Ariel Sharon, the great warmonger, the brain behind Sabra and Shatila, would even consider deleting any Jewish settlements in Israel must have been seen as a great victory.

Their analysis must have been short and sweet. The reason behind Sharon's proffered 'disengagement' was simple. The above-named communities and their surrounding vicinities are all prime targets of Arab terror attacks. Numerous security forces are needed to provide them with even semi-adequate protection. Sharon himself said, not too long ago, to a group of Bedouins that he hopes the time will soon come when Israeli troops will no longer have to serve in Gaza. Why? Because it's too violent there.

The terrorists may not all be university graduates, but simple arithmetic isn't beyond their capabilities. They know that one plus one equals two. Kill Jews plus Kill More Jews equals capitulation-withdrawal-'disengagement.' One need not be a genius to figure it out.

Actually, today's prisoner exchange is a case in point. In truth, were I in a decision-making position, I really don't know what I'd do. It is similar to a King Solomon trial (when having to decide which woman the baby belonged to, Solomon commanded that it be cut in half). But the absurdity of the deal screams out to the heavens. Elhanan Tennenbaum, an Israeli colonel in the reserves, whose kidnapping is cloaked in mystery and question marks was freed. In addition Israel received the bodies of three soldiers who were killed by Hezbollah on the Lebanese border for the purpose of kidnapping them. Hezbollah terror leader Nasrallah is already on record proclaiming that he will kidnap more Israeli soldiers in order to use them to liberate other captured terrorists.

In return Israel was forced to release four hundred live terrorists -- four hundred, most of whom will undoubtedly return to their favorite pastime -- and we all know what that is. (See: Jibril, Achmad: Victory Over Israel - How I Added One Thousand Soldiers to my Private Terror Force.)

It seems that the nucleus of the deal was not Tennenbaum or the dead soldiers. Rather, it is the missing aviator Ron Arad. Israel has been promised, at the very least, information concerning Arad, and particularly, whether he is still alive. For that information we will release another Arab murderer. The price to obtain Arad, living or dead, will be astronomical.

In other words, Israel, pushed into a corner, is continuing to acquiesce. Our enemies take the offensive, we take the defensive, they are victorious and we lose.

One of rules of Israeli negotiations centers on the principle which states that terrorists 'with blood on their hands' i.e., who have murdered Israelis, will not be released from jail. Despite this code of conduct, several Arabs with 'blood on their hands' were today set free. And ten others, with blood on their hands and faces, legs and arms, all over their bodies, were also liberated -- not from Israel, but from this world, for eternity.

Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantissi said after today's bombing, "It's not important who carried out this operation. The only thing which is very important is that we are resisting occupiers who came ... to occupy our land and to kill our people."

Rantissi isn't talking about Gaza -- he's talking about Jerusalem and Hebron, Tel Aviv and Haifa, Eilat and Kiryat Shemona. It's only logical. After all, Sharon is folding -- in the midst of a war he's offering to 'disengage' from Israeli communities, he's offering a palestinian state, he's releasing hundreds of terrorists from Israeli jails, in return for... Killing Jews!

So, in reality why not KILL JEWS - IT WORKS!

With blessings from Hebron



The Jerusalem Post, January 29, 2004


The Islamic Blood Cult

By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

"I always wanted to be the first woman who sacrifices her life for Allah. My joy will be complete when my body parts fly in all directions."

These are the words of female suicide terrorist Reem Reyashi, videotaped just before she killed four Israelis and herself two weeks ago in Gaza.

What is surprising about this horrific statement is that she put a positive value on her dismemberment and death, distinct from her goal to kill others.

She was driven by her aspiration to achieve what the Palestinians call "shahada," death for Allah. She had two distinct goals: To kill and to be killed. These independent objectives, both positive in her mind, were goals greater than her obligations and emotional ties to her two children.

This aspiration to die, which contradicts the basic human instinct for survival, is at the core of the suicide terrorism fervor. Only when this death worship component is recognized as a basic tenet of Palestinian belief will it be possible to understand the challenges Israel and the world face from suicide terror.

Palestinian society actively promotes the religious belief that their deity craves their deaths. Note the words of a popular music video directed at children, broadcast hundreds of times on PA TV, which depicts the earth thirsting for the blood of children: "How sweet is the fragrance of the shahids, how sweet is the scent of the earth, its thirst quenched by the gush of blood, flowing from the youthful body."

This conviction that the deity thirsts for or craves human death as tribute and sacrifice has its roots in ancient beliefs.

The Bible cites ancient cultures of the Land of Israel: "Their sons and their daughters they sacrifice to their Gods" [Deut: 12]. Even the Israelites were drawn to it: "And they built altars to give their sons and daughters to Molech which God did not command nor consider this abomination [Jeremiah: 32]."

As recently as 500 years ago, South American tribes used to leave children to die on mountain tops as presents to their gods. The common denominator driving human sacrifice cults was the belief that the deity craved the death of innocents.

This is precisely the belief that the leaders of Palestinian society are inculcating in their people. Moreover, Palestinians have been taught on PA TV by their religious leaders that they are born for the very purpose of dying for Allah: "The believer was created to know his Lord and to uphold Islam to be a shahid, or intend to be a shahid. If the Muslim does not aspire to shahada, he will die as in the jahiliya [pre-Islam faith]. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards even if we die in bed."

To further encourage this self-annihilation, Palestinians are taught that dying for the deity is rewarded: "All his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood; he is exempted from the torments of the grave (Judgment)... he marries 72 Dark-Eyed [Virgins or Maidens of Paradise]... on his head is placed a crown of honor, one stone of which is worth more than all there is in this world."

EVEN CHILDREN are not spared the indoctrination that the deity wants their deaths. A telling example is the story of 14-year-old Faras Ouda, a boy elevated to heroism by the Palestinian leadership.

Yasser Arafat regularly singles out Ouda as a role model for children, addressing children on TV once as "peers, friends, brothers and sisters of Faras Ouda," another time telling them "This generation represented by your colleague, the hero Shahid, Faras Ouda!" Yet another time he said, "We are saluting to the spirit of our hero Shahid Faras Ouda, Faras Ouda, Faras Ouda!"

What was Faras Ouda's great accomplishment that Arafat elevated him to archetypical role model? The boy's goal in life was to die for the deity, as reported in the PA daily Al-Hayat Al Jadida: "On the day of his death Faras Ouda left his home with a slingshot, after having made himself a wreath decorated with photos of himself and having written on it 'The Brave Shahid Faras Ouda.' Faras Ouda wanted to die for the deity, achieved it, and thus became Arafat's hero.

Palestinian mothers have been taught to aspire to death for Allah for their children. A mother explained recently on PA TV why she expressed sounds of joy upon hearing of her son's death: "A mother makes sounds of joy because she wants him to reach shahada. He became a shahid for Allah Almighty. I wanted the best for him; this is the best for [my son] Shaadi."

PA ideology rejects the values that other societies hold supreme. Here is Issam Sissalem on PA TV: "We are not afraid to die and do not love life."

Palestinian children have learned to see dying for the deity as their goal in life. In a chilling talk show interview on PA TV, two 11-year-old girls explain cheerfully and eloquently what they and their young friends desire:

Walla: Shahada is very, very beautiful. Everyone aspires to shahada. What could be better than going to paradise?

Host: What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people or shahada? Walla: Shahada.

Yussra: Of course shahada is sweet. We don't want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life but from the Afterlife... Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says "Oh Lord, I would like to become a shahid."

Public opinion polls indicate that Yussra and Walla represent an overwhelming majority of Palestinian children who embrace this belief. According to three different polls, 70 to 80 percent of Palestinian children aspire to shahada. In the ancient world, there was widespread belief that the deity wanted humans to die as the ultimate form of worship. People gave their children to the deity of Molech and the Baal. This ancient belief has now returned to plague the world.

The world had assumed that the Palestinian suicide terrorist was facing a dilemma of having to choose between the value of killing Jews and the value of life. Clearly, this is false.

Killing Jews is one "value." Death for deity is itself a value greater than life. Seeking shahada is not desperation but aspiration. As the mother explained her joy after her son's death: "I wanted the best for him."

Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch. Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.




By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Israel

December 18, 2002

The vast expansion of the Islamic empire from the mid 600's through World War I was primarily achieved with the persuasive power of the sword. The first victims of the Mohammedan belief that Islam must subjugate all infidel faith communities were the Jewish and non-Islamic tribes inhabiting the Arabian peninsula during Mohammed's lifetime. The story of the conquest and exploitation of these tribes is both commanded and recorded in the Quran, Islam's central text. As Islam expanded throughout the Middle East, the local Christians and other non-Moslems struggled to preserve their communal honor under denigrating Islamic laws, and were often subjected to murder and collective extortion. In Europe, the Moslems eventually brought even Spain under the crescent moon and the scimitar. In North Africa, the native Berber tribes put up a valiant struggle against the Arab Moslem invaders, under the leadership of a Jewish woman, Queen Kahena. However, an Islamic commander ultimately successfully employed a divide-and-conquer approach, and 50,000 Berbers and Jews were killed when the conquering Arabs offered them the familiar choice of Islam or death.

However, one nation suffered the most brutal depravities in order to "persuade" its members to accept Islam - the Indians. This year, November 24, according to the Sikh Nanakshahi calendar, or December 8 in the Hindu Bikrami calendar, marks the commemoration of the martyrdom of Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib. The traditional story of his encounter with Islam will undoubtedly strike most Jewish readers as reminiscent of the ancient and modern persecutions suffered by the Jews under other empires, including the Hellenist Syrians of the just-completed Chanukah holiday.

In 1669, after having taken the throne of Mughal (Islamic) India by imprisoning his father and killing his brothers, Alamgir ("world-shaker") Aurangzeb implemented policies designed to convert all the peoples of India to Islam. He issued orders to all his governors and officers throughout India to use all possible means to accomplish his jihad for Allah. Non-Moslems were not given jobs, additional taxes were imposed on them, torture and murder were used as tools of persuasion, and even Moslems who stepped in to defend their neighbors were put to death. Many temples were destroyed and were replaced by mosques - similar to the policy implemented by the earlier Moslem ruler Babar in Ayodhya, which has come to the fore with modern Hindu nationalists demanding the restoration of the temple and the elimination of the currently existing mosque. Aurangzeb's policy of forced conversion began in the Kashmir region of northwest India, where Islamist terrorists today continue his traditions and slaughter Hindus and Buddhists at prayer, on the roads and in their beds.

Eventually, the Hindus of the Kashmir region approached the leader of the more militant Sikhs, Tegh Bahadur Sahib, and asked for his help. Tegh Bahadur told the Kashmiri Brahmin delegation to inform Aurangzeb that if he could convert the Sikh guru Sahib to Islam, then all the Hindus and Sikhs would convert as well. When the guru was eventually taken into custody and brought before the Moslem ruler in Delhi, he was offered one of three options: 1) Accept Islam and be given part of the empire and all the comforts of life; 2) Show a miracle proving holiness and be released; or, 3) Be prepared to face death. The Sikh leader replied: 1) "I cherish my faith and I am not prepared to give it up. Forcing someone to give up one's faith is not only a sin but rather a deadly sin and such interference is against the principles of a true religion"; 2) "Showing a miracle is against the will of Waheguru and is act of shame and cowardice. The real miracle is to be truthful and attain union with Waheguru"; and, 3) "The threat of physical death possesses no terror for me. You make your preparations and you shall also see the miracle."

Needless to say, Aurangzeb decided to try more brutal methods to force Tegh Bahadur Sahib to accept Islam. The Sikh was kept in chains and imprisoned for three days in an iron cage designed to be shorter than the prisoner's height, with sharp spikes pointing inwards, so that the victim could neither stand, nor sit, nor lean against the walls of the cage. The Moslems then moved on to exploiting Tegh Bahadur's humanity by cruelly putting three of his disciples to death in front of him. The torturous deaths need not be described here, but, as a Jew, it is interesting to note the statement made in traditional Sikh sources regarding this incident: "the three disciples died with the name of God on their lips...." Many, many Jewish martyrs died the same way - at the hands of pagans, Moslems, Christians and atheists.

Ultimately, Aurangzeb failed to convert Tegh Bahadur Sahib to Islam, and he ordered the execution of the stubborn Sikh. On November 11, 1675, Bahadur Sahib was executed in the Chandni Chowk in Delhi. At the site of the execution stands Gurdwara Sis Ganj, commemorating the supreme martyrdom offered by a Sikh believer in the face of 17th century Islamic jihad.

Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others today face a reinvigorated jihad mentality, which, as the original version, has its roots in the Arab world. The Jews are again a focal point of the Islamic rage, as we have established a state of our own in the midst of what remains of the Moslem empire; however, we are far from alone as targets, as New Yorkers, Balinese, Indians and Muscovites all know first hand. The threat posed by al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamaat Islamiyya and their ilk is emphatically not a result of India's Kashmir policy, US intervention in the Gulf, Jewish settlement in Gaza, or any other cause to which the Islamists hook their cart. The threat must be recognized for what it is - an imperialist war of conquest for the sake of Islam. If we fail to look that threat in the eye, we may one day be forced, like the Kashmiri Brahmin, to desperately search for men like Tegh Bahadur or the hero of Chanukah, Judah Maccabee, and there is no guarantee that they will be found.


Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is the opinion editor for Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) and recently became a member of the Advisory Board of the Freeman Center For Strategic studies.



December 24, 2003


By Professor Moshe Sharon

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.

There is no fundamental Islam.
"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hudaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.

End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.



The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 27, 2004


By Isi Leibler

How appallingly mistaken we were. While hypnotizing ourselves into accepting "the irreversible peace process" we also deluded ourselves into believing that anti-Semites had become an extinct species.

We failed to appreciate that after the defeat of Nazism the poison of anti-Semitism only went into remission.

The horrific speed of the global revival of raw hatred, even encompassing countries without Jews, is mind-boggling. The obscene level of anti-Jewish incitement is comparable to the worst days of the Nazis in the early 1930s.

This is especially so in the Arab world, where gory medieval blood libels displaying Jews extracting blood from children in order to make matzot are triumphantly presented on TV. Graduates of Arafat's kindergartens and schools are conditioned to erupt into public street celebration every time Israeli civilians are blown to pieces by the shaheeds, who enjoy the highest sanction of Palestinian society.

The mushrooming pace of anti-Semitic growth is particularly disconcerting in Europe whose soil, only 60 years ago, was drenched with Jewish blood. With the speed of an erupting earthquake the sunshine of life for Jews has been clouded. Many are now genuinely fearful, even questioning the future of their children, who are already encountering hostility and violence at school. Jewish institutions are regularly attacked and desecrated.

While the bulk of the violence originates from Islamic immigrants, the incitement itself often emanates from the sophisticated chatter of the liberals and the Left, who focus their venom on the Jewish homeland as a surrogate for Jews as individuals.

Admittedly much of this is a byproduct of post-modernism, which has been imbibed by European culture, creating an environment of moral equivalency that trivializes every distinction between good and evil.

In addition, consciously or unconsciously, many Europeans seek to purge their own wretched colonial guilt on the altar of Israel. So yet again, the Jewish state assumes the role of Jewish scapegoat.

Yet the reality remains that the primary source of this hatred originates from the same anti-Semitic phobia that has set Jews apart for thousands of years -- "a people who dwelleth alone."

Of course the huge difference between the 1930s and now is the presence of the State of Israel, providing a haven that was denied the Jews before the Shoah.

Not surprisingly, critics of Israel dispute this, alleging that the charge of anti-Semitism is a diatribe to divert criticism away from the "occupation." This is humbug. It is riddled with double standards. The same people who display a persistent passionate hatred against the only democracy in the Middle East invariably ignore the monstrous outrages involving the murder of millions of innocent people in other countries, none of whom are threatened by neighbors seeking to destroy them.

IRONICALLY THIS hypocrisy is also expressed by a small but highly vocal number of Jews, including Israelis, who are often at the forefront of the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state. These turncoats are effectively exploited by anti-Semites and lionized by those Left and liberals in the Western world who were once staunch friends of the Jewish people but now head the anti-Jewish pack.

It is also extraordinary, even miraculous, that conservatives, who previously distanced themselves and even occasionally adopted anti-Semitic stances, are now numbered among our best friends. Prominent are Christian Evangelicals who have today elevated support of Israel to one of their primary religious obligations and vigorously condemn anti-Semitism.

Yet, paradoxically, there are still Jews gullible enough to believe that the upsurge of anti-Semitism is basically a byproduct of Israel's policies. The logic is that in the absence of a Jewish state anti-Semitism would somehow disappear.

This has led some Jews to even distance themselves from Israel and join the anti-Zionist chic -- as if there were a distinction between demonization of Israel and hostility against Jews. Both are birds of a feather and rooted in a common hatred. Nothing would delight our enemies more than to drive a wedge between Israeli and Diaspora Jews. They realize better than some Jews that without Israel the Jewish people is doomed.

In recent years we were reluctant to aggressively confront the anti-Israel activities of European countries and the UN and expose their shameful hypocrisy. This is now changing, and we are fortunate that Minister-without-Portfolio for Diaspora Affairs Natan Sharansky is leading the campaign on behalf of Israel. With his unique personal record in the struggle for human rights he is ideally equipped to provide leadership to the Jewish people in the global battle against anti-Semitism.

It is often said that the attitude toward Jews is a litmus test for the level of bigotry and intolerance in any given society. Now the time has come for us to take the initiative and expose the double standards manifest in the policies of those attacking us. We must assiduously avoid confusing or labeling legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies as anti-Semitic.

But we must shame the so-called enlightened nations, who persistently defame and condemn us for defending ourselves while simultaneously tolerating bigotry and appeasing murderers and terrorists.

We must dramatically confront the evil that suffuses all levels of Palestinian society and sanctifies child sacrifices and suicide bombings, and expose those who remain silent and fail to distinguish between murderers and victims.

The recent emotional outbursts by European leaders in response to an article by World Jewish Congress President Edgar Bronfman and Koby Benatoff criticizing the European establishment for failing to act more forcefully against anti-Semitism highlights the extraordinary sensitivity surrounding this issue.

This brings me to the crux of the matter:

The World Jewish Congress is now launching an international campaign involving every Jewish community and directed toward enlightened people everywhere to persuade governments to press for the carrying of a resolution on this subject at the UN.

We intend resurrecting the resolution condemning anti-Semitism that was initially promoted by the Irish Government at the General Assembly, and subsequently withdrawn under pressure from the Arab bloc.

We will also launch international petitions to promote this campaign and hope to obtain millions of signatures of support from men and women of goodwill from all walks of life throughout the world.

We intend to canvass support along similar lines to the successful campaign which resulted in rescinding the 1975 Zionism is Racism UN resolution. Our primary objective will obviously be to promote the passage of the resolution condemning anti-Semitism at the United Nations. But should that fail, we would at least identify those purportedly respectable governments who refuse to condemn bigotry directed against the Jewish people and expose the UN as a body unfit to provide moral leadership.

We regard this campaign as the first major Jewish global counterattack designed to stem and ultimately reverse the tide.

The writer is the senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress.



January 29, 2004


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Hatred of Jews and of Judaism is as old as the hills: one may even call it the equivalent of a law of nature. The hatred is subterranean. It surfaces and explodes under various external forces. Of course there are philo-Semites, but anti-Semitism is the norm.

I will not go into the theological reasons for this anti-Semitism. Instead, I limit myself to the explosion of anti-Semitism that coincides with the Arafat War against the Jewish state, a war that erupted after Ariel Sharon went up to the Temple Mount in September 2000 and preached peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs.

To be sure, Arafat had planned the war long before Sharon's stroll on the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, even though Arafat used Sharon's visit to the Mount as a pretext for initiating the war, that visit was a precipitating cause. But I was talking about the explosion of anti-Semitism.

It is my contention that the explosion of anti-Semitism that has swept the democratic world during the past three years would not have occurred were it not for the failure of Israeli prime ministers to eliminate the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its terrorist network. No one is more culpable in this regard than Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose landmark victory over Ehud Barak in the February 2001 election was a mandate to destroy the PA and thereby abrogate Oslo.

By his readiness to create a Palestinian state on Jewish land, and by calling this land "occupied territory" while perpetuating the myth of the "Palestinian people" -- actually a welter of Arab gangs -- Sharon actually confirms the accusation that Jews have stolen their land. Coming from him it is hundred times more convincing than from any Arab.

This most crucial fact aside, Arafat's and his minions could have been eliminated in one swift and sweeping attack using overwhelming force, which could have been done before and certainly after 9/11. Instead, Mr. Sharon pursued a policy of self-restraint against the terrorists. This had predictable consequences. First, it revealed that such was Sharon's commitment to a Palestinian state that he would refrain from eliminating the PA as "negotiating partner." His appointment of Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister was all Arafat needed to sleep peacefully.

Second, failure to destroy the PA enabled Arafat's minions to accumulate more and more weapons, as well as deadlier weapons. This could not but prolong the war.

Third, this prolongation of the war enabled Arabs and Muslim throughout the democratic world to inflame anti-Semitism; and this could the more readily be accomplished by TV clips of Israeli retaliation against terrorist attacks. Operation Defensive Shield should never have been necessary. Jenin should never have been the focus of CNN and BBC. Targeted killings should never have been a cause for denunciation. There should have been no Arab bomb factories, no incitement of Arabs via the Palestinian media, no brainwashing of Arab children to emulate suicide bombers. And there should have been no "security fence" to arouse Jew-haters. All this could have been avoided were it not for the gross incompetence of Israeli prime ministers, above all, Ariel Sharon.

This incompetence -- to put it mildly -- has been a primary cause of the explosion of anti-Semitism.

When Israel defeated its Arab enemies in the Six-Day War, the Jewish state was admired throughout the world. What they admired was not the justice of Israel cause so much as Israel's display of power. The world respects strength, not weakness. The world certainly has no respect for Jewish prime ministers willing to sacrifice their people's heartland for "peace." It certainly has no respect for Jewish prime ministers who negotiate with and reward terrorists. It must certainly despise Jewish prime ministers who release and arm Arab terrorists to provide for their country's security. It must surely despise a Jewish prime minister that exchanges 435 terrorists for a single Israeli and the corpses of three Israeli soldiers. Is it any wonder that Jew-hatred has exploded around the world?

Organizations which are now activated to combat anti-Semitism are shadow boxing. As long as the Israeli Defense Forces target various terrorists, as long as Arab women and children blow themselves up to kill Jews, anti-Semitism will persist. Because Arabs are willing to die for their cause, they will win the support of thoughtless men and women, of whom there is no shortage. As long as Israeli prime ministers behave like cravens and cretins, Jews everywhere will become targets of the anti-Semites. As long as the Jews of Israel do not rise up and put an end to this humiliating and degrading state of affairs, Jews everywhere will suffer the taunts and torments of Jew-hatred.


January 29, 2004

Mr. Ariel Sharon, Prime-Minister of Israel


Humiliated and horrified by your negotiations with the terrorist organization Hezbullah, which has resulted in the exchange of 435 Arab terrorists for one Israeli and the corpses of three Israeli soldiers, and knowing, moreover, that this mindless, immoral, and illegal act can only encourage terrorists to kidnap more Jews, thus making every one of us a potential victim, I hereby send to you and to any of your successors my official will.

If (G-d forbid!) I am kidnaped by any terrorist group or organization, I emphatically forbid the Government of Israel to release any terrorists in exchange for my release. This includes terrorists who have already killed or wounded Jews in Israel or elsewhere, as well as terrorists who have been apprehended before they committed crimes they had planned.

I send you this will of mine because I do not want to burden my conscience with the blood of people who have been murdered and who (G-d forbid!) will inevitably be murdered by the monsters you or your successors may want to set free in exchange for my freedom.

Eleonora Shifrin, Chairwoman

The Yamin Israel Party



Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2004

The Hard-Learned Lessons

By Yaakov Amidror

Between September 1993 and September 2000, the Middle East was the setting for a great historical experiment: the effort to negotiate a final resolution of the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The experiment failed, and disastrously so. Oslo diplomacy -- which takes its name from the site of the original back-channel negotiations between Israeli academics and Palestinian officials -- came to a standstill with the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Soon thereafter, one side, the Palestinian, opted to replace negotiations with war, launched under the misnomer of a popular uprising (intifada). More than three years later, Israelis and Palestinians continue to suffer death, injury, and economic privation.

All observers were stunned by the rapid collapse of the security arrangements that were at the heart of the Oslo concept. How could the negotiators of the various Oslo-era accords create a situation that permitted the Palestinians to prepare for terror-based war while limiting and even restricting Israel's options to respond? How could a generation of experienced, professional, security specialists -- many of them battle-hardened veterans -- fail to take into account the possibility that Oslo could be exploited by the Palestinians as a platform for war, not a basis for peace?

Answering this question is not merely an interesting historical exercise. Many well-meaning and peace-loving people -- such as those involved in the Geneva track-two effort to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian permanent status agreement -- base their future peacemaking assumptions on the tentative security arrangement allegedly agreed upon in the summer of 2000, prior to the outbreak of war.

While many obstacles block the resumption of negotiations -- such as the illegitimacy in the eyes of Israel and the United States of a Yasir Arafat-controlled Palestinian leadership -- it is widely believed in diplomatic circles that when negotiations eventually do resume, they will begin where the two sides left off before the current hostilities. Although those same security arrangements failed to prevent -- and perhaps even contributed to -- the current Israeli-Palestinian war, that fact has not stopped planners from taking them as a base line. Indeed, in key aspects of the Geneva draft accord, those very same security arrangements have been regurgitated without a common-sense effort to evaluate what went wrong with them in the first place.

The purpose of this article is to make just that evaluation and draw conclusions from it.

Israeli Desiderata

Israeli strategists, in planning for permanent status negotiations prior to 2000, sought solutions for two possible types of security threats: a conventional military threat from the eastern front and a terrorist threat from rejectionist groups, both religious and secular, within the Palestinian territories themselves.

As for the conventional threat, Israel's approach was that security arrangements should not inhibit Israel from defending itself against a threat from the east. In practice, this meant that:

As for the threat of terrorism, planners believed that a combination of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and Palestinian self-interest would provide an adequate response.[1] In practice, this meant that:

Together, these were the principles that characterized Israel's approach to the negotiations over security arrangements at Camp David in July 2000. They all need to be revisited in light of the war that has been waged against Israel ever since.

Control of Territory

The most significant aspect of the Oslo experiment, from 1993 to 2000, was the surrender of control over Palestinian populated areas. It was due largely to this surrender that the Palestinians were able to launch and fight a war that, in its first three years, cost Israel nearly 900 lives, mostly civilians.[2] (While Israel eventually did reassert control in populated areas throughout most of the West Bank and Gaza, the damage had already been done.) In comparison, during the final seventeen months of Israel's military deployment in southern Lebanon, Israel lost a total of just twenty-one people -- all soldiers -- resulting in fewer casualties than the number of civilians killed in many single Palestinian terror attacks.

Control of territory is an essential advantage in fighting terror. It is the key to gathering intelligence. Without control, it is exponentially more difficult to recruit agents and sources, to monitor suspects and terror sites, to question and arrest terror suspects, and to take the many measures by which counterterrorist experts learn the terrorists' modus operandi and prevent terrorists from getting close to their target. A military force without control of the territory from which terrorism emanates cannot destroy the infrastructure of terrorism (such as laboratories, training centers, and safe houses). Without territorial control, counterterrorism operations become risky, both in terms of physical danger and political cost.

Absent physical control, there are fewer counterterror operations, and the terrorists can more easily recover when those operations that do occur are concluded. When Israel maintained control of the populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza, its line of defense against terrorism was in the cities and towns from which the terrorists set forth. In the absence of such control, Israel's real line of defense is its own cities and towns. And because the terrorists target civilians, their success is almost assured.

A second lesson of the Oslo experience is that the lack of Israeli control of territory also provided the Palestinians with opportunities to enhance their own military capabilities. Compare, for example, the experience of the first major Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the real intifada of 1987-93, with the experience of the post-Camp David war. During the intifada, Israel was in control of all the territory in the West Bank and Gaza. Despite the military challenges of that conflict, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were able to rely solely on light weapons (e.g., guns and nightsticks) and jeeps to suppress Palestinians, without resort to tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, or F-16s. But once the PA had taken responsibility for security in the Palestinian areas, they built an infrastructure for launching large-scale assaults on Israel. Whereas the 69 months of the intifada saw just 160 Israelis killed, in the first 36 months of the post-Camp David war nearly 900 Israelis were killed. This means that Israel suffered more than five times the deaths in just half the time.

This wide disparity is mainly due to the Oslo security concept that deprived Israel of the ability to combat terror actively and instead gave the Palestinians the opportunity to regroup in areas under PA control. Indeed, the most important factor differentiating the intifada from the current war is the fact that Palestinians were able to maintain a safe haven for terror from 1993 until April 2002, when IDF troops finally reasserted Israeli control in populated areas.

Based on this experience, Israel must realize that it would be a grave risk if it were to cede total territorial control to the Palestinians in any future agreement. Israel suffered heavy casualties when the PA was only on the road to sovereignty; the price might be even higher were a fully sovereign Palestinian state to decide to go to war. In those circumstances, reoccupying Palestinian population centers, as Israel did in April 2002, would be more difficult, complicated, and costly. Indeed, given the IDF's structural limitations and the exponential growth of Palestinian capabilities from the intifada to the present war, it may not even be possible for Israeli forces to retake Palestinian cities in a future war.

To protect against another security fiasco, Israel needs to insist on two new principles in defining security arrangements within the context of a future peace agreement:

Israel must insist on retaining the right to operate throughout the territory in perpetuity, not only for a limited number of years, not only in emergency situations, and not only upon the approval of third parties.

Border Control

A second Israeli security requirement in future negotiations concerns border control. The importance of this issue is clear from a comparison of Israel's experience in Lebanon and in the Palestinian areas.

In Lebanon, Hizbullah received a steady stream of weapons, and its ability to fight increased after every round of conflict with the IDF because of resupply from Iran and Syria. Israel's situation vis--vis the Palestinians could be even worse. The latter have already displayed an impressive ability to circumvent security arrangements through smuggling, such as the fifty tons of seaborne weapons destined for the PA that were intercepted by the IDF in January 2002. Add to this the fact that the geography and topography of the West Bank permit the Palestinians to pose a strategic threat to Israel's main population centers, something Hizbullah was never able to do. If Israel acceded to security arrangements that gave Palestinians control over their borders with Egypt and Jordan, it is safe to assume that weapons would flow freely into the West Bank and Gaza, with potentially catastrophic implications.

In any future negotiations, Israel must give a high priority to preventing the Palestinian acquisition of enhanced weaponry. Only Israeli border control can effectively prevent Palestinian efforts to smuggle weapons and munitions from neighboring countries. Israel, therefore, must ensure that the Palestinian state does not have contiguous, unfettered contact with its Arab neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.

The same logic underlies Israel's need to control international passageways such as airports and seaports. Israel must retain the ability to check all imports into the Palestinian areas, whether personal or commercial goods. An invisible presence, with international forces or Palestinian customs agents doing the actual work -- as envisioned in previous Oslo agreements and in the recent Geneva accord -- will not suffice. Unless Israel can construct a security envelope around the Palestinian areas, controlling what comes in and goes out, it is likely to face a Palestinian threat more dangerous than anything it ever faced in Lebanon.

Israel Fights Alone

A seminal lesson of the Oslo experience is the need for Israel to retain, in perpetuity, both the right and ability to combat terror independently of other actors. From the moment the PA took control of territory in 1994, it never truly fought terrorism; despite Palestinian pretense, most Israeli and international terrorism experts knew the PA efforts were just a charade. It was a nave and costly belief -- made famous by the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin -- that the Palestinians would fight terror more readily than Israel because they lack an interventionist judiciary (such as the Israeli Supreme Court) or vocal human rights organizations (such as B'Tselem).

While Israel should welcome the cooperation of others -- including the Palestinians -- it now knows from bitter experience what can happen when it handcuffs its own ability to fight terror for the sake of a political accord. Israel should accept no restraints. It must retain its capability to collect intelligence inside the Palestinian area. This means insisting that in any permanent status accord, the Palestinians must accept continued collection by Israel of human intelligence as well as an agreed set of aerial reconnaissance flights (by day and night). Israel also must insist that Palestinians recognize Israel's right to detain, arrest, and interrogate terrorist suspects in the event the Palestinians do not take action against such suspects themselves. Moreover, mechanisms must be created by which the Palestinians share all terrorism-related information with Israel; full transparency is essential.

Should these terms not be included in a permanent status agreement, Palestinian extremists are certain to expand their terrorist capabilities.

Fewer Forces and Guns

When the first Oslo agreements were signed (Oslo I in 1993 and Oslo II in 1995), most of Israel's negotiators never conceived of Palestinian security and intelligence organizations as potential enemies. Instead, they sought to strengthen these institutions as much as possible so they could play their expected role in fighting terror. Unfortunately, these terror fighters -- including PA police and intelligence organizations -- were themselves terror purveyors. They played an active role in such episodes of terrorism as the 1997 Hasmonean Tunnel riots and the launching of the post-Camp David war in 2000.

Israel needs to re-think the Oslo-era assumption that stronger PA security forces mean more security for Israel. Instead, Israel should seek to limit Palestinian security organization to the smallest and weakest force capable of providing necessary police functions in PA territory. This would mean a reduction in the number of competing and overlapping forces, shrinkage of the total manpower, and collection of most of the weapons in the hands of the various forces.

A weak military force will contribute to peace and stability in Palestinian society and in its relations with Israel. The emphasis on strong police forces, instead of providing the PA with the tools to fight terror, only fed the PA's authoritarian power and its appetite for more terror against Israel. And at least in the security realm, one may reasonably question the new conventional wisdom that maintains that more centralization and clearer lines of control are conducive to peace. In an authoritarian regime, centralization may certainly improve efficiency, but that is only desirable if the security forces themselves are committed to fighting terrorism.

The 1993-2000 experience also underscores an important lesson about another key feature of Oslo security arrangements: the supposed benefits of security cooperation. The fact is that six years of Israeli-Palestinian joint patrols and combined headquarters contributed virtually nothing to mutual understanding on both sides. In practice, the daily regimen of "jointness" provided no barrier against terrorism and did not even prove to be an obstacle to the use of Palestinian security forces in direct conflict against Israel. In the future, a wholly different approach is called for: both parties would be wise to restrict security cooperation to those situations and areas in which neither side is able to act solely by itself.

Agreed Separation

Across the political spectrum, from the moderate left to the moderate right, Israelis have embraced the "security fence" as a solution to a seemingly insoluble epidemic of terrorism. The fence has become the answer for those who see no hope for diplomacy, at least in the foreseeable future.

While most see no need for a bilateral agreement regarding the fence -- after all, it can be built unilaterally, as is currently the case -- few take into account that unilateralism is a two-way street. It frees the other side to take certain actions that may be deleterious to Israel's security interests. In this respect, Israel's security would be significantly enhanced if it could reach agreement with the Palestinian side on construction of the fence. Such an agreement might commit Palestinians to take action to prevent, or at least not assist, efforts to destroy the fence and may even win Palestinian commitment to certain security measures that inhibit infiltration. Of course, such an agreement with the Palestinians would come at a price.

Proponents of the fence should also realize that it is not a panacea. For example, the fence will not only impede terrorist infiltrators, it will also serve as a barrier to the free action of IDF troops. For one threat in particular, the fence is no solution at all: the use of mortars or katyushas. For this reason, even if there is no agreement over the fence, Israel should insist in future negotiations that Palestinians accept responsibility for preventing all fire from their territory and that Israel have the recognized right to take action against sources of fire in the event the Palestinians do not take adequate measures to stop or prevent it.

Here, the key issue is confidence, not sovereignty. Despite periodic terrorist attacks that emanate from Jordanian territory, for example, Israel does not feel it has to send the IDF into Jordan to take action on its own. That is because Israel is confident that Jordan is doing its best to prevent terrorism -- the 100-percent-effort yardstick so often cited by diplomats and journalists. With the PA, Israel's level of confidence is closer to zero.

When the time comes to demarcate the final border between Israel and the future state of Palestine, important security lessons from the Oslo experience need to be taken into consideration. Chief among these is the need for buffer areas to give Israel adequate depth to defend strategic roads and targets that are close to the border. Israel, for example, should insist on retaining control over an area at least three kilometers to the north of the main east-west road leading from Tel Aviv to north Jerusalem, which cannot be permitted to run so close to Palestinian-held territory. Similarly, Israel needs to retain ample space around its Central Command headquarters north of Jerusalem and around the area that controls the approaches and runways at Ben-Gurion International Airport.

As Israel defines its territorial interests vis--vis separation, it needs to include within its control not only West Bank territory needed to accommodate consensus areas of Jewish settlement but also territory that is essential solely for security reasons.

Lessons Learned?

It is said that military planners often make the mistake of preparing for the next war as if it will resemble the last war. In Israel's case, the even greater error would be to remain willfully blind to the lessons of the last war. Incorporating the post-1993 lessons into Israel's strategy for peace negotiations may help avert a future Palestinian-Israeli war that will make the current conflict pale in comparison.

It is important to note, however, that security arrangements are not the real hurdle to resuming negotiations. For Israel, the core problem is much deeper: it is a fundamental lack of trust of Palestinian intentions. It is the belief that Palestinians are using diplomacy to gain time, territory, weapons, and people with which to wage the next round of war against the Jewish state. Only profound change in Palestinian attitudes and behavior can address the lack of trust that Israelis across the political arena evince for the Palestinians.

To regain the trust of mainstream Israelis, Palestinians will have to address the belief that Palestinians do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East. This manifests itself in two main ways:

Palestinian refusal to fight anti-Israel terrorism, which can be viewed as an outgrowth of the ongoing war against the Jewish state. This can only be rectified through demonstrable and persistent efforts to fight terrorists, arrest the leaders of terrorist organizations, collect their weapons, and destroy their infrastructure. In this context, half-measures, such as ceasefires (what the Palestinians call hudnas), are not only inadequate but also dangerous because they provide terrorists with the breathing space to prepare for the next round of war. Once the Palestinians prove their bona fides in this regard, Israel can reciprocate by easing restrictions on the freedom of movement within and between Palestinian towns and villages and undertake other civil measures. But the first step must be a concerted, relentless, and unconditional Palestinian fight against terrorism, even terror that emanates from within elements of the PA itself.

Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews, which attacks the legitimacy of a Jewish state and even the humanity of Jews. Such incitement did not stop with Oslo; it got worse. In the future, Israel should condition any further peace negotiations on visible and deep-seated efforts by the Palestinian leadership to stop incitement and promote Palestinian recognition of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. Even if incitement is difficult to prevent completely, the PA wields such control over Palestinian media and education that it could effectively stop it if it chose to do so. A litmus test of Palestinian acceptance of Israel is a renunciation of the so-called "right of return," which constitutes a demand for Israel's dissolution.

A further way in which the Palestinians could earn the trust and confidence of Israelis is by changing the character of their internal political system. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, Israel was ready to make peace with authoritarian regimes that committed themselves to regional stability even if they had little respect for democracy and human rights at home. In the case of the Palestinians, who are entwined with Israel geographically, economically, and demographically, the situation is different: Palestinian democracy is an Israeli interest. Although this is a generational project, progress toward real Palestinian democracy -- such as the development of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and a vibrant, liberal civil society -- will go far toward building a healthier relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.

In the meantime, Israel should insist at least on a reduction in the level of corruption in the PA. Corruption is not only a cause of considerable suffering to the Palestinian people, but it also feeds an environment in which terrorism flourishes. The development of more accountable and responsible Palestinian governance is thus a direct Israeli interest. It is a vital way station along the road to a democratic future in which both Palestinians and Israelis will find security.

A final word: to many, the conditions and yardsticks outlined above may seem severe, especially in light of Israel's lax approach to security arrangements and political requirements throughout the Oslo era. Yet in some ways, these constitute Israel's minimum requirements. For even if Palestinians meet these demands, incidents and problems are sure to arise. However, in an environment in which Israel's Palestinian partner is viewed as doing everything possible to fight terror and maintain mutually beneficial relations with Israel, the level of risk becomes manageable.

The far more important question is whether creating the sort of regime outlined here is even possible. It would require that the Palestinian leadership accept significant limitations on Palestinian sovereignty in perpetuity to allow for Israel's security needs. The Palestinians will no doubt demand more. Yet one thing is certain: for Israel to accept anything less would ensure a future Palestinian-Israeli war on a scale never seen before.


Yaakov Amidror, a reserve major general in the Israel Defense Forces, commanded Israel's National Defense College and headed the research and assessment division of Israeli military intelligence. He was the Ira Weiner Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy when he prepared this study.

[1] The possibility that the Palestinian Authority might actually view terror as advancing its own interest by serving as a pressure point against Israel was wholly contrary to the thinking of Israeli officials in this period. When, for example, intelligence experts told the Israeli government in 1995 that the PA might use terror as a tool of negotiations, a minister responded that the very idea did not make sense.
[2] Yedi'ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Oct. 8, 2003. The 889 dead included 628 civilians and 261 members of the security forces.



Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin
January 30, 2004

phone: 972- 2- 625-4140 fax: 972-2- 624-2803
Visit our website, click here:


by Itamar Marcus

Yesterday Israel released over 400 Palestinian terrorists and those who had aided terrorists from its prisons in exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers and a civilian who had been kidnapped by the Hizbullah terror organization. Those opponents of the deal in Israel fear that exchanging terrorist prisoners for kidnapped Israelis will encourage more kidnapping. Confirming Israel's fears, the Palestinian media has cited numerous PA sources expressing the sentiment that Hizballah has created the precedent, and the "resistance" is more effective than negotiations. Even Arafat's Fatah "emphasized the necessity to follow in the footsteps of the act of Hizbullah, so that all prisoners and detainees will be released."

The following are a collection of these statements from the PA media:

The Minister for prisoners and detainees affairs, Hisham Abdul-Raziq, expressed his joy at the completion of prisoners exchanging between Hizbullah and the Government of Israel. This deal includes the releasing of four hundred Palestinian prisoners...

The spokesman of the committee of the relatives of the prisoners in Israeli jails, Halid Al-Hatib... said: "The Government of Israel, by reaching this agreement, sends the Palestinians a message, which indicates that the releasing of your prisoners will not happen through negotiations."

Palestinian National Council member, Basam Abu Sharif, thanked Hizbullah for its efforts to release four hundred Palestinian prisoners. He described this act of Hizbullah as a Pan-Arab one deserveing respect ...

The Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements described the deal as "an achievement", which confirms that the resistance is "a realistic and practical option" for the freeeing the land and people.

One of Hamas leaders, Ismail Haniyah, told the French News Agency that the deal is a Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab achievement and he added: "This deal confirms that the resistance is a realistic and a practical option, which is capable of achievements to liberate the land and people." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Jan. 26, 2004]

The wife of the prisoner, Nafiz Haraz, a resident of Gaza who served 19 years in jail of life imprisonment... said: "every single prisoner who is released is an achievement for us and a victory for the resistance... We thank Sheik Nasrallah for this important achievement of releasing prisoners. He is the hawk of the Arabs..."

The [Palestinian] citizens believe that Hizbullah's action opend a new door of hope for the families of the prisoners, after it was closed during the [discussions of] political solutions between the [Palestinian] National Authority and Israel, which did not lead to any practical results ..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Jan.27, 2004]

"... the military branch of the Fatah movement, organized a civil and military parade yesterday in Rafah to express appreciation and gratitude for the efforts made by Hizbullah in releasing Arab and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in the prisoners exchange deal with Isreal. In a manifesto of the Abu Al-Rish Regiments, the military branch of Fatah emphasized the necessity to follow in the footsteps of the act of Hizbullah, so that all prisoners and detainees will be released."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, Jan. 29, 2004]




By Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Commentator & Analyst

Israel has nothing to explain to the International Court of Justice at the Hague regarding the Defensive Wall being built in Israel.

In 1948 the Arabs in each country announced that they would attack Israel, kill all the Jews and, as they proclaimed: "We will dance in their blood" and "Push them into the sea". As they proclaimed, so did they attack. They refused the partition voted by the United Nations in November 1947 and thus gave up any claim to land they would lose in their unprovoked aggressive war against the new born Jewish State of Israel.

Israel as the intended victim State, won that war, resulting in what can only be defined as Defensive Conquest. Israel had to pay dearly in lives lost and in what lost monies they had to raise to buy junk weapons from the scrap yards of Europe at usurious prices. These same European nations now dare to judge Israel for creating a barrier to Arab Terrorists. These were the same nations who refused to sell Israel weapons to defend herself and her people, many just liberated from the Nazi death camps.

The Arabs attacked and the Jews advanced.

In each of the 7 wars launched by the Arabs against the Jewish State (including the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam hit Israel with 39 SCUDs), the Arabs always attacked with the same intention of committing a blood Genocide and overcoming their humiliation and shame from always being beaten by the Jews they hated and despised - Jews whom they thought were weak.

Their own religious legends of fiction assured them that each defeat was an anomoly and that the Jews were the weak, cowardly people who could not, would not fight.

They attacked and we advanced.

Each time, the price for the Jewish State to stay alive was paid in Jewish blood and great debt. Each war came at a greater cost in both lives and treasure on more weapons. After each war that the Arabs instigated and lost, they retired to spend their treasure on re-arming (which should have gone to educate their primitive backward communities). But, the Arab Terrorist Losers diverted all the loot to war that they got from donor countries and the black gold, that is, the oil the Western countries extracted. The Arab Terrorist nations and organizations used these Billions to buy tanks, guns, missiles, aircraft, explosives and, for many, attempted to build WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Israel is still fighting a war against the unremitting Terror by Arab/Muslim Terrorists, who have proclaimed in their manifesto, their Muslim "Mein Kampf" that, they shall continue killing Jews even if it takes them 100 or 1000 years.

Israel has started to build a "Wall of Life" which fits their slogan of "Ein Breira" (No Choice). I do not agree with this Wall, not because of its existence and purpose but where it is placed. It walls off too many Jews who live in the villages, towns and cities called 'settlements'.

I believe there already exist two natural barriers against attacks by any coalition of Arab armies from the East. A first line of defense is the Judean and Samarian Mountains and the second is the Jordan River. They are effective and they are much cheaper than the "Wall of Life" now being built for Israel's protection of her peoples' lives. The Golan Heights is the first line of defense from the Northeast protecting Israel from attack by Syria.

Israel paid for that land with tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands of injured. Israel earned that land over and over again because the Arab/Muslims attacked again and again in war and with Terrorism between the wars. Israel owns that land because G-d promised it to the Jewish people. You can read that repeatedly in the Bible.

As a relevant aside, it is interesting to watch the Left Liberal Media give honor to the pagan Koran which follows the moon god of the Arab desert tribes but the Media scorns the Jewish Bible from which the Christian Bible is written.

Arab/Muslims knowingly gambled away the land they controlled by attacking Israel in 7 wars and now demand that they deserve the Land they lost be given back - as if they deserved it. They made bad judgements in their investments in war and death. They killed Jews and they got their own people killed. There is a price that unrepentant serial aggressors must pay.

Each time they attacked, their purpose was to occupy the Land of Israel, take as their plunder what the Jews had built and enjoy the "dancing in the blood of their Jewish victims". Israel paid with rivers of blood and hundreds of Billions of dollars which the Arab aggressors still owe by way of compensation for the 7 wars and for the Jewish lives and property they confiscated in the home countries from which the Arab countries ejected them..

The Land of Israel owes no explanation to the world's nations, to the Court in the Hague or to their American friends. I offer the same advice to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon now that I gave to Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir before the Madrid Conference in October 1991. Don't go! It's another ambush for the Israeli nation and the Jewish people. Whatever you say will be irrelevant. Whatever proof you submit will be considered trivial and ignored. All your planning and discussion on the merits of your case are wasted effort. This will be another International circus where Israel will be put in the dock and pilloried. Regrettably, I do not expect you to take any sensible advise.

As for the "Wall of Life", it is only a temporary barrier, much the same as one would find in Separation Walls, moats and bars in a zoo. Israel's wall is 3% high concrete (but this is all that you see in the news) and 97% chain link fencing. Such walls exist in every civilized country, including America, to keep out illegal aliens. But, Israel has always been judged under different rules, customs and laws - only because they are Jews and anti-Jewish bias still exists.

People who take joy in blowing themselves up to kill an enemy who is not of their primitive pagan religion are dangerous animals. Perhaps one day they will evolve into civilized human beings. But, until that time, the Wall of Life must be erected to separate the killers from our people whom they have declared are their prey.

They attack! We advance! G-d promised.

Emanuel A. Winston is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.





By Yoash Tsddon-Chatto

Policy Paper No. 14, From the book ISRAEL AT THE CROSSROADS, 1997 (Still relevant today in 2004)

(Presentation to the J.E.C. on Capitol Hill, October 21, 1997)

Executive Summary

Israel is simply too small to allow for the deployment and maneuver of large warring armies, hence, as the Arabs persistently resolve to destroy Israel, Yigal Allon, as a Labor Deputy Prime Minister, declared (February 1967): "Israel is entitled, nay, obligated and therefore capable of opening pre-emptive hostilities whenever war is imposed upon it - this being the most important and, in certain circumstances , the only means of securing its survival."


The world has, including the USA and UN, nevertheless, disregarded moral and long range strategic considerations and demanded a return to pre 1967 borders (perhaps "with minor modifications"). In view of the present Israeli-Arab negotiations and of international pressure, the realistic, even politically correct question to be weighed by all parties is: "How will or rather, WILL Israel manage to survive into the 21st century within the confines of its pre-1967 lines, without becoming a millstone on the U.S. neck, politically, morally and materially?"


The question is asked in view of the unflinching, open enmity of most Islamic countries, of the enormous Arab and Iranian arms build up, of the last 30 years of weapons technological advance, of geo-political unfoldings in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and of the very nature of the Arab and Iranian totalitarian regimes.

Since 1967, Arab Mig-15, 17 or 21 were replaced by Mig-23, 25, 29, Sukhoi 24 and US made F-15 and F-16. Night vision and digital weapons delivery are standard. One modern plane hits better, further than a whole squadron of 1967 or 1973 vintage. Unlike in 1967, stand-off weapons and ballistic missiles are standard, Main Battle Weapons. We do have a weapons saturation situation.

The Egyptian air force, 299 warplanes strong in 1967, had 409 in 1973 and 473 + 89 attack helicopters in 1996. The army had 1,955 tanks in 1973 and 3,650 in 1996. Egyptian ballistic missiles, nil in 1967, a few in 1973, are now hundreds, coming off the production line of a plant purchased in North Korea, in unchallenged breach of the U.S. Aid agreement that precludes Egypt from entertaining ties with terror sponsoring countries. In view of Egypt's economic and social plight, why such an arms build up? who threatens Egypt? Or has it any designs?

Syrian warplanes, 97 in 1967, 326 in 1973, were 468+ 100 attack helicopters in 1996. Syrian tanks, 1,300 in 1973, are 4,800(!) in 1997. Syrian ballistic missiles, estimated to number 500-600, are also coming off the production line of a North Korean supplied plant.

About 2,000 ballistic missiles may be launched at Israel by year 2,000, many of them carrying mass-destruction warheads. The Aviation Week & Space Technology issue of September 22, 1997, mentions (pp. 48-50) a study made by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, based upon data of the Congressional Research Service. It refers to arms' purchasses. Following are a few highlights:

During 1989-1996, the Middle East has been the largest arms buyer of the developing world, with contracts worth 100 Billion U.S. Dollars, of which 56 are to be supplied by the US...

Facing the Arab world and Iran, Israel purchased during 1993-96 (Oslo period) 3.8 Billion worth of arms.

Saudi Arabia alone, purchased, during that same period, 20.0 Billion US Dollars worth of arms.

An objective, professional analysis of the above fleetingly mentioned facts as well as others related, will show that Israel faces the highest concentration ever of military forces per mile of frontier, the highest concentration ever of ballistic missiles per square mile and is threatened by mass-destruction weapons coming of age, while endangered from within by an emerging Arab entity in Judea, Samaria and Gaza which casts a dark shadow over Israeli Arabs.

The inevitable conclusion, to which formal US military studies and Russia's G.H.Q. generals concur, is that a pre-1967 Israel is presently militarily untenable.

Israel will, in this case, be stripped of its conventional deterrence which means certain war with Pan-Arabia that will enjoy a crushing military superiority exercised from a forbidding topographic superiority. Israel will not have a pre-emption option like in 1967, because of SAM missiles. Arabia and Iran can surprise, like in 1973, starting with ballistic missiles' salvos that will slow Israeli mobilisation, covering thus the initial, critical stage of offensive moves.

50 years after the Holocaust, the Jewish state is pressured to march toward its own demise, unless, that is, the US assumes its defence, active, in real time, which would be a politically counterproductive, expensive and unwarranted task.

Israel is a Western asset in an unstable strategic area. It should not be turned into a liability because of fleeting diplomatic expedience.

Note that the only remaining alternative to the US active, real time defence of Israel in its pre-1967 lines may be, if rumours are true, the Samson Option. Hardly beneficial to anybody, morally, strategically or economically.



The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 19, 2004


By Shmuel Katz

In implementing the separation of forces agreement with Syria after the Yom Kippur War, Israel withdrew from territory it had captured at Kuneitra and its surroundings.

Subsequently, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, reporting to the Knesset on June 3, 1974, said, "There is no place for an interim stage. Once we achieve further progress in a settlement with Egypt the question will arise whether Syria is indeed ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel."

The agreed line of separation (which included the whole of the Golan) promised Israel security from future attacks from the Syrian aggressors. Indeed, that line has been the most untroubled border experienced by Israel to this day.

Thus it was that prime minister Begin in 1981 received the Knesset's consent to incorporate the Golan into Israel's territory. A thriving Jewish community has been growing on the Golan ever since.

The Yom Kippur War was not the only occasion for an unprovoked Syrian attack on Israel. It was the third. Syria had joined in the Arab League campaign to abort the very creation of Israel in 1948. The Arabs were thwarted in their major objective -- Israel survived -- but Syria converted the Golan into a tremendous system of fortifications for future attack on Israel. That, indeed, was the only constructive Syrian act in the years of its possession of the Golan.

Meantime, it contented itself with making life in the Galilean plain below as miserable as possible, mainly by the intermittent lobbing of shells into Jewish villages. During those years there were children who did all their schooling in the underground bunkers erected as protection against Syrian shelling.

Then came the attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria in June 1967. That attack was bombastically proclaimed in advance -- by Egyptian president Nasser -- as the war that would put an end to Israel.

This time Israel decided to put an end to the towering threat of the Golan. IDF units scaled its formidable heights, bringing the Golan into Israeli hands at last.

Six years later, on Yom Kippur, the complete surprise of the Syrian attack (like the Egyptian attack in the south), momentarily threw Israel off balance. It was only after some hard fighting and heavy casualties that Israel regained control of the vital Golan bastion.

DOES THE sane nation exist which would, after that threefold experience, hand back the Golan to Syria on any terms? It is all the less likely when, throughout the years, the Syrians have been one of the most important backers and sources of terrorism against Israel -- harboring some of its leading perpetrators; sowing, spreading and teaching its children murderous propaganda, demonizing not only Israel, which it threatens to destroy, but the Jewish people as a whole.

Winston Churchill, during World War II, laid down a clear-cut principle for a very similar set of circumstances: "Twice in our lifetime," he told the House of Commons on February 22, 1944, "Russia has been violently assaulted by Germany. Many millions of Russians have been slain and tracts of Russian soil devastated as a result of repeated German aggression. Russia has the right of reassurance against future attacks from the West, and we are going all the way with her to see that she gets it."

Yitzhak Rabin phrased it succinctly in a speech in 1992: "Whoever abandons the Golan endangers the existence of Israel."

For the Jewish people, the Golan has a fascinating history, largely associated with the post-biblical period and the revolt against Rome, its memories resonating historically as Jewish as those of Judea and Samaria. What has, moreover, been forgotten is that it was so recognized in the Mandate for Palestine.

Yes, most of the Golan was included in the territory envisaged for the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Mandate in 1922. But the British, to whom the League of Nations had entrusted the Mandate as a trustee for the Jewish National Home, violated the Mandate and, a year after its promulgation, illegitimately gave away the Golan to Syria. Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine reads:

"The Mandatory [power] shall be responsible to seeing that no Palestinian territory shall be ceded, or leased, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power."

That was in 1923. The British signed an agreement with France whereby in return for certain benefits to itself in Europe, Britain transferred the Golan to France. France then included the Golan in its own Mandate for Syria.

When France's Mandate came to an end in 1945 and Syria became an independent sovereign state, Syria became also the mistress of the Golan; and therefore the Golan was turned into a powerful base for attacking -- and destroying -- the Jewish National Home.

The undignified decision of Israel's president, in a knee-jerk reaction to a seemingly softer tone from Damascus, to honor President Bashar Assad with a visit to Jerusalem indicates once again the ease with which Israeli political leaders constantly ignore the painful lessons of 50 years experience with the Arabs. They seem to forget Israel's national policy and the Golan's status as a part of Israel.

Three prime ministers in turn acted out of the deluded belief that Syria would make peace with Israel if the Golan was given back. They did not grasp that Syria needs the Golan primarily as a base against Israel. They forgot the reasons why the Golan was incorporated into Israel and why it must remain there for good.

Israel can offer Syria peace and, indeed, economic and cultural cooperation -- but Syria must first put an end to the promotion of terror and the harboring of terrorist organizations, the anti-Semitic politicization of children, and its virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda.

But these are not matters for negotiation; putting an end to them is a normal basis of civilized behavior. Otherwise it is useless, indeed counterproductive, to call for negotiations for the sake of negotiating.

The writer, a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.



The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2004


By David Shalom

The agreement announced on Sunday, January 25, between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorist organisation is a further nail in the coffin of Israel's deterrent power.

The deal includes the release of 435 Arab terrorists from Israel for the corpses of three kidnapped soldiers and the handover of kidnapped Israeli businessman Elchanan Tannenbaum. The arrangement is of course disproportionate in terms of numbers traded, but this is not the major mistake. The real mistake is that any deal whatsoever has been done with such a terrorist organisation. It is time for Israel to initiate an ethical foreign policy that will forbid any dealings with illegitimate entities, such as terrorist organisations or any of the dictatorial regimes that rule the Arab world today.

The Hezbollah should be treated as a criminal organisation and Israel's main objective must be the organisation's elimination. It must not be traded with and afforded the dignity of a sovereign state. It should not be wooed or threatened, it should be crippled, undermined and destroyed. A priority must be the capture of its leader Hassan Nasrallah, who should be brought to trial in Jerusalem. Likewise, if Israel is to regain some of its lost deterrent power, or at least to stop its further erosion, the death penalty for terrorists must be instated.

In the context of the current deal, Israel considered releasing the terrorist Samir Kuntar. Kuntar was found guilty of murdering three members of the Haran family in their Nahariya home in 1979, as well as the murder of a policeman. In the future, anyone found guilty of mass murder (killing more than two people) should be given the death penalty. If Kuntar had been executed, the message that crime doesn't pay and that Israel will defend her citizens properly would have ringed throughout the Arab world. Instead, we have come to the situation today where this poor excuse of a human being was almost freed and allowed to be paraded as a hero through the streets of Beirut.

The deal also includes the freeing of hundreds of terrorists into the PLO-controlled regions of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This policy is simply insane. These terrorists will be free to attack us from within, to plant more bombs, to shoot, to maim, to return to their old "jobs".

America's recent resolve to eliminate Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan serves as an example of a successful policy. It demonstrates the need to defeat terrorists and not negotiate with them. Dealing with the terrorists only strengthens their hand in the future and gives them legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab public, as well as in the wider world. By refusing to deal with Hezbollah, and actively, through military or other means, pursuing a policy of eliminating Hezbollah, Israel would prevent further kidnappings and murder in the future. The primary targets should be the Hezbollah leaders themselves, but ultimately, a policy is needed to directly undermine their Syrian and Iranian taskmasters.

The decision by Ariel Sharon to free the terrorists is an own-goal for Israeli deterrence and the perception of Israeli capabilities. Unfortunately, it seems that the agreement will only increase the popularity of the terrorist organisation. While the government should do its best to bring our MIAs home, this cannot be done at the expense of national security.

Similarly, if Israel is interested in a genuine peace with Syria, she must not conduct any negotiations with the Assad dictatorship. The recent suggestions of signing treaties with the dictator in Damascus are dangerous dreams, in need of a sudden and rude awakening. At a very minimum, before any negotiation, the Israeli government must call for an end to the 20-year-long illegal occupation of Lebanon. The government must call for democratic reform from within Syria. Israel must learn to internalise that deals with tyrants are both immoral and dangerous. It needs to realise that these treaties are utterly futile and are not worth the paper they are written on. The major examples being the Camp David agreements signed with the Egyptian regime and the Oslo Accords signed with the PLO.

At Camp David, Israel was forced to relinquish all of the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty that has never been adhered to properly and for a peace that has still not materialised 20 years later. Israel lost the strategic depth that Sinai provided (it is larger than all of Israel today), as well as the large oil reserves that Israel discovered there. In fact, there is enough oil in Sinai to provide all of Israel's energy needs and provide Israel with $2 billion dollars annual export revenue. The country also lost the $1 billion dollars worth of tourist revenue from the handover of the town of Ofira. The result was a cold peace - that existed before the accords anyway - which allowed the Egyptian regime to regain American support and international legitimacy. In fact, any cold peace that exists today is only due to Egypt's collapse on the battlefield during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Since Camp David, the Egyptians were able to regroup and rearm using American funds and arms. As a result of the surrender of Sinai, Egypt celebrates each year its "victory" in the "October War". The Egyptians continue to officially indoctrinate their population towards hatred of Israel. Egypt continues to allow "Palestinian" Arab terrorists to smuggle weapons into Israel through tunnels at the Rafah border, and their military continues to arm itself to the teeth in anticipation of future battles with Israel. A recent massive Egyptian military exercise in Sinai was dedicated to defeating "an enemy to Egypt's northeast".

Indeed, at every international forum, the Egyptian government spares no effort in condemning Israel and challenging its very right to exist. This can be witnessed daily at the UN or at conferences such as last year's Durban anti-Israel-fest. Such Egyptian performances will no doubt be repeated at the impending kangaroo court session we can expect at The Hague.

The Egyptians have not had an ambassador in Israel for over three years, and it is fair to say that peace with Egypt, or more exactly the peace treaty, is as about as real as last year's Egyptian general election, when the dictator secured 99% of the votes, though he was the only candidate. As a minimum gesture to restore some of Israel's lost credibility, the government should return Israel's ambassador from Cairo back home.

The Olso Accords, like Camp David, revitalised an Arab tyrant after a great defeat. Immediately before Oslo, Yasser Arafat was persona non grata in the US, having supported Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. In fact, some thought at the time that the PLO was on the verge of self-destruction. Yet, the Left brought him back to life and gave him a base in the heart of the country. To this day, Israelis continue to suffer as a result of the disastrous capitulation by the Labour government to the terrorists.

Time and time again, we have seen treaties that only serve to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They serve to embolden the Arabs and encourage the false hope of Israel's ultimate destruction. They grant legitimacy to despots and only harm Israel's long-term interests, forcing her to make concession after concession.

The current deal with the Hezbollah is a similar, albeit smaller, capitulation to terrorists. It will also strengthen Syria's image at a time when the regime is at a low point and voices in Washington are calling for tough measures against it. Regime change in Damascus must be seen as the only true ethical foreign policy objective. Any plans to resuscitate the dictator in Damascus today would be a huge mistake, only equaled by the stupidity of resuscitating the terrorist from Tunis.



Haaretz - January 20, 2004


by Moshe Arens

Crime should not pay - that is a maxim of all civilized societies. This is why the law provides punishment for criminals, which should also serve as a deterrent to others who may be contemplating criminal acts. A world in which crime goes unpunished leads directly to the jungle and anarchy. This is equally true for individuals who have committed crimes, as it is for nations that have committed crimes against their neighbors or other nations. Aggression should not be rewarded, it should be punished. It is to be hoped that Saddam Hussein and his admirers have by now learned that lesson.

The accepted rule of international behavior is that a nation committing aggression not be "rewarded" after being defeated, by the return of territories it lost as a result of the war it had started. Violation of this rule is nothing less than an invitation to further aggression.

Nor is it acceptable for the defeated aggressor to make return of the territories it lost a condition for putting an end to the war it started, in other words, demanding "territories for peace." Today's Germany is not demanding the return of territories it lost to Poland in the last world war. Nor is Japan demanding the return of Korea or Manchuria to Japanese control.

Only the case of Israel and its Arab neighbors seems to be different. Egypt attacked Israel four times - in 1948, 1957, 1967 and 1973 - and was defeated four times. Yet it insisted that the Sinai peninsula it lost during these wars of aggression be returned to Egypt. That was Egypt's condition for ending a war Egypt had started. And Israel accepted that condition! No heed was paid to the moral implications of letting the aggressor go unpunished, of rewarding the aggressor. The future implications of setting such a precedent were disregarded.

If Prime Minister Begin hoped that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty would remain in the history books as "the exception that proves the rule" that an aggressor should receive the well-deserved punishment for his crimes, he was mistaken. The mantra of "territories for peace" and "return to the 1967 borders" was born at Camp David in 1977, and has haunted Israel ever since.

Now along comes Syria, which attacked Israel three times: in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973. It was unsuccessful in 1948, and was defeated in 1967 and 1973, losing control of the Golan Heights. For many years now, Syria has been encouraging the Hezbollah terrorists to attack Israel and has harbored Palestinian terrorists in Damascus.

Nevertheless, following in Egypt's footsteps, Syria demands control of territories it lost in wars of aggression, and demands that Israel "return to the 1967 borders." The doctrine of "territories for peace" has by now embedded itself so deeply in the thoughts of people around the world, including many Israelis, that this outrageous demand seems almost reasonable and natural.

People tend to forget that this nonsensical formula has in the past been used by Hitler in 1939, when he declared that he would leave Europe in peace if territories in Poland that Germany lost in World War I were ceded to Germany.

The Syrians make no such demands of the Turks, who in a "land grab" in 1937 annexed the Syrian port of Alexandretta, now Iskanderun, to Turkey. They know only too well what the Turkish response would be. But Israel is known to be a "soft touch." Having given in to Egypt, why should it not also give in to Syria?

In the Golan Heights, just as was the case in the Sinai peninsula, there are no "demographic considerations" to be thrown in our faces. Common sense and the accepted rules of international behavior should determine Israel's response to Bashar Assad's overtures. Sure, we are prepared to negotiate a peace treaty with Syria. But forget about the Golan Heights, and consider yourself lucky if you are not presented with a bill for economic reparations for the damage your aggressive behavior has caused Israel and its citizens over the past 56 years. If you understand that, we shall be happy to sit down and talk. And don't forget, crime does not pay!




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Much noise was made recently in international diplomatic circles. Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad called for the renewal of peace negotiations with Israel. He also proposed a "weapons of mass destruction free zone" for the Middle East, and then promptly called on Israel to give up its nukes. Israel's immediate response was the already stale reply, "We're willing to start negotiations without preconditions," the line it's taken for years. Then, Israel's President Moshe Katzav invited Bashar to meet in Israel, which was promptly rejected.

But there should be one precondition that Israel demand from Syria before the opening of negotiations. What you ask? Should Israel demand that Syria dispose of its chemical weapons first? Should Israel demand that Syria stop its support for Hezbollah attacks against her first? Should Israel demand that Syria stop its support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the other Palestinian terror groups based in Damascus first?

No, all those should also end, so that peace negotiations could resume...

What Israel should stand firm on and demand, as the number one precondition to restarting the negotiations with Syria is that it get out of Lebanon, which it has been occupying since 1976. Syria has been in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 520 since 1982, calling on them to leave Lebanon. The Syrians have "cannibalized" Lebanon for almost 30 years, in one of the most vicious occupations on record. Lebanon has been "virtually" absorbed into Syria.

See "Syria's Horrendous Track Record in Lebanon" ( for a list of the atrocities Syria has perpetrated in Lebanon since 1975.

This plan - to steal Lebanon - was announced as far back as August 26, 1973, when the former Syrian President Hafez al-Assad - Bashar's father - announced that Lebanon and Syria are one country and one people but with two governments. Hafez al-Assad's "Greater Syria Dream" took shape them.

If Syria can slaughter over 20,000 of its own citizens in 1982 at Hama; if Syria can invade, terrorize, murder and occupy it's own Arab neighbor, Lebanon; how can Israel trust Syria in a peace arrangement? Syria must leave behind its brutal occupation of Lebanon, make amends, and prove that it's ready to join the family of nations, before Israel even considers returning to negotiations. But Israeli prime ministers over the years haven't been too smart in dealing with Syria. Recently, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, "I hope it is clear to everyone that negotiations with Syria that start where they left off, means giving up the Golan Heights," basicaly, giving everything away at the start.

Sharon added, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "can prove the seriousness of his intentions by responding positively to the world's demand to cease his support for global and regional terror and end his support for the terror organizations and then we will be happy to negotiate with him on every issue without any preconditions." Notice, he didn't even mention Syria's occupation of Lebanon.

By the way, Israel might have some passive responsibility in the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. According to an interview published by the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz (April 7th 1995), Gideon Raphael, Israel's ambassador to Great Britain at the time, stated that in 1976, former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave Syria his written approval allowing the Syrian forces to enter Lebanon.

According to Raphael, Prime Minister Rabin was notified by King Hussein of Jordan of Syria's plans to enter Lebanon. Raphael told the interviewer that he met with King Hussein on April 11, 1976, in London, at the King's request. Raphael said: "The King promised in the name of Hafez al-Assad that the Syrian army will not deploy in Southern Lebanon and that it will not even come close to the borders of Israel; that it will work to control the various armed Palestinian factions which might be planning to mount attacks against Northern Israel from the Lebanese border."

Raphael added, that the Syrian President promised Rabin that the Syrian operation will only target the Palestine Liberation Organization and that Syria will withdraw as soon as calm is restored. Raphael also stated that, in a letter addressed to the King of Jordan on April 28, 1976, Rabin gave his written consent for the deployment of the Syrian forces in Lebanon and that this letter is still in existence in the archives of the Prime Minister's Office.

By the end of May 1976, Syrian tanks crossed the Lebanese border never to leave. According to Raphael's statements, Hafez al-Assad could take such a bold move, knowing that Israel wouldn't create a problem for him.

Twenty-eight years later, Israel has the opportunity to correct its mistake by now demanding that Syria leave Lebanon "without preconditions". After the Lebanese regain control over their country; after Bashar proves he intends to fundamentally change Syria's policies; Israel and the international community can begin to take serious his peace overtures. As long as Syria continues to occupy Lebanon - a "brother" Arab state - one can only imagine what he would do to the Jewish state if he could. Why trust him?

Since "The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003" was approved by the US Congress and US President George Bush dropped his objections to it in mid-December 2003, Syria has come under increasing pressure. The bill's purposes are to (1) halt Syrian support for terrorism; (2) end the Syrian occupation of Lebanon; (3) stop Syria's production of Weapons of Mass Destruction; and (4) hold Syria accountable for the illegal Syrian-Iraqi trade, which provided Iraq with the weapons that killed American troops, and stop the flow of weapons and fighters into Iraq.

The Americans might be luke-warm about ending Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and might be less than total, in their demand to end support for Palestinian terror groups, but they sure do mean it when they say they want Syria's WMD capabilities eliminated, and Syrian support for the Iraqi anti-American resistance fighters ended. President Bush, in his recent State of the Union address - though he didn't mention Syria by name - said, "As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." Now we can understand Bashar's "half-hearted" peace overtures toward Israel, he's starting to feel the noose closing around his neck.

"We're interested in peace with Syria, but not in exchange for lip service meant to relieve Syria of the pressure it faces," Prime Minister Sharon told that Knesset Committee recently.

Finally, after Hezbollah's latest attack, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to end his strategy of using Hezbollah as a weapon against Israel and called for an end to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. "On one hand, Assad talks peace and on the other hand he uses his long arm - Hezbollah - in order to heat up our northern border," Shalom said. "The Syrian presence in Lebanon is intolerable and after 30 years the time has come for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon," he concluded. This could be brought up during renewed talks with the Syrians, Shalom explained.

Let's hope we soon hear Prime Minister Sharon begin to demand, "Syria must leave Lebanon without preconditions, now." Only after Lebanon is free of the vicious Syrian occupation - and an independent country again - will Israel be able to consider returning to negotiations with Syria, and Lebanon.


Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. Pasko has recently become associated with the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies as a member of its Board of Directors and a research associate. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2004/5764 Pasko




By Jan Willem van der Hoeven
Director, International Christian Zionist Center

Proving once more how volatile the situation is on Israel's northern border in relation to both Syria and Lebanon, Arutz Sheva reported the following on January 21:

Southern Lebanon

Labor MK Efraim Sneh said this morning that the 12,000 Hizbullah missiles deployed in southern Lebanon deter Israel from taking strong military action in the north. Sneh, who was Deputy Defense Minister when the IDF unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in May 2000, said, "I warned Barak that withdrawal from southern Lebanon without an agreement [with Lebanon] would create a vacuum that would be filled by Hizbullah, but I didn't imagine that the consequences would be so grave."


Syria has completed chemical warheads for its arsenal of Scud-based missiles, Middle East Newsline reports. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said that Syria, with help from North Korea, has succeeded in designing and installing chemical warheads for its various Scud missiles, with a range of 250 to nearly 700 kilometers. The chemical agent deployed in the CW warheads is sarin, regarded as a most toxic material. "Since the 1970s," Bolton said, "Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced chemical weapons capabilities [in the Arab world]. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX."

When Hizballah and the Syrians unleash these awesome weapons of mass destruction on Israel's northern towns and villages, the result will be devastating. We might well pray that, as the United States and Britain dealt with Iraq, Israel will have the fortitude to deal with this life-threatening danger before it is too late.

But not, as Shmuel Katz - an advisor to Prime Minister Menachem Begin and a former Knesset Member - so clearly and convincingly explains, by another withdrawal (like Israel's unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon) - this time from the Golan Heights!

With Syria, Trade Peace for Peace

In implementing the separation of forces agreement with Syria after the Yom Kippur War, Israel withdrew from territory it had captured at Kuneitra and its surroundings.

Subsequently, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, reporting to the Knesset on June 3, 1974, said, "There is no place for an interim stage. Once we achieve further progress in a settlement with Egypt the question will arise whether Syria is indeed ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel."

The agreed line of separation (which included the whole of the Golan) promised Israel security from future attacks from the Syrian aggressors. Indeed, that line has been the most untroubled border experienced by Israel to this day.

Thus it was that Prime Minister Begin in 1981 received the Knesset's consent to incorporate the Golan into Israel's territory. A thriving Jewish community has been growing on the Golan ever since.

The Yom Kippur War was not the only occasion for an unprovoked Syrian attack on Israel. It was the third. Syria had joined in the Arab League campaign to abort the very creation of Israel in 1948. The Arabs were thwarted in their major objective - Israel survived - but Syria converted the Golan into a tremendous system of fortifications for future attack on Israel. That, indeed, was the only constructive Syrian act in the years of its possession of the Golan.

Meantime, it contented itself with making life in the Galilean plain below as miserable as possible, mainly by the intermittent lobbing of shells into Jewish villages. During those years there were children who did all their schooling in the underground bunkers erected as protection against Syrian shelling.

Then came the attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria in June 1967. That attack was bombastically proclaimed in advance - by Egyptian president Nasser - as the war that would put an end to Israel.

This time Israel decided to put an end to the towering threat of the Golan. IDF units scaled its formidable heights, bringing the Golan into Israeli hands at last.

Six years later, on Yom Kippur, the complete surprise of the Syrian attack (like the Egyptian attack in the south), momentarily threw Israel off balance. It was only after some hard fighting and heavy casualties that Israel regained control of the vital Golan bastion.

Does the sane nation exist which would, after that threefold experience, hand back the Golan to Syria on any terms? It is all the less likely when, throughout the years, the Syrians have been one of the most important backers and sources of terrorism against Israel - harboring some of its leading perpetrators; sowing, spreading and teaching its children murderous propaganda, demonizing not only Israel, which it threatens to destroy, but the Jewish people as a whole.

Winston Churchill, during World War II, laid down a clear-cut principle for a very similar set of circumstances: "Twice in our lifetime," he told the House of Commons on February 22, 1944, "Russia has been violently assaulted by Germany. Many millions of Russians have been slain and tracts of Russian soil devastated as a result of repeated German aggression. Russia has the right of reassurance against future attacks from the West, and we are going all the way with her to see that she gets it."

Yitzhak Rabin phrased it succinctly in a speech in 1992: "Whoever abandons the Golan endangers the existence of Israel."

For the Jewish people, the Golan has a fascinating history, largely associated with the post-biblical period and the revolt against Rome, its memories resonating historically as Jewish as those of Judea and Samaria. What has, moreover, been forgotten is that it was so recognized in the Mandate for Palestine.

Yes, most of the Golan was included in the territory envisaged for the establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Mandate in 1922. But the British, to whom the League of Nations had entrusted the Mandate as a trustee for the Jewish National Home, violated the Mandate and, a year after its promulgation, illegitimately gave away the Golan to Syria. Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine reads:

"The Mandatory [power] shall be responsible to seeing that no Palestinian territory shall be ceded, or leased, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power."

That was in 1923. The British signed an agreement with France whereby in return for certain benefits to itself in Europe, Britain transferred the Golan to France. France then included the Golan in its own Mandate for Syria.

When France's Mandate came to an end in 1945 and Syria became an independent sovereign state, Syria became also the mistress of the Golan; and therefore the Golan was turned into a powerful base for attacking - and destroying - the Jewish National Home.

The undignified decision of Israel's president, in a knee-jerk reaction to a seemingly softer tone from Damascus, to honor President Bashar Assad with a visit to Jerusalem indicates once again the ease with which Israeli political leaders constantly ignore the painful lessons of 50 years experience with the Arabs. They seem to forget Israel's national policy and the Golan's status as a part of Israel.

Three prime ministers in turn acted out of the deluded belief that Syria would make peace with Israel if the Golan was given back. They did not grasp that Syria needs the Golan primarily as a base against Israel. They forgot the reasons why the Golan was incorporated into Israel and why it must remain there for good.

Israel can offer Syria peace and, indeed, economic and cultural cooperation - but Syria must first put an end to the promotion of terror and the harboring of terrorist organizations, the anti-Semitic politicization of children, and its virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda.

But these are not matters for negotiation; putting an end to them is a normal basis of civilized behavior. Otherwise it is useless, indeed counterproductive, to call for negotiations for the sake of negotiating.

(Published in The Jerusalem Post, January 19, 2004.)

The Golan Heights, or Bashan as it is called in the Bible, was part of the Promised Land Joshua allotted to the Israelite tribe of Manasseh. Israel should never squander it again.