Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 13             B"H   FEBRUARY 2005             NUMBER 2

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

February 2005


THE REALITY OF A FAKE DOCUMENT - Part 1 & 2...Guest Editorial....Elyakim Haetzni
ISRAEL'S COUP D'ETAT...Guest Editorial....Prof. Ya'acov Golbert
THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT...Guest Editorial....David Wilder
ON WORTHLESS HUMANITY...Guest Editorials....Dennis Prager
TO THE RABBIS OF ISRAEL...Paul Eidelberg....Guest Editorial

THOUGHT POLICE....Evelyn Gordon
AS YE SOW....Gerald A. Honigman
WHY FEIGLIN SHOULD STAY WITH THE LIKUD (An attempt at analysis)....Boris Shusteff

THE ALTALENA AFFAIR.....Prof. Yehuda Lapidot





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)





Why It Needs To

By Bernard J. Shapiro

Virtually every news commentator compares Israel's temporary removal back in 1996 of 400 terrorists to Lebanon with the heinous crimes of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The United Nations was being asked not to have a double standard for Iraq and Israel. In fact, the Palestine Liberation Organization, having been recognized as the world's highest moral arbiter, has been asked by the then United Nation's Secretary General Boutros-Ghali to draft a resolution condemning Israel and calling for sanctions. Something is obviously wrong with this picture. It is time for Israelis and their supporters to recognize that Israel has a public relations problem.

The actions Israel took to defend its security were quite moderate by Middle East standards. Its ability to explain what and why it took such action was inadequate. Along with most of the pro-Israel community, I'm a frequent critic of Israeli information policies. I had a pleasant lunch last week with an Israeli official and we discussed this very issue. As a result of our conversation, I am not convinced that the Israeli government is doing everything in its power to communicate its message to the media, political leaders, and general public. Its just not working.

What is needed is a whole new approach to Israeli public relations. Let's call it: THE MARKETING OF ISRAEL, and look at the problem from an advertizing perspective. About nine months ago, I discussed with an executive of a major advertising company the possibility of producing television spots supporting Israel's positions on various political issues. I became discouraged upon learning that the major stations do not permit "advocacy" commercials. Fortunately, this has changed.

I think it is time to take a second look at my concept but expand it to include radio, magazines, cable television (cable will accept this type of commercial) and newspapers. The ads should range from the very soft evocative travel type to some hard hitting but subtle political messages. Pretend that Israel is a corporation with a vast market in the United States. Receipts from that market top $9 Billion Dollars (including US economic and military aid, UJA, Israel Bonds, JNF, Hadassah plus all the other campaigns from Yeshivas to the Technion). What would you spend to protect a market of that magnitude? Two percent would equal $180 million. You can run for president with that kind of money. In a wild fantasy, lets say we have that much money. And let's say we hire a talented creative ad man to develop a multi-faceted, multi-media, and multi-year campaign to win the hearts and minds of the American people.

This should not be an impossible task. Israel is a good product, lots of virtues, few vices. Can you imagine convincing the American people to love Osama Bin Ladin? We could do nothing, but the consequences are not so good. Public opinion polls are beginning to show the Arabs winning more and more sympathy. Yes, Arabs who keep their women in bondage and cut off their clitorises to deny them sexual pleasure; Palestinians who disembowel pregnant teachers in front of their classes; Syrians who peddle narcotics to American inner city youth and commit mass murder if provoked; Saudis who threaten to behead a man for practicing Christianity; all of these and more are almost as popular as Israel. The terrorists Arabs delight in the mass murder of Israel and Jewish civilians. They especially blowing arms and legs off women and children.

The Arabs are good at smearing the good name of Israel. Just listen to Hanan Ashrawi some time. No matter what the question, she manages to fit in a lie about Israel in her answer. Israel has already lost the college campus, half of the Afro-Americans, a good portion of the Protestants except for the some Baptists and the Evangelicals and some in the Jewish community. Unfortunately many American Jew or eight ignorant or apathetic about the fate of Israel.

The Israel government needs to realize that we are living in a new world where telecommunications brings us closer that ever before to each other. In the fifties when Israel was criticized, Ben Gurion used to say, "Its not what the world thinks, but what the Jews do that is important." It is a different world now and for every Israeli policy, the public relations aspect must be examined. I am definitely not calling on Israel to submit to public opinion but instead to organize and mold it for their benefit. I don't want Israel immobilized by fear of bad public relations. I want Israel to plan, with the help of experts, a strategy to counteract the negative effects of any public policy move. Would Sharon send his soldiers into battle without a detailed plan and strategy to win. The time has come for Israel to develop a strategy the win the public relations battle. The Jewish community in this country is more than willing to lend its money and advertizing talent to aid in this task. Let's do it!


THE JERUSALEM POST reported several years ago on plans at the Israeli Foreign Ministry to abolish its "hasbara" or information efforts. It reported, "The decision to abolish hasbara is in keeping with the then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres' view that 'if you have good policy, you do not need hasbara. And if you have bad policy, hasbara will not help.'" Those of us who have been in the trenches, fighting Arab propaganda for years, were stunned by this policy change. Most of all, we were stunned by this apparently incorrect perception of reality.

The propaganda battlefield, from which the Foreign Ministry seems eager to withdraw, is a surreal Kafkaesque landscape filled with the evil utterances of that unholy alliance of Arabs and anti-Semites. Their propaganda targets the Jewish community in America as well as Israel for a one simple reason: Anything that weakens the Jewish community and reduces their status in America ultimately limits the ability of Jews to aid Israel politically and financially. George Orwell would be quite at home with the "newspeak" of the "politically correct" bigots. Language, history, and religion become a twisted mass of bizarre concepts such as Zionism = racism.

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) regularly reports on the most glaring examples of media bias to its members. Over the past few months, we have been shocked to discover that Encyclopedia Britannica has joined in the distortion of Israeli history to conform to what's "politically correct." In its description of the Six Day War of 1967 there is no mention of the Egyptian removal of UN troops, the closing of the Straits of Tiran (an act of War by international law), the movement of 100,000 troops into Sinai or the huge mobs in Cairo whipped to a frenzy by Gamal Abdul Nasser with cries of "DEATH TO THE JEWS" The Britannica account of the '67 war reads, "The Arab-Israeli War of 1967 devastated the Arab nations. In six days in June, Israel not only dispatched the combined forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, but also overran vast tracts of Arab territory...which formally had been parts of mandated Palestine." For the average reader of the supposedly authoritative Britannica, Israel launched an aggressive war to seize land and devastated innocent Arabs. PRECISELY THE VERSION OF HISTORY THE ARABS WANT!

A quick scan of recent CAMERA literature reveals that the New York Times' correspondents for Israel, have a decidedly ant-Israel viewpoint. Harper's Magazine has published 22 viciously anti-Israel articles in the last five years. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) shows one biased report after another on the Middle East. National Public Radio (NPR) has become a hotbed of the most anti-Israel and anti-Semitic programs in the nation. And it is taxpayer supported! The American Library Association (ALA) has begun taking official anti-Israel positions and its 18,000 members are urged to carry books on the Middle East supporting the Arab version of history. The ALA's annual meeting several years included a panel discussion entitled, "Israeli Censorship: There and Here." Israel has a free press ( though 90 % leftist) and censors only for security reasons. On the other hand the Arab world is the most censored and restricted in the world, with death penalties for authors who go against the law of Islam. Why is the ALA discussing Israel and no other country? The answer: attacking Israel is politically correct.

What we are witnessing is the success of Arab propaganda in America. The following excerpt from ARAB PROPAGANDISTS JOIN FORCES WITH ANTI-SEMITES (my first published article in 1965 and still true today) should warn us of the consequence of abandoning the information field to the Arabs. "What do the Arabs hope to gain by this great effort and expense? Bluntly speaking -- to bring about conditions that would facilitate the destruction of the State of Israel. They concentrate most of their propaganda in the United States, because they feel that this country was the greatest single influence that contributed to the creation of Israel and that it still is the major force standing in the way of Israel's destruction."

It is my hope that the Israel Foreign Ministry will heed this warning and reassess their policy on hasbara before any more damage is done to the reputation of Israel and the Jewish community in this country.


"It is time that Americans realize that these teeming masses of Zionists who infest their cities and sit astride the arteries of their commerce are, in every sense of the word, aliens."

The above quotation, in passion and paranoiac ring could have come from the pen of anyone of our local hate mongers, whose rhetoric we have come to know well over the past half century. Yet, these words are neither the work of a professional rabble-rouser, nor of a right-wing extremist; rather they come from a presumably scholarly work written by an Arab college professor.

This points up two rather disturbing realities: That Arab propaganda has broadened its area of attack against Jewish populations out-side of Israel; it has, in effect, joined forces with local anti-Semites. Secondly, this propaganda apparatus, sanctioned, as it is, by duly recognized governments which together form an influential political power bloc, has lent these local anti-Semitic efforts the aura of respectability.

The Arabs, therefore, aim to neutralize the impact of America on the Middle East and, if possible, to draw her over to their side. This requires that the propaganda apparatus achieve the following effects: To drive a wedge between Israel and the American Jewish community; to alienate the Jew from the rest of America, and destroy his political and economic strength; and to convince the American people, and through them the American government, that it must adopt a pro-Arab, anti-Israel foreign policy.

Arab propaganda constitutes a formidable threat to the Jewish People and Israel. It must be counter-balanced by a strong and vigorous defense of Israel and the Jewish People. Recent efforts, like that of the Israel Project will fail as will the Israeli Foreign ministry effort. The reason for that failure is their attempt to disavow Zionist ideology and pursue a delusional "peace" with those who wish to destroy us.

What do the Arabs hope to gain by their propaganda against Israel Bluntly speaking they plan to bring about the conditions that would facilitate the destruction of the Jewish State.

The Arabs, there for aim to neutralize the impact the impact of America on the Middle East. In many ways they have turned the United States into their ally in the process of dismemberment of Israel.Let us briefly examine these three conditions and understand why their achievement is absolutely necessary before an Arab policy of eliminating Israel can hope to succeed. The Arabs have always looked at the Jews of America as allies of Israel, and it is against this alliance that the bulk of the Arab propaganda is directed. During the past fifteen years, the Jews of America have given invaluable material and political support to the State of Israel. American Jewish aid has helped make possible the absorption of over 1,000,000 immigrants in Israel, and has given impetus to her economy. The Arabs, therefore, believe that they must destroy this relationship as a precondition to destroying the state. Recognizing that such a campaign might not succeed, the Arabs have devised other means of limiting the effectiveness of the American Jew. If Israel can not be made alien to the American Jew, then the Jew can be made alien to his non-Jewish neighbor. Isolate the Jew, and you isolate Israel; destroy Jewish prestige in America, and you destroy Israel's; weaken Jewish economic and political strength and you weaken Israel's potential to survive.

And finally, they believe that a long-range program to win wide-spread support of their policies from the American people is essential. If they can do this they will be able to prevail upon the American government to take a pro-Arab. anti-Israel position in its foreign policy. These ideas and projected goals are certainly plausible and, to a great degree, necessary, if Israel is to be destroyed with impunity.

To achieve these goals, the Arab Information Centers and the funding of Islamic studies at most major American Universities has turned a whole generation of scholars and students against Israel. School and public libraries regularly receive large amounts of unsolicited propaganda; civic, church and political clubs are treated to a host of polished Arab speakers who are able to lecture on a wide variety of subjects but always manage to direct the discussion to the Arab-Israeli conflict; hundreds of anti-Israel letters are kept flowing to large and small papers across the country.

The themes and techniques exploited in the letters, books, pamphlets and speeches follow a pattern. Virtually all Arab propaganda is based on the following postulates:

* The establishment of Israel represents a great "imperialistic" injustice to the Arabs.

* The Arabs of Palestine were expelled from their homes by "alien" invaders who seized their country.

Muhanimad T. Mehdi spells this out explicitly in his pamphlet The Question of Palestine:

"The question of Palestine is basically a problem of intrusion of a group of foreigners, largely Europeans, into the Arab land of Palestine, against the will of the Arab people, but with British and later American and Western support."

A wide variety of proposals, arguments, themes and accusations based on these postulates appear periodically in Arab propaganda. In all of their efforts the distinction between Zionist and Jew is blurred, although the Arabs frequently claim to have no quarrel with the Jews, but only with the Zionists. We will deal with this lack of precise distinction, when we discuss the use of anti-Semitic themes in its propaganda.

Here, then, are some examples of recurrent themes:


Through The Mid-East Looking Glass

Since the unfortunate reprisal against Arabs in Hebron ten years ago, there has been a dramatic decline in the accuracy of the media. We have been treated to the modern equivalent of Orwellian newspeak, not to mention a harrowing trip through Alice's looking glass. One could not help but notice how pure and innocent the Arabs were being portrayed. A casual observer would certainly think that all violence in Middle East was a product of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers roaming the Judean hills looking for Arab prey.

The PLO leadership, its hands dripping with Jewish and Arab blood, demanded protection from the vicious Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (YESHA). It refused to return to the negotiations until its demands were met. The gullible international media took this whole charade seriously. The United Nations began debating a resolution to give protection to the poor vulnerable Palestinians. The PLO demanded that all Jewish communities of YESHA be ethnically cleansed of those rotten murderous Jews. At the very least they should be disarmed.

The high and the mighty beseeched Arafat to return to the talks with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, obviously anxious to please his PLO friends, began a crackdown on Kach and Kahane Chai and other so-called Israeli extremists. Consider this: Rabin determined that Baruch Goldstein acted alone in his reprisal act. He then decides to outlaw the organizations associated with him. Guilt by association is what made McCarthy big in the 50's. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Reality Check: Now Kach and Kahane Chai have been labeled as terrorist organizations although they never have committed a single act of terror as a body. The PLO, which is guilty of thousands of murders of Arabs and Jews, continuing still, is labeled a "partner for peace" and will be given arms to kill some more (as policemen).

Reality Check: Are Arabs in danger from armed Israelis in YESHA? Some research reveals the following figures since the famous handshake on September 13, 1993:

Israelis killed by Arabs = 1400+
Arabs killed by Arabs = 200+
Arab attacks on Israeli targets = 15,000+
Israeli attacks on Arabs = 1
(Goldstein killed 29)

It is clear that except for the attack by Goldstein, the Arabs have not been threatened by Jews and certainly need no special protection. If you travel to YESHA you will notice that every Jewish village needs a security fence, while every Arab village is open. Doesn't this tell you who is threatened and who isn't? All the talk about disarming the Jews is a cover for the Arab desire to murder them. And if you desire murder, wouldn't it be nice to disarm your victim first?

The media has begun to adopt another tactic which we should protest. In the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, CNN and most of the other media opponents of the suicidal Oslo, Roadmap, Jewish Expulsion Plan are being referred to as right wing extreme Arab-hating and anti-peace groups. Do you ever remember the PLO or Hamas ever being referred to as Jew-hating groups, although their covenants and speeches are filled with hatred of Jews? Arafat, who has been quoted on many occasions as referring to Jews as, "filthy, sons of monkeys and pigs," is never referred to in the media as a Jew-hater.

Reality Check: To the best of my knowledge there is a distinct difference between Jewish feelings about Arabs and Arab feelings about Jews. Arabs are taught from the earliest grades to despise Jews and their clerics preach hatred (Itbach El Yahoud - slaughter the Jews) in every service. Jews, on the other hand do not preach hatred, but those that are not brain dead recognize, after 100 years of being attacked, that Arabs mean them harm. The media is totally obfuscating the truth about the conflict by the use of such terms as Arab-hating Jews.

Another problem with media coverage of the Israel-PLO deal is the way its opponents are described. Arabs opposed to the deal because they want to kill or expel all Jews from "Palestine" immediately are equated with Jews and Israelis who want Israel to survive in secure borders. Opponents of the deal are called anti-peace as opposed to supporters being pro-peace.

Reality Check: Most opponents of the deal with Arafat oppose it because it is suicidal for many strategic, historical and objective reasons. None of us are anti-peace. We just recognize that the path chosen by the Rabin/ Peres government will lead not to the hoped for and advertised peace, but to Israel's destruction.

In another bizarre twist of logic the Los Angeles Times reports that Israel's leading peace group, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), has urged Sharon to remove 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of YESHA(including Jerusalem) to avert widespread bloodshed under Palestinian self-government, and to forcibly evict all Jews within five years. They said that their continued presence, "fostering violence and bloodshed endanger peace prospects."

Reality Check: The facts demonstrate that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews that are the cause of 99.9% of the violence. Why not remove the Palestinians? What Peace Now is really admitting is that there is NO PEACE or any prospect of PEACE.

The liberal Jewish establishment and most of the media were appalled when Rabbi Meir Kahane first began talking about transferring the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael. Most are still appalled at this idea. A new idea has come into fashion, though, among these same righteous Jews: transferring the Jews from YESHA (heartland of Eretz Yisrael). Former Secretary of State James Baker recently said it would be a good idea to use the $10 Billion in US loan guarantees to buy out and transfer the Jews from YESHA. US President Bill Clinton seemed to like the idea and so did Rabin's coalition partner Meretz.

Reality Check: There is no moral difference between transferring either Jews or Arabs from YESHA. What Kahane said years ago about the inability of Jews and Arabs to live together is being validated today by the same people who condemned him.

The 100-year war of extermination launched against the Jews of Israel by the Arabs has had many twists and turns. Sadly it seems headed for Alice's looking glass and the world of 1984, where black is white, war is peace and good is evil.



"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up." ----------- Pastor Martin Niemoller (A Righteous Gentile)




Parts I & 2

by Elyakim Haetzni
Arutz Sheva-IsraelNationalNews - February 01, 2005

As fate would have it, several days before the giant demonstration in Jerusalem, a horrifying document of four pages in length was making the rounds on the Internet. It is entitled "Staff Working Paper - Deployment for the Disengagement in the Gaza Strip Region" and contains a chilling script for a civil war.

In the meantime, the CD playing in the heads of the IDF officers has been changed. Now they are to see the Palestinian terrorists in military fatigues who have deployed opposite them as "policemen", and to treat them as "colleagues" and not "predators" - a perfect reenactment of the darkest days of "Oslo". The scent of Oslo also rises from the Sha'ul Mofaz-Mohamed Dahlan meetings, as well as from the expected meeting between Ariel Sharon and the Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, for which they are preparing as if it was a wedding.

On the one hand, affection for the murderers of the people, on the other, the sinister "Staff Working Paper", which is an insane orgy of self-cannibalization, as if a person were eating himself alive.

On television, sources in the prime minister's office hurried to announce that the document is a fake; however, several days earlier, on Channel 1, Uri Cohen-Aharonov exposed a secret plan that he obtained, or that was leaked to him, with many similar elements. He also said that thousands of policemen are currently undergoing training at a border police base near Beit Horon, on the way to Jerusalem, in uprooting Jews - including how to utilize force, as well as ideological and psychological preparation.

At the top of the "Working Paper" document, there is an annotation that certain details have been altered to prevent identification of the source; but I am impressed, based on the intimate technical details therein, that it is not a fake. It is apparently an early General Staff working paper that has most likely been altered in the meanwhile in many of the details; however, there is in its essence enough to get an idea of what they are planning for us.

I quote from the document: "The evacuation will end no later than the 7th of September, a week before Rosh Hashana." According to the document, the homes, including public buildings, will be immediately destroyed by bulldozers or explosives, in order to prevent any retaking of them.

In this last matter, though, it appears there has been a change in plans. Sharon is attempting to get something from the Ishmaelites in exchange for the sale of Joseph. If not from them, then from the World Bank. However, no one is willing to pay for that which he will in any case receive free of charge. Therefore, as of now, there is talk of handing over all the homes, intact, to Abu Mazen - as a gift!

This gift, the Osloid mind explains, will earn us the Palestinians' appreciation, will prettify our image in the world, and also, it will contribute to protecting the environment. After all, what would we do with the rubble of the buildings? Leave it at the site? Unaesthetic. Take it with us and pollute the Green Line? And what of the costs of conveyance, isn't it a waste of money? This way, everybody is happy: we are rid of the homes, the schools, the wedding halls, the hothouses, the study houses, the yeshivas and the synagogues; the Arabs will benefit and love us for it; the whole world will applaud; and the environment, that which we abandoned, will remain as beautiful and captivating as it was. It's perfectly logical - especially in the closed ward of a mental institution.

Further on in the document, it says that at the start of the stage of forcible expulsion, the water, electricity and communications infrastructure will be disconnected. The signal corps will also disrupt the cellular networks throughout the Gaza Strip and environs.

The document allocates for 'Operation Civil War' the Gaza Division, backed up with reservist units, policemen, 1,000 special patrol unit officers, five border guard battalions and an elite SWAT battalion. Today, there is talk of bringing a division from the Golan and of at least 5,000 policemen. In addition, according to the document, two teams of commandos, as well as medical, rescue, fire department, psychologists and mental health officers are to be mobilized.

The document talks about a "dry-run evacuation exercise" to be held at the Adam military installation, which will include a "simulated enemy". In those words. And don't get confused - we are the "enemy".

In the event of the use of force, the document continues, tear gas will be employed. In the event of shooting on the part of the settlers, there will be specific counter-fire by SWAT snipers "targeting leg, body and head, as needed."

I quote: "It must be taken into account that there may be suicides by the residents, fires set to homes with the residents inside, accompanied by eruptions of rioting by crowds on an unprecedented scale in the direction of the shooting. Subject to a decision at the governmental level, in extreme cases of extended exchanges of gunfire, and taking into consideration the preservation of life, an order will be given to break into houses under fire using bulldozers and controlled light automatic weapons fire."

And more: "...[It] is the responsibility of the Israeli police department to be prepared, in the event of inflamed emotions as a result of injuries, for preventative action in various areas of the country, in order to restrain and prevent marches, demonstrations, riots and arson of installations, buildings and cars throughout Israel.

"In extreme cases, the military censor will operate on an emergency footing, in order to prevent foreign broadcasts from areas of battle [yes, that is the _expression!] against the residents and rioters. Local television and radio networks will be subject to court suppression orders."

Afterwards, there appears in the document something that it refers to as "the order of folding up the communities of the Strip", the number of residents in each town and a schedule covering a day to two for each group of communities.

First - Netzarim and Kfar Darom. Afterwards, Tel Katifa, Katif, Kfar Yam and Shirat Yam; and after that, I quote: "In the assessment of psychologists, a breakdown in the will of the evacuation resisters, and with that, rash acts of desperation are also expected."

After that, Netzer Hazani will be uprooted, Ganei Tal and Slav. Afterwards, N'vei Dekalim and Gadid, followed by Morag, Kfar Yam and Pe'at Sadeh.

At this point, the scripts multiply. In the event of "collapse of the residents [thus it appears in the original!], continued movement towards taking over Bnei Atzmon, Bedolach, Kfar Atzmona and Gan Or. In the event of continued resistance, suspension of the evacuation for deployment opposite the Palestinian forces." The rest of the evacuation will be suspended for two and a half days. After that, in the words of the document, "folding up the last of the communities of the Strip."

The Reality of a Fake Document - Part II
by Elyakim Haetzni
February 02, 2005

[Part one of this article can be read at]

The "[IDF] Staff Working Paper" distributed through the Internet takes into account that the civil war amongst the Jews will be accompanied by mortar shelling and Kassam rocket fire, ambushes and roadside bombs, as well as "storming by thousands of unarmed Palestinians of the abandoned buildings, hothouses and industrial areas, in order to take control of property and capture spoils."

Interesting. The sick mind behind the document does not even consider halting the evacuation if there is Palestinian fire. That is precisely how Yochanan of Gush Chalav and Shimon Bar Giora killed and burned one another under Roman fire. Nothing has changed. The warped genes of self-destruction remain in our blood, as if 2,000 years have not passed.

According to the document, there is preparations also for the scenario according to which the Hizbullah and other terrorist groups in Lebanon try to land on the seashore "immediately after the evacuation or even during it," in order to hold a victory march and take up positions along the Strip's perimeter fence. The document's response? "Victory marches must be prevented, in order to prevent a worsening of the confrontations inside Israel."

It is interesting that even in the feverish mind of the document's creator, the obvious question was raised: and what then? Days, weeks, months, years after you have evacuated, how will you prevent Hizbullah and other terrorist groups from doing whatever they want, now that you are no longer there? The document's answer is more relevant than ever: "...the introduction of European and United Nations forces as a buffer between the terrorist groups, the Palestinian Authority and Israel."

The reality is even worse: at the head of the foreign forces will be Egyptian troops.

Afterwards, the document discusses blocking roads and what the expellees will do.

"Conveyance of evacuees" - women and children - will be to youth centers or for medical and psychological treatment in various towns in the south of the country. Men: to a camp for identification and classification, based on their level of involvement in the rioting. There will be trucks and trailers for removing the tractors and moveable agricultural equipment. There will be imprisonment and interrogation facilities "for the rioters, murderers [!] and seditionists among the settler public."

With all of that, the document calls for "maximum restraint, and for being understanding of the calls of rage and desperation of the evacuated residents."

The document also worries about the security forces: "Soldiers and officers who will suffer from [mental] trauma phenomena will be removed from the area under the jurisdiction of the medical corps."

And this is the end of the frightening civil war script: "Evacuation of the casualties will be to hospitals after identification and notification of the families." According to scenario A, up to 20 casualties are expected, and according to scenarios B and C, between 100 and 300 casualties.

The document concludes: "In our estimation, there will be no choice but to declare a state of emergency throughout Israel on the eve of the evacuation."

Even if this document is a product of the imagination, it must be said of it that it is absolutely realistic; in fact, the opposite is the case, it is foreseeable that the reality will be even worse.

And now, the question is asked: can a demonstration of 150,000 people constitute a reply to what they are planning for us, even if it is a bigger rally than anything previous and more attractive? Correctly, the correspondent for Voice of Israel noted that nothing was said at the demonstration that we have not heard before, and it does not appear that it had the power to change the plans and intentions of the government.

Even the exclusive focus on the demand for a referendum is puzzling. Who authorized anyone to play the lottery with the land of Israel and to commit to accept "the decision of the people"? What if among the people - as a result of the systematic brainwashing by the media and of the prestige of Ariel Sharon, which has not yet expired - there will be a majority for expulsion? If the expulsion is in fact a "national crime and a crime against humanity," as the Judea, Samaria and Gaza Council posits, then can even a majority be allowed to carry out such crimes?

Past experience proves that demonstrations do not change public opinion, nor the positions of Knesset members, almost all of whom act in accordance with personal interests, and only in accordance with those interests.

In my view, there was in the demonstration only one practical point: the pledge that was read out from the dais - in the name of all the assembled - to be there, at the scene of the expulsion, on the day the order comes.

With the mobilization of the regime, as expressed in the "Working Paper" document, it is clear that no resistance - especially the only kind that can come from our side, non-violent - has any chance of success without a mass of people, on the scale of 100,000 or more.

However, in light of the organization of the forces of destruction - cutting off of all systems, electronic warfare, preemptive arrests inside Israel far from the Strip - whoever is seriously planning to bring the masses to the field should have been making preparations for some time, but from tomorrow morning at the latest. Just think of supplying such masses of people for a full month, perhaps, and the rest of their basic needs....

The very short time remaining must not be wasted on the fantasy of keeping Shas out of the government, or on adding another Likud "rebel" or two. If there is any chance for those things to occur, it is only if the politicians see serious preparations, in the field, for the "Day of Judgement".

The attempt to convince our opponents at the last minute, in publicized meetings with people who are symbols of the Left, appears pathetic. It is as if the hunter and the prey were arranging the method of the impending mercy killing. In the case of public opinion, too, whomever we have not convinced in 37 years of the righteousness of our path, which is the true pioneering Zionist path, as well as the purity of our intentions - can no longer be convinced in these last moments.

The desire of the destroyers we will not be able to change, but we definitely can change their estimation of their abilities. We can cause them to say: we would like to, but we can't. Just as the Left succeeded in bringing the governmental bodies and public opinion around to the assessment that transferring Arabs is out of the question - because it can't be done, even if it is desirable.

It will be very sad if the Judea, Samaria and Gaza Council wastes these last remaining months in a pathetic attempt to appear beautiful and righteous - instead of preparing the ground to broadcast: "You can not do it!"




by Prof. Ya'acov Golbert

Forwarded by & with comments by Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator

The Israeli people have almost become accustomed to seeing their political leaders caught up in scandals. Stealing from the Government's Treasury to fund their political parties has become normal. Seeing their Prime Ministers using the power of their office for personal gain gets only a shrug from the average Israeli. Watching the Police cut off investigation because of political pressure has become expected. Political crooks never go to jail if they are high enough in the party structure. What can the people do other than revolt, throw the political crooks out of office or into jail. Israel needs a French-style Revolution with all the benefits. The following story speaks volumes:

From: "Yisrael Medad" Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Fw: MUST READ!! Israel's Coup D'etat

Professor Ya'acov Golbert wrote:


What has happened in Israel in the last two weeks is a secret, bloodless > coup d'etat. The stage was set a year or more ago, when the state prosecutors and the police were breathing hard down the neck of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his two sons on various charges of corruption, bribery and breach of public trust. Suddenly, all the investigations were cancelled because of "lack of evidence."

Over the next few months, Eliyakim Rubenstein, the Attorney General who served the Labor establishment with faithfulness and competence, was elevated to the Supreme Court; the chief prosecutor, Menahem Mazuz, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, was moved up to Attorney General, one of the most powerful positions in the government and Sharon committed the government to unilateral abandonment of all of the Gaza Strip with its 21 Israeli settlements and four strategically placed settlements in Samaria.

That was the very policy proposed by Amram Mitzna and the Labor Party in the election in 2003, which Sharon roundly lambasted and denounced and, on the basis of which, the Likud crushed Labor in the elections. It certainly looks like Sharon sold out the country's defense and foreign policies to Labor in exchange for dismissal of all investigations against him and his sons.

The problem with submitting to blackmail is that, once blackmailed the victim is hostage to the blackmailer forever. So Sharon not only pursued unilateral retreat with ruthless determination, but he also brought Labor into the government, all "democratically," of course, by means of more breaches of public trust and suborning of breach of trust by the Likud Central Committee, blatantly above and beyond what is called in America "pork barrel." It looked more like bribery and extortion.

Labor is not only in, not only has nearly half the ministerial posts in the government, even though is has less than half as many Members of Knesset as the Likud. The leader of the Labor Party, Shimon Peres, is also the Deputy Prime Minister, with complete control of everything in the realm of foreign affairs. Silvan Shalom is still the Foreign Minister but in name only.

It is also clear that Labor owns Ariel Sharon, who will do anything and everything demanded of him. Peres and the Labor Party could demand that Sharon resign, for personal reasons, and leave the government formally in the hands of Peres as ranking Deputy Prime Minister but the left needs Sharon to front for them. Sharon has a reservoir of good will and personal faith that Peres and Labor do not have. Sharon saved the country, after all, and people have not forgotten. He can ram suicidal measures down the throat of the resisting public more and Labor cannot. People will accept from Sharon what would send hundreds of thousands out into the streets in protest if Peres did it.

How can Sharon's Labor Party masters be sure he will not betray them as he has betrayed everyone else who has trusted him in the past? Sharon, after all, is resourceful, ruthless, wily and determined. Not more than one week after entering into a political marriage with Sharon, the criminal justice system, another leftist fiefdom, issued a charge sheet against Omri Sharon.

That was not to fire a shot across Sharon's bow. It was to put a collar and chain on his neck. He will serve Peres and the left faithfully and energetically. At the end of the line, after Sharon has brought about the full measure of surrender, Sharon will be allowed to resign for reasons of health and leave Peres in control. The charges will then be dropped or dismissed, no doubt for "lack of evidence," or the prosecution will take a dive in the fifth with the full complicity of the court.

If Sharon does not deliver, Omri will sit in prison and that is not all.

"New" evidence against Ariel Sharon and both of his sons will certainly be "discovered" by the prosecution and they will all sit in prison after spending their entire fortune on legal defense.

Now that the election of 2003 has been overturned by blackmail, intimidation and bribery and the government taken over by the very party that was creamed in that election, the junta is moving quickly to consolidate its control and entrench its program, which is the de-Judafication of Israel.

It was not announced but it became known that the Ministry of Education had decided not to recognize the undergraduate degree of anyone who received academic credit for post-high school yeshiva study. Furthermore, any graduate degrees earned by such a person would not be recognized because they are based on the "tainted" undergraduate degree. This is a regular practice of Yeshiva University, whose graduates are willingly accepted by > the best graduate schools in the world.

This is a blatantly anti-Jewish measure. The real objection is that the immigrants who have received a year's academic credit for yeshiva study are religious Jews, too religious, the kind the secular un-Jews definitively do not want in Israel.

This measure is consistent with the very frequent refusal of the Ministry of the Interior to recognize Orthodox conversions performed in Israel and approved by the Chief Rabbinate, for purposes of the Law of Return; the closure by the Ministry of the Interior of immigration from India and Peru on the ground that all the conversions in those countries are Orthodox; the systematic practice of the Jewish Agency to encourage immigration of non-Jews from the FSU, even those who have no connection with the Jewish people at all and the uniform willingness of the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption to accept their immigration under the law of return.

That is not the only measure being taken by the Ministry of Education to de-Judeafy the country. There are presently twenty six teachers' colleges and teachers' seminaries. Sixteen are to be closed, leaving only the ten operated by the kibbutz movement, the most anti-Jewish sector of the population, the ones who are being asked to volunteer to forcibly remove resisting "settlers" from their homes and farms, the ones who will make up the core of the psychopath squads who will do the brutal work. They will be the exclusive educators of the nations' educators.

The Ministry of Education is ostensibly under the control of Likud MK Limor Livnat, but that makes no difference. Peres knows all the dirt on everyone. Remember who created the Shabak, who hand picked its first agents and directors: Shimon Peres, when he was Director General of the Prime Minister's Office under Ben Gurion. He has never lost the loyalty and control of the Jewish Section, whose task is to infiltrate and undermine the right and the religious sectors of the Jewish population. Peres rules now in the tradition of Putin and Ceausescu, both of them heads of their respective secret police. Government by blackmail and intimidation, but we grace it with the name "democracy."

The same is happening in the military. Resistance among the religious, both soldiers and the general population, to unilateral abandonment of parts of the Land of Israel to implacable enemies has given the left the pretext they need to dismiss religious officer candidates from the courses and weed religious Jews out of the officer corps. Israeli television has already reported the news that the Hesder Yeshivot, a program in which religious Jews spend five years in the army, three and a half of them in a yeshiva on a military base, ready for immediate call. No more. Religious soldiers will be thrown into a secular army, run by secular officers who have proper contempt for the Jewish religion and religious Jews, the better to assimilate and de-Judeafy them.

Religious soldiers at every level will be replaced by less motivated but ideologically pliable secular Israelis and also by Ukrainians, Turks, Egyptians, Americans and British MI5 agents, all of whom are already in the country in large numbers, and by "Palestinians" presently undergoing "special training" with Israeli government approval. These and the ideological kibbutznikim who volunteer to brutalize the "settlers" will form the psychopath squads who will do the dirty work of expulsion.

Of course, they will all wear IDF uniforms so that no "settler" will open fire on them. But that is already taken care of. It has already been reported by Ha'aretz, the PLO's favorite Hebrew paper, that there are settlers who would open fire on other settlers to provoke them into firing on the army, which will force the army, yes force the army, to fire on the "settlers." (They will not be called "civilians," innocent or otherwise, as they call the "Palestinians" who willingly serve as human shields to protect the terrorist perpetrators of mass murder.) The modus operandi is clear: a Shabak agent provocateur, a latter day Avishai Raviv, disguised as a "settler," will fire the first shot in the direction of the IDF, justifying the ensuing massacre and civil war.

Religious Jews today comprise substantially half of the officer corps. To eliminate them would inevitably "dumb down" the officer corps. No matter. Once the Israelis eliminate the "settlers" and end the "occupation," the Israelis will finally have peace. Won't they?

Ya'akov-Perez Golbert, Advocate Professor of Law (Retired) Rehov Yehudit 4 Jerusalem Tel.: (972) 50 7428100

The foregoing is an original piece authored by the person whose name appears immediately above. The author was a full professor of law in Los Angeles until moving to Israel in 1984. He is a practicing lawyer in Jerusalem and is a co-founder/director of Netzah Yisrael Lo Yishaqer.



Hebron/Arutz 7 Commentary - January 31, 2005


by David Wilder

The Jewish Community of Hebron

Last night some 200,000 people stood in the streets between the Knesset and the Prime Minister's office, ostensibly demanding either elections or a national referendum as a prerequisite to implementation of Sharon's expulsion policy. "Let the nation decide!"

In all actuality though, the mass gathering screamed to the heavens: please - stop this madness.

The Yesha Council did a good job getting people out, but part of the message they espoused was disappointing. As reported by Israel National News, "Yesha officials called on the crowd to reject calls for the refusal of orders in the IDF, stressing such a move would destroy the military. They also decried the raising of a hand against soldiers, police, and border police, setting the ground rules for a tough fight, but one that does not cross the lines of a law-abiding society."

What's the problem with these points? They show a complete and total misunderstanding of how to lead opposition to Sharon's plans. They suggest that we 'play by the rules,' -- not Sharon's rules, rather those established by a normal society. However, Sharon is not playing by those rules: he's devising his own rules as the game progresses, doing whatever he wants, however he wants. The fact that he has totally reversed his own campaign promises, the fact that he is now implementing the policies voiced by his opponent, Amram Mitzne, who was thoroughly trounced in the last election, the fact that he ignored a supposedly binding Likud referendum as well as a vote of the Likud Central Committee, the fact that he refuses to go to the people because he is scared that he might actually lose, the fact that he is conducting a massive campaign to delegitimize the same people he once regarded as heroes, that fact that he is returning to the one-way street called Oslo, leading to an inevitable head-on collision we've already experienced, again and again and again, with over 1,500 fatalities and thousands of casualties, the fact that according to Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Minister Meir Shitrit, not to mention Peres and all the other poodles presently serving as ministers under Sharon, the expulsion and destruction of Gush Katif and the northern Shomron communities is only the beginning -- the remainder of communities of Judea and Samaria are on line for the guillotine -- all these facts, and many more, clearly establish two sets of rules: one for Sharon and one for everyone else.

Two examples: During my interview with David Bedein last week, he revealed that police invaded homes of Sderot residents, warning and threatening them not to protest during a governmental visit to the city -- this despite continued missile attacks and fatalities there.

And last night, buses on the way to the demonstration were randomly stopped and 'searched' -- what did the police expect to find -- child suicide bombers? One of the buses was stopped a few kilometers outside Jerusalem, on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road, and the search crew took its time looking for hard, criminal evidence against its passengers. Losing patience, the travelers left the bus and started walking down the middle of the highway -- 'if you won't let us drive, we'll go by foot.' All traffic came to a stop and the police caught the message fast. Soon the bus was on its way into Jerusalem.

This second incident provides a good example of 'not playing by the rules' -- and it works. This is what the Yesha Council has yet to learn. If we continue to 'play by the rules' we are bound to lose.

First and foremost on the list of 'our rules' is refusal to obey orders to evict families from their homes. The claim that refusal to obey orders will destroy the army is a moot point. Why? Because what good is an army without a land to defend? It is the declared intent of many members of the current government, in conjunction with the United States, Russia, Europe and the United Nations, to dismember Eretz Yisrael. Forget George W. -- Sharon has, time and time again, declared his allegiance to the 'roadmap,' a plan leading to the disintegration of the State of Israel and the rise of the State of Palestine, G-d forbid. We will not have to worry about whether or not our soldiers obey orders in the future; should they refuse, there will be foreign forces here to do the work for them. So states the 'roadmap!'

True, under ordinary circumstances, refusal to obey orders should and would be viewed as virtually unthinkable. However, our lives, privately and collectively, are ruled by priorities: in this case, without Eretz Yisrael, our armed forces are unnecessary -- Eretz Yisrael certainly takes priority over a dictator's decree. I have difficulty comprehending why the leaders of the Yesha council do not understand this.

You know, last week everyone was making a big whop-de-do about the events marking the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz. This too, I had trouble fathoming. Speeches in the UN, a memorial to the slaughtered, singing HaTikava, our national anthem, it didn't move me.

Why not?

Many times, during meetings with correspondents from around the world, I tell them: "There is much we must learn from the Holocaust. One of the main lessons I have learned is from the refusal of the allied forces, including Britain and the United States, to bomb the camps and stop the mass murders. This taught me that the United States and Europeans were basically telling us, in other words, 'we don't want you here.' For had they valued Jewish lives, they would not have allowed the Nazis to continue exterminating them, by the millions.

So, what did Jews do? They came to live in Eretz Yisrael and established the State of Israel. Now, we are being told that we cannot continue to live in our land -- and the same people who refused to stop the Nazi extermination are leading the call to expel us from our homeland.

So, I ask the reporters, where do they want us to go -- they don't want us in their countries, but they refuse to allow us to live with security in our own land -- so where should we go?"

The journalists look at me with a blank stare and, as a rule, do not respond.

My problem with the 60th anniversary events is exactly that -- why did it take SIXTY YEARS for the nations of the world to stand up and recognize, in some manner, what they were responsible for. The proceedings at the UN should not have taken sixty years to occur. They should have taken place annually since the founding of the organization.

More significantly, in my opinion, in truth, Aushwitz has not been liberated. We are still there, behind barbed wire fences, being led like sheep to the crematorium. Then, the Jews had little recourse -- there was no IDF, there was no State of Israel. But today there is. Yet, we are continuing to be led by the nose, by the same peoples who assisted, either actively or passively, with the Nazi extermination machine sixty years ago. The massive world attempt to force us to rid ourselves of our land is certainly nothing less than Aushwitz -- because the world still does not recognize the legitimate, G-d-given right of our people to our land. There really is no doubt: Gush Katif will lead to Beit El and Shilo, and they will lead to Hebron and Hebron will lead to Jerusalem. Tel Aviv and Haifa are only a matter of time. That is the way they see it -- those who refused to destroy Aushwitz -- they are the same people, the same cultures, the same mentality. They haven't changed. And it seems, neither have we. We still haven't learned.

This past Shabbat morning, sitting in Ma'arat HaMachpela, I listened as we read in the Torah, the Ten Commandments. It is normally a very spiritually uplifting experience, especially at such a holy place. But this year, hearing the ancient words chanted, I couldn't help but think, what about the eleventh commandment. Why have we forgotten the eleventh commandment? Why don't we remember -- we are we so good at forgetting? Again, meetings between Dachlan and Mufaz, Abu Mazen and Sharon, terrorist prisoner releases, pulling the army out of the 'cities', the same show we've seen so many times before. And we know what the results will be.

The Eleventh Commandment: Never Forget.

With blessings from Hebron.




By Dennis Prager

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing."

-- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

It took a Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited this week 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, to best describe those people who cannot or refuse to know the difference between good and evil. They are "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence. As I have gotten older, I often find the latter group more infuriating. Somehow, as much as I don't want to, I can understand why a Muslim raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that G-d loves death, will blow himself up and joyfully maim and murder children. As evil as the Muslim terrorist is, given the Islamic world in which he was raised, he has some excuse.

But the non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge and confront the evil of Muslim terror and the evil of those monsters who cut innocent people's throats and murder those trying to make a democracy -- these people are truly worth nothing. Unlike the Muslims raised in a religious totalitarian society, they have no excuse. And in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.

Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as "worth nothing." I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.

But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars "immoral" is a permanent stain on their reputations.

About 60 percent of the Iraqi people went to vote despite the fact that every Iraqi voter risked his or her life and the lives of their children, whose throats the Islamic fascists threatened to slit. Yet, the Left continues to label the war for Iraqi democracy "immoral" while praising the tyrant of Cuba.

Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing.



Paul Eidelberg To the Rabbis of Israel:

With all due respect to eminent rabbis who support a referendum on the Sharon "Disengagement Plan," I ask,

(1) Do they understand that this plan violates Israeli as well as international law?

(2) Do they understand that the uprooting of almost 10,000 Jews from their homes and synagogues in Gaza and Northern Samaria is but the preliminary of expelling countless more Jews from all of Judea and Samaria to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state?

(3) Do they understand that turning Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, over to Arabs cannot but endanger the lives of more Jews -- a matter of pikuach-nefesh?

(4) Do they understand that rewarding terrorists is a violation of international law and the principles of the Nuremberg trials, which require the punishment of those who commit crimes against humanity? Indeed, do they understand that rewarding terrorists -- and these Arab terrorists are dedicated to Israel's destruction -- cannot but encourage terrorism throughout the world?

(5) Finally, in considering the issue of whether it is halachically permissible to surrender Jewish land to non-Jews, have they seriously examined the contrasting halachic opinion of the renowned Talmudic scholar, HaGaon HaRav Chaim Zimmerman (z"l)?

I have already disseminated Parts I and II of his essay on the "The Prohibition of Abandoning Land in Eretz-Yisrael." But because eminent rabbis support Sharon's "Disengagement Plan," I offer below only the two concluding paragraphs of Part V of Dr. Zimmerman's 10,000-word halachic discourse:

The relationship of pikuach-nefesh to giving away shtachim [parts of] Eretz-Yisrael is a very intricate halacha, and cannot be solved by one's wishes or intuitions or political inclinations. This halacha and its psak can be solved only by a shakla-vetarya, a discussion and debate of all the great halacha-people, meaning all the genuine gedolei-haTorah -- the Torah giants of our generation. They must convene in one place and exchange all the halachic arguments for and against their respective points of view. At the conclusion of this discussion and debate, a majority if not unanimous decision must issue from this conference.

It must be clearly understood that only gedolei-haTorah -- the great people of Torah who are universally accepted for their fear of Heaven and for their Torah learning -- are qualified to decide the halacha concerning shtachim. No secular or pseudo-Talmudic scholars are qualified to be members of this conference. But it must be reiterated that without the meeting and debate of all the gedolei-haTorah in one place at one time, any individual decision in relation to the pikuach-nefesh of shtachim has no status of psak-halacha binding on Klal-Yisrael in Eretz-Yisrael.

* * *

Israel's most eminent rabbis are surely cognizant of Dr. Zimmerman's work on the Rambam, which is in Hebrew. But they may not be familiar with his halachic discourse on "The Prohibition of Abandoning Land in Eretz-Yisrael," which is in English. Hence it behooves men of Torah to bring Rav Chaim's work to the attention of the rabbis in question.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg




by Boris Shusteff

[This essay on multiple personality disorder is excellent.
-- Yehuda Sherman, M.D., an experienced psychiatric physician.
1158 Glen Road
Lafayette, California 94549 U.S.A.
phone 925-284-5363]

[01/26/05] There have been stories throughout history of people who have behaved strangely, and who were later unable to recall their actions. But the first medical studies of what we now call Multiple Personality Disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder (MPD/DID) did not appear until the 1800s. It was regarded as a very atypical medical oddity, and by 1944 only 76 documented cases of MPD were documented worldwide.

By 1984 the number of reported cases had jumped to a thousand, and by 1989 to four thousand. Just between 1985 and 1995 40,000 people were diagnosed with this disease. However, in the mid 1990s the number of active cases of MPD/DID abruptly decreased, as belief in the illness become less common and most or all MPD/DID clinics in North America were closed down.

The main reason for this strange jump and subsequent decline of the illness is the existence of two conflicting views of the disorder. One school of thought sees MPD/DID as a valid common diagnosis of an illness that it believes is "induced by extreme, repeated, physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse during early childhood."

According to the other view, "MPD/DID is a psychological fad". Those who defend this approach think that "the illness does not occur naturally and is a therapist-induced disorder, unknowingly created by the interaction of a therapist and patient." To put it differently, people diagnosed with the illness are victims of bad therapy, rather than MPD itself. According to the proponents of this view "If true MPD exists, it is an extremely rare phenomenon, affecting perhaps fewer than a dozen people in North America."

Yet, if in North America fewer than a dozen people are afflicted by MPD/DID, it appears that Israeli Jews have been hit by an epidemic of this disease. It seems that hundreds of thousands and perhaps even several million Israeli Jews are suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.

The Internet site of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) describes the mental curse that afflicts Israeli Jews in the following way,

"Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), previously referred to as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a dissociative disorder involving a disturbance of identity in which two or more separate and distinct personality states (or identities) control the individual's behavior at different times. When under the control of one identity, the person is usually unable to remember some of the events that occurred while other personalities were in control. The different identities, referred to as alters... are often quite striking." (1)

This definition perfectly describes the mental condition of vast numbers of Israeli Jews. By this we mean that in their behavior and attitudes related to Israeli territory inside the so-called "green line" -- the armistice lines of 1949 -- they wear a Jewish identity. However, when they deal with Judea, Samaria and Gaza, they immediately don a distinctly Arab identity, absolutely unable to remember why the Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael in the first place.

It is especially noticeable in the different status that these Jews assign to Judea, Samaria and Gaza and Israel proper. They place the former into the category of "occupied lands," accepting the Arab view, and feverishly demanding the expulsion from their homes of mentally sound Jews who do not distinguish between different parts of Eretz Yisrael.

At the same time, the Arab alter makes them believe that Jews came to Palestine, occupied it, and expelled the Arabs from their homes. They accept the Arab position that the Balfour Declaration brought to the Palestinian Arabs their greatest tragedy, relegating millions of them either to the status of refugees or pariahs in their native land. Together with the Arabs they condemn Zionism as an imperialistic movement created for the purpose of colonizing Palestine. They blame the settlers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for all the ills and all the bad blood that exists between the Jews and the Arabs.

However, as soon as their thoughts wander into Israel proper, crossing the armistice lines of 1949, a striking metamorphosis takes place. Their Jewish identity returns, and they have no recollection that only moments ago they were controlled by their Arab personality. What the Arabs consider to be Arab lands occupied in 1948 becomes for them primordial Jewish territory. They worship the Balfour Declaration that opened the gates of Palestine to the Jews. Zionism changes back into the Jewish national movement, whose purpose was the creation of a Jewish state. They shrug off Arab complaints about destroyed Arab houses and villages, stressing that Arab refugees exist today only because the Arabs tried to destroy the Jewish state. They glorify settlement activity, proudly recalling the days when the first settlements, kibbutzim, and moshavim were taking root in Palestine.

People affected by MPD/DID are usually not aware of their condition. "A very common complaint in people with DID is episodes of amnesia, or time loss. These individuals may be unable to remember events in all or part of a proceeding time period" (1). This is exactly what is happening to Israeli Jews. When their Arab identities take over, they are completely unable to remember all previous Arab attempts to eliminate the Jewish state. Their memory loss is so profound that they cannot recall at all that Jewish settlement activity at the beginning of the last century is absolutely on par with the Jewish settlement activity at the beginning of this century. Though, in truth, today it is far more benign, since not a single Arab has been expelled from his home to make way for Jewish housing projects of the last 30 years.

Psychiatrists explain that "often people with DID are depressed or even suicidal" (1). Perhaps this is the real reason for the Oslo Kevorkian Process and Sharon's idee-fixe to expel the Jews from Gaza and four settlements of Northern Samaria. The suicidal tendency among these mentally ill Israeli Jews has become so persistent that they are unable to make even simple logical conclusions from obvious things.

For example while Sharon keeps insisting that he will expel the Jews from Gaza, come what may, thus demonstrating Israel's strength, the Arabs see every Israeli retreat as a sign of Israel's weakness. Michel Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, said in 2002 videotape to Palestinian Christians, "One has seen in the history of the last ten years that the Israelis have moved only when forced by violence." It is not surprising therefore that over 70% of Palestinian Arabs see the expected expulsion of Jews from Gaza by Jews as a clear victory for the Arabs.

The NAMI fact sheet tells us that "Approximately one-third of [MPD] patients complain of auditory or visual hallucinations"(1). In the case of the Israeli Jews the number of these hallucinating people is obviously much greater. And they do not complain, but are simply happy to succumb to the mirages of blissful coexistence with their murderers. While the Arabs keep saying that their goal is Israel's destruction, the Jews hear in their words the sirens of peace.

Just several weeks ago, in a sermon transmitted by Palestinian Authority TV on December 31, 2004, Sheik Ibrahim Madiras said, "[We will say] no to the return to the 67 borders. We are interested in returning to our genuine borders. We want to return to the 1948 [pre-Israel] borders...We want to return to these borders, and we will yet return to them, by Allah, even if it will take time "(2).

The time that the Arabs are ready to wait, the Jews must use to defeat their mental illness. In treating MPD, "the goal of the therapist is to enable the patient to achieve... the unification [of the patient's separate identities] into a single identity" (1). While Moshe Feiglin and Manhigut Yehudit try to accomplish this among the members of the Likud, who are themselves not immune to the illness, it is the task of all the healthy nationalist forces within the Jewish state to reach out to the rest of the affected Jews. It is only the return of the Israeli Jews to an exclusively Jewish identity that can stop the plunge of the Jewish state into the abyss.



2. Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin. January 9, 2005.

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




by Herb Keinon

A day that began with Israel offering self-declared "far-reaching" gestures to the Palestinian Authority, ended with a Palestinian delegation angrily rejecting the offer and walking out of a meeting with Dov Weisglass.

A Senior Israeli official said that the PA delegation, which included Minister Saeb Erekat and Mohammed Dahlan, stormed out of the four-hour meeting in Tel Aviv with Weisglass because earlier in the day Israel decided to release "only" 900 security prisoners.

The Palestinians are demanding that Israel release thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including those with "blood on their hands" whom Israel refuses to release at this stage.

PA Cabinet Secretary Hasan Abu Libdeh attacked Israel's gestures as "insufficient" and complained that the Palestinians were not consulted about the number or identities of the prisoners slated for release.

He warned that next week's summit in Sharm el-Sheikh would fail if Israel continued to ignore demands to release thousands of prisoners. He said the PA leadership decided to put the case of the prisoners atop its agenda because of its sensitivity and significance.

Dahlan, who said the numbers were too small, lashed out at Israel for not coordinating the move in advance with the PA.

"The meeting we had today with Weisglass wasn't good," he said. "The Israelis don't realize that the issue of the prisoners is very important for us. It's even more important than the withdrawal from some cities in the West Bank."

The meeting with Weisglass was expected to prepare the agenda for the four-way summit to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah.

Weisglass presented the Palestinians with the decisions made earlier in the day by the seven-man mini cabinet regarding the gestures Sharon planned to announce at Sharm.

One senior Israel official said he was unfazed by the sudden crisis that seemed to place a crimp in the optimism of recent days, saying it fits the pattern of Palestinian negotiating brinkmanship.

"Over the last 15 years, whenever the two sides came close to reaching some kind of agreement, the Palestinians would create a crisis," he said.

Although the meeting was not immediately re-scheduled, the official said it would surely take place before Tuesday's summit, and that the crisis was an attempt to wring more concessions from Israel before the summit.

"But this time it is preposterous, because of the unprecedented gestures we made," he said.

Israel's decision to release 900 prisoners -- 500 shortly after the Sharm summit, and an additional 400 over the next three month conditional on what happens on the ground -- was a source of debate in the meeting of the mini-cabinet, with Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Minister Haim Ramon saying that Israel should not rule out releasing those with "blood on their hands."

Sharon said he was not opposed to releasing those with blood on their hands who have already served more than 20 years, and Peres said in the meeting that Israel should not rule out anything, and judge each case individually.

Both Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, however, argued against releasing those who were personally responsible for the killing of Israelis.

The debate was not only among ministers, however, as Shin Bet head Avi Dichter was squarely opposed to releasing those with blood on their hand, while Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon was not. The forum did agree, according to government officials, that the first 500 would only be Fatah prisoners, not Hamas members.

The ministers in the so-called mini-cabinet include Sharon, Peres, Shalom, Mofaz, Netanyahu, Ramon and Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Mofaz, who presented the forum with a menu of recommendations for their approval, said "This period presents Israel with a strategic opportunity. We have to be careful and calculated, but also give the PA the chance to get into a process that can change the reality."

At the same time, however, Mofaz said that Israel should not be lulled into a false sense of security, and that there have been 55 terror actions -- including mortar firing, shootings and attempts to plan roadside explosives -- since the beginning of what has been widely termed a "quiet" week.

Mofaz said the gestures he recommended were "reversible," and could be carried out without harming the nation's security.

In addition to the prisoner release, the mini cabinet decided to begin the transfer of five West Bank cities to Palestinian security control; set up a committee with the Palestinians to discuss Israel's most-wanted list, and the possibility of removing some names from that list; and a series of steps, such as lifting roadblocks and closures, to ease the Palestinian humanitarian situation.

It was also decided that Israel would restrain from initiating military action in the territories, except in the case of ticking bombs, defined as those either on their way to carrying out an attack, or helping others carry out an imminent attack.

Regarding the transfer of security control, Mofaz said that it was important that this be done gradually, and not "give the Palestinians more than they can chew."

The transfer of the five cities -- Jericho, Bethlehem, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Ramallah -- will begin with what is considered the easiest city to control, Jericho, and finish with the most difficult: Ramallah. The order of the others has not yet been determined, and the transfer will be staggered to judge how the PA is dealing with one city, before moving on to another.

The forum agreed to a proposal put forward by Shalom that it meet to approve each transfer individually.

As far as Israel's most-wanted list is concerned, government sources said that contrary to press reports, Israel has not decided to give up pursuing Mohammed Deff, Israel's most wanted terrorist, and that the issue did not come up at the meeting.

The mini-cabinet decided, with regards to humanitarian measures, to increase the number of work permits for Palestinians in Israel, remove numerous blockades and roadblocks, open the Karni crossing and increase the hours both there and at the Rafah crossing, and authorize the building of a sea port in Gaza.

Khaled Abu Toameh contributed to this report

Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post



Jerusalem Post - January 31, 2005


Evelyn Gordon

Last week, the High Court of Justice abolished freedom of speech for senior government officials and replaced it with an Orwellian Thought Police. The justices declared themselves empowered to oust or deny promotion to any official whose public statements fail to meet their standards of morality and good taste. The case began with the Israel Air Force's assassination of senior Hamas terrorist Salah Shehadeh in 2002. The operation had been aborted repeatedly for fear of harming civilians, but this time intelligence reported no civilians present in Shehadeh's building, and tests had indicated that a one-ton bomb would not damage surrounding buildings. However, both assumptions proved wrong: Civilians were present in Shehadeh's building, and the bomb seriously damaged the shoddily constructed neighboring buildings. Altogether, 15 civilians were killed and over 150 injured. In response, 31 "authors and intellectuals, academic researchers of the first rank, former senior civil servants, reserve pilots and members of nongovernmental organizations" (to quote the ruling) asked the court to order IAF Commander Dan Halutz, who authorized the bombing, investigated for "war crimes."

In March 2004, while this petition was still pending (as it is even today), Halutz was promoted to deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. The 31 therefore asked the court to suspend his promotion until it rules on the original petition, arguing that a man suspected of war crimes (albeit only by themselves) does not merit promotion.

The petition also argued, however, that Halutz's statements in an August 2003 newspaper interview showed him morally unfit for high command, by "proving" that the civilian casualties were not an error, but the result of "a 'successful' operation planned and executed according to parameters that stem from the respondent's moral worldview."

For instance, Halutz asserted that he "sleeps well at night" despite regretting the civilian deaths -- since great efforts were made to avoid them, and zero human error is an impossible expectation.

He also said that an assassination might be justified even if civilian casualties were certain, if this were the only way to prevent an attack that would kill many more innocent people.

JUSTICES EDMOND Levy, Miriam Naor and Jonathan Adiel quickly dispensed with the petitioners' first argument, saying that since the state prosecution saw no grounds for a criminal investigation of Halutz, and the court has yet to rule otherwise, Halutz's promotion was reasonable.

However, they rejected the state's contention that Halutz's alleged "war crimes" were the main pretext for the petition, with the interview being relevant only to demonstrate his alleged criminal intent. Instead, they decided that the interview on its own constituted possible grounds for suspending the appointment.

They therefore demanded that Halutz submit a written clarification of his "moral stance" regarding his earlier statements, and eventually devoted much of the verdict to this issue.

Levy summed up the court's position as follows: "One must regret the tone of the interview, as well as some of the things that were said, which would have been better unsaid."

Nevertheless, "other statements made in the same interview, and the clarifications that [Halutz] supplied in the context of this petition do not enable us to sufficiently establish a moral character that would obligate Halutz's suspension from his position at this time."

In other words, the justices could have ousted Halutz merely because they deemed his statements proof of poor "moral character"; this particular interview simply provided insufficient evidence.

In explaining this conclusion, Levy offered a remarkable portrait of the court's favorite step-by-step method for expanding its powers. It all began, he said, with Knesset legislation that barred people convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude from certain positions.

In 1992, the court, on its own initiative, extended this ban to other public positions. A year later, it also extended the ban to people under indictment -- which had no basis in law whatsoever. A few years after that, it asserted the right to bar people under police investigation from office, even though they might never be indicted.

Next, it decided that it could deny office even to people against whom a criminal investigation had been closed without charges, should it deem their behavior sufficiently improper.

Then, in Halutz's case, it went further still, asserting the right to bar the appointment even of someone whom the police and prosecution found no grounds for investigating at all.

"We cannot rule out the possibility that [a person's] behavior even if it does not constitute a crime, could be so extremely grave that it would be extremely unreasonable to enable him to remain in office," explained Levy, quoting an earlier verdict.

From there it was only a short step to the ultimate conclusion: that even statements in an interview could suffice for the court to bar someone from public office.

For a person to be forced out of office over something he said is hardly unheard of in the democratic world. Only in Israel, however, has the court asserted the right to determine whether a given statement renders someone unfit for office.

In other countries, this decision is left to the public (expressing its views through the normal tools of democratic pressure), or to its elected representatives.

Needless to say, the court usurped this prerogative without any authorization in law. In the process, it abrogated a fundamental democratic freedom: freedom of speech. And it did so in order to impose moral standards rejected by the vast majority of Israelis -- who raised no outcry in this case precisely because they backed Halutz's position.

Israel has allowed its highest court to expand its powers unchecked for far too long. One can only hope that this latest outrage will finally spur the Knesset to impose some badly needed restraints on the court's behavior.

Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post




Arutz Sheva - - February 2, 2005 / 23 Shevat 5765

The assertion that only religious-Zionists object to the uprooting/transfer plan is about to be bashed in a big way, with a large anti-disengagement event to be held by secular Galilee pioneers.

Moshav Nahalal in the Galilee, one of the most prominent of the secular moshav movement, will host the first of a series of gatherings protesting Prime Minister Sharon's expulsion plan. The plan calls for Israel to unilaterally withdraw all its forces, its 8,500 citizens and their homes from Gush Katif and northern Shomron this summer.

The gathering at Nahalal is scheduled to take place on Monday, Feb. 14, and will signal the solidarity of the veteran workers' settlement movement with the newer settlers. "We won't leave the Gush Katif pioneers alone in the field," they say. "Their struggle is our struggle."

The announcement of the gathering states, "This is our historic land. Our enemies who waged war on us since the beginning of Zionism will not be satisfied with one piece of land or another. Their ultimate goal is to uproot and banish us from the entire Land."

"We know about the plans being cooked-up in smoke-filled room calling to abandon and expel the residents of the Jordan Valley and Golan as well. Far from the spotlights, an international border crossing is being built in the northern Jordan Valley near Mehola -- and this is clear proof of the dark storm about to come upon the Zionist enterprise.

The statement notes that supporters are expected "from all over the country, from a range of the pioneer settlement movements that effected the miracle of the Zionist revival of the nation returning to its land." The organizers "call on everyone with a human and national conscience to come and sound the rational voice of Zionism, nationalism and settlement, against the attempt to illegally and unethically uproot and destroy the Katif bloc and northern Samaria."

One of the organizers, Beit She'an valley Kibbutz member Yoav Toviah, told Arutz-7 last night, "This is not an official gathering, but rather of individual members of the settlement movement here. Let's not kid ourselves: most kibbutz members -- I don't know about the moshavim -- are in favor of the disengagement. But there are some, like myself, who oppose it." He said that among the organizers are some who have long considered themselves "Land of Israel people," as well as those "who have recently come to the conclusion that this process is both a blow to democracy and a needless destruction of a settlement enterprise in the Land of Israel."

Asked if their support would translate into active opposition in Gush Katif/Northern Shomron itself during the evacuation if it occurs, Toviah said, "I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that already 2-3 weeks ago I sent a fax saying that I would be there on that day."

The organizers' announcement quotes the speech of Simon the Maccabee to Syrian-Greek King Antiochus over 2,100 years ago, in which he said, "Not a foreign land did we take, and not over the property of foreigners did we rule -- but the inheritance of our forefathers that was captured illegally and that is in the hands of our enemies. And when the opportunity arose, we restored our forefathers' inheritance."

The statement, phrases of which sounded like they were taken from the National Union party platform, continued, "Facing obtuse powers of evil, facing people with no Zionist or settlement values, and facing a mad dictator who is dragging the country to a civil war -- we will establish anew the scale of Zionist and settlement values that built the State of Israel, the national home of the Jewish People."

The statement also refers to the democratic values that were trampled along the way to disengagement: "The nation has already decided three times in favor of keeping hold of Gush Katif: once when the nation overwhelmingly elected Sharon because he said that Netzarim would be like Tel Aviv, while Mitzna, who called for uprooting and destruction, lost." The second time was in the Likud referendum, which gave a large victory to the anti-disengagement camp and which Sharon promised to adhere to but did not. The final instance was the Cabinet decision, when "not only several Likud ministers betrayed their party membership's decision, but Sharon stabbed Israel's democracy in the heart when he created an artificial majority by firing two ministers on the eve of the vote. Who needs a government anyway, if you can just fire ministers before the vote and attain any majority you want."

"We won't leave the Gush Katif pioneers alone in the field," the announcement concludes. "Their struggle is our struggle."




By Gerald A. Honigman

Many traditions have a version of this wisdom.

Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians in the Christian New Testament, said it beautifully: He began by saying "As ye sow..."

Israel has long been determined to rid the world of one of its rare positive stereotypes about Jews...that they're smart. When will they learn?

How many times must Israel give up hundreds or thousands of Arabs with Jewish blood on their hands, either directly or indirectly, for some grossly one-sided "deal."

The scenes of thousands of Egyptian and Syrian soldiers, in previous wars, exchanged for a handful of Jews is legendary. Not that Jews weren't captured...but most were simply slaughtered on the spot. And the Syrians are especially famous for their butchery. This at least, however, can be excused as proper treatment by Israel following the Geneva Conventions even if Arabs indulged in barbarity.

But how do you explain, time after time, massive Israeli prisoner releases of known terrorist plotters and disembowelers of Jewish babes and other innocents...Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arafat's own PLO murderers, & Co.?

And each time they come back to kill more Jews.

As February 2005 began, the Arafatian sweet-talking co-terrorist in a suit, Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, had already become the darling of a deaf, dumb, and blind West.

He ran on a platform that was long his position: Israel would not be recognized as a Jewish State, for the goal still remained its destruction...but by "other means." Abbas repeatedly restated his intention to demand that Israel be forced to accept unlimited numbers of allegedly returning Arab refugees so that it would be destroyed democratically. Blown buses bring bad press...And the world, including the Foggy Folks, can largely be counted on to support him and to ignore the one half of Israel's own Jews who were refugees from Arab/Muslim lands, but without almost two dozen other states -- like Arabs have to call their own.

Gone, apparently, are the stipulations of United Nations Security Council Resolution #242 stating that Israel's pre-'67, Six Day War, 9-mile wide armistice line existence must be gone for good in terms of any future peace agreement. The hard fought wording and idea, which Lord Caradon, Eugene Rostow, and other architects of the Resolution succeeded in implanting, that the latter must be substituted by "secure and recognized boundaries" in return for any such peace is now no longer even discussed. Even the friendly Bush team, with its new Secretary of State, rants and lectures Israel over the contiguity of the Arabs 22nd state -- and second, not first, Arab one to emerge on the original borders of 1920 Palestine (Jordan created from almost 80% of the land in 1922) -- while demanding that Israel return to its vulnerable, microscopic existence.

And what does Israel get for all of this...?

A hudna, a temporary ceasefire (Arafat's "Peace of the Quraysh"), designed to buy the Arabs more time to strengthen themselves while the world -- including Israel's "friends" -- pressures the Jews into more one-side concessions designed to weaken them for the final blow.

Arabs think in terms of the big picture...

So, back to sowing...

With Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice due to arrive shortly in the Middle East to get things moving again regarding so-called peace negotiations, Abbas shot out one demand after another for his temporary ceasefire deal. Among them was the release of additional thousands of Arab prisoners -- including murderers.

Shame on the Israeli officials who would agree to this. But the problem goes beyond the immediate demands.

It has to do with the other half of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians:

" shall ye reap."

If Israel didn't have thousands of these killers in its jails, it couldn't be blackmailed into releasing them.

America and other nations have a death penalty for those who murder and plot the destruction of their own states. Why do Jews have to prove how "liberal" they are by worrying more about those who want nothing more than to kill them and to destroy their sole state than about their own children and other Jewish innocents? All Arab states certainly have death penalties...and for far less compelling reasons.

If known murderers and others with blood on their hands were executed (saving the Israeli taxpayers lots of money as well), then they couldn't be released when the Arabs demanded their predictable next prisoner one not long ago when the Arabs bargained for the bones of dead Jews they held in return for live comrades.

Israel needs to wise up on this and other issues before it's too late -- regardless of what the world's hypocrites will say.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap...





by Rabbi Eliezer Waldman
Rosh Yeshivat Kiryat

21 Shvat 5765 -- January 31, 2005

Thank G-d that we are blessed every few months with the power of faith and spiritual elevation that can only be experienced by the assembly of hundreds of thousands of Jews gathering together to demonstrate their loyalty and devotion towards the divine process of redemption of the Jewish people in their homeland. On Sunday night, walking along the wide avenues of the government compound near the Knesset, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of my brethren, I became aware of the meaning of this phenomenon. While being immersed in this ocean of love and determination to continue the process of renewal of Jewish life in all of Eretz Yisrael, I was engulfed by a spiritual sensation which I imagined engulfed the Jewish People when witnessing the splitting of the Red Sea. This divine miracle which finally delivered them from the evil Egyptians, ignited their level of faith to the spiritual heights of song and thanks expressed in Shirat Hayam.

The multitudes of Jews demonstrating in Jerusalem conveyed a clear and strong message. It is immoral and unacceptable for Jews to transfer fellow Jews from their homeland. Jews will never agree to be uprooted from their homes in Eretz Yisrael. Such inhumane acts, that were always considered illegal and immoral when perpetrated against Jews in exile, are certainly unacceptable in our own homeland. How absurd it is that the necessity of uprooting Jews from their homes is justified by the need for peace with our neighbors. This is the "peace" of being driven from town to town and from country to country. This is the "peace" we endured in exile. This is the "peace" of the ghetto. We have not come back home to Eretz Yisrael to be forced again to flee from town to town. We are continuing to tread on the classical Zionist path of bringing life to our land and its people and consequently a blessing to our neighbors. Our enemies are intent on preventing us from achieving this goal. Their final goal is the uprooting of the reality of Jewish independence in Eretz Yisrael, by terror and destruction. Therefore the foremost responsibility of a Jewish government is to confront this imminent danger by strengthening and securing our presence in Eretz Yisrael. Fleeing our enemies and uprooting flourishing Jewish communities, thereby weakening our position, would certainly be a criminal breaching of that responsibility.

These thoughts bring me back to the strange feelings I encountered last week upon hearing the declarations of world leaders at ceremonies commemorating sixty years since the liberation of the notorious Auschwitz death camp. On the one hand, there was a feeling of closure, in that world leaders were forced to finally admit their guilt and responsibility for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. All the more so since this had to be done in front of Jewish leaders. On the other hand, I felt a deep frustration at the obvious lack of genuine repentance, since just six decades later, these same world powers are twisting the arms of Jewish leaders to accept "road maps" that are meant to limit our rights to our homeland. Most of these nations are continuously supporting the Palestinian leaders of Arab terror and offering to reward them with the political power of an independent Arab state to be established within the Jewish homeland. They still consider Israel a pariah state, always chiding us not to use "exaggerated" force when defending ourselves against murderous terrorist attacks. These leaders' unbelievable lack of sensitivity for past atrocities allowed them to demand the expulsion of Jews from their towns and villages in Eretz Yisrael only because they are Jews.

Thank G-d, at these memorial ceremonies, Jewish leaders were inspired to declare "never again", while at the same time, expressing the painful question "have they really learned"? With great anguish and yet grave responsibility, I must put this question before our leaders "have we learned"? How can our leaders even think of uprooting Jews from their homes and communities in any part of Eretz Yisrael? Are Jewish homes, in which three generations grew up, to be destroyed? Are synagogues and yeshivas, bastions of prayer and Torah study, G-d forbid, to be abandoned to our enemies?

No my friends, all this cannot happen. We are in the midst of the divine process of Jewish redemption. We are in the process of engagement, engagement to our land, engagement to our people and to our G-d, engagement to our destiny. We pray that the G-d of Israel awaken again the natural instincts of Jewish faith and survival, that will enlighten the minds of our people to the realities of Jewish life, and help us overcome the fallacies of our government.

The multitudes of Jewish hearts at the demonstration in Jerusalem, overflowing with the faith, love and devotion to our people and our land, conveyed a message of renewed hope and determination that burst forward in our national anthem Hatikva, followed by the eternal truth of the song Am Yisrael Chai.

Am Yisrael Chai

For information regarding Rabbi Waldman's upcoming visit to the USA (February 27 -- March 15, 2005), please contact Jeff Reznik at 917-776-6828 or



February 6, 2005


by David Bedein

Forwarded with comments by Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator

Israel's Prime MInister Ariel Sharon is empowering our enemies. As David Bedein describes in the following, we see the deployment of PLO troops at the same time as Sharon has invited into Israel's South the Egyptians with their arms and armor. In the North, by retreating from the Lebanon security buffer, former PM Ehud Barak arranged for such a center of Israel's heartland the settlers are to be transferred outof Judea, Samaria - probably the Jordan Valley (if the people of Israel don't stop Sharon). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans on assisting the arming and training of the PLO's new Army and Police with the aid of the American CIA. Sharon also intends to provide help in training and arming of the PLO. SHARON HAS BECOME A GOLEM CREATED BY FOREIGN INTERESTS AND TODAY THE JEWS ARE HIS ENEMIES. READ ON!


The Sharon Plan: Not Disengagement - PLO Empowerment

by David Bedein

The Sharon Plan, often described as the "disengagement" process, has become one of the most hotly debated news items in Israel

What is most newsworthy, given the charged emotions that this debate has created, is the fact that very few people across the political spectrum in Israel, and even in the media and diplomatic corps represented in Israel, have bothered to read the Sharon Plan. Although the Sharon Plan is posted on the official web site of the Israeli prime minister,, few people have taken the time to read the Sharon Plan. That includes Knesset members on both sides of the aisle in the Knesset. That includes reporters who cover the Knesset. That includes Israeli government ministers.

As a result, the proponents and opponents to the Sharon Plan speak about it as if it is only about Gaza. Indeed, people throughout Israel and throughout the world thinnk that the singular issue of the Sharon polan concerns whether Israelis should continue to live in the Katif district of Gaza.

Hence the term "disengagement".

Therefore, the Sharon Plan is officially called the "Disengagement Plan", because, according to the preamble to clause 1, section 1, "Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process."

The preamble goes on to say, "In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement."

However, the reality of what the Sharon Plan conveys remains otherwise.

What the Sharon Plan really proposes is a PLO empowerment process, with 14 clauses that seek to strengthen every aspect of the PLO administrative infrastructure, to belie the preamble that the PLO is not a "reliable Palestinian partner" by stating that "the hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue."

Since the majority of the Palestinians in Gaza, who live in the squalor of UN Arab refugee camps, are nurtured by the ideas of the "right of return" to liberate lands where their Arab villages existed in 1948, why would Israel's dismemberment of Katif communities - established on lands where no Arab villages were lost in 1967 - satisfy their political goals?

Yet another premise of the Sharon Plan is that "the process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

If Israel is to annul its responsibility for the well-being of the Palestinian population, why does the Sharon plan continue to obligate Israel to "provide water pipes, electricity, industrial zones, markets, employment and an industrial zone to sustain the Palestinian Arab economy of Gaza"? The Sharon Plan mandates that "other existing arrangements, such as those relating to water and the electro-magnetic sphere shall remain in force" while "economic arrangements currently in operation between Israel and the Palestinians shall, in the meantime, remain in force."

According to the Sharon Plan, these arrangements will include:

i. The entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria.

ii. The entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel and abroad.

iii. The monetary regime.

iv. Tax and customs envelope arrangements.

v. Postal and telecommunications arrangements.

So there you have it. While the Sharon Plan is described as a "disengagement plan", it does anything but disengage Israel from the Palestinian Arab population.

Meanwhile, the language of the Sharon Plan intimates that the PLO will abandon its terror campaign. The plan says, "When" - and not "if" - "there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue." On what basis does Sharon assume that the PLO will "fight against terrorism" or institute any "reform"? There is no answer.

And when it comes to security issues in other areas, the Sharon Plan promises to "evacuate an area in the Northern Samaria Area (the West Bank), including four villages and all military installations, and re-deploy outside the vacated area." The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area "while Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation." Does this also mean that abandoned villages and military installations will be handed over to a PLO that is "not a reliable peace partner"?

Once more, since the Sharon Plan defines the PLO as maintaining a state of war with Israel , why does the same Sharon Plan provide the PLO with the strategic assistance of "territorial contiguity"? No answer is given.

Meanwhile, the Sharon Plan mandates that the Gaza Strip "be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements." However, the Sharon Plan does not even allude to the fact that the PLO violated all previous agreements in this regard and refused to implement the agreement with Israel to have their personnel vetted by Israel.

Did Sharon experience amnesia and forget that the PLO increased, in defiance of the Oslo agreement, the size of the agreed upon security force from 9,000 in 1993 to more than 50,000 by 1995, ignoring protestations of the government of Israel? The Sharon Plan that demilitarizes Gaza provides no process for disarming the PLO armed forces now in Gaza.

And what does the Sharon Plan mandate in terms of Israeli security? The Sharon Plan asserts that "Israel reserves its inherent right of self-defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Gaza Strip." Incredibly, Israel's right to pursue terrorists into Gaza is not mentioned anywhere. As far as the security situation in the West Bank is concerned, the Sharon Plan states that "upon completion of the evacuation of the Northern Samaria Area, no permanent Israeli military presence will remain in this area," while another section states, "Military installations and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria will be dismantled and removed, with the exception of those which Israel decides to leave and transfer to another party... "

Does that mean that the PLO security forces, described in clause 1 of the Sharon Plan as "not a reliable peace partner," will now inherit Israel's abandoned IDF military bases? Why would Israel cede military installations to an entity with whom it is in a state of war?

The Sharon Plan also states, "In other areas of the West Bank, current security activity will continue" and that "as circumstances permit, Israel will consider reducing such activity in Palestinian cities," and that "Israel will work to reduce the number of internal checkpoints throughout the West Bank." So, here we have a situation where Israel moves its forces out of cities and reduces checkpoints and is expected to maintain mobility to respond to the PLO terror war.

Perhaps the most amazing issue of all is that clause five of the Sharon Plan mandates to provide "advice, assistance and training" to "the Palestinian security forces for the implementation of their obligations to combat terrorism and maintain public order, by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as agreed with Israel." The Sharon Plan ignores Israel's decade-long failed experience with security assistance that Israel facilitated for the PLO. The Sharon Plan ignores how military training facilitated by Israel and Western countries for the PLO was abused to conduct a terror campaign against Israel in every part of the country for the past four years. The US State Department trained Palestinian policemen for "security"; those policemen then used that training to kill Israelis.

The Sharon Plan goes on to say that "Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of the establishment of a seaport and airport in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Israel." Did Israel not try that already? And weren't guns and rockets smuggled in?

In terms of Israel's border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (called the Philadelphi Route), the Sharon Plan only states, "Initially, Israel will continue to maintain a military presence along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt," and that "subsequently, the evacuation of this area will be considered. dependent, inter alia, on the security situation and the extent of cooperation with Egypt in establishing a reliable alternative arrangement." Why "initially" and "subsequently"? Does Israel expect that situation on the Egyptian border to change? Will Egypt not continue to allow weapons to be smuggled through tunnels on Egypt's frontier to help the PLO fight Israel?

Finally, The Sharon Plan envisions continued international support for the PLO, "in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and effect reforms, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation." And if the support for the PLO continues and the terror does not cease? What then? The Sharon Plan provides no answer.

So there you have it. The text of the Sharon Plan speaks for itself: strengthening of the PLO, and no disengagement whatsoever. This is not a disengagement plan. This is a plan of hasty retreat that doesn't even include a request of the Palestinian Authority to stop endorsing the murder of Jews from their own Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation shows.

What sanctions are listed if the PLO does not comply? Is this not worse than the Oslo Accords?

Epilogue I

In early October, the new Palestinian Authority school books were translated and presented to the public and to the Israeli government by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace. Not one office of the Israeli government issued any kind of reaction to the fact that the new curriculum of the Palestinian Authority reads like an indoctrination in the art of how to make war on the state and people of Israel. The Palestinian school system is financed in part from payments received from the Israeli government, because of the tax rebate system that was instituted during the early years of the Oslo process, to refund taxes collected from Palestinians for purchase of Israeli products. Yet, the Sharon government would not file any objection or complaint concerning these school books of the Palestinian Authority, which are also used in the schools in the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, the Mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lopliansky, says that he was overruled by the Sharon government when he wanted to file a complaint about these school books and their blatant anti-Semitism.

Epilogue II

And in mid-October, following Israel's killing of a senior Hamas operative, the IDF web site explained that the IDF had not been able to kill him before, since he had been drafted into the "Preventive Security Force" of the Palestinian Authority security services, the same unit that is slated to take over Gaza in the near future. The IDF web site went on to say that the Hamas terrorist had therefore enjoyed "complete immunity" when he served in the mainstream security services of the Palestinian Authority, while he was carrying out his terrorist attacks against Israel. In other words, the IDF affirms Sharon's policy of turning a blind eye to terrorists if they are in the employ of the Palestinian Authority.

Epilogue III

The official media of Palestinian Authority praised the Knesset approval of the Sharon Plan. In the words of Nabil Shaath, "May this be only one step in the liberation of all of Palestine." Meanwhile, Hamas spokesman Moshir Al-Masri declared that "the Knesset vote proves that the Hamas has forced the Zionist enemy to retreat."


To make a long story short, the Sharon Plan, far from being a plan of disengagement from the PLO, evolved into nothing less than a program of empowerment for the PLO. One problem: very few people have even bothered to read the Sharon Plan, leaving the spinmasters in charge, to sell it as a "disengagement from Gaza" program.

President Abe Lincoln once noted that you can "fool some of the people some of the time", but not "all of the people all of the time." This time, Prime Minister Sharon may have succeeded where President Lincoln failed. In a world of sound bytes and instant news, even journalists and diplomats have stopped reading documents, preferring one word jingles instead.

"Disengagement"? Gee, it sounded so good.




by Boris Shusteff

Once upon a time there was a gypsy whose only real treasure was his horse. The gypsy was poor and each new day presented him with the challenge of finding food for the animal. One day a brilliant idea came to him. He decided to gradually decrease the daily amount of food that he gave to the horse. He reasoned that the horse would become used to smaller and smaller rations, and eventually there would be no need to feed it at all. The experiment proceeded remarkably well. Each day his horse accepted the smaller amount of food he gave it. Everything seemed to be working great, and the gypsy was almost ready to celebrate his success, when just one day before he planned not to feed the horse at all, it unexpectedly died.

Nowadays the parable about this gypsy and his horse is being reenacted in Israel. A year ago a "brilliant" idea came to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who decided to gradually relinquish the primordial Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs. He reasoned that the Jews would become used to the disappearance of lands that the Jewish state gained in the 1967 War, and Israel would be quietly squeezed into the "Auschwitz borders," as Abba Eban termed the 1949 armistice lines. Since that is the real destination of the Quartet's Road Map, the world community will happily encourage this policy, the Arabs will applaud it too, and Israel will thereby achieve peace. The only problem with the plan is that the kind of peace that Israel will achieve with this approach is the peace of the graves. Like the horse, Israel will perish after the abandonment of these lands is complete.

If anyone thinks Sharon's "Gaza first" plan will not become a policy of "the rest of Judea, and Samaria too," they are bitterly mistaken. This will happen not only because Ehud Olmert clearly explained in his interview with The Jerusalem Post on December 30, that after abandoning Gaza "Israel will continue to progress, by carrying out unilateral moves, including the possibility of further withdrawals that are in the interest of the state." And not because Olmert was the first Israeli minister who alluded to the currently planned "disengagement" and two weeks later Sharon came out publicly with his "transfer the Jews" plan. And not because Shimon Peres, even before Olmert, told The Sunday Times on December 12, that he feels that Sharon "will eventually be prepared to withdraw from more West Bank land than the small amount designated in his disengagement plan." It will happen first and foremost because the fence that Sharon is building along the 1949 armistice lines will become nothing else but Israel's new border.

Those who disagree and say that the fence can be moved even after it is built are absolutely correct. It will be moved to coincide with the 1949 armistice lines, at locations where it is currently to the east of them. You would have to be nave to believe that today Israel is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into building the fence, just so it can be dismantled tomorrow.

Adir Zik, a talk-show host on the Arutz Sheva radio station, wrote in the B'Sheva newspaper in mid-December 2004, "The fence is not a security barrier, it is meant to be an international border between Israel and Palestine. Gaza is just the first step." He explained that "facts on the ground" are created daily,

"If you travel today along the Jordan Valley road, where it meets the green line [near the Beit She'an Valley on Israel's eastern flank, adjacent to Jordan], you can see the actual border crossing [between Israel and the future Palestinian state] which has been built there, ready for use. Bus service from Kiryat Shmona to Jerusalem through the Jordan Valley has already been cancelled. Buses serving Jordan Valley communities now come only once every two hours. Development funds for the Jordan Valley have been frozen completely. All of Judea and Samaria is being prepared for expulsion in the next phase. While Gush Etzion may be inside the fence for the time-being, everyone outside the fence is slated for uprooting and expulsion."

In his Fifth Herzlia Conference speech on December 15, 2004 former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak matter-of-factly noted that everything that will not be encircled by the fence will be lost for Israel. He explained that time is of the essence for the construction of the fence and said that if it was easy not long ago to place Ariel and Kedumim inside it, today it is already much more difficult. The reason we should be paying attention to Barak's words on this matter, is that it was Barak, and not Ariel Sharon, who originally came up with the concept of unilateral separation. Already on January 8, 2001, in a closed-circuit television address to U.S. foreign policy opinion leaders Barak said that, "if there is no agreement Israel will impose a unilateral separation because we do not intend to rule over another people."

Of course, one might say that Sharon is not Barak or Olmert, and has different things in mind. Especially since after Olmert's interview the Prime Minister's Bureau released a statement saying that "there will be no further disengagements, that there is no such plan, and that the only peace program Israel will be a party to is the Road Map drawn up by the Bush Administration."

Alas, it is exactly this statement that should make it 100% clear that Israel WILL BE retreating into the Auschwitz borders. The statement consists of two parts. The first one was written for the consumption of the overwhelming majority of people, who gladly buy everything at face value. It is akin to U.S. President Bush, Sr.'s famous "Read my lips, no new taxes." The tax increase that followed was unexpected only to those who wanted to believe that something could come out of nothing. The fact that Sharon is no better than Bush in this regard can be deduced simply from the fact that, though today he is doggedly promoting the expulsion of the Jews from the Gaza strip, including Gush Katif, a mere two years ago, he solemnly promised that not a single settlement would be abandoned and even placed the importance of Gush Katif on par with Tel Aviv.

Now, the second part of the Prime Minister's Bureau's statement completely contradicts its first "no further disengagements" portion, though apparently not many people realize it. The point is that it confirms that Israel will be "a party to the Road Map." As Loius Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University, put it in his article "Avoiding the Road Map after Arafat," "Should Israel follow the Road Map, [it will follow] a route leading directly to its own extinction." The reason for this is that the main goal of the Road Map is the creation of a Palestinian Arab state through the "end [of] the occupation that began in 1967."

To put it differently, after the abandonment of Gaza and northern Samaria, in order to "end the occupation" Israel will be forced to perform further disengagements including partially abandoning Jerusalem. The Road Map explicitly states on this subject that the parties will "reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that... includes... a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of BOTH SIDES [emphasis added], and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide." Since currently Jerusalem is completely under Israel's control, it is obvious that Israel is the one side that will have to give.

This should be particularly clear in spite of any pronouncements to the contrary from any Israeli leaders, due to Sharon's complete turnaround on the issue of "disputed" vs. "occupied" land. Just three years ago, he referred to the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza according to their official international status -- as disputed lands. Today, in his preparation for the Gaza withdrawal, Sharon continues repeating that Israel must abandon the Gaza strip completely, so that there are no grounds whatsoever to say that it is still "occupied."

Any student of elementary logic can easily detect a huge flaw in Sharon's reasoning. If he is so concerned with removing from Gaza the status of "occupied" territory, how can he substantiate his position of "no further disengagements?" For almost a year Sharon has tried to convince his opponents that it is absolutely vital to demonstrate to the world community that Israel "ended the occupation of Gaza." But what about the remainder of the "occupied lands?" Since it is the perception of the world community that seems to count most, what kind of excuse will Israel invent in order not to proceed with further retreats?

Sharon's only "hope" is the prolongation of murderous Arab terror against the Jews. Otherwise, the Road Map requires him to continue giving land to the Arabs. As Professor Beres writes,

"It would be very hard for Israel to deny claims for Arab self-determination in the West Bank/Gaza if the Palestinians were to show 'good faith' by stopping their wanton murders of Jewish women and children. The world would never allow Israel to stand in the way of a Palestinian state in such seemingly conciliatory circumstances. Surely not when Israel`s Prime Minister himself continues to speak openly in terms of uprooting Jewish settlements."

The abandonment of Judea and Samaria, and the loss of the historically Jewish part of Jerusalem, which will inevitably follow the retreat from Gaza, will achieve the first of two Arab goals. Mohammad Heikal, editor in chief of the Egyptian Al-Ahram, and a confidant of Anvar Sadat's clearly expressed these goals in a February 25, 1971 editorial: "There are only two well-defined goals on the Arab scene: erasing the traces of the 1967 aggression by Israel's withdrawal from all areas occupied by it in that year and erasing the aggression of 1948 by Israel's total and absolute annihilation."

These "two well-defined goals" have never changed. The Arabs have simply became more politically correct in order to enlist the help of the Western world for their cause. And although the Arabs have tried to conceal their true intent from the West, they are much more explicit among themselves. Thirty years after Heikal's statement, Feisal Husseini, one of the most dovish Palestinian leaders, admitted in his last interview given to Egypt's Al-Arabi newspaper: "The Oslo accords were a Trojan horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea..."

With his plan of gradually abandoning Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Sharon will help the Arabs "to erase the traces of the 1967 aggression," thereby making the Arabs' final push towards Israel's annihilation much easier. The Arab world will bring its final military blow to a strategically weakened Jewish state at a time when the Jews will be preparing to finally celebrate the establishment of peace. And for many, Israel's demise will be unexpected, as was the death of his horse for the gypsy.



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




(An attempt at analysis)

Part 1 of 2

by Boris Shusteff

On December 9, the Likud Central Committee voted in favor of allowing Ariel Sharon to begin negotiations with the Labor party in order to bring it into the government. It was a watershed event for the nationalist camp. Sharon came another step closer towards the expulsion of Jews from Gaza. Correspondingly, Sharon's opponents in the Likud failed, and the already loud voices of those who do not believe in Moshe Feiglin's approach to revitalize the Likud from inside became much louder.

Feiglin's critics claim that his Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction has not achieved anything within the Likud and only demoralizes the nationalist camp, which believes that the Likud is a nationalist party. By retaining his affiliation with the Likud, Feiglin and Manhigut confuse people, prompting them to vote for the Likud thus weakening the nationalist camp. Therefore, critics argue, Feiglin and his supporters should immediately leave the Likud and create a new nationalist party uniting all nationalist forces around it.

These and similar accusations and suggestions not only lack logical coherence, but are also devoid of common sense in the context of the Israeli reality. First of all, Feiglin was not the one who wrote the Likud platform. Vice versa, he came to the Likud precisely because he believes in what is written in its platform. If the Likud's Central Committee continues to almost unanimously vote against the creation of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is it Feiglin who ignores the party platform or Sharon, who advocates such a state? If the Likud platform declares that the Jews have unquestionable rights to reside in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and Sharon has developed a plan to expel Jews from there, is it Feiglin or Sharon who rejects the Likud's political line?

The answer is unambiguous -- there can be no doubt that it is Sharon, and not Feiglin, who violently bends the Likud in order to squeeze it into his personal mold. Even worse, the Procrustean bed into which Sharon is trying to fit the Likud more and more resembles the broken bed of the Israeli Left, which was twice discarded by the Israeli voters into the dustbin of history.

Certainly the question arises as to why the Likud permits Sharon this unceremonious behavior. The answer has many sides. First of all, it is based on people's selfish nature. Many Likud Knesset members simply do not want to part with their comfortable chairs, sizable salaries and lucrative perks. Since they are not sure that new elections will bring them back into the Knesset, they prefer to remain glued to their seats even if this contradicts the Likud's official platform. Moreover, since internal Likud polls indicate that if the elections for party leader were held today Sharon would win again, why bother replacing Sharon with Sharon?

In another category are those who comfort themselves with the thought that all the promises they have made to themselves to stick to the Likud's values still remain intact. After all, though they support Sharon's disengagement plan, the votes taken so far have not yet been the critical ones. And during the vote that will really, really decide the fate of the Jews in Gaza and the Northern Samaria, they intend to vote with their conscience, meaning against disengagement. Meanwhile many other things might happen and Sharon's expulsion deal might not go through. So why should they risk Sharon's anger and show disloyalty when they can avoid manifesting their real feelings for now?

And last, but not least, Sharon won the Likud vote on December 9, because he had many supporters whom either he managed to convince, or they wanted themselves to be convinced, that the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza is good for Israel in the long run. Sharon keeps hinting that it will save a lot of other settlements. And while this fantasy of Sharon's does not have any substance to it, it is very easy to become self-delusional.

In summary, it's safe to say that Sharon's victory on December 9, was fully predictable and therefore should not warrant any critique of Manhigut. Actually, Feiglin himself was not concerned with this "defeat." As he wrote in The Jerusalem Post on December 7, "Speaking of political parties, I believe that bringing Labor into the government will actually quicken the process of the Likud returning to itself."

Those who blame Feiglin for betraying the nationalist camp somehow keep forgetting that the Likud was created as a nationalist party. When Sharon was active in its formation he was very vociferous declaring that it must be a clear alternate to the Labor party. From the beginning, the Likud was and still remains a nationalist party, since its platform still speaks of the "unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel." It states, "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values... The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

It is obvious that this philosophy is completely opposed to the Labor party's. Therefore, when Sharon accepts Labor's party platform principles that call for "dismantling isolated settlements" this does not make the Likud stop being a nationalist party, but means that Sharon no longer fits in the Likud. He has usurped the party ideology, declaring that he is the party, and whatever he decides will be the party's line.

It is because of this usurpation that there was so much talk on reforming the party when Feiglin and Manhigut joined the Likud. Perhaps even Feiglin and his colleagues believed this themselves. But they found out quickly that the Likud platform was a healthy platform of a nationalist party. It is the leader of the party and his cronies who are distorting the party's image, deceiving people by making them believe that they are the party's real voice.

Thus Feiglin's original idea of bringing more people into the Likud and by this process to reform the party became obsolete. The Likud is a nationalist party and it does not require ideological changes. On the contrary, it needs only to stick to its original ideology and platform. All that is required is simply to repeat verbatim what is written in the Likud's platform and follow through on it.

This did not make the Manhigut's life easier. Instead of working to reform the party's ideological-political structure, it became necessary to lead its members back to the original path. At first glance the task did not seem too difficult. If almost 100% of the Likud Central Committee voted against the creation of a Palestinian state one should expect that a similar fraction of Likud Members of the Knesset should be in line with this position, since they were all put on the party list by the Central Committee. However, people's self-interest is so strong that it sharply distorts the picture. Ideology has been suppressed by egotism.

It has therefore become necessary to wake up the members of the Likud and remind them that they affiliated with the Likud because of its ideology. The difficulty of this task was exacerbated by the fact that because of the Oslo process, Jewish and Zionist ideological values have been severely damaged. For ten consecutive years the official Israeli press has drummed into people's heads that ideological principles should be abandoned for the sake of an ephemeral "peace." And the terrorist war of the last four years has suppressed all ideologies, except that of survival.

(End of Part 1 of 2)




(An attempt at analysis)

Part 2 of 2

by Boris Shusteff

It is not easy to revive ideological values in a society that has been told for many years that ideology does not matter. Under these circumstances, Feiglin's tasks are very difficult. He needs to lead Manhigut in a way that allows him to stay visible as its leader, and simultaneously to support other ideologically healthy leaders in the Likud, who can present a serious challenge to Sharon.

Manhigut realizes very well that it is not strong enough to win the Likud's next leader elections. Therefore its activity is directed toward strengthening its own base and simultaneously expanding the base of its ideological allies. By its actions Manhigut has demonstrated that it will support anyone in the party who follows the Likud's ideology. Thus it actively supported Uzi Landau, who not only loudly declared his objection to Sharon's disengagement policy, but also openly voted against it. Likewise Manhigut provided substantial backing to Israel Katz and officially disavowed him only when Katz showed ideological weakness. It would be safe to assume that Manhigut will fully embrace Katz again if he realigns his ideology with Likud's ideological platform.

Saying that Manhigut's undertaking is not easy comes from the fact that since the Likud's pre-election Knesset list is voted on by the members of Likud's Central Committee (the Merkaz), in order to advance into the Knesset the movement needs to gain as much support as possible of the approximately 2500 members of the Merkaz. Manhigut's task of reaching out to the Merkaz is made easier by the fact that they do not need to introduce any foreign elements into the Likud's ideology. On the contrary they just have to remind the Merkaz members of their past. They have only to clean the dust off the Likud's clear ideological position that has accumulated through the Oslo years.

One might say this is an impossible task, since today the whole Israeli media is geared towards the anti-Zionist idea of dismantling the settlement enterprise. The brainwashing of the people by leftist propaganda goes unopposed, since the Israeli nationalist camp does not even have a single radio channel that can counter this anti-Zionist propaganda. Leaving aside the fact that it is almost impossible to get through the Israeli bureaucracy for obtaining permission for such a channel, the associated cost would doom the whole project.

However, Manhigut has found a simple solution to this seemingly unsolvable problem. By using its most precious resource - its dedicated people... Manhigut has developed a way to reach to almost all Merkaz members. It launched the so-called "project 15" initiative, under which each of Manhigut's 150 Merkaz members was tasked with approaching 15 Merkaz members not belonging to Manhigut. Feiglin believes that with these one-on-one relationships he will be able to relay to the whole Merkaz that Manhigut's ideology is exactly the Likud's, and nobody can better represent the Likud than Manhigut. Moreover, by this personal approach Manhigut wants to reawaken the spirit of Judaism and Zionism that exists in every Jewish soul.

This face-to-face approach will make the other Merkaz members see that the so-called "Feiglinists" are not the monsters who want to usurp the Likud (as they are painted by many) but simply Jews who are not indifferent to the fate of the Jewish state and who feel its pain much sharper than the majority of the people.

Manhigut has also created its own newspaper and started to spread the written word as well. The newspaper "Metzuda" (Tower) is distributed by hand by over 400 Manhigut volunteers in an attempt to reach not only Ministers, members of Knesset, and Merkaz members, but as many Likud voters as possible. Each issue of "Metzuda" is the best reminder to its readers that they belong to the party founded by Zeev Zhabotinsky who warned the Jews that it is disastrous even "if we orally or on scratch of paper renounce our claim" to Eretz Yisrael.

Certainly Feiglin realizes that the road forward for Manhigut is not strewn only with roses. Since he has tied himself and his colleagues to the Likud, he bears responsibility for all the good and the bad associated with the party. If G-d forbid Sharon manages to push through his idee-fixe of a judenrein Gaza, Feiglin and the Manhigut will share the blame for this horrific deed with the rest of the Likud. But those who blame Feiglin for dirtying himself by affiliating with the Likud should first answer if it is realistic to expect anyone to emerge clean from the process of cleaning a sewer.

All those who advise Feiglin to quit the Likud and start a new nationalist party from a clean slate should look around. The last three years have unequivocally demonstrated that Feiglin is on the right track. The main proof to this is the absolute disarray within the nationalist camp. The Mafdal is on the verge of splitting. Moledet and Tkuma had separated from Liberman's Israel Beitenu party. During these three years neither Effi Eitam, nor Benny Elon, nor Arie Eldad, nor Tzvi Hendel, nor Michael Kleiner, nor Avigdor Liberman have even tried assuming the role of leading the nationalist camp.

It is simply ridiculous to assume that Feiglin's affiliation with the Likud precludes these able and talented people from developing a sound positive political platform for the nationalist camp. In contrast to their helplessness and complete lack of strategy in the last three years Feiglin and Manhigut have shown that they have a clear short-term and long-term strategy, which they follow.

Does this mean that all the other nationalist parties and groups must immediately shut their doors and rush to the Likud? Of course not. First of all because of the well-known warning against putting all of one's eggs into one basket. And secondly, because the Israeli electorate is so diverse that each of the nationalist parties can easily find a niche for its voters.

At the same time Feiglin and Manhigut must remain in the Likud and continue the vitally important work of waking up this nationalist party. Feiglin's main challenge is to make clear to the Merkaz members and to the whole Likud that it is Sharon and not Manhigut who is violating the Likud's ideological principles and rudely transforming it into a bad clone of the Labor party. Nobody is positioned better than Feiglin and Manhigut to hasten the hour when Likud will reject Sharon as its leader.

By remaining in the Likud and strengthening his position Feiglin will follow the famous chess principle that the threat is often much stronger then the move itself. Feiglin's Manhigut is the only undiluted group inside the party that unequivocally and completely supports the Likud's original nationalist ideology. If the nationalist forces inside the Likud continue to grow, the threat that they will soon become the majority will loom over people like Sharon and Olmert, making them nervous about their own fate. Because when this finally happens and the Likud loudly reaffirms its nationalist ideology, it will kick these people out.

The brilliant American syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wrote on January 5, in his article "The next Prime Minister of Israel,"

"Feiglin recognizes that Israel's largest problem is not intractable external enemies but internal identity. And he seeks a solution not in complacency and appeasement but in that elite-scorned idea, national pride. 'I'm calling for a complete revolution in Jewish identity,' Feiglin stated. 'We need to identify as Jews through the Torah (Bible), because you can't identify the enemy until you identify yourself. Once you know who you are, and once you know that what you are doing is justice, fighting the enemy becomes simple.'"

It is this Jewish identity that Feiglin and Manhigut Yehudit want to return to the Likud party. It is this Jewish identity that the Likud with Feiglin as its leader will then bring to the Jewish state.



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


By Prof. Yehuda Lapidot

The Altalena, purchased by Irgun members abroad, was originally intended to reach Israel on May 15, 1948, loaded with fighters and military equipment. Weapons purchase and organizational matters took longer than expected, however, and the sailing was postponed for several weeks. Meanwhile, on June 1st, an agreement had been signed for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF and one of the clauses stated that the Irgun had to cease all independent arms acquisition activities. Consequently, representatives of the Israel Government were informed about the ship and its sailing schedule.

The Irgun headquarters in Paris did their best to keep the Altalena's preparations for departure a secret, but it was difficult to conceal the movement of 940 fighters and the loading of a large quantity of arms and ammunition. It was feared that if the plans were discovered, attempts might be made to sabotage the Altalena at sea. For this reason, when it raised anchor on June 11th, no cable was sent to the Irgun command in Israel, for fear that it would fall into the wrong hands. These precautionary measures proved fruitless, however, and the following day Radio London reported that the Altalena had sailed from Port-de-Bouc (France) in the direction of Israel with 1,000 Jewish volunteers and a large quantity of weapons on board.

It should be recalled that the first truce had begun on June 11th. When the Irgun leaders in Israel learned through the broadcast of the embarkation of the vessel, they feared that this breach of the truce conditions (i.e., the ban on bringing military equipment and fighters into the country) would be revealed. Menachem Begin decided therefore to postpone the arrival of the ship, and the Irgun staff secretary, Zippora Levi-Kessel, sent a wireless message to the Altalena to stay put and await orders. A similar cable was sent to Shmuel Katz (member of the General Headquarters), who was then in Paris, but contact with the ship was poor and the message was not understood.

On June 15th, Begin and his comrades held a meeting with government representatives, at which Begin announced that the ship had sailed without his knowledge and that he wanted to hold consultations on how to proceed. In his diary for June 16th, David Ben-Gurion wrote the following about the meeting:

Yisrael [Galili] and Skolnik [Levi Eshkol] met yesterday with Begin. Tomorrow or the next day their ship is due to arrive: 4,500 tons, bringing 800-900 men, 5,000 rifles, 250 Bren guns, 5 million bullets, 50 Bazoukas, 10 Bren carriers. Zipstein (director of Tel Aviv port) assumes that at night it will be possible to unload it all. I believe we should not endanger Tel Aviv port. They should not be sent back. They should be disembarked at an unknown shore.

Galili informed Begin of Ben-Gurion's consent to the landing of the ship, adding a request that it be done as fast as possible. Zippora Levi-Kessel then wirelessed the vessel to come in at full speed. The following day, a working meeting was held between Irgun representatives and Ministry of Defence personnel. While the Irgun proposed directing the Altalena to Tel Aviv beach, Ministry of Defence representatives claimed that the Kfar Vitkin beach was preferable, since it would be easier to evade UN observers there. The ship was therefore instructed to make for Kfar Vitkin.

Whilst there was agreement on the anchoring place of the Altalena, there were differences of opinion about the allocation of the cargo. Ben-Gurion agreed to Begin's initial request that 20% of the weapons be despatched to the Jerusalem Battalion. His second request, however, that the remainder be transferred to the IDF to equip the newly-incorporated Irgun battalions, was rejected by the Government representatives, who interpreted the request as a demand to reinforce an 'army within an army'. This was far from Begin's intention; rather, he saw it as a question of honor that the fighters enlist in the IDF fully-equipped.

The Altalena reached Kfar Vitkin in the late afternoon of Sunday, June 20th. Among the Irgun members waiting on the shore was Menachem Begin, who greeted the arrivals with great emotion. After the passengers had disembarked, members of the fishing village of Michmoret helped unload the cargo of military equipment. Concomitantly with the events at Kfar Vitkin, the government had convened in Tel Aviv for its weekly meeting. Ben-Gurion reported on the meetings which had preceded the arrival of the Altalena, and was adamant in his demand that Begin surrender and hand over of all the weapons:

We must decide whether to hand over power to Begin or to order him to cease his separate activities. If he does not do so, we will open fire! Otherwise, we must decide to disperse our own army.

The debate ended in a resolution to empower the army to use force if necessary to overcome the Irgun and to confiscate the ship and its cargo. Implementation of this decision was assigned to the Alexandroni Brigade, commanded by Dan Even (Epstein), which the following day surrounded the Kfar Vitkin area. Dan Even issued the following ultimatum:

To: M. Begin

By special order from the Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, I am empowered to confiscate the weapons and military materials which have arrived on the Israeli coast in the area of my jurisdiction in the name of the Israel Government. I have been authorized to demand that you hand over the weapons to me for safekeeping and to inform you that you should establish contact with the supreme command. You are required to carry out this order immediately.

If you do not agree to carry out this order, I shall use all the means at my disposal in order to implement the order and to requisition the weapons which have reached shore and transfer them from private possession into the possession of the Israel government.

I wish to inform you that the entire area is surrounded by fully armed military units and armored cars, and all roads are blocked.

I hold you fully responsible for any consequences in the event of your refusal to carry out this order.

The immigrants - unarmed - will be permitted to travel to the camps in accordance with your arrangements. You have ten minutes to give me your answer.

D.E., Brigade Commander

The ultimatum, and in particular the demand for an answer within ten minutes, was insulting and unrealistic. It was made, according to Even "in order not to give the Irgun commander time for lengthy considerations and to gain the advantage of surprise." Begin refused to respond to the ultimatum, and all attempts at mediation failed. Begin's failure to respond was a blow to Even's prestige, and a clash was now inevitable. Fighting ensued and there were a number of casualties. In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Kfar Vitkin settlers initiated negotiations between Yaakov Meridor (Begin's deputy) and Dan Even, which ended in a general ceasefire and the transfer of the weapons on shore to the local IDF commander.

Begin had meanwhile boarded the Altalena, which was now heading for Tel Aviv. He hoped that it would be possible to enter into a dialogue with the Provisional Government and to unload the remaining weapons peacefully. But this was not the case. Ben-Gurion ordered Yigael Yadin (acting Chief of Staff) to concentrate large forces on the Tel Aviv beach and to take the ship by force. Heavy guns were transferred to the area and at four in the afternoon, Ben-Gurion ordered the shelling of the Altalena. One of the shells hit the ship, which began to burn. There was danger that the fire would spread to the holds which contained explosives, and the captain ordered all aboard to abandon ship. People jumped into the water, whilst their comrades on shore set out to meet them on rafts. Although the captain flew the white flag of surrender, automatic fire continued to be directed at the unarmed survivors. Begin, who was on deck, agreed to leave the ship only after the last of the wounded had been evacuated.

Sixteen Irgun fighters were killed in the confrontation with the army; six were killed in the Kfar Vitkin area and ten on Tel Aviv beach. Three IDF soldiers were killed: two at Kfar Vitkin and one in Tel Aviv.

After the shelling of the Altalena, more than 200 Irgun fighters were arrested on Ben-Gurion's orders. Most of them were released several weeks later, with the exception of five senior commanders (Moshe Hason, Eliyahu Lankin, Yaakov Meridor, Bezalel Amitzur and Hillel Kook), who were detained for more than two months. (They were released, thanks to public pressure, on August 27, 1948).

Years later, on the eve of the Six-Day War, in June 1967 (after Ben-Gurion had retired from political activity and Levi Eshkol was Prime Minister), Menachem Begin joined a delegation which visited Sde Boker to ask David Ben-Gurion to return and accept the premiership again. After that meeting, Ben-Gurion said that if he had then known Begin as he did now, the face of history would have been different. - Feb. 4, 2005 / 25 Shevat, 5765


By Caroline B. Glick

Attention Friends of Israel: Condie may prove to be worse than Colin. Has "Bush's patsy" gone independent or has "Israel's best friend ever" done an about-face?

Speaking with State Department personnel on Monday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave form to the Palestinian state that now stands at the center of American Middle East policy. "The Israelis," she said, "were going to have to recognize that there was going to have to be land for -- contiguous land for the Palestinian state to exist on."

Contiguous land? Well, how can there be contiguity between Judea and Samaria on the east and the Gaza Strip on the west unless Israel is split in two? It's simple geography. Either Israel will separate two sections of the Palestinian state or the Palestinian state will divide Israel in two. And now we know where America stands on the issue.

The contiguity statement also bodes ill for Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. After all, Israel's control of Jerusalem cuts off the Hebron and Bethlehem areas from Ramallah. And Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley would cut Jericho off from the rest of the Palestinian cities in Judea and Samaria.

The most amazing aspect of Rice's statement is that it was made before Israel and the Palestinians have even begun to negotiate. Then again, since the so-called road map is the only plan in town, we already know that America has joined Europe, the UN, Yossi Beilin and Vice Premier Shimon Peres in believing that at the end of the day, Israel will enable the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. That state will share borders with Egypt and Jordan (and after Israel gives the Golan Heights to Syria, with Syria); will encompass all of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip; and will have its capital in Jerusalem. In addition, there will be foreign troops in the areas to prevent Israel from defending itself.

On Tuesday, Rice made clear that now that America has joined the bandwagon of those calling for Israel's disembowelment, it should be able to patch up its relations with the EU. In her words, "This great alliance that has faced very grave threats now faces really remarkable opportunities in the world."

The first opportunity she mentioned was "the opportunity to support the parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to try and find a two-state solution." It is odd that the US, in trying to patch up its relations with Europe, has preferred to give in to Europe's Palestinian fetish over say, building on common interests. As Robin Shepherd from the Center for International and Strategic Studies wrote in The Washington Post last week (the article also appeared in Tuesday's Jerusalem Post), the core of Europe's rift with America is Europe's emotional and irrational antipathy for Israel. And, as he warned, "Americans should now be aware that on one crucial issue, at least [i.e., Israel], it is Europe, and not America, that needs to clean up its act."

All the same, it is hard to feel too betrayed by America when the charge to strengthen Palestinian terrorists at the expense of Israel's national security is being led today -- just as it was in 1993 -- by the Israeli government.

Thursday, the "security cabinet" -- stacked with security geniuses like Shimon "Arafat's Great" Peres and Haim "Israel is Bad" Ramon -- decided to release 900 Palestinian terrorists from prison. This is just the latest of the Israeli payoffs to the democratically elected PA leader Mahmoud Abbas.

And what has Abbas done to deserve such largesse? He has purportedly reached an agreement with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah that involves these terrorist groups temporarily ceasing their attacks. (This is probably news to the residents of Gush Katif who had 15 mortars and rockets lobbed at them over the past few days.) During this temporary cessation of terrorist attacks, the terrorists will not be disarmed. If they desire, Abbas told a Russian newspaper this week, they can be integrated into the Palestinian security services. Those would be the same security services to which Russia pledged to donate helicopters; to which Turkey has asked to donate uniforms and guns; which Rice says America will train; and which President Bush wishes to finance.

And, if terrorists are dissatisfied with the pace of Israeli withdrawals or other appeasement measures, Abbas promised them that they can always go back to murdering Israelis.

In addition to his mollification of terrorists, Abbas announced a ban on illegal weapons. That would seem a promising move, except that his announcement has no enforcement mechanism, is directed against "criminal elements," and makes no mention whatsoever of gun-toting terrorists.

Abbas has also deployed PA militias in Gaza. But these forces have been given strict orders to take no action against terrorists.

As to reform of Palestinian institutions, in one of his first "law enforcement" actions, Abbas instructed the PA's mufti to speed up the process of executing the 51 Palestinians who have been sentenced to death by Palestinian "courts." At least seven of those 51 were convicted of the capital crime of "collaborating" with Israel.

Then there is the question of economic transparency, which the US demands Abbas shore up. In an interesting move on this score, one of the first "economic" issues that the Palestinians raised this week was their demand to reopen the casino in Jericho. That particular edifice is the concrete manifestation of everything that is corrupt about the PA and about the "peace process" itself. Jibril Rajoub, Muhammad Rashid and Abbas have all been investors in the casino. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's adviser, Dov Weisglass, has represented casino shareholders. And the late Yossi Ginnosar, who set up meetings between Omri Sharon and Yasser Arafat back when Sharon first came into office four years ago, was both a member of the Board of Directors of the Peres Peace Center and an investor in the casino.

Perhaps most indicative of Abbas's intentions is his acceptance of Iran's invitation to conduct a state visit. This willingness to truck with global terrorists who are pursuing nuclear weapons aligns nicely with Abbas's visits to Syria and Lebanon, where he was mollycoddled by dictators and terror masters while campaigning for the office he won in a largely uncontested, highly corrupt election.

It stands, of course, to reason -- in the Orwellian world that so characterizes Israel when it is peace-drunk -- that our leaders would look at all that Abbas has done and say, "Wonderful, let's give this guy a state!" So here we are. Our army has been ordered not to protect us, because the Palestinians will do that for us now. PA security forces will now be deployed in Judea and Samaria, as well as in Gaza. Wanted Palestinian terrorists -- mass murderers -- are free to go back to their homes. Israel won't harm them. Palestinian terrorists whom Israel caught and imprisoned will now be released on their own recognizance.

It's all in the interest of peace, after all, and we can rest assured that they won't return to killing, because they will all be required to sign declarations promising not to be terrorists anymore. That's crucial. Let's not forget that the terrorists who carried out the bombings in Cafe Hillel and outside Tzrifin military base in September 2003 signed precisely such declarations before they were released as part of a confidence-building gesture to Abbas.

In addition to rushing to embrace Abbas, Israel is doing everything it can to shore up Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak in the hope that he will protect us after we run away from Gaza. Crowned with legitimacy as a peacemaker after he and his security chief, Omar Suleiman, have spent the better part of two weeks getting Hamas and Islamic Jihad to agree to absolutely nothing -- according to Hamas chieftain Khaled Mashal -- Mubarak next Tuesday will host a peace party in Sharm e-Sheikh, where peace-drunk Israeli politicians and media flacks will gush, and Palestinians will demand that Israel take down the security fence and the roadblocks and release still more murderers from jail in order to give them confidence to make "hard steps" toward peace sometime later on down the line.

In the meantime, because of his vital role in the "peace process," Mubarak can safely assume that he will receive no flak from America for having imprisoned Ayman Nur, the leader of the only opposition party trying to challenge his one-party rule in Egypt. King Abdullah, too, can be sure he will pay no price for trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.

And herein lies the greatest irony of the peace process. American supporters of both Bush and Israel are now backing Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and northern Samaria and Bush's plan for Palestinian statehood, claiming the world has changed since Oslo. They promise that Bush is going to cause a democratic revolution in the Arab world that will change the entire strategic balance in Israel's favor.

What they don't seem to remember is that the world had also changed after the fall of the Soviet Union and the 1991 Gulf War. Then, as now, there was an expectation that the Arabs would be forced to change the way they treated Israel and America. Then, as now, the reactionary forces in the region were saved by one thing -- the peace process with Israel. Back in 1992 at Madrid and in 1993 at Oslo, the Arabs learned that the way to ensure the longevity of their authoritarian, terror-supporting and jihad-engendering regimes was by attacking Israel with olive branches. These earn legitimacy from the Jewish state and gratitude from the White House. Since peacemakers are of course indispensable, all thought of democracy must be put aside in the furtherance of a greater good.

So, here we are again, at the dawn of a new peace process which will bring no peace; will legitimize terrorists and the authoritarian regimes that support them; will weaken Israel's democratic institutions while endangering its citizenry; and will engender scorn for America and faith in Israel's eventual destruction in the hearts of millions of people who today waver between support for freedom and support for terror.



UPDATED RE-RELEASE, February 5, 2005


by Emanuel A. Winston
Mid East analyst & commentator

Even the Europeans, well known for artful avoidance of facing approaching calamities are frightened by Iran's dash at break-neck speed in developing a nuclear capability. The U.S. , Israel and, surprisingly, the slackers at the U.N. appear to be half opening their eyes at the risk in Iran's development activities. There are several problems - each important on its own.

The possibility of Iran obtaining operational nuclear warheads with the capability of mounting them on modified North Korean, Chinese or Russian missiles has been well explored.

Since I wrote this article in mid-November, we have learned that North Korea, like Pakistan, has shipped nuclear material to Iran. Add to that the secret transfer of nuclear-capable missiles from Ukraine to Iran.

Another risk is equally as important. Iran is speeding the process of developing a nuclear fission device. We have seen what happens with poor technological development , even when it comes out of purported technologically advanced nations, such as the Soviet Union/Russia.

We all remember with horror the Chernobyl accident meltdown which spread its contamination across parts of Russia, Finland, Sweden and even crossed the Mediterranean where Israeli scientists found contamination on the hills of the Carmel Mountain.

Iran is rushing forward with numerous technologies obtained from different nations which makes the probability of a nuclear accident highly probably. In order to hide their nuclear development, they have spread their nuclear-making facilities across 330 sites. As any manufacturer of highly complex technology can tell you, things must be unified, controlled with excellent communications. This is not common in the Arab world. So, as the Iranians dash forward in the most risky technology on the planet, they could too easily create a Chernobyl, even dozens of Chernobyls, spreading nuclear contamination well beyond their borders. Such an event would shock and endanger all the nations on the continent and beyond.

There are some hopeful thoughts that Israel, in her own self-interest, will attack Iran's nuclear installations. Then, the world can blame Israel - as they did when Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 before it was operational.

Should there be such an accident, the U.N. - having artfully avoided an embargo of fissile material, technology and scientists - will be fully to blame. Naturally, the suppliers such as Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea, France and many others would try to deny their role as nuclear proliferation enablers. In predictable embarrassment, they would, of course, cease shipping while denying complicity and pull back their scientists but, it would be too late.

The U.S. would, of course, establish a blockade of all shipments into Iran.

Let us hope that Iran's rush to atomic bombs first accident causes them to pull back and cease their craving for an Islamic Nuclear Bomb. Perhaps the too little - too late United Nations will act before a first accidental release of Iranian nuclear contamination into the atmosphere as happened from Chernobyl.

For those who though Chernobyl has come and are wrong! The grass is still coming up in Sweden, Finland, Russia and is still leaching Strontium 90, among other radioactive stuff. Their cows eat the grass; their milk, cheese and meat carries the radiation. In Russia, loads of vegetables are checked for unacceptable levels of radiation and, if too high, the load is mixed with non-irradiated produce, so the average radiation is somewhat lower but is deemed acceptable "to their bureaucracy".

Chernobyl will be with us for years to come. Chernobyl children are still being sent abroad to be treated of their disease-causing radiation saturation. Many of those children are being hosted and medically treated in Israel, funded by humanitarian organizations. Cancers in the countries mentioned will rise exponentially as the years pass, depending on how dense the fallout in their area.

I will not depress you with the full life span of various radiological materials from an accidental release. It get even worse when it comes in the form of a Nuclear Bomb. Let us hope that Iran's first accident is small or better yet, not at all.

John Loftus, interviewed on FOX NEWS November 28th at 6:30 PM Israel time, was asked if the U.N. could trust Iran in its negotiations to stand down their manufacture of nuclear devices. Part of the FOX interview was about the centrifuges which Loftus explained emitted a static electricity which could be detected by certain satellites. Iran claimed it wanted to maintain at least eight experimental centrifuges operating, merely as a cover for the many centrifuges, since electronic discharges of the few would mask others. He also spoke of a secret tunnel being dug to by-pass facilities which the U.N. had never bothered to set foot in to inspect. The full story was released in the German journal Der Spiegel November 29.

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





By Hilary Leila Krieger

Jews are rich, powerful, rich, shrewd and rich. They know the secret of success in banking, trade and industry. And they know the key to gaining influence in the US in general and in the White House in particular.

These common Chinese characterizations of Jews might sound like an anti-Semitic diatribe, but sociologist Shalom Salomon Wald swears they are not. It's actually a statement, he says, of the high regard in which China holds the Jewish people: These are the very traits that endear the Jews to the Chinese.

"The Chinese are nauseatingly obsessed with making it, with success," says Wald, who recently authored a strategy paper titled "China and the Jewish People" for the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Jewish Agency and headed by former US diplomat Dennis Ross. For the Chinese, he explains, the Jews are the model of success.

It's not just a matter of accumulating material wealth and political clout. To the Chinese, the Jews have contributed to the progress of the world.

"They're the great doctors and the great scientists," Wald says, noting that Chinese people especially admire Albert Einstein and, in the past at least, Karl Marx. They wonder how so few could contribute so much.

According to Wald's study, the Chinese affinity with the Jews started in earnest following news of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom, when more than 50 Jews were murdered. Since that cataclysm, the Chinese discuss the Jews as the other race persecuted by the white man, Wald explains. They see a similarity between their fate and that of the Jews, including the Holocaust, which reminds them of their own treatment during World War II by Japan.

The Chinese, who value history and memory, also appreciate that Jewish civilization, much like theirs, goes back millennia. In fact, when Beijing formalized relations with Jerusalem, it promoted the decision under the slogan of the need to bring together the world's two oldest civilizations.

The Chinese also lack the complexes that arguably inspire other cultures' attitudes toward Israeli policies and Jewish travails. While Christianity and Islam each have a close and sometimes troubled relationship with Judaism, the Chinese, who as a nation have no particular relationship with the Bible, also have no need to delegitimize any aspect of the Jewish past.

In Chinese, the term Jew has no negative connotation of the sort one finds in various monotheistic languages. While Chinese contacts with the West intensify, anti-Semitic literature remains rare, though its importation has been on the rise.

So far, Wald says, there's no reason to fear the Chinese view of Jews as rich and powerful; in fact, the Jewish people should take advantage of the interest in Jews these perceived qualities invite, and use it to cultivate ties between the two cultures.

"The Chinese believe the Jews are a big people. It makes no sense to tell them we're not," he says. "It also doesn't help to tell them this is anti-Semitic."

Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post



7 February 2005



By Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science
Purdue University, West Lafayette IN 47907
E MAIL BERES@Polsci.Purdue.Edu

Soon - because of his planned "disengagement" from Jewish lands in Gaza and Samaria - Prime Minister Sharon will encounter widespread civil disobedience and civil resistance1 in Israel. Accompanying such civilian opposition may also be substantial military refusals to carry out eviction/resettlement orders against Jewish "settlers." Significantly, all of these rejections of Sharon's policy of surrender will represent far more than random expressions of anger and protest. Rather, they will stem purposefully and properly from the ancient Jewish tradition of a Higher Law.2

This vital Jewish tradition is authoritatively codified within the constitutional foundations of all modern democracies, especially those of the United States, and in contemporary international law.3 As will be revealed in the following discussion, Prime Minister Sharon's intended policy of overcoming disobedience and resistance in Israel, an essential disobedience that is being spawned by the dangerous consequences of "disengagement,"4 the earlier Oslo agreements5 and the larger "Peace Process,"6 (which is currently renamed the "Road Map") will be harshly destructive of Israel's security. It will also be starkly injurious to the overriding expectations and associated protections of Higher Law.


The principle of a Higher Law is not just "any principle." It is one of the enduring and canonic principles in the history of the United States.7 Codified in both the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution,8 it rests upon the acceptance of certain notions of right and justice that obtain because of their own obvious merit. Such notions, as the celebrated Blackstone declared, are nothing less than "the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions."9

When Jefferson set to work to draft the Declaration he drew freely upon Aristotle, Cicero, Grotius, Vattel, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, and Locke's Second Treatise of Government.10 Asserting the right of revolution whenever government becomes destructive of "certain unalienable rights,"11 the Declaration of Independence posits a natural order in the world whose laws are external to all human will and which are discoverable through human reason.12 Although, by the eighteenth century, God had withdrawn from immediate contact with humankind and had been transformed into Final Cause or Prime Mover of the universe, "nature" provided an appropriate substitute.13 Reflecting the decisive influence of Isaac Newton, whose Principia was first published in 1686, all of creation could now be taken as an _expression of divine will.14 Hence, the only way to know God's will was to discover the law of nature; Locke and Jefferson had deified nature and denatured God.15

What, exactly, was this law of nature? It was, as Jefferson learned from Locke, the law of reason: According to Locke's second treatise:

The state of nature has a law to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men....

A criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed on one, declared war against all mankind.16

As reason is the only sure guide to what God has given to humankind, reason is the only foundation of true law. This Lockean and Jeffersonian idea of a transcendent or Higher Law is expressed not only in the Declaration of Independence, but also in the Constitution.17 The Ninth Amendment, in stipulating that "the enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not prejudice other rights not so enumerated,"18 reflects the belief in a law superior to the will of human governance. And this belief runs continuously from ancient times, especially Jewish Law,19 to the present moment.

The Fragments of Heraclitus attest the antiquity of the idea of a Higher Law: "For all human laws are nourished by one, which is divine. For it governs as far as it will, and is sufficient for all, and more than enough."20 Such Heraclitean dicta, offered somewhere around 500 B.C.E., entered into later Stoic philosophy, and described one universal and rational law.

In 442 B.C.E., Sophocles elucidated the idea of true law as an act of discovery, challenging the superiority of human rule-making in Antigone.21 Exploring the essential conflict between claims of the state and of the individual conscience, this drama has since been taken to represent the incontestable supremacy of a Higher Law over man-made law. Later, in the nineteenth century, Thoreau, noting that men live with "too passive a regard for the moral laws,"22 cited Antigone as a stirring example of civil disobedience.

Building upon Plato's theory of Ideas,23 which sought to elevate "nature" from the sphere of contingent facts to the realm of immutable archetypes or Forms,24 Aristotle advanced in his Ethics the concept of "natural justice."25 Quoting the Antigone, he argued that "an unjust law is not a law."26 This position, of course, is in stark contrast to the opinion of the Sophists that justice is never more than an _expression of supremacy, that it is what Thrasymachus calls, in Plato's Republic, "the interest of the stronger."27

The Stoics, whose legal philosophy arose on the threshold of the Greek and Roman worlds, regarded nature itself as the supreme legislator in the moral order.28 Applying Platonic and Aristotelian thought to the emerging cosmopolis, they defined this order as one where humankind, through its divinely granted capacity to reason, can commune directly with the gods.29 And since this definition required an expansion of Plato's and Aristotle's developing notions of universalism, the Stoics articulated a division between lex aeterna, ius natural and ius humanum.30

Lex aeterna is the law of reason of the cosmos, the logos which rules the universe. As an emanation of cosmic reason, human reason rules the lives of men. It follows that natural law partakes of eternal law, though it has a more limited range of application. Unlike the more elitist conception of Plato (and, to a certain extent, even Aristotle), the Stoic idea of an innate right reason presumed no divisions between peoples.31 Rather, in linking all persons with the cosmic order, it established the essential foundations of true universality.

Cicero, in De Republica, defined the state as a "coming together of a considerable number of men who are united by a common agreement about law and rights and by the desire to participate in mutual advantages."32 This definition sheds light on the problems surrounding positivist jurisprudence, a legal philosophy that values a state's edicts as intrinsically just and obligatory33. In a famous passage of De Republica, Cicero sets forth the classic statement on natural law:

True law is right reason, harmonious with nature, diffused among all, constant, eternal; a law which calls to duty by its commands and restrains from evil by its prohibitions....It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law; nor may it be derogated from nor abrogated. Indeed, by neither the Senate nor the people can we be released from this law; nor does it require any but oneself to be its expositor or interpreter. Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens; one now and another at a late time; but one eternal and unchangeable law binding all nations through all time....34

Israel has an obligation under natural law to preserve itself. Where the government of Israel acts contrary to this obligation - which is assuredly the case with "disengagement" - it is not only the right of Israel's citizens and soldiers to protest meaningfully, it is a decisive responsibility. Even if Israel has already bound itself in various agreements (e.g., Oslo/"Road Map") to implement evacuation of some of its own lands (presently Samaria and Gaza), it must immediately recognize these agreements to be null and void. In his OPINION ON THE FRENCH TREATIES, written on April 28, 1793, Thomas Jefferson stated that when performance in international agreements "becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others."35 In that same document, Jefferson wrote: "The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations."36 It would be altogether reasonable to infer from this that all states are similarly prohibited from entering into "disengagements" that are "contrary to its indispensable obligations."


But what is to be done when positive law is at variance with true law, the question in Israel at this very moment? The Romans had a remedy. They incorporated in their statutes a contingency clause that man-made law could never abrogate obligations that are sacred.37 On several occasions, Cicero and others invoked this clause, or jus, against one statute or another.38 In this way, the written law of the moment, never more than an artifact of the civic community, remained subject to right reason.

Later, St. Augustine reaffirmed that temporal law must conform to the unchangeable eternal law,39 which he defined as "the reason or will of God (ratio divina vel voluntas Dei)."40 Aquinas continues this tradition of denying the status of law to prescriptions that are unjust (lex iniusta non est lex).41 "Human law," he wrote in the Summae,42 "has the quality of law only insofar as it proceeds according to right reason; and in this respect it is clear that it derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it deviates from reason it is called an unjust law, and has the quality not of law, but of violence."43

The concept of a Higher Law was widely integrated into medieval jurisprudential thought.44 According to John of Salisbury's Policraticus, "There are certain precepts of the law which have perpetual necessity, having the force of law among all nations and which absolutely cannot be broken."45 Recognizing the idea that all political authority must be intrinsically limited, John noted that the prince "may not lawfully have any will of his own apart from that which the law or equity enjoins, or the calculation of the common interest requires."46 Natural law, then, exists to frustrate political injustice.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, natural law doctrine was reaffirmed and secularized by Grotius.47 Reviving the Ciceronian idea of natural law and its underlying optimism about human nature, Grotius must be credited with liberating this idea from any remaining dependence on ecclesiastical or Papal interpretation.48 Building upon the prior speculations of the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria, who had proclaimed a natural community of humankind and the universal validity of human rights,49 Grotius fashioned a bridge from the Christian Commonwealth of the Middle Ages to a new interstate society.50 In this connection, he strengthened the idea of a universally valid natural law transcending in obligation all human law, including the law of the sovereign state.51

Unlike Machiavelli and Hobbes,52 Grotius did not reduce law to the will of the prince or of the state.53 Rather, while recognizing such will as a constitutive element in the international legal order, he understood that the binding quality of human edicts must be derived from the overriding totality of natural imperatives.54 Hence, he proceeded to reject raison d'etat as a just cause for war.55

This brings us directly to the conveyance of natural law ideas into American political theory, a transmittal - as we have already learned - that was preeminently the work of Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690).56 The codified American "duty" to revolt when governments commit "a long train of abuses and usurpations"57 flows from Locke's notion that civil authority can never extend beyond the securing of humankind's natural rights.58 Significantly, for those practicing civil disobedience/civil resistance in Israel today, the motto that Jefferson chose for his seal was, "Rebellion to Tyrants Is Obedience to God."59 As for the right to pursue happiness, which Jefferson drew from Burlamaqui's incorporation into natural law,60 it had nothing whatever to do with today's contemporary celebrations of materialism. Rather, happiness was viewed by Jefferson (in deference to Pufendorf and Locke) as a condition to be achieved as a result of humankind's commitment to reason.61

Above all else, perhaps, the Declaration of Independence codified a social contract that sets limits on the power of any government.62 Its purpose was to articulate a set of universally valid constraints upon all secular political authority. As justice, which is based on natural law, binds all human society, the rights described by the Declaration of Independence cannot be reserved only to Americans. Instead, they extend to all human societies, including Israel, and can never be abrogated by positive law.

This theory of a Higher Law is based on clarity, self-evidence and coherence. Its validity cannot be shaken by the presumed imperatives of geopolitics, even when Israeli leaders feel themselves threatened by political upheaval. Even if the Sharon Government takes seriously the promise of "disengagement," it lacks altogether the authority to cancel overriding legal imperatives.

Significantly, in an informed critique of the conduct of an earlier Attorney-General of Israel serving then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Irving Gendelman, a citizen of Israel, observed:

It is interesting that there is a commonality between the US Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in the enunciation of this underlying principle of government; namely, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and thus governments should be the means whereby the people may seek to achieve their destiny. In a profound sense, the intent of these notions may be to focus on the truism that government should be the handmaiden of the people in contrast to the Machiavellian approach.63

As noted by the Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel in the 1758 edition of The Law of Nations (a work in which several American fathers of independence discovered important maxims of political liberty): "No agreement can bind, or even authorize, a man to violate the natural law."64 Rather, Vattel cautioned that only obedience to higher legal obligations can produce a virtuous and thus a safe and prosperous state: "One would have to be very ignorant of political affairs not to perceive how much more capable a virtuous Nation is of forming a happy, peaceful, flourishing and secure state, respected by its neighbors and formidable to its enemies."65


In the end, the Higher Law expectations of the American political tradition, expectations that apply also to Israel, are not self-enforcing. Defied again and again by transient political elites, they can be sustained only where individuals seize their own inwardness and act (as does Antigone before Creon66 ) according to conscience. "Why has every man a conscience,"67 asks Thoreau in his essay on Civil Disobedience.

I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.68

Where are such "conscientious men" (and women) to be found? Certainly not, says Thoreau, among the "commonly esteemed good citizens."69 These mass men and women serve the state "not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies."70 Placing themselves "on a level with wood and earth and stones,"71 they are incapable of making essential moral distinctions; thus, "they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God."72 This is easily enough seen today in Israel, where many citizens are still unable to recognize the difference between transient laws of the state and true law, a difference that is deeply rooted in Jewish Law and international law, and that demands the authentically law-enforcing behavior of civil disobedience and/or civil resistance.

Can Israel create the conditions for a conscientious "corporation" though the education of an informed citizenry? From Rousseau to the present, this has been the path of virtually all democratic theory. Rousseau believed that law and liberty could exist in a city-state of properly educated voters like Geneva:

As he stipulates in Book III of the Social Contract:

First, a very small state where the people can be readily got together and where each citizen can with ease know all the rest; secondly, great simplicity of manners, to prevent business from multiplying and raising thorny problems; next, a large measure of equality in rank and fortune, without which equality of rights and authority cannot long subsist; lastly, little or no luxury - for luxury either comes of riches or makes them necessary.

But Israel is not Geneva, and Rousseau's idea that (even under very definite conditions) a majority can be trusted with what is really best for "the people" is always baneful. The dangers of the "general will" have been made manifest not only in the exploits of Robespierre and Napoleon, but also in the banal collectivism of contemporary Israel's political Left and its sometimes unwitting allies, whatever the particular political party affiliations involved. Although certainly not by any means a majority (quite the contrary), this deluded segment of Israelis fails to recognize that the struggle against terror is deeply embedded in the laws of its allies,73 in antecedent international law,74 and that all terrorists are Hostes humani generis,75 "Common enemies of mankind."

Rousseau's deification of The People points toward the very opposite of the Higher Law tradition and its underlying Jewish origins. The Genevan made "The People" sovereign; for Israel, however, sovereignty must soon come to reside in The Person.76 As Thoreau understood, apathy, complacency passivity and moral cowardice are the inevitable trappings of the mass of men and women. Hope lies only in those real individuals whose primary allegiance is to overriding and universal laws, not in the presumptive "good citizen" but in the "wise minority."

What is the task of this body of persons, which - in fact - could easily represent a true and distinct majority? of those individuals whose choice of inwardness compels them to remain forever outside the grazing herd? Thoreau speaks truthfully of civil disobedience, an act of "counter-friction" that may undermine expediency and restore higher standards of personal judgment. Confronted with an evil of the sort now confronted by Israelis, the evil of an existentially dangerous foreign policy,77 he would urge, as he once did about other policy deformations in Civil Disobedience, "Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn."

This is not to suggest that civil disobedience or civil resistance should be undertaken lightly. As the authors of the Declaration of Independence understood, prudence dictates that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." Moreover, even much less extreme forms of opposition than revolution must be considered with great care, since the benefits and strengths of the state are manifest and self-evident. What we require in Israel today is neither revolution nor even regularized patterns of civil disobedience or resistance, but rather a greatly enlarged citizen inclination (1) to recognize the prevailing draft of unwisdom in the Sharon Government; and (2) to confront those responsible for this drift with a sustained, informed and necessary opposition. Such a confrontation, when it takes the form of active protest and far-reaching non-cooperation (civilian and military) would represent the very highest levels of lawful behavior - both from the standpoint of international law and Jewish law.

In the years before the Civil War, thousands of Americans organized an Underground Railroad to help those fleeing from slavery. At that time, those who participated in this movement were judged lawbreakers by the Federal government, and were frequently imprisoned under the Fugitive Slave Act. Today, it is widely recognized that the only lawbreakers of the period were those who sustained the system of slavery, and that every individual act to oppose this system had been genuinely law-enforcing. Similar patterns of recognition will soon emerge in regard to the anti-"disengagement" movement in Israel,78 but, alas, probably not until the Sharon administration has fought bitterly against the legitimacy of civil disobedience and civil resistance.

Here Israel may learn a further lesson from the United States. This country has long maintained a common law defense known as "necessity." This defense, which has also now been incorporated into various state criminal codes,79 permits conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense if the accused believed that such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his/her own conduct. Transposed to the Israeli context, where the greater public and private injury occasioned by "disengagement" could include expanding terrorism,80 war crimes, crimes against peace (aggression)81 and even crimes against humanity82 (genocide), a "necessity" defense could be compelling in disobedience/resistance cases. This is the case even if Israeli law recognizes no explicit form of "necessity," because this law must recognize the Higher Law principle from which the "necessity" defense derives. This principle, in an ironic turn, has its own origins in the law of ancient Israel.


"When I get to heaven," said the Hasidic Rabbi Susya just before his death, "they will not ask me, `Why were you not Moses?' but `Why were you not Susya?'" Unless they are successful, when the People of Israel come to confront the dire consequences of "disengagement" they will ask many things: "Why did we not oppose the Government, when we still had time, with apt forms of disobedience and resistance?" "Why did we not do what we were obligated to do?"83 "Why did we act in a fashion contrary to our own unique Jewish potentiality?" "Why did we abandon our Jewish traditions and our survival interests at the same time?"

Of course, some of the People will not need to ask these questions. These people will have already done what was required by law, both by Jewish law and by international law.84 Regarding Jewish Law, which is itself a foundation of International Law, the earlier important Halachic Opinion85 issued by prominent rabbis in Israel should be taken very seriously. The ruling that "It is forbidden, under any circumstance, to hand over parts of Eretz Yisrael to Arabs,"86 derives in part from the obligations of "Pikuach Nefesh,"87 the obligations to save Jewish lives in a matter of life or death. Where the Government of Israel, by proceeding with "disengagement," jeopardizes Jewish lives and places them in a situation of Pikuach Nefesh,88 acts of civil disobedience and civil resistance against this Government are not only permissible, but also law-enforcing.

Regarding international law, there are standing Nuremberg89 obligations to resist crimes of state,90 crimes such as those involved in deliberate assaults upon the principle of Nullum crimen sine poena91 and in flagrant indifference to national survival.92 Major legal theorists through the centuries, especially Bodin, Hobbes93 and Leibniz, always understood that the provision of security is the first obligation of the state. Where the state can no longer provide such security, it can no longer expect obedience. And where the state actively avoids the provision of such security, as is the case today in Prime Minister Sharon's wilful surrender of security to enemy Arab forces, citizens have an obligation to resist the state's policies. Indeed, as the Sharon Government's policies could lead even to another Jewish genocide,94 this proper obligation could arguably go far beyond the more gentle forms of disobedience and resistance.

International law, which is based upon a variety of Higher Law foundations, forms part of the law of all states, including the State of Israel.95 This is the case whether or not the incorporation of international law into municipal law is codified explicitly, as it is in the United States.96 It follows that the Government of Israel is bound by pertinent norms of international law concerning punishment of terrorist crimes,97 the prevention of genocide and physical survival of the state.98 Where this Government fails to abide by these peremptory norms,99 civil disobedience and/or civil resistance are not only permissible but required.


AFTERWORD/ Why There Are No "Israel Occupied Territories" From Which To "Disengage"

Contrary to widely-disseminated but erroneous allegations, a sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a state of Palestine was not promised by authoritative U.N. Security Council Resolution # 242. Indeed, a state of Palestine has NEVER existed.

As a nonstate legal entity, Palestine ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its brutal (to the Jews) League of Nations mandate. When, during the 1948-49 War of Independence, Judea/Samaria and Gaza came under illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively, these aggressor states did not put an end to an already-existing Arab state. From the Biblical Period (ca. 1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918 - 48), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines (a naming to punish and to demean the Jews) was controlled exclusively by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People."

Palestine, according to the treaty, comprised territories ecompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Present-day Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza, comprises only twenty-two percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and illegally split off seventy-eight percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan.

From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and a contravention of its Mandatory obligations. On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian Arab assassinated King Abdullah for his hostility to Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Several years prior to Abdullah's murder, in 1947, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the Jewish National Homeland, enacted a second partition. Ironically, because this second fission gave grievously unfair advantage to the Arabs (whose genocidal views toward the Jews were already open and undisguised), Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment while the Arab states uniformly rejected it.

On May 15, 1948, exactly one day after the State of Israel came into formal existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared - to the new tiny state founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre...." This declaration, of course, has been and remains the cornerstone of all subsequent Arab policies toward Israel. In 1967, almost twenty years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish State - as a result of its stunning military victory over Arab aggresor states - gained unintended control over Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Although the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war had already been enshrined in the U.N. Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the territories could be "returned." Leaving aside the compelling argument that these were Jewish lands, Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer these lands back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised wholly illegitimate and cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of extermination in 1948 - 49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self-determination" was only just beginning to emerge after the Six Day War, and was not even codified in U.N. Security Council Revolution # 242, which had been adopted on November 22, 1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...." Since then there have been intermittent negotiations, even formal peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but no substantive changes on the Arab side. To this very day, no Arab maps include Israel, and on the official Palestinian Authority maps, "Palestine" includes ALL of Israel. There are no "two states" on the Palestinian maps. Yet it is to this same Palestinian Authority that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon now prepares to surrender Gaza and parts of Samaria.


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


1 There are meaningful differences between civil disobedience and civil resistance. In its classic _expression, civil disobedience involves purposeful violations of domestic law in order to produce changes in this law. Those who engage in civil disobedience normally understand that they are "guilty" of particular infractions, even when the opposed rule is egregious (e.g., norms sustaining slavery or segregation), and where the intent of the infraction is plainly noncriminal and humane. Hence, civil disobedience defendants - even where the legitimacy of the courts themselves is denied - are ordinarily prepared to accept court-ordered punishment as the required and possibly reasonable price of their activities. Civil resistance, however, is another matter. In the first place, although it may involve purposeful violations of municipal law, these violations are not conceived with a view to changing that particular law. In Israel, protestors against "disengagement" will not be seeking any precise changes in Israeli law per se; rather, what they will seek is a reversal of very specific expressions of Israeli foreign policy. In the second place, individual protestors who would engage in nonviolent civil resistance activities to oppose certain elements of Israeli foreign policy will be attempting to prevent the ongoing violation of certain settled norms of national and international law. These protestors, who may even include soldiers refusing to carry out eviction/deportation orders, will be fulfilling important Nuremberg and other Higher Law expectations.

2 In this tradition, God is unambiguously the source of all law. Here, law is an aspect of the divine order for the cosmos. The Torah reflects both God's transcendance and immanence. The basis of obligation, which concerns us presently in the context of civil disobedience/civil resistance, inheres in the law's transcendant nature. See: Aaron M. Schreiber, JEWISH LAW AND DECISION-MAKING: A STUDY THROUGH TIME (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979), 440 pp. See especially Chapter V: "Talmudic Law in General: The Effect of Cultural and Socio-Economic Conditions on Talmudic Law."

3 In international law the idea of a Higher Law is contained (inter alia) within the principle of jus cogens or peremptory norms. According to Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "A peremptory norm of general international a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character." See VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, May 23 1969, art. 53, 1155 U.N.T.S. 344, reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969).

4 Surely the most dangerous expected consequence will be the creation of a new anti-Israel terror state in the region, an Arab state of "Palestine." For the particular dangers to Israel of a Palestinian state, by this author, see: Louis Rene Beres, "On Hamas `Freedom Fighters:' The View From International Law," MIDSTREAM, Vol. L, No. 1., January 2004, pp. 8 - 10; Louis Rene Beres, "`Strategic Balance' in the Middle East: An Injurious Concept," MIDSTREAM, Vol. XXXXVII., No. 5, pp. 4 - 6; Louis Rene Beres, "Before the `Real' Terror," MIDSTREAM, Vol. XXXXVI., No. 8., December 2000, pp. 4 - 5; Louis Rene Beres, "Implications of a Palestinian State for Israeli Security and Nuclear War: A Jurisprudential Assessment," DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 17, No. 2., Winter 1999, pp. 229 - 286; Louis Rene Beres, "Why a Demilitarized Palestinian State Would Not Remain Demilitarized: A View Under International Law," (with Ambassador Zalman Shoval), TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL, Winter 1998, pp. 347 - 363; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel, the `Peace Process,' and Nuclear Terrorism: Recognizing the Linkages," STUDIES IN CONFLICT AND TERRORISM., Vol. 21, No .1, January 1998, pp. 59 - 86; Louis Rene Beres, "After the `Peace Process:' Israel, Palestine and Regional Nuclear War," DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 15, No. 2., Winter 1997, pp. 301 - 335; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel, the `Peace Process,' and Nuclear Terrorism: A Jurisprudential Perspective," LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 18, No. 4., September 1996, pp. 767 - 793; and Louis Rene Beres, "On Demilitarizing a Palestinian `Entity' and the Golan Heights: An International Law Perspective," VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 28., No. 5., November 1995, pp. 959 - 971. Co-authored with Zalman Shoval, Israel's two-time Ambassador to the United States.

5 Oslo II was signed at the White House on September 28, 1995. Oslo I was signed at the same venue on September 13, 1993. Of course, neither accord is an authentic treaty under international law.

6 Regarding the lawfulness of opposition to this Process, including civil disobedience and civil resistance, international law stipulates, at the VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, that even a treaty must always be subordinate to peremptory expectations: "A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law." (supra; at 344). Significantly: (1) The compendium Oslo Agreement is not even a treaty under international law (as one of the parties is a nonstate entity); and (2) There are at least two peremptory norms violated by the Oslo Agreement. First, the Agreement contravenes the obligation of each state to preserve itself. Second, the Agreement contravenes the universally binding obligation to punish egregious acts of criminality, an obligation known jurisprudentially as Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment." The first contravention is expressed lucidly, inter alia, by Thomas Jefferson in his "Opinion on the French Treaties" (April 28 1793): "The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations." The second contravention, which is founded upon Israel's illegal entry into diplomatic agreement with a terrorist organization, is discussed more fully by this author in: Louis Rene Beres, ISRAEL'S SURVIVAL IMPERATIVES: THE OSLO AGREEMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL STRATEGY, Ariel Center for Policy Research, Israel: Policy Paper No. 102, 2000, 110 pp; Louis Rene Beres, "Implications of a Palestinian State for Israeli Security and Nuclear War: A Jurisprudential Assessment," DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 17, No. 2., Winter 1999, pp. 229 - 286; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel After Fifty: The Oslo Agreements, International Law and National Survival," THE CONNECTICUT JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 14, No. 1., Summer 1999, pp. 27 - 81; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel's Freeing of Terrorists Violates International Law," JOURNAL OF COUNTERTERRORISM AND SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, Winter 1999, Vol. 5., No. 4., pp. 44 - 46; Louis Rene Beres, "The Oslo Agreements in International Law, Natural Law and World Politics," ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW, Vol. 14, No. 3., pp. 715 - 746; Louis Rene Beres, "Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel," AMERICAN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY, Vol. 12, No. 2., 1997, pp. 267 - 284; and Louis Rene Beres, "International Law Requires Prosecution, Not Celebration, of Arafat," UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71, Issue 3, Spring 1994, pp. 569 - 580.


8 See U.S. Constitution, Art. IX. According to Clinton Rossiter, there exists a "deep-seated conviction" among Americans "that the Constitution is an _expression of the Higher Law, that it is, in fact, imferfect man's most perfect rendering" of eternal law. See Rossiter, preface to Corwin, supra, at vi.

9 The Higher Law origins of United States municipal law are embedded, inter alia, in Blackstone's COMMENTARIES, which recognize that all law "results from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree...." See William Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, adapted by Robert Malcolm Kerr (Boston; Beacon Press, 1962), Book IV, "Of Public Wrongs," p. 62 (Chapter V., "Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations.")

10 See John Locke, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT 123 (T.I. Cook, ed., 1947).


12 See Julius Stone, THE PROVINCE AND FUNCTION OF LAW (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), Chapter VIII, "Natural Law."

13 Here, in the Deist view, Nature had "replaced" God as the source for lawful behavior.

14 Newton says in his Principia: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Cited by Abraham Kaplan, IN PURSUIT OF WISDOM: THE SCOPE OF PHILOSOPHY (Beverly Hills CA: Glencoe Press, 1977), p. 550.

15 See Stone, supra, Ch. VIII.

16 See Locke, supra, 123.

17 See The Bill of Rights, as detailed in the following discussion.

18 See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment.

19 The fundamental principle of ancient Hebrew law, of course, is that the revealed will of God is the only source of all Jewish law. In the talmudic position, "Whatever a competent scholar will yet derive from the Law, that was already given to Moses on Mount Sinai." (See Jerusalem Megillah IV, 74d.)

20 See Sec. 81, Fragment No. DK 22B114 of THE PRESOCRATICS 75 (Philip Wheelwright ed., Bobbs-Merrill 1960). The authoritative text for the fragments of Heraclitus is Hermann Diels & Walther Kranz, DIE FRAGMENTE DER VORSOKRATIKER (6th ed., Weidmann 1966).

21 A century before Demosthenes, Antigone's appeal against Creon's order to the "unwritten and steadfast customs of the Gods" had evidenced the inferiority of human rule-making to a Higher Law. Here, in the drama by Sophocles, Creon represents the Greek tyrant who disturbs the ancient harmony of the city state. Aristotle, in his RHETORIC, quotes from Sophocles' ANTIGONE when he argues that "an unjust law is not a law." See RHETORIC 1, 15, 1375, a 27 et seq.


23 Plato's theory, offered in the fourth century B.C.E, seeks to explain politics as an unstable realm of sense and matter, an arena formed and sustained by half-truths and distorted perceptions. In contrast to the stable realm of immaterial Forms, from which all genuine knowledge must be derived, the political realm is dominated by the uncertainties of the sensible world. At the basis of this political theory is a physical-mental analogy that establishes a correlation between the head, the heart and the abdomen, and the virtues of intelligence, courage and moderation.

24 Supra.

25 See Corwin, supra, at 7.

26 Id.

27 "Right is the interest of the stronger," says Thrasymachus in Bk. I, Sec. 338 of Plato, THE REPUBLIC (B. Jowett tr., 1875). "Justice is a contract neither to do nor to suffer wrong," says Glaucon, id., Bk. II, Sec. 359. See also, Philus in Bk III, Sec. 5 of Cicero, DE REPUBLICA.

28 See Corwin, supra, at 9: "The Stoics...thought of Nature or the Universe as a living organism, of which the material world was the body, and of which the Deity or the Universal Reason was the pervading, animating and governing soul; and natural law was the rule of conduct laid down by this Universal Reason for the direction of mankind." Salmond, JURISPRUDENCE 27 (7th ed., 1924), cited in Corwin, supra, at 9.

29 Id.

30 These terms are defined and discussed below.

31 See Corwin, supra, at 9.

32 Spoken by Scipio in Bk. I of DE REPUBLICA; cited in Alexander P. D'Entreves, THE NOTION OF THE STATE 24 (1967).

33 See Stone, THE PROVINCE AND FUNCTION OF LAW, supra, 224-230. Stone calls positive law "...the law actually enforced by organised society in a particular place at a particular time." (p. 225) Understood in terms of natural law, positive law is merely a necessary evil, tolerable and valid only to the extent that it coincides with natural law. In this theory, says Julius Stone, "Not only does natural law provide the criterion for judgment whether positive law is just. It goes further and provides the criterion for deciding whether positive law is valid law at all." (Id., at 226)

34 See Cicero, I DE LEGIBUS, cited in Corwin, supra, at 10; D'Entreves, supra., at 20 - 21. Similarly, in his DE OFFICIIS, Cicero wrote: "There is in fact a true law namely right reason, which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men and is unchangeable and eternal....It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule today and another tomorrow. But there will be one law eternal and unchangeable binding at all times and upon all peoples." (cited by Stone, supra, at 216.) See also DE LEGIBUS, Bk. i, c, vii; cited by Stone, supra, at 216.

35 See: Thomas Jefferson, OPINION ON THE FRENCH TREATIES, April 28, 1793, in THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 114 (Merrill D. Peterson, ed., 1993). Here it must also be mentioned that Jefferson is speaking of authentically "international" agreements, whereas any Israeli agreement with the Palestinian Authority is, by definition, on a lower order of obligation.

36 See: Id., at 115.

37 See Corwin, supra, at 12.

38 Id, at 13.

39 See D'Entreves, supra, 36 - 37. In early Christendom, Augustine offered a system of thought that identified the locus of all global problems in the human potentiality for evil. Combining a philosophy of Neoplatonism with a view of the universe as a struggle between good and evil, he attributed the trials of humankind to the taint of original sin. This view, transformed into a secular political philosophy, is now reflected by exponents of the school of realism or realpolitik. Augustine, writing at the beginning of the fifth century A.D., sets out, in the CITY OF GOD, to describe human history as a contest of two societies, the intrinsically debased City of Man and the eternally peaceful City of God. In this contest, the state, the product of humankind's most base tendencies, is devoid of justice and destructive of salvation. A mirror image of human wickedness, the state is little more than a "large gang of robbers." In an oft-quoted passage, Augustine recalls the answer offered by a pirate who had been captured by Alexander the Great. When asked by Alexander what right he had to infest the seas, the pirate replied: "The same right that you have to infest the world. But because I do it in a small boat I am called a robber, while because you do it with a large fleet you are called an emperor."

40 See Julius Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1965), p. 44. For Augustine, this reason or will of God "commands us to preserve the natural order and prohibits us to disturb it." (See Contra Faustum, XXII, 27; cited by Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE, supra, p. 44.

41 Thomas Aquinas recalls Augustine as follows: "St. Augustine says: `There is no law unless it be just.' So the validity of law depends upon its justice. But in human affairs a thing is said to be just when it accords aright with the rule of reason: and as we have already seen, the first rule of reason is the Natural Law. Thus all humanly enacted laws are in accord with reason to the extent that they derive from the Natural law. And if a human law is at variance in any particular with the Natural law, it is no longer legal, but rather a corruption of law." See SUMMA THEOLOGICA, 1a 2ae, 95, 2; cited by D'Entreves, supra, pp. 42 - 43.

42 See D'Entreves, supra, at 42 - 43.

43 The importance of reason to legal judgment was prefigured in ancient Israel, which accomodated reason within its system of revealed law. Jewish theory of law, insofar as it displays the marks of natural law, offers a transcending order revealed by the divine word as interpreted by human reason. In the striking words of Ecclesiasticus 32.23, 37.16, 13-14: "Let reason go before every enterprise and counsel before any action...And let the counsel of thine own heart stand...For a man's mind is sometimes wont to tell him more than seven watchmen that sit above in an high tower...."

44 See Stone, THE PROVINCE AND FUNCTION OF LAW, supra, Chapter VIII.

45 See Corwin, supra, at 17 - 18.

46 Id., at 19.

47 See Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE, supra, pp. 64 - 68.

48 Id.

49 See Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE, supra, pp. 61 - 63.

50 Id, pp. 65 - 68.

51 Id.

52 The sixteenth-century Florentine philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, joined Aristotle's foundations for a scientific study of politics with assumptions of realpolitik to reach certain conclusions about politics. His most important conclusion underscores the dilemma of practicing goodness in an essentially evil world: "A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good." (See THE PRINCE, Chapter XV). Recognizing this tragic state of affairs, Machiavelli proceeds to advance the arguments for expediency that have become synonymous with his name. With the placing of the idea of force at the center of his political theory, the author of THE PRINCE stands in sharp contrast to the Platonic and early Christian concepts of the "good." Rejecting both Plato's argument that there is a knowable objective "good" that leads to virtue, and Augustine's otherworldly idea of absolute goodness, Machiavelli constructs his political theory on the assumption that "all men are potential criminals, and always ready to realize their evil intentions whenever they are free to do so." In his instructions to the statesman on how to rule in a world dominated by force, he advises "to learn how not to be good." The seventeenth-century materialist and social philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, elaborated a complex system of thought in which man was reduced to a state of nature and then reconstructed. Seeking a science of human nature that would have the rigor of physics, Hobbes looked to introspection as the source of genuine understanding: "Whosoever looketh into himself and considereth what he doth when he does think, opine, reason, hope, fear, etc., and upon what grounds, he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts and passions of all other men, upon the like occasions." (See Introduction to LEVIATHAN). The results of such an analysis of one's own thought processes led Hobbes to his celebrated theory of the social contract: the natural egoism of man produces a "war of all against all" in the absence of civil government and must be tempered by absolute monarchy. Moreover, the condition of nature, which is also called a condition of war marked by "continual fear, and danger of violent death," has always been the characteristic condition of international relations and international law: "But though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in a condition of war one against another; yet, in all times, kings, and persons of sovereign-authority, because of their independency, are in continual jealousies, and in the state and posture of gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon their neighbors, which is a posture of war." (See LEVIATHAN, Chapter XIII).

53 This is because the principal Grotian effort was to "translate" natural law from pure philosophical speculation into a pragmatic legal ordering. See Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE, supra, p. 65.

54 Id.

55 The Swiss scholar, Emmerich de Vattel, notes - in his 1758 classic THE LAW OF NATIONS: "No agreement can bind, or even authorize a man to violate the natural law." See Albert de LaPradelle, Introduction to Emmerich de Vattel, LE DROIT DES GENS (THE LAW OF NATIONS)(Charles G. Fenwick, tr., 1916).

56 See Corwin, supra, at 61.

57 Id.

58 Id.

59 See Thomas Jefferson, IV WORKS 362 (New York, P.L. Ford, ed., 1892-99).

60 J.J. Burlamaqui, author of PRINCIPES DU DROIT DE LA NATURE ET DES GENS (1774) was a Swiss scholar who held a Chair at the University of Geneva. His work has been described by J. Stone and others as "rational utilitarianism." See Stone, HUMAN LAW AND HUMAN JUSTICE, supra, p. 71.

61 See Corwin, supra, p. 81.

62 Id.

63 See Irving Gendelman, CRITIQUE OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (mimeo), p. 2. Document available from the author. This document, inter alia, discusses findings of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) concerning unlawful government suppression of legitimate dissent, unlawful resort to emergency regulations and extended police brutality. It refers to events and policies in the Barak era.

64 See Vattel, THE LAW OF NATIONS (Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1916), C.G. Fenwick tr., p. 4.

65 Id.

66 See Sophocles, ANTIGONE, supra.

67 See H D Thoreau, ON THE DUTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (New York: New American Library, 1959).

68 Id.

69 Id.

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 Id.

73 In the United States, for example, strong action against terrorists was already mandated ten years ago by THE COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 1995 (Title II., Sec. 201(4): "The President should use all necessary means, including covert action and military force, to disrupt, dismantle and destroy infrastructures used by international terrorists, including terrorist training facilities and safe havens." See: THE COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 1995, 104th Congress, 1st Sess., S. 735, U.S. Senate, April 27, 1995, p. 18.

74 Here it should be noted that pertinent international law is found also in "international custom," which may or may not identifiably derive from Higher Law foundations. Article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice describes international custom as "evidence of a general practice accepted as law." In this connection, the essential significance of a norm's customary character under international law is that the norm binds even those states that are not parties to the pertinent codifying instrument or convention. With respect to the bases of obligation under international law, even where a customary norm and a norm restated in treaty form are apparently identical, the norms are treated as separate and discrete.

75 See: Harvard Research in International Law: Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, 29 AM. J. INT'L L., 435 (Supp. 1935) at 566 (quoting Coke, C.J. in King v. Marsh, 3 Bulstr. 27, 81 E.R. 23 (1615)("a pirate est Hostes humani generis").

76 Jewish law (Halakhah) rests upon twin principles - the sovereignty of God and the sacredness of the Person or individual. Both principles, intertwined and interdependent, underlie the present argument for civil disobedience in Israel. On the importance of the dignity of the person to the talmudic conception of law, see: S. Belkin, IN HIS IMAGE: THE JEWISH PHILOSOPHY OF MAN AS EXPRESSED IN RABBINIC TRADITION (New York: 1960). From the sacredness of the Person, which derives from each individual's resemblance to divinity, flows the human freedom to choose. The failure to exercise this freedom, which is evident wherever response to political authority is automatic, represents a betrayal of legal responsibility. On human freedom to choose good over evil, see: J.B. Soloveitchik, THOUGHTS AND VISIONS: THE MAN OF LAW (Hebrew: New York: 1944-45), p. 725. Moreover, Jewish law is democratic in the sense that law belongs to all of the people, a principle reflected in the talmudic position that each individual can approach God and pray without priestly intercessions. This points toward a fundamental goal of law to be creative, to improve society and the state - a goal to be taken seriously in current evaluations of the permissibility of civil disobedience in Israel.

77 One such overriding danger has to do with the disappearance of Israel's "strategic depth," an inevitable and intolerable consequence of transforming certain Jewish lands into "Palestine." Regarding this military concept of "strategic depth," one should recall Sun-Tzu's timeless observation: "If there is no place to go it is fatal terrain." See: Sun-Tzu, THE ART OF WAR, Ralph D. Sawyer, tr. (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1994), Chapter 11, "Nine Terrains."

78 Here it is important to recall that those who oppose "disengagement," not those who support it, are acting to fulfil the peremptory expectations of Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment." International law presumes solidarity between states in the fight against crime (terrorism is a crime under international law). This presumption is mentioned in the CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS; in Hugo Grotius' DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS LIBRI TRES (Book II, Ch. 20); and in Emmerich de Vattel's LE DROIT DES GENS (Book I, Ch. 19). The case for universal jurisdiction over egregious crimes, which derives from the presumption of solidarity, is found in the four Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949. These Conventions unambiguously impose upon the High Contracting Parties the obligation to punish certain "grave breaches" of their rules. The term "grave breaches" applies to certain infractions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977. The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions are under obligation "to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons commiting, or ordering to be committed," a grave breach of the Convention. As defined at Art. 147 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (6 U.S.T. 3516, signed on Aug. 12, 1949, at Geneva), Grave Breaches "shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health...." Clearly, multiple grave breaches were committed by the PA/PLO, the organization with which the Sharon Government now claims to be "partners in peace."

79 Two widely-cited criminal cases are representative here: People v. Jarka, No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois; and Chicago v. Streeter, No. 85 - 108644, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois. Defendants in both cases were acquitted by invoking the "necessity" defense, which had been incorporated into the Illinois Criminal Code. See Chapter 38, Secs. 7 - 13, of the Illinois Revised Statutes (1983).

80 Terrorism is specifically criminalized by customary and conventional international law. See, especially: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM, done at Strasbourg, Nov. 10, 1976. Entered into force, Aug. 4, 1978. Europ. T.S. No. 90, reprinted in 15 I.L.M. 1272 (1976).

81 See: RESOLUTION ON THE DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 14, 1974. U.N.G.A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), 29 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 31) 142, U.N. Doc A/9631 (1975), reprinted in 13 I.L.M. 710 (1974).

82 For authoritative definition of crimes against humanity, see: AGREEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS OF THE EUROPEAN AXIS POWERS AND CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL., done at London, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (entered into force, Aug. 8, 1945).

83 Regarding their particular Jewish obligations, citizens of Israel should now also recall David Ben-Gurion's warning at the 21st Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland (1937): "No Jew has the right to relinquish the rights of the Jewish Nation in the Land of Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has such authority. Even the whole Jewish people - alive today - has no authority to relinquish any part whatsoever of the Land. This is the right of the Jewish Nation in all its generations, a right which may not be forfeited under any condition. Even if there would be, at some time, those who would announce that they give up this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deprive future generations of this right. The Jewish Nation is neither obligated nor bound by any such relinquishment. Our right to the Land - to this ENTIRE land - is valid and enduring forever, and until the full and complete redemption is carried out, we shall not budge from this historic right."

84 For a comprehensive assessment of the natural law origins of international law by this writer, see: Louis Rene Beres, "Justice and Realpolitik: International Law and the Prevention of Genocide," THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF JURISPRUDENCE., Vol. 33, 123- 159 (1988). This article was adapted from the presentation by this writer to the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, Tel-Aviv, Israel, June 1982.

85 The full text of this Opinion, Daas Torah, was published in the July 20 1995 edition of THE JERUSALEM POST, p. 3.

86 Id.

87 Id.

88 On the very same day that he signed the Declaration of Principles in 1993 (Oslo I), Yasser Arafat addressed the Palestinian people on Jordan television, assuring them that the agreement was nothing more than the implementation of the 1974 PLO Plan of Phases, a 10-point scheme for the incremental destruction of the State of Israel. The first stage, said Arafat, is "the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil that is liberated or from which the Israelis withdraw." (See "Solid Paper Facts," editorial, THE JERUSALEM POST, International Edition, week ending October 7 1995, p. 10). The same assertion was repeated by Chairman Arafat after the signing of Oslo II. (Id.) These assertions, when considered together with Israel's peremptory right to endure, its peremptory obligation to punish terrorist crimes and the PLO's persistent breaches of all agreements with the Jewish State, obligate prompt termination of the "Peace Process." For jurisprudential arguments in support of this position, see: Louis Rene Beres, "International Law Requires Prosecution, Not Celebration, of Arafat," UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71, Issue 3, Spring 1994, pp. 569 - 580.

89 The principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal were affirmed by the U.N. General Assembly as AFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL., adopted by the U.N. General Assembly., December 11, 1946, U.N.G.A. Res. 95(1), U.N. Doc. A/236 (1946) at 1144. This affirmation of 1946 was followed by G.A. Res. 177 (II) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, November 21, 1947, directing the U.N. International Law Commission to: (a) Formulate the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal; and (b) Prepare a draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind...." See: U.N. Doc. A/519, p. 112. The principles formulated are known as the PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED IN THE CHARTER AND JUDGMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL. Report of the International Law Commission, 2nd Session, 1950; U.N. G.A.O.R. 5th Session, Supp. No. 12, A/1316, p. 11.

90 These obligations are found in The Nuremberg Principles, which were formulated by the United Nations International Law Commission at the request of the General Assembly. According to Principle I of the Nuremberg Principles: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and is liable to punishment." The entire matter of Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, the PLO and "engagement" should be examined in light of this Principle. Where it is so examined, the essential rightfulness of civil disobedience/resistance in Israel becomes manifest.

91 The earliest expressions of Nullum crimen sine poena can be found in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1728 - 1686 BCE); the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 2000 BCE); the even-earlier Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 BCE) and, of course, the law of exact retaliation or lex talionis presented in three separate passages of the Torah. Hence, the Sharon Government's indifference to Nullum crimen sine poena in the matter of releasing Palestinian terrorists and negotiating "disengagement" is especially ironic because that principle has prominent Jewish origins.

92 These obligations are peremptory norms (jus cogens) based on natural law. Vattel identifies the immutability of such norms, which is most relevant to the case at hand - the case of Israel: "Since, therefore, the necessary Law of Nations consists in applying the natural law to States, and since the natural law is not subject to change, being founded on the nature of things and particularly upon the nature of man, it follows that the necessary Law of Nations is not subject to change. Since this law is not subject to change, and the obligations which it imposes are necessary and indispensable, Nations can not alter it by agreement, nor individually or mutually release themselves from it." See: Emmerich de Vattel, THE LAW OF NATIONS, tr. of the edition of 1758 by Charles G. Fenwick, New York anbd London: Oceana Publications, reprinted in 1964, Introduction to Book I., 4.

93 "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign," says Thomas Hobbes in Chapter XXI of LEVIATHAN, "is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them."

94 See CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE, adopted Dec. 9, 1948, S. Exec. Doc. O, 81st Cong., 1st Sess 7 (1949), 78 U.N.T.S. 277.

95 In this connection, a particular irony must be noted: Earlier, it had been the State of Israel that had most conspicuously demonstrated meaningful support for the Higher Law norm, Nullum crimen sine poena. On this example, which refers to Israel's prosecution of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann, see: Gideon Hausner, JUSTICE IN JERUSALEM (New York: Shoken Books, 1966). Indicted under Israel's Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law, Eichmann was convicted and executed after the judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Israel, on appeal, in 1962. See: Attorney-General v. Adolph Eichmann, 36 Int'l L. Rep., 5 (Isr. Dist Ct., Jerusalem 1961), aff'd 36 Int'l L. Rep., 277 (Isr. S. Ct., 1962).

96 Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, international law forms part of the law of the United States. U.S. Constitution, Art. VI. See also The Paquette Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900); Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726, F.2d 774, 781, 788 (D.C. Cir 1984)(per curiam).

97 A petition to charge Yasir Arafat with terrorist crimes was submitted to Israel's High Court of Justice in May 1994. This petition, filed by Shimon Prachik, an officer in the IDF reserves, and Moshe Lorberaum, who was injured in a 1978 bus bombing carried out by the PLO, called for Arafat's arrest and for an investigation into his then upcoming entry into Gaza-Jericho. The petition noted that Arafat, prima facie, had been responsible for numerous terror attacks in Israel and abroad, including murder, airplane hijacking, hostage-taking, letter bombing and hijacking of ships on the high seas. Significantly, the petitioners' allegation of Arafat's direct personal responsibility for terror attacks was seconded and confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, Arafat's most senior advisor: "The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian people for everything that was done in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Yasir Arafat," said Dr. Tibi on July 13, 1994, "and this man shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin." See, Joel Greenberg, "Israelis Keep Arafat Aides Out of Gaza," THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 14, 1994, p. 1.

98 The norms concerning such physical survival are so overriding that they include even the principle of anticipatory self-defense, the residual right of states to strike preemptively (subject to the constraints of humanitarian international law) in order to prevent annihilation. On this principle, with particular reference to Israel, see: Louis Rene Beres/Chair, PROJECT DANIEL: ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC FUTURE, Ariel Center For Policy Research, Israel, Policy Paper No. 155, 2004, 64 pp. (a special report to Prime Minister Sharon); Louis Rene Beres, SECURITY THREATS AND EFFECTIVE REMEDIES: ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC, TACTICAL AND LEGAL OPTIONS, Ariel Center For Policy Research, Israel, Policy Paper No. 102, 2000, 110 pp; Louis Rene Beres, ISRAEL'S SURVIVAL IMPERATIVES: THE OSLO AGREEMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL STRATEGY, Ariel Center For Policy Research, Israel, Policy Paper No. 25, 1998, 74 pp; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel and the Bomb," INTERNATIONAL SECURITY (Harvard), Vol. 29., No. 1., Summer 2004, pp. 1 - 4; Louis Rene Beres. "Reconsidering Israel's Destruction of Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear Reactor" (with COL/IDF Res. Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto), Menachem Begin Heritage Center, ISRAEL'S STRIKE AGAINST THE IRAQI NUCLEAR REACTOR 7 June 1981, Jerusalem, Israel, September 2003, pp. 59 - 60; Louis Rene Beres, "The Newly Expanded American Doctrine of Preemption: Can It Include Assassination," DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY, Vol. 31, No. 2., Winter 2002, pp. 157 - 177; Louis Rene Beres, "Israeli Nuclear Deterrence," MIDSTREAM, February/March 2001, Vol. XXXXVII., No. 2, pp. 10 - 12; Louis Rene Beres, "In Support of Anticipatory Self-Defense: Israel, Osiraq and International law," CONTEMPORARY SECURITY POLICY., Vol. 19, No. 2., August 1998, pp. 111-114; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel, Iran and Preemption: Choosing the Least Unattractive Option Under International Law," DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 14, No. 2., Winter 1996, pp. 187 - 206; Louis Rene Beres, "The Iranian Threat to Israel: Capabilities and Intentions," INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, Vol. 9., No. 1., Spring 1996, pp. 51 - 62; Louis Rene Beres and Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, "Reconsidering Israel's Destruction of Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear Reactor," TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL, Fall 1995; Louis Rene Beres, "Power, Preemption and the Middle East Peace Process," MIDSTREAM, Vol. XXXXI, No. 9., December 1995, pp. 2 - 4; Louis Rene Beres, "Preserving the Third Temple: Israel's Right of Anticipatory Self-Defense Under International Law," VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 26, No. 1, April 1993, pp. 111-148; Louis Rene Beres, "After the Gulf War: Israel, Preemption and Anticipatory Self-Defense," HOUSTON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 13, No. 2., Spring 1991, pp. 259 - 280; Louis Rene Beres, "Striking `First': Israel's Post Gulf War Options Under International Law," LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 14, Nov. 1991, pp. 10 - 24; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel and Anticipatory Self-Defense," ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW, Vol. 8, 1991, pp. 89 - 99; Louis Rene Beres, "After the Scud Attacks: Israel, Palestine and Anticipatory Self-Defense," EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 71 - 104; Louis Rene Beres, "Israel, Force and International Law: Assessing Anticipatory Self-Defense," THE JERUSALEM JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1991, pp. 1 - 14; and Louis Rene Beres, "Striking Preemptively: Israel's Post Gulf War Options Under International Law," in ARMS CONTROL WITHOUT GLASNOST: BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, a special publication of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, pp. 129 - 160 (1993). For more specific examinations, also by this author, of assassination as a potentially permissible form of anticipatory self-defense, see: Louis Rene Beres, "On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel," HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 20, No. 2, Winter 1991, pp. 321 - 340; Louis Rene Beres, "Assassinating Saddam Hussein: The View From International Law," INDIANA INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW, Vol. 13, No. 3., 2003, pp. 847 - 869; Louis Rene Beres, "Assassination and the Law: A Policy Memorandum," STUDIES IN CONFLICT AND TERRORISM, Vol. 18, No. 4., October/December 1995, pp. 299 - 316; and Louis Rene Beres, "Victims and Executioners: Atrocity, Assassination and International Law," CAMBRIDGE REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Cambridge, England, Fall 1993, pp. 1 - 11.

99 Regarding the normative obligation to punish, see: RESOLUTION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE DETECTION, ARREST, EXTRADITION AND PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, G.A. Res. 3074, U.N. GAOR, 28th Sess., Supp. No. 30, at 78, U.N. Doc. A/9030 (1973). Other resolutions affirm that a refusal "to cooperate in the arrest, extradition, trial and punishment" of such persons is contrary to the United Nations Charter "and to generally recognized norms of international law." See G.A. Res. 2840, U.N. GAOR, 26th Sess., Supp. No. 29 at 88, U.N. Doc. A/8429 (1971). See also G.A. Res. 96, U.N. GAOR, 1st Sess., pt. 2 at 188, U.N. Doc. A/64 (1946). As to the responsibility of states toward Geneva Law in particular, Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions addresses the obligation of all signatories "to respect and to ensure respect" for the Conventions "in all circumstances." See GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, Aug. 12, 1949, Art. 1, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 3518, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 288.

HOMEThe Maccabean OnlineComments