Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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







ISRAEL IN THE 21ST CENTURY: Three Alternate Futures....Editorial...Bernard J. Shapiro






A PRELUDE TO WAR ....David Bar-Illan






THE GOLAN HEIGHTS: Going.....Going.....Going.....Gone....Gone.......Bernard J. Shapiro


SYRIA: THE FIX IS IN....David Bar-Illan












CAPE AND SWORD.... Mark Helprin








BEING SILENT ABOUT EVIL.....Prof. Paul Eidelberg










Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

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


Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016, E-Mail: ** URL:

(c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro



An Editorial (Remember, the future is not fixed. We can change it for good or evil.)


Three Alternate Futures
Years 2000-2010

By Bernard J. Shapiro

Not having the power of prophecy, this article is a projection of Israel's current trends into the future. One would not expect such a projection to be 100% accurate on every detail. It should however stay within fairly accurate parameters. You may want to save this paper to verify my projections.

Apart from my alternate realities, there is a fantasy shared by many Jews. That fantasy is of a Messianic Age where Arab and Jew will live in peace and prosper together. A fantasy of no more war, no more bloodshed, no more hatred. I did consider this as a fourth alternate reality, but rejected it on the basis of total lack of substantive evidence of its being possible.

It did however remind me of a story from the Moscow Zoo. During the 70's when the Soviet 'peace offensive' was at its height, there was an exhibit at the Moscow Zoo featuring a lion and a lamb living peacefully in the same cage. Tourists were amazed at this proof positive of possibility of peace. One reporter was not that convinced. After hours he showed up at the zoo and went talk to the zookeeper. Tell me the truth: "What is going on here?" The zookeeper was nonplused and answered quickly: " No big deal. We put a new lamb in the cage each morning."


Israel continues its present course of sanctifying and making Oslo holy. Events follow as such:

1. 90% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are given to Arafat.

2. A few Jewish areas remain but transit routes are controlled by hostile Arabs.

3. The Golan is given to Syria

4. There are promises of peace, access to water, early warning stations

5. Syria reneges on promises in line #4

6. Israel does nothing as it faces Syrian artillery overlooking the Galilee

7. Arafat is given Jerusalem including the Temple Mount but is not satisfied.

8. An intifada begins in the Galilee and the Negev as Arafat demands that those areas be annexed to Palestine.

9. The United Nations, the US State Department, the NY Times plus other morally deprived international bodies demand an immediate return to Palestine of these occupied territories.

10. Arafat, with European technical help manages to draw out the entire water supply in the Judean-Samarian mountain aquifer (from which Israel gets 30% of its water) for use by Palestinians.

11. Syria blocks the flow of water to Israel from the Jordan River sources on the Golan. These supplied Israel with 30% of its water.

12. Israel is forced to give up agriculture, watering lawns, washing cars, and even regular bathing. The odor of Oslo becomes overpowering.

13. Arafat demands that Israel accept the return of 7,000,000 refugees and the US State Department agrees that this will improve the climate for peace.

14. Even without Israel's agreement on refugees, hundreds of thousands pour into Palestine. This creates an uncontrollable pressure to expand territorially.

15. Many Arabs infiltrate into Israel and expand greatly the local Israeli Arab population.

16. Arabs began to demand that Israel cease being a Jewish country and just be a democracy.

17. The leftist/labor government of Israel is in coalition with the Arab parties so #16 is considered and passes the Knesset.

18. The early stages of removing the Jewish character of the state involve: taking the Magen David out of the Israeli flag, the word Jew out of Hatikvah, the national anthem, adding Moslem Holy Days, and especially re-writing all the history books to show the Jews as aggressors who stole Palestine and are prone to kill Arabs to use their blood to make matzoh.

19. Soon after becoming bi-national, Israel ceases to exist and the state merges with Palestine. The Jews become Dhimmis or second class citizens as in most Moslem countries.


1. The 'peace' process continues

2. Syria gets the Golan but guarantees that it will be demilitarized

3. Arafat gets 90% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza

4. Israeli Arabs in the Galilee and Negev areas demand to secede from Israel and become a part of Palestine

5. Israel refuses this demand and the Arabs start and intfada. It spreads to Palestine and attacks begin on Jews both on the roads and in their communities.

6. Israeli intelligence reveals that the Palestinian government is actively supporting, indeed started the anti-Jewish violence.

7. As the Jewish body count rises above the 500 mark, the Israeli government decides its patience has run out and retaliates heavily against Palestinian targets.

8. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the US, the UN, and all Moslem and European nations demand that Israel stop its attacks on Palestinians.

9. The US State Department stops all aid to Israel until they cease their brutal attacks on innocent Arabs.

10. The UN passes its 2,345th resolution condemning Israel

11. As support for their position increases Arafat launches his first Katyusha rockets at Tel Aviv, Haifa and other sites on the coastal plain.

12. Israeli armed forces with air support invade Palestine to stop the attacks.

13. Israel's invasion triggers a much wider war.

14. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran launch missiles with anthrax and sarin gas warheads at major populated areas of Israel.

15. Egyptian, Iraqi, and Syrian paratroops land on the Samarian-Judean mountain ridge overlooking Israel. It had been given to Palestine for 'peace.'

16. It takes Syrian tanks 2-4 hours to cross the demilitarized Golan Heights and penetrate Israel.

17. It normally takes Israel 48-72 hours to achieve full mobilization. Unfortunately the Arabs have achieved the line of sight (from the mountains) ability to disrupt Israeli military communications. Also the Palestinians have totally disrupted the road system in Israel, making travel very difficult. Soldiers can not reach their units, tank ammunition can not reach the tanks, food and medical supplies can not reach their destination.

18. Syrian troops close in on Haifa. Egyptian troops have crossed Sinai and are poised in Gaza to strike at Tel Aviv.

19. The desperate Israelis initiate the Sampson Option. This is a last ditch plan to destroy their enemies even at great losses to themselves.

20. Missile silos open in the most unreachable parts of the Negev and Galilee hills. Sleek Jericho 3 missile armed with nuclear warheads are launched deep into the heart of the Arab world. Three hours later the world learns that Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh, Beirut, Mecca, Kabul, and Karachi no longer exist.

21. Small tactical nuclear weapons are used against the massed troops of Syria and Egypt.

22. With great difficulty, Israel survives, and sweeps the enemy from her land. Israel's death toll reaches 500,000 with many more wounded.

23. Half the country is uninhabitable due to anthrax and radiation poisoning. Cancer rates soar as a result of radiation in the atmosphere.


1. Opposition to the Golan give away grows. Even the security wing of what used to be the Labor Party have doubts about the wisdom of this move.

2. Before negotiations reach a conclusion, the Knesset brings down the Barak government. New elections are held.

3. Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadiah finally understands the concept of saving Jewish lives (Pikuach Nephish) and realizes with great regret that Oslo and the Golan give away will cause the loss of many lives (and not the other way around).

4. A broad group of Israeli patriots forms a formidable alliance of religious Jews (Shas, NRP, and Agudat Yisrael), Russians ( Yisrael B'Aliyah and its leader Natan Sharansky and Knesset Golan lobby and its leader Yuli Edelstein and MK Avigdor Leiberman of Yisrael Beiteinu), and traditional Zionist parties like the Likud and its various breakaway factions.

5. Labor and Meretz form an alliance with the pro-PLO Arab parties, promising them an end to the Jewish nature of Israel. They propose that instead of a Jewish State there would be a democratic state with a lot of Jews in it.

6. Israel voters having a clear choice between leftist pro-Arabism and Zionism, choose the later.

7. For the first time since 1992 there is a truly Zionist government in Israel with a comfortable majority of 75 (out of 120) seats in the Knesset.

8. The new government begins immediately to correct the mistakes of the past.

9. Israel breaks off negotiations with Syria and issues a stern warning to them not to aid the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria is put on notice that any attack on Israeli forces in Lebanon will result in massive retaliation against Syrian interests. And further that Syrian interests will include both in Lebanon and in Syria itself.

10. Of course, after years of calling Israeli bluffs, the Syrians ignore the warning. Hezbollah attacks killing several Israeli soldiers.

11. Israel retaliates on a massive scale, destroying major economic infrastructure in both Lebanon and Syria. Under cover of the attack from the air, Israeli commandos land in Syria and destroy its stocks of antrax bacteria, sarin gas, as well as its SCUD missile capacity. Syrian bases in Lebanon are mercilessly attacked and the weapons supply road from Damascus to southern Lebanon is taken out of operation completely.

12. Naturally the whole world condemns Israel and the Security Council is called into session. Israel in an act of beautiful irony sends a blind, deaf and dumb delegate to the UN.

13. The new Zionist government in Israel sends its troops into Palestinian Authority territory to arrest all know terrorists including Arafat himself. By a large percentage the Knesset votes that the Oslo agreement is null and void due to lack of Palestinian compliance to its terms.

14. The whole of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are annexed and the Arab residents of the major cities are given autonomy (but not sovereignty ) to run their affairs.

15. The difficult problem of ridding the country of its leftist/socialist/oligarchy is tackled head on.

16. Judges are all reviewed to determine if they guilty of using their leftist orientation to influence their decisions from the bench. The Israeli judiciary will be completely revamped with respectable and honest judges.

17. Once the judiciary is back to a normal democratic norm, an investigation is launched into the conspiracy to defame the religious/Zionist citizens of Israel.

18. The Raviv case and the whole investigation of the Rabin assassination is opened for judicial review.

19. The television stations run by the government will be completely reoriented toward Zionism and away from leftist pro-Arab programming.

20. The educational system will cease to be pro-Arab and will inculcate Jewish and Zionist values in the student body.

21. The private off the shore radio station (Arutz 7) will be permitted to operate from Israeli territory and also allowed to develop a private TV station.

22. The police and the GSS (Israel's Secret Service) will be programed to support the national interests of Israel and not the wishes of Labor/Left/Peace Now supporters.

23. The economy will be allowed to develop freely with as little government interference as possible. The consumer and the environment will be protected. Most government corporations will be de-nationalized.

24. As taxes are slashed, a vigorous free enterprise system will develop, bring untold wealth to the country.

25. Building should be encouraged in all parts of the country (this includes YESHA).

26. Voting rights will be changed as follows:

a. All Jews have the right to vote.

b. Christians and Druze have the right to vote unless there is a history of security offenses.

c. Moslems must perform 3 years of military or civilian service to Israel before obtaining the right to vote. They also must take a loyalty oath to the Jewish state and pass a security examination.

27. Nations posing a security threat to Israel will have that threat neutralized by the Israel Defense Forces. This includes Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al.

28. Individual terrorists that pose a threat to Israel will be terminated with extreme prejudice.

29. Yes, the world will complain about all these actions and a competent information policy should be incorporated by the new government to counter these complaints. On a more philosophical basis Israel should heed international voices to exactly the degree they heeded the voices of the Jews during WWII. And Israel should protect the rights of Moslems to the exact degree that Moslems protect the rights of Jews.

30. The international community will try to boycott Israel. This effort will fail and is given up in a year or so. You see Jewish merchants worldwide continue to import and export to Israel using a variety of artificial fronts and entities. World commerce can not be controlled as is evident with Iraq today.

31. Local Arab opposition and terrorism is simply crushed. No questions asked.

32. Aliya increases to Israel as a result of the crackdown on the Arab terrorists and because of the generally safe conditions in the country. No longer are there PA terrorist safe havens.




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



Dear Readers:

After I read the story about Albright's visit to Syria and the plan for new Israeli-Syrian negotiations, I decided to put together a Freeman Center Peace Plan for Israel and Syria. It was very obvious that the US, the Syrians, the Europeans, and the UN had just about settled the issue and were in agreement on most parts of a proposed peace plan. It was also very obvious the Israeli leadership had NO PLAN whatsoever to protect Israeli security in the area. So here is my plan. Let me know what you think of it.




1. Syria must withdraw from the territory it occupied from Israel following the 1973 Yom Kipper War under the Kissenger Disengagement Agreement. This territory will give Israel an additional 10-15 kilometer buffer zone east of the present Golan Heights border. This will increase the chance for peace in the area by strengthening Israel strategically.

2. Syria will pay compensation to the families of Israel POW's murdered and tortured by the Syrian authorities.

3. Syria will pay reparations to Israeli farmers for constantly shelling them during the years 1949-67. Such compensation will include: damage to crops, farm machinery, loss of life and loss of income due to shelling.

4. Syria will completely democratize including: free democratic elections, human rights, women's rights and a free press.

5. Syria will agree that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will place its embassy in Jerusalem.

6. Syria renounces all claims to the Golan Heights as well as its spurious claims to "Southern Syria."

7. Syria agrees never to go the war with Israel, even if every Arab country in the world decides to carry out a multinational jihad.

8. Syria agrees to destroy its missile and non-conventional war making ability including chemical, biological and nuclear.

9. Syria agrees to withdraw from Lebanon and cease aiding the Hizballah and other terrorist groups.


1. Israel agrees never to launch an aggressive war against Syria.

2. Israel agrees that Damascus is the Syrian capital and agrees to place its embassy in Damascus.

3. Israel agrees to open up free and fair trade with Syria.

4. Israel agrees not to interfere with the new Syrian democratic elections.

5. Israel will guarantee the new border with Syria and prevent terrorists from attacking Syria.

Well, this may not be complete. I probably could add a few move provisions, but I think it does the trick. I believe it is the best Israeli plan for relations with Syria ever proposed. If enacted, I fully believe that there would be PEACE (with Syria).

Your peace loving editor,

Bernard J. Shapiro




Most polls should be taken with a grain of salt. The answers are very dependent on how the question is asked. Pollsters usually manipulate the answers for political purposes. When I took statistics at Berkeley the first thing the professor told us was: "Statistics don't lie but statisticians do." The same can be said of pollsters. Words like peace, full peace, normal relations etc have no meaning in the real harsh world of the Middle East. Perhaps when Moshiach comes..........

Those words are used to confuse, deceive and manipulate. As a public service I am offering an honest question to be asked of Israelis relative to the Golan. I give my permission to Barak to use it for the referendum.



With the full knowledge of the above which allows for informed consent, please indicate your choice of policy on the important question of the surrender of the Golan:

_____________Defend the security and Survival of Israel and DO NOT surrender the Golan

_____________Surrender the Golan and facilitate the further destruction of Israel and the mass murder of its citizens.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of December 15, 1999 6 Tevet 5760


By David Bar-Illan

(December 15) - What supporters of the proposed agreement with Syria expect is clear. Once the treaty is signed, the dream of comprehensive peace in the Middle East will finally materialize. Israel and its neighbors will be swamped with investors. Tourism will burgeon. And free movement of people and goods will transform the Arab dictatorships into enlightened, advanced societies. Surely, relinquishing the Golan, painful though it may be, is not too high a price for so promising an outcome.

True, even the terminally optimistic realize that the Golan will not be the last Israeli concession. The "root cause" of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian problem, must also be addressed. But the momentum created by peace with Syria, they believe, will persuade the Palestinians to reach a reasonable compromise.

To debunk this utopian scenario is all too easy. The expectation that, once Israel "returns to its natural size," the Arab regimes will discard antisemitic incitement, change textbooks, reduce military budgets, seriously fight anti-Israel terrorism, support Israel in the international arena, and promote peaceful cooperation instead of Israel's delegitimation is a wish-dream that belongs in fairy tales, not in Middle East reality.

As recent experience has shown, the more concessionary and conciliatory Israel is, the weaker it is perceived to be, and the more likely it is to be subjected to escalating demands. Nor is there any evidence that peace and stability attract investors rather than the prospect of profits and a business-friendly environment. Some of the poorest countries in the world are peaceful and stable.

Before surrendering the Golan, it may be useful to remember that unlike Israelis and other Westerners, whose passion for instant gratification is quintessentially summarized in the slogan "peace now," Arabs view the conflict with an historic perspective. They believe the Zionist enterprise is a foreign invasion like the Crusades, and that regardless of its current viability it is doomed to fail.

When the 1973 war made them realize that Israel could not be defeated in a frontal military attack, they changed tactics, not goals. The Arab League and the PLO constructed "the plan of stages," which envisioned retrieving as much territory as possible by peaceful means and attacking Israel only after it becomes diminished and demoralized.

In Arab eyes, the plan is proceeding nicely despite internecine bickering. Israel's gains in the 1967 war are being gradually eliminated, and the military balance is changing. Egypt, which in 1967 was a second-rate power equipped with inferior Soviet arms, now has a powerful, American-armed military force. Despite traditional American promises to maintain Israel's qualitative edge, the Egyptian army has been supplied with sophisticated arms Israel does not have.

The Syrian army now expects to undergo a similar transformation.

Ill-equipped and strapped for funds, it will be armed and trained by the US. And since the administration has not demanded that it withdraw from Lebanon, it will be able to threaten Israel on two fronts.

The basic premise of President Clinton's Pax Americana now being imposed on the region is that the main players should depend on American aid and arms, giving Washington control over their military moves. That in the volatile Middle East such calculations do not always work was evinced in Iran, where the vast American-built military infrastructure fell into the hands of the ayatollahs.

To make the impending agreement palatable, a campaign of purification of the Assad regime has been launched by both the US and Israel. But Assad has not changed. He is a ruthless despot, a sponsor of terrorism, and a major drug exporter who has kept Syria isolated, oppressed, and poor. Touted as a man of his word, Assad has broken virtually every agreement he has ever made with Turkey, the Arab countries, and the US. The only area in which he avoids trouble is the Golan, where the Israeli army is within striking distance of Damascus.

Nor is it likely that peace with Israel will make Syria "join the world." Totalitarian regimes know how to filter foreign influences. Chances are the opposite will happen. Syria considers not only Lebanon, but Israel and Jordan as part of Greater Syria. It is a belief deeply rooted in its history and national mystique, and openly shared by Israeli Arab leaders. Syrian free access to these leaders is almost certain to create a wave of irredentism, which will transform today's demands for Arab autonomy in Galilee to agitation for secession.

Combined with Syrian presence near (if not on) the Kinneret, the prospect of such agitation makes Syria's reoccupation of the Golan a decisive step toward the realization of the plan of stages.

And, lest we forget, the last stage of this plan is war.


David Bar-Illan was the former editor of The Jerusalem Post and was the director of Prime Minister Netanyahu's Communication and Planning Office.




By P. David Hornik

Another "process" has started, and there won't be any stopping it. True, Prime Minister Barak warns us that it's not a done deal, the talks with Syria will be tough. What he doesn't mention is that, when snags and problems occur, there's a certain principle that ensures they'll be overcome: the principle that Israel always gives in.

Too much is already invested in this "process" for Israel not to give in. There's already been a grand, "historic" meeting at the White House. Bill Clinton has his sights set on glory, on redeeming his checkered presidency by going out as the great peacemaker. We'll present firm demands on security, on normalization, Barak assures us. Ah, normalization -- that was supposed to be our quid pro quo from Egypt for ceding the entire Sinai; yet for twenty years Egypt has derisively ignored every stipulation of the peace treaty about trade, cultural, and other relations.

What makes it all so incredibly hollow is the already existing record of the "processes" with Egypt and the Palestinians. We haven't received "peace" from either of them. Instead we see the ongoing buildup of armed force (largely illegal in the Palestinians' case, but that's already old hat), the continuing indoctrination of their publics, even their schoolchildren, in anti-Israeli hatred. But Egypt hasn't attacked us in twenty years, the devotees of peace proudly proclaim. The fact that Egypt is all the while building an army far larger and more sophisticated than any it had in the past, totally inexplicable in any terms other than enmity toward Israel, doesn't interest the enthusiasts of peace.

So the stage is set; the Israeli-Syrian process can go forward. When "crises" emerge, count on Israel to fold.

We'll fold because we have no beliefs, no principles that stand up to the seductions of peace. Jewish archeological sites on the Golan, ancient synagogues? A joke. We don't care if we never see them again. People, after all, who release thousands of murderers from prison to appease Yasser Arafat's corrupt, brutal regime aren't going to strike too hard a bargain.

The Jewish town, villages, farms, factories that exist on the Golan in the present? Barak has already written them off, with sugary words about a "painful price." At Camp David at least, Begin tried hard to salvage the Sinai settlements, and was stricken and guilty when he failed. Barak has already spared himself such anguish. With peace beckoning on the horizon, we won't trouble ourselves with questions about whether this constitutes "transfer," a violation of the human rights of the Jews who live on the Golan. True, we'd never talk about the forcible removal of an entire community of Arabs as part of arrangements for peace, and the world wouldn't countenance it for a second. But if it's Jews . . . then somehow it's all right.

Forget about pride, independence. We, with our powerful army, have all the capacity in the world to defend the Golan ourselves. But we'd rather have someone else do it for us; bring in the Americans, the Europeans. Even though placing U.S. troops as a tripwire between Syria and Israel represents the last step in turning ourselves into a vassal state of America, in renouncing our capacity to determine our own strategy and policy . . . on with the show. The rewards, after all, are irresistible. Photo-ops with Assad! Humous in Damascus! Peace, our prime minister intones, with the entire Arab world!

Is there any hope of stopping this farce, whereby Israel tightens around itself a noose of military danger and hatred in return for empty words, documents that are a joke to everyone who signs them except ourselves? Yes, there is one hope -- the Israeli people, who have the option of saying No to another act of bald appeasement in a referendum. The time has come to say no. No to establishing commitments through tortuous hours of negotiations and then looking the other way, winking, shrugging, when they're flagrantly violated. No to lionizing and embracing and beaming at the cruelest dictators and terrorists of our time. No to razing Jewish communities to the ground. No to a Pax Americana that makes Israel progressively weaker and more dependent.With polls so far showing a solid majority of voters opposing the abandonment of the Golan, I feel, amid the despair, hope that at last the Israeli people will say No.

And if the Golan Is Judenrein . . .
By Arie Stav

Withdrawal from the Golan Heights will bring upon Israel an array of catastrophes that are discussed in the present article and in other articles that appear in this and the next issue. However, even the strategic blow associated with the ceding of a crucial territorial asset such as the Golan, the loss of the water sources in the north, the economic crisis that will result from Israel's having to invest tens of billions of dollars, and so forth, are distinct from the moral corruption entailed in the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Jews. In expelling the residents of the Golan the Jewish state will accept willingly, not by force, the Nazi principle of Judenrein.

The Golan was not conquered in 1967. The Golan, an ancient tract of Hebrew land, to which Israel has an incomparably greater right than Syria, was liberated in a defensive war than which there has been none more justified in history. In time-honored fashion going back to the beginnings of Zionism, the Jews reclaimed a ruined stretch of land, captured an arid waste of tanks and cannons that had served the Syrians as a launching point for the destruction of Israel three times in twenty-five years; and there they built houses, planted trees, and raised their children. All of this means that Israel's historical, legal, and moral right to the Golan is absolute insofar as those values can ever be absolute. This is a right that goes to the roots of the purpose of human existence in a just society.

The destruction of the Jewish community on the Golan is not only a mockery of the foundations of historical justice and international law, not only a clear violation of Israeli law, but a diametrical inversion of morality and an adoption of the tenets of Judenrein, this time in Arab guise. An Israeli government that plays a part in this crime of ethnic cleansing, of expulsion and banishment -- notions that in the Jewish context represent the ultimate in horror in the history of all peoples -- will be judged by history; yet the punishment incurred by Israel itself will be unbearably harsh.

It may be that the loss of a strategic asset can be compensated for by technological means; that a water shortage can be surmounted by towing icebergs from the North Pole or importing water from Turkey; and an economic crisis can always be coped with. But willful adoption of the tenets of Judenrein is a fatal blow to the national ethos, and there is no compensation for loss of the purpose of existence. Jan Masaryk, the son of Tomas Masaryk, summed this up well in the wake of the Munich Treaty, as despair descended over Czechoslovakia with the severance of the Sudetenland: "If the soul has atrophied, more thousands of tanks and fighter planes will not help."

All Israeli prime ministers since 1977 have worked energetically (sometimes inexhaustibly) to undermine the foundations of the national existence. They have done so by deliberate misleading of the voting public (as in the case of the late Rabin); by complete repudiation of the principles of Zionist belief (see also Begin and Netanyahu); by means of an out-of-control utopian compulsion la Shimon Peres; or by pathetic, baseless personal presumption in the manner of Ehud Barak. (It should be noted that Yitzhak Shamir, though he was caught in the snare of the Madrid Conference, was blessed with enough personal honesty not to fall into the semantic recklessness of calling this catastrophe a "peace process.")

In this sense, then, Ehud Barak is continuing the process that began at Camp David. Menachem Begin sold the Sinai and thus destroyed once and for all Israel's chances of being a regional superpower. The precedent of withdrawal from every "grain of sacred Arab land" was established, and thus also the precedent of the destruction of settlements. By means of Israel, Egypt won generous military aid from Washington and was able to upgrade its army with American equipment. Cairo's preparations for war with the "Zionist enemy" are thoroughly blatant -- in the military sphere, in the delegitimization of Israel in every international forum, in a campaign of venomous anti-Semitism reflecting the Nazi precedent though on an incomparably greater scale.

With the Oslo agreement Yitzhak Rabin established the infrastructure of a Palestinian state -- that is, he placed the legitimacy of the state of Israel acutely in question. This is said in the spirit of his own assertion: " . . . a Palestinian state will rise on the ruins of the state of Israel" (see Yitzhak Rabin, Record of Service, Hotza'at Ma'ariv, 1978,p.583). The Palestinian Covenant, which has never been repealed, invalidates the national existence of the Jews in the Land of Israel; the Phased Plan of 1974 gives the Palestinian state the status of a springboard to the destruction of Israel by the Arab states; the Fatah Constitution, under Arafat's authority in 1998 (!), being the constitution of the Palestinian state that will be set up this year, reiterates that the goal of the Arab world is the destruction of the Zionist entity.

Like Egypt, the Palestinian Authority is conducting a virulent anti-Semitic campaign and is building up its army. Immediately upon the establishment of the Palestinian state, it will declare mandatory conscription and thereby soon create a standing army of 150,000 soldiers -- the same number as in the standing army of the IDF -- and this on the outskirts of Gush Dan.

And now Ehud Barak stands up and sells the Golan Heights. The evacuation of the Golan will constitute a precedent of the evacuation of sovereign Israeli territory and will necessitate the annulment of the Golan Law. Since all of the sovereign territories of Israel beyond the "partition borders" are "occupied territories," since what the Israelis call the "War of Independence" is considered by the international community, let alone the Arab world, a war of conquest no different from the Six Day War, the annulment of the Golan Law will constitute a precedent for demands for the revocation of sovereignty over the territories conquered in 1948and the contraction of Israel to the partition borders. Arafat has been conducting extensive diplomatic activity in this regard for about a year, with Egyptian guidance. The pressure to return to the partition borders will be combined with pressure to implement UN Resolution 194 on the 1948 refugees' right of return to their homes.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

The word has gone forth from Jerusalem. Now there is no doubt, despite a multitude of denials. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has already agreed to surrender the whole Golan Heights to Syrian dictator Hafez Assad. It took months of couching, but finally Syrian dictator Hafez Assad has learned to say the word "peace." Does he mean it? The United State's State Department has announced that once peace is made with Syria, then 18 other Arab countries will make peace with Israel. The pressure to accept a withdrawal will be immense. Golan residents are beginning massive resistance, including hunger strikes and demonstrations. MK Avigdor Kahalani had organized a faction in the Knesset to resist withdrawal from the Golan. He has tabled a bill to raise the vote necessary for approval of territorial change from a simple majority (61) to 70 Knesset members.

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

With every passing year, it became clearer to Mubarak that the Israelis were too timid to protest Egyptian violations. It also became clear that America would continue to supply aid in the billions of dollars to Egypt, despite Egypt's obvious violations of their most solemn commitments to both President Jimmy Carter and Begin.

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

It is such a painless gambit, one would have thought that all of Israel's neighbors would have rushed to use it. In the Arab world, however, symbolism is very important and it took many years before they were ready to use this tactic. Mubarak, first convinced terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, to try out the "Mubarak gambit." We all know what has happened, including the famous handshake on September 13, 1993. We also know that all of Arafat's promises to the Israelis, including revising the PLO Charter and stopping violence, have not been honored.

Now, after much tutoring, Assad has learned the principle. It has been with great difficulty that he even speaks about peace with Israel. While he is never very clear about his meaning of peace, one thing was clear: he has learned to use the "Mubarak gambit." We will be hearing a lot from him and State Department officials about how he has changed and now "really" wants peace. Don't believe it.

Most of you understand the strategic significance of the Golan Heights so I will concentrate on the other side of the equation. If Syria wants Israel to exchange the Golan for peace, we must ask ourselves the following: (1) Is Syria capable of giving Israel peace? (2) Is peace really possible? (3) Does Syria deserve to get the Golan Heights ? (4) Is the Golan really Israeli territory? (5) What are Syria's true intentions toward Israel?

Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad, while very intelligent, is a sociopath with extreme paranoid delusions. His brutal record of killing everyone who disagrees with him or poses even the slightest political threat bears out this analysis. In my opinion, he is incapable of living up to any peace agreement with Israel. Whether peace is possible depends upon your relative propensity to believe in fairy tales. If you believe in the real possibility of achieving utopia or nirvana; and if you believe in the tooth fairy, then peace with Syria is not only possible but desirable.

Any review of Israel's relations with Syria would indicate that the Syrians do not deserve to get the Golan. This point is rarely mentioned but is important. The bloodthirsty behavior of the Syrians, when they controlled the Golan (1948-67), makes me comfortable with depriving them of its return. When the Israeli Defense Forces conquered the Golan, we all vowed never to give it back. Nothing has changed.

Is the Golan really Israeli territory? The Golan was a part of the original League of Nations Mandate at the San Remo Conference in 1920 to Great Britain, for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. In 1921, The British gave Eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah, who named it Transjordan. Then in 1923, they gave the Golan to the French to become part of the French Mandate of Syria. In both cases, the intent of the League of Nations was violated and the area of the future Jewish state was diminished. Going back even farther, one finds reference to the Golan as an Israelite territory in the Holy Scriptures (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8; I Chron. 5:56). Israeli archaeologists have also found numerous ancient synagogues on the Golan.

My final question is: What is Syria's true intention? The answer can be found in a recent meeting of ten rejectionist Palestinian terrorists groups held in Damascus . They swore with Assad's backing to prevent peace with Israel and to work for its total destruction. Syria is also involved in an unholy alliance with Iran whose aim is to make the Middle East Judenrein (Jew-free).

In conclusion we find Syria incapable of making peace; that peace is not possible now anyway; that the Syrians do not deserve the Golan; that the Golan really belongs to Israel; and that war, not peace, is Syria's true intentions. Assad maybe whispering sweet nothings in Barak's ear about peace, but we must tell Barak not to be seduced.

[This article has been updated and was previously published by The Jewish Press (NY) on September 23, 1994, the October 1994 issue of The Caucus Current, and the October 1994 issue of THE MACCABEAN].





By Bernard J. Shapiro

The Meretz/Labor government of Prime Minister Ehud Barak works vigorously to rid Israel of the burden of the Golan Heights. You may be sure that they are likely to succeed unless a powerful countervailing force can be created to oppose them. In exchange for a piece of paper signed by Syrian dictator Hafez Assad, Barak is willing to relinquish the following:

35-40% of Israelis scarce water resources. Former Agriculture Minister Ya'acov Tzur said that water sources on the Golan Heights were of "vital importance" to the future of the State. "The water coming from the Golan to the Lake Kinneret catchment area is between 200 million and 300 million cubic meters [per year]," he said. "This is a critical, vital and even fateful matter in terms of the future of the State. I have to say that I'm not aware of any replacement for this water." [The Jerusalem Post December 27]

The electronic surveillance/intelligence outpost on Mount Hermon. No amount of techno-wizardry can replace fixed mountaintop installations with line of sight radar and electronic surveillance. All talk about third-party intelligence, AWACS, or even balloons is absurd. Israel has the best possible intelligence now. Why destroy it and then search for an inferior crutch to replace a healthy system.

Forward Israel Defense Force positions within artillery range of Damascus. It is this military position that keeps the Syrians from starting a war. Once the IDF is removed by a pseudo "peace" the probability of WAR increases.

Defensive positions along a ridge line of mountains on the Golan that allow a small force to hold off a large invasion force while the necessary mobilization takes place.

The right of some 18,000 Israelis to stay in their homes and businesses. This represents acceptance of the idea of ethnic cleansing as a legitimate tool of government.

The Golan is legitimate territory of the State of Israel annexed by the Knesset n 1981. Not only does Israel have a legal claim as a victim of aggression from Syria, but historically the Golan was always considered a part of the Land of Israel, even in Biblical times. The Golan was a part of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and at the San Remo Conference in 1920 it was given to Great Britain, for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. In 1921, The British gave Eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah, who named it Transjordan. Then in 1923, they gave the Golan to the French to become part of the French Mandate of Syria. In both cases, the intent of the League of Nations was violated and the area of the future Jewish state was diminished. Going back even farther, one finds reference to the Golan as an Israelite territory in the Holy Scriptures (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8; I Chron. 5:56). Israeli archaeologists have also found numerous ancient synagogues on the Golan.

And finally in the words of the late Yitzhak Rabin: "Whosoever gives up the Golan Heights, abandons the security of the State of Israel."

There are some Israelis who believe that a peace agreement with Assad would bring about a Messianic Age in the Middle East. They also believed that a deal with PLO terrorist Yasir Arafat would bring "peace." and of course, They believe in the tooth fairy. The rising stack of dead Jews would seem to disprove the proposition that lions are indeed lying down with lambs.

Israelis need not behave like lemmings. Why the rush to suicide?

Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor




Reprinted from the New York Post of Monday-December 13, 1999


By David Bar-Illan

NO one in Israel opposes negotiations with Syria. It was Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the hard-line Likud leader, who brought Syria to the negotiating table in 1991. The Israeli consensus is for talks. But the Israel-Syria talks scheduled to begin in Washington this week are not negotiations in the accepted sense. As in a fixed game, their result is known in advance. Syria's president Hafez Assad agreed to negotiate only after being assured of retrieving all the land he lost in a war of aggression against Israel. There will be total Israeli withdrawal, not to the international border, but to the 1967 lines, which include areas forcibly occupied by Syria before the 1967 war. (So much for the principle, repeatedly cited by Arab regimes, that land taken by force must be returned).

Nor will Syria be required to end its occupation of Lebanon. So despite predictions of arduous negotiations, made mostly to assure Israelis that nothing has been given up yet, there will not be much to talk about. There may be some minute territorial adjustments, mostly to allow Barak to keep his campaign promise that "no Syrian soldiers will paddle in the Sea of Galilee." There will be arguments over the extent of demilitarization on the Syrian and the Israeli side, over the multinational - mostly American - forces that will patrol the Golan, and over the early warning stations. But the fix is in, and unless the unpredictable Assad will again balk, an agreement is practically assured.

The main question now is whether Barak can win a national referendum on this agreement. This depends on his ability to convince the Israeli public that the security arrangements are indeed adequate, and that the sacrifice of the Golan will finally bring comprehensive regional peace. Yet it is doubtful that such regimes as Iraq, Iran and Libya will follow Syria's lead. On the contrary. The chances of Syria joining them in attacking Israel, once they are equipped with long range missiles and nuclear arms, are better with the Golan in Syria's hands.

Nor will the possession of the Golan be the only addition to Syria's power. An agreement with Israel will enable Damascus to modernize its army with massive American help and make it again a formidable military machine. Clinton's concept of Pax Americana is to make local dictators dependent on American arms. There is no better example of the fallacy of such thinking in the volatile Middle East than the case of Iran, where an enormous American investment in the Shah proved a boon for the fanatic anti-Western Ayatollahs.

What seems to be missing in the agreement is a consideration of the nature of Assad's regime. Like Saddam Hussein, Assad is a ruthless despot who has kept Syria isolated, backward, oppressed and in economic decline. He has broken virtually every agreement he has ever made with Turkey, the Arab countries and the U.S. The only area in which he avoids trouble is the Golan, where the Israeli army is within striking distance of Damascus. Had a Reagan been leading Israel, he would not have tried to rescue such a regime. He would have let it implode.

Some believe that peace with Israel will force Syria to open up and "join the world." But totalitarian regimes know how to filter foreign influences. Chances are the exact opposite will happen. Syrian access to the Galilee Arabs will create a powerful irredentist movement among them, and their current demands for autonomy will turn into agitation for secession. It is this danger that makes an agreement with Syria so different from the peace with Egypt. Syria considers Israel, Jordan and Lebanon part of Greater Syria. It is a belief deeply rooted in Syria's national mystique, and held by many Israeli Arabs as well. That Syria will use the peace agreement to continue undermining Israel's existence is far more likely than that it would join the enlightened world in seeking peace, security and prosperity for all.


David Bar-Illan is the former editor of The Jerusalem Post and and was Communication Minister in the Benjamin Netanyahu's government.




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who opposed withdrawal from the Golan Heights when he was Israel's Chief of Staff in 1995, has committed himself and his seven-party coalition government to evacuate the Golan and thereby abandon its 18,000 Jewish residents. This represents an extraordinary metamorphosis as regards the Labor Party's attitude, but also of Jewish public opinion, which now seems to be evenly divided on the Golan issue.

In various opinion polls conducted prior to the June 1992 elections, an overwhelming majority of 80 to 90 percent of the public voted against any withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Moreover, the Labor Party's official platform proclaimed: "Israel sees in the Golan Heights an area of great importance for its security, its safety and the ensuring of its water resources, even in times of peace. Consequently, in every peace agreement with Syria and in the security arrangements, Israel's settlements and military control will be maintained on the Heights--on which Israel's jurisdiction, law and administration have been applied."

In fact, just hours before the election, Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin told a Golan audience: "As for the future, it is inconceivable that even in peacetime we should go down from the Golan. Whoever even thinks of leaving the Golan wantonly abandons the security of Israel."

Reneging on campaign pledges regarding taxes and health care is one thing; reneging on a campaign pledge involving the very borders of the state is quite another. The more so when one considers Israel's legal and historical claim to the Golan Heights, which it regained in a war of self-defense.

Yet Ehud Barak, President Clinton's "little toy," has decided to make a mockery of that war, won with Jewish blood and tears. Whether this decision will be vetoed, as it were, by a public referendum, remains to be seen. But the mere prospect of abandoning 18,000 Jewish residents on the Golan cannot but fill any thoughtful Jew with dread.

_To withdraw from the Golan, a mere 45 kilometers from Damascus, is to abandon the one geostrategic asset that has deterred Syria from going to war in almost 27 years.

_To withdraw from the Golan is to make Syrian aggression pay.

_To withdraw from the Golan is to dignify a ruthless tyrant.

_To withdraw from the Golan is to perpetuate a barbaric regime as well as the misery of its seventeen million inhabitants. This, in the name of "peace," a word that has become an obscenity to anyone with stitch of moral or intellectual integrity.

To grasp the nature of Syrian barbarism, let me take you back to a ceremony which that regime celebrated on the tenth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. I watched that ceremony on Israel television, clips of which should now be shown throughout Israel. In that ceremony - and now I turn to its description in the October 21, 1983 issue of the JERUSALEM POST MAGAZINE -

"Syrian militia trainees [male and female] put on a show for Syrian president Hafez Assad. Martial music reached a crescendo as Syrian teenage girls suddenly bit into live snakes [some four or five feet long], repeatedly tearing off flesh and spitting it out as blood ran down their chins. As Assad applauded, the girls then attached the snakes to sticks and grilled them over fire, eating them triumphantly. Others [militiamen] then proceeded to strangle puppies and drink their blood."

The reader can judge for himself what the snakes, the puppies, and the blood represent. TV Clips of that ceremony should be sent to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and to Jewish leaders in the United States.

If not otherwise available, the JERUSALEM POST report of that ceremony should be translated into Hebrew and Russian and distributed throughout Israel and the Diaspora.

Finally, the TV clips should be shown in the Knesset, and those opposed to Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights should declare:




Reprinted from The Boston Globe -- December 23, 1999


By Jeff Jacoby

Alois Brunner, who sent as many as 150,000 Jews to their deaths during the Holocaust, is the most notorious Nazi war criminal still at large. As Adolf Eichmann's deputy, Brunner supervised the liquidation of Jewish communities in Austria, Germany, Greece, and Slovakia. For 14 months he was commandant of the notorious concentration camp in Drancy, France, whence more than 23,000 Jews were sent to the death camps. One notorious entry on his resume is the roundup of 340 Jewish orphans in Paris in July 1944. They were sent by cattle car to Auschwitz.

French courts have twice convicted Brunner in absentia and sentenced him to death. This month a French judge cleared the way for a third trial. Four other countries -- Germany, Austria, Slovakia, and Poland -- have issued warrants for Brunner's arrest.

But all of these convictions and warrants are unavailing, for Brunner has the protection of a powerful patron: Hafez al-Assad, the dictator of Syria. As the Telegraph, a British newspaper, reported recently, Brunner "has been given sanctuary in Damascus for decades, during which time he has helped to train Syria's secret police in the use of torture."

This is the Syria that is ready to make peace with Israel?

Yet to hear the Israeli prime minister tell it, an Israeli-Syrian treaty is all but a done deal. "It is possible to complete negotiations with Syria in very little time," Ehud Barak said to his cabinet last week, "perhaps in a few weeks."

The 18,000 Israelis who live in the Golan -- the strategic plateau Israel seized from Syria in self-defense during the 1967 war -- have been told to start packing. Barak: "I can't tell you an agreement will be reached without a high price. The price will be one our generation will pay on behalf of future generations -- an end to the bloodshed." One Israeli paper quoted an even blunter government minister: "It is all done; they have to start moving out."

All done? The New York Times seems to think so too. "The Israelis and Syrians appear eager to resolve their differences quickly," it editorialized on the day the peace talks began in Washington. "Chances seem good that a deal can be worked out." In its news columns, the Times assured readers that Farouk al-Shara'a, Syria's belligerent foreign minister, could be "expected to present a gentler face than in the past."

Shara'a had other ideas. At the White House ceremony opening the negotiations, Barak and Bill Clinton spoke mild words of welcome. Shara'a, by contrast, delivered a bitter diatribe that blamed Israeli "occupation" for 50 years of Arab enmity, invented half a million mythical Syrian refugees from the Golan, and insisted that unless Israel surrenders every square inch of land "to their original owners," the Arabs would pursue a permanent "conflict of existence in which bloodshed can never stop." On the other hand, if Israel yields to Syrian demands, it will be rewarded. With full diplomatic relations? Open borders? Two-way trade and tourism? An end to anti-Israel terrorism?

Well -- no. "For Israel," Shara'a said, "peace will mean the end of the psychological fear which the Israelis have been living in as a result of the existence of occupation." Giving the Golan to Assad, in other words, will be its own reward.

It is one thing for Israelis to dream of peace. It is something rather different to act as though the difference between dreams and reality has been effaced.

Syria is ruled by a cruel dictator-for-life who presides over one of the world's most repressive regimes. To cement his grip on power he has scrupled at nothing, including the massacre of tens of thousands of his own citizens. Civil and political rights are nonexistent in Syria, and the media are state-controlled. Syria is on the State Department's list of drug-exporting countries *and* its list of states that sponsor terrorism. Any deal that would strengthen such a regime -- and it is understood that in exchange for signing a pact with Israel, Syria would get not only the Golan but billions of dollars in US economic and military aid -- would be a shortsighted, reckless gamble.

Like most dictatorships, Syria breaks its word. Since seizing power in 1970, Assad has broken agreement after agreement, as Turkey, Lebanon, and the United States can attest. It is folly to imagine that he would respect an accord with Israel. Once he has the Golan, his interest in complying with the rest of the treaty will evaporate. And what will Israel do when Assad takes the land but doesn't deliver the peace? Re-invade?

Hatred of Jews and the Jewish state is fundamental to Assad's system. The nation's longtime defense minister, Mustafa Tlas, is the author of "The Matza of Zion," a book promoting the medieval libel that Jews murder gentiles and consume their blood on Passover. Syrian citizens are fed a steady diet of anti-Israel invective. To believe that such a government has peace with Israel on its agenda is delusional.The Syrian-Israeli frontier is quiet, and has been for 26 years. Not coincidentally, Israeli artillery can reach Damascus from the Golan. The surest way to preserve the de facto peace that already exists is to maintain that deterrent.

The day will come when Syria will be genuinely ready for peace. Then talk of treaties and territorial givebacks will make sense. We will know that day has arrived when Assad, like Anwar Sadat, journeys to Jerusalem and holds out his hand in friendship. When Syria shuts down the bloody terror groups that train on its soil. And when Nazi butchers no longer find sanctuary in Damascus.


Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. His e-mail address is




By Emanuel A. Winston

Professionals in the media and Public Relations know instantly when governments launch a phony 'sell' campaign to the public. We usually know what they really want. This is especially true when there are big bucks involved for the winner. In this case, we can see the 'sell' propaganda ramping up from Washington and certain Leftist outlets in Israel who are working with President Clinton to scrub up and whitewash Syria of its terrorist-supporting, drug-running and counterfeiting in order to take Syria off the State Department's Watch List of Terrorist States. The cash prizes will be $20-30 Billion in weapons' sales to Syria, and the campaign contributions to Congress and the Administration from a grateful military/industrial complex.

Recently, an Israeli Left-wing 'think tank', the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Israel's Tel Aviv University, voiced the opinion that this is the perfect window of opportunity to make peace with Syria. The Jaffee Center was founded by Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Aharon (Areleh) Yariv. Areleh was my dear friend, although we were worlds apart politically. The Jaffee Center drifted further and further to the Left through such directors as Joseph Alpher and more recently Shai Feldman. While holding themselves forth as objective intelligence analysts, their research and opinions were almost always in lockstep with the opinions of the Labor Left, particularly when Labor held the reins of the Government. Recruiting Leftist leaders is not all that difficult if they are assured that, by appeasing the enemy, they are saving the nation. They should know better but prefer the delusion that they will, indeed, save the nation - even if they must destroy it first. This engages the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Barak's recently blurted out statement saying: "I must give up the Golan for peace" was a strong indication that the Israeli people were rapidly cooling to Barak's quick capitulation in abandoning the Golan to Syria. I realized then Barak had crossed the line into aberrant thinking where he believed that he alone could force the country to surrender Judea, Samaria and the Golan - without the country's consent. Israel has not yet voted in the promised Referendum. The Knesset vote for negotiations with Syria was less than 50 votes out of 120, indicating a major disillusionment with Barak's frantic pace - with little indication that Syria intends to make peace. To destroy a nation, a war spoken or unspoken, must be declared. That on-going war has been declared and, despite any peace agreements, that declaration has been maintained by every Arab nation and the Palestinian Authority, through their media, school curricula, statements by officials and clerics. Israel is intended to be that victim nation, inexplicably assisting in her own demise.

It seems clear a major push is on, with the impetus coming from the Clinton White House to force through a deal with the Syrians. We see an increased outpouring by the usual propaganda outlets for the White House and State Department, picking up the cry for fast action in closing the Golan deal. The NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES news and editorials, and columnists are all high level indicators of U.S. Government policy. Tom Friedman offered an op-ed in the Sunday NEW YORK TIMES, 12/26/99 which looked like a team effort right out of the bowels of the State Department. He all but begged Assad to make a Sadat-like gesture to convince the doubtful Israeli public. Friedman even offered the bizarre rationale that Syria would become the protective barrier between Israel and Iran. Friedman also cranked in advice to Assad to convince Congress so they will pay Syria for this Grand Gesture.

In Israel, the Leftist media have exceeded their usual tilt to their Socialist roots and have become almost hysterical as they frantically try to convince the nation that capitulation to Syria is not only noble but Israel's last chance for peace on earth.

The editor of the Russian paper, VESTI, was recently fired, probably because he expressed the true feelings of the Russians in Israel who are overwhelmingly (72%) against withdrawal from the Golan. The Russian 'olim' got the message, namely that Barak's Government plays by the same rules as the former Soviet Union. Disillusionment is coming from a broad spectrum of the Israeli public. The message made it back to Washington and they are worried.

Disinformation is being vomited out at a prodigious rate. According to Barak, Clinton and Albright, Syria is suddenly NOT the Terrorist State as it was known to be all these years but, rather now is actually seeking peace.

Assad only wants $20 or $30 Billion U.S. taxpayers' dollars for American arms and then, if so bribed, Syria will pledge to not start a war and to cease all terrorism. This new, instantly altered image of Assad is obediently echoed by various Left wing institutions in Israel, which then appears as absolute truth in the Hebrew media. Strangely, although they are dedicated to Leftist positions, they know better but just can't break away - yet!

NPR (National Public Radio), America's premier news radio station, infamous for being hostile to Israel, regaled the listening audience with how the Norwegian, Terry Rod Larsen (now with the U.N.) finessed the secret Oslo negotiations conspiracy with Yossi Beilin who requested that certain Leftist professors be present to portray meetings as merely another academic symposium for credible deniability. Slick, secret planning and hiding the truth from the Israeli people were presented as virtues and not the scurrilous acts of a corrupt and cowardly regime.

Yossi Beilin, when asked at a 1994 Bar Ilan symposium why he kept the Oslo negotiations secret from the Israeli people, answered: "Because they would have turned it down." Beilin and Peres believed they knew what was good for the country better than the people.

The Clinton and Barak Government manipulators of the media are shoveling it out so fast you better get your high rubber boots on to wade through this stuff. Barak is desperately trotting out every lie and misleading statement he or James Carville can evolve to quiet the growing legitimate Israeli opposition.

Barak may have crossed a fine line into a fantasy world of delusion called megalomania. To induce the Israeli public to go along, Barak recently made the statement that a peace treaty with Syria would lead to reduced Israeli military service. He said this despite knowing, from personal experience, the depths of Syria's deadly past and hostile intent for the future. Syria is stockpiling a growing arsenal including chemically loaded, accurate missiles. Syria's population (who will be operating these weapons) has been taught to hate the Jews and the Jewish State viscerally in what radical Islam insists must be a Muslim Middle East. Regrettably, teaching hatred of Jews reaches even into grade school textbooks, despite assurances of the Clintons and Barak.

Clinton staged a photo op in Washington but Syria's Foreign Minister Sha'ara refused to shake Barak's hand. This was far more telling and meaningful in the rules of blood vengeance of the Middle East than was portrayed by the media. It was a direct insult to Barak, Israel and Clinton but very consistent with Assad's statement that we would rather cut off his hand than shake the hand of a Jew.

Barak's decision to surrender the Golan Heights, legally annexed by Knesset legislation, may be illegal before the Knesset abrogates that law and the country votes. A citizen's Referendum AFTER Barak signs away the Golan, would not legally authorize such a surrender.

Clearly, it's time to relieve this man of his dictatorial command. His positions of today are totally opposite and in conflict with his statements of May 1993 regarding those military, strategic positions he knew were essential for Israel's survival. He truly believes his snap judgements of today are infallible insights. He is being fed his opinions by interests foreign to Israel which could lead to national suicide. Even members of his own Labor Party must recognize this and move to new elections. If Barak and Clinton have their way, Israel is definitely going down, with the Europeans and the Leftists of Israel guaranteeing that the 23nd Arab/Muslim State will be planted on the ruins of Israel.

With new U.S. armaments, Syria will become the next MidEast military colossus in the North, supposedly dedicated to American interests, as Egypt is alleged to be now in the South. This is the American (Clinton) rationale for supplying massive free U.S. funds to sell (give) America's best military equipment to these Arab states: first Iran under the Shah, then Egypt under Sadat and Mubarak, next Iraq under Saddam, and soon Assad's Syria.

The U.S. started this scenario when America 'invested' in Iran to be its 'cop on the block' to guard U.S. interests in Gulf oil. Didn't America lose Iran in a blink, as they are about to lose Egypt, to radical Islamic fundamentalists? Each had a vast armory of American equipment which will surely be turned against American soldiers if they are put in harm's way as 'Peacekeepers' to prevent Syria from attacking Israel.

But, now we are going to have that vicious, drug-running, protector of terrorists, military dictatorship, Syria, as America's proxy in the Middle East. Right?!




by Emanuel A. Winston

The Left Liberal government of Ehud Barak can neither help itself nor help the nation of Israel. This Labor/Meretz government was born to Slavery and is now ready to finalize Israel's last days as a free nation. Ehud Barak has long passed his level of maximum competence. Like the Jews in the time of Moses who begged and whined to be allowed to return to the known comforts of slavery, so too Barak and those of his ilk wish the Israelis to return to the whip of the slave masters. Barak, now the adopted son of the most corrupt President the U.S. has ever known, has accepted Clinton's guidance (or commands) back to Slavery - if not extinction.

Ehud Barak was hatched and nurtured in the military always under control of the Labor Party. Like Yitzhak Rabin he was guided upward, protected from all his mistakes and finally launched into the political echelon where he was indoctrinated to become Prime Minister. Competence beyond his military experience was not an issue nor one of consideration for those grooming him to hold political power. However, in May 1993 as the IDF Chief of Staff he espoused a military, strategic position totally opposite what he is proposing that Israel implement now. Barak openly stated on May 20, 1993 that he agreed with the no longer secret study of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff that the loss of the Golan Heights would be disastrous for Israel's defenses.

Barak's inexperience in global affairs was revealed very quickly as he adopted the ways of Clinton and the fakery cooked up by Clinton's Public Relations team head by James Carville. Barak, as a politician, demonstrates he is not a decision maker but rather an animated cartoon, sketched by Clinton, Carville, the U.S. State Department and the gaggle of Leftist Jews surrounding Clinton. Shortly, Barak will be drawn into a suicidal decision - giving up Judea and Samaria (the west bank), Gaza and the Golan Heights.

Barak knows Clinton is poised to take Syria off the State Department's list of Terrorist States. He is fully aware that Clinton will ship Syria massive American arms as a 'peace' reward - similar to the huge military treasure the U.S. has gifted to Egypt since Sadat signed the 1979 Camp David Accords.

Barak will accept a handshake from Hafez al-Assad of Syria who has often said he would rather cut off his hand than touch the hand of a Jew. Given their knowledge of this perfidy by all the parties: Clinton, the State Department, Syria and Egypt, Ehud Barak and his entourage deserve nothing less than the equivalent of the Nuremberg Tribunal which held the Nazi leaders responsible for their crimes killing six million Jews and a total of 50 million during World War II.

It isn't as if Ehud Barak is being led into the betrayal of his people, blind to the facts. He understands, as does Clinton's State Department, that Syria has been and remains Israel's most dedicated enemy and still plans for the Arab nations' Final Solution (destruction) of Israel and the Jews now protected within her borders. Just read the hate espoused in all of the Arab countries official media to fully understand the depth of the Arabs' hostile intentions.

Barak knows that Syria has been preparing Chemical and Biological weapons, trading information with Arab countries that he, Assad, personally hates. Barak knows Assad, a sick, old man will soon give up his leadership of Syria - with almost certainty that Civil War will ensue. There is absolutely no guarantee that the next despotic leader in Syria will honor any agreements and, in fact, will need to renew hostilities, simply to justify holding his position. Without the Golan, Israel is a prime target, particularly if, as in the past, Syria coordinates its attacks with Egypt and other Arab states.

Barak knows this and more. He caved in to the demands of a corrupt President who no longer matters. Barak sold the land of Israel, a property that he does not own. In so doing, Barak has insured that Israel will have massive casualties in the inevitable war for which he and his Party will be wholly responsible. Because all these risks are well known before the fact, Barak and his confederates should be tried for treason now. If a war occurs because of Barak's betrayal, he should be taken into custody and tried in the first days of that coming war along with his confederates. Clearly, the Nuremberg decisions are appropriate that those responsible for Genocide would be culpable for their actions.

Barak's controllers from the State Department will pull words out of his mouth which will tell the Israeli people how tough he is going to be in the coming negotiations with Syria. The State Department's Jewish team knows exactly how to mislead the Jewish people, how to calm their realistic fears and then how to betray them with a quick thrust of the diplomatic knife.

These Jews who guide our thoughts were born to Slavery and cannot bear the thought of other Jews living their religion as free men and women. If they are to be slaves, then all must join them. Such leaders who worm their way to the top have been clever and persuasive. Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid and thousands more drawn to their banner of appeasement and pacifism think the same. They are like the weak Jews among all those whom Moses brought out of Egypt who did not want to leave the protection of their slave masters and the flesh pots but desperately wanted to return to them.

Even as our enemies pledge to put the yoke of slavery on our necks once they control the strategic points of land and water, these weak Jews manipulate the words of 'peace' and the mantra of 'Peace Process' very well. Groveling at the feet of despots is a pathology which some of our Jewish leaders have refined to a high state of art. Whether as slaves of Pharaoh or slaves of German industrialists, there were always Jews ready to become the gang bosses of the Jews who did the Slave Labor. Ehud Barak's government, like some of those before him, was born to Slavery. It's just a matter of whom they will choose as their next slave master.

Regrettably, we see no Moses on the horizon who will rescue the Jews when Syria and the other nations of Islam feel the time is right to once again enslave (or kill) the Jews. Clinton and his court Jews will be long gone or busy covering up their role in the destruction of the only Jewish homeland in the past 2000 years. The Leftists of Israel will go underground to escape the fury from the victims for their perfidy. We can only hope and pray that those Jews remaining will seek vengeance through the available legal mens and not hunt the perpetrators, using the Biblical dictum of "an eye for an eye" or a life for a life.




Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East Analysis & Commentator and also a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of December 24, 1999


By David Bar-Illan

If the almost total mobilization of the media to the cause of withdrawal from the Golan had not been so worrisome in a democratic society, it could have rated as the most amusing comedy of the season. The alacrity with which almost all newsmen and commentators jumped to attention and tried to outdo each other in supporting government policy recalled the way their spiritual ancestors changed political positions according to the latest party line communique from Moscow.

One of the few exceptions was Emmanuel Halperin, host of Channel 1's late-night News, who interviewed Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ori Orr soon after Clinton's announcement of the resumption of the talks. Orr's smug, arrogant and altogether obnoxious manner recalled the perpetual haughtiness Israeli generals used to sport after the Six Day War.

"Was it all a fraud, was it 30 years of brainwashing?" asked Halperin, referring to the IDF doctrine that the Golan was crucial to Israel's defense. "And were the opinions of all those American generals who said the Golan was indispensable to Israel's survival completely invalid?"

Orr seemed not only to have no trouble toeing the new party line, which represents a 180-degree turn from the old, he averred that the Golan is actually a security burden, not an asset. After all, he said, we lost more soldiers defending it in 1973 than in capturing it in 1967. It is at moments like these that Harry Truman's unprintable opinion of generals assumes the luminosity of Confucian wisdom. But Halperin's outspoken doubts stood out as a rare exception.

Other news hosts - from the venerable Haim Yavin through the feverishly inventive Channel 2 anchors, to the intemperate Yael Sternhell on Channel 1's 7:30 Edition - could neither contain their enthusiasm for government spokesmen nor conceal their hostility for anyone who dared disagree.

TO INCREASE their bullying power, the Channel 1 crew bolstered their ranks with guest co-hosts of identical or even more dovish political proclivities. With Aryeh Golan and Haim Baram in tow, they put on a credible imitation of the monolithic state radio in the days of Mapai, minus, alas, the nationalism that was still in evidence then. It almost made one nostalgic for the days when Jerusalem Post editorials had to be approved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It is easy enough to prove with statistics how lopsided the guest list is on these programs. But numbers tell only half the story. On the rare occasion that credible representatives of the opposition did appear, they were heckled, interrupted, mocked and derided by their interviewers. The only thing these would-be apparatchiks have not done is turn off the microphone when interviewees presented persuasive arguments.

But they all sounded like paragons of objectivity compared to Channel 1 star commentator Ehud Ya'ari, whose harangues were hardly distinguishable from Syrian press releases. Israelis should understand the Syrians' frustrations, he intoned. When the talks began in Madrid under Yitzhak Shamir, the poor Syrians had to suffer the bad manners of Yossi Ben-Aharon and Yigal Carmon. (This is a reference to a meeting in which Ben-Aharon had the hutzpa to pull out Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass's book about how Jews use gentile children's blood to make matza. Slamming it on the table, he asked his counterpart, Muafek Alaf, how he could reconcile talk of peace with such antisemitic incitement.)

The Syrians first trusted Rabin, continued Ya'ari, but then he turned away from them and made a deal in Oslo with the Palestinians. Then Peres broke off the talks in 1996. And Netanyahu, too, withdrew from the back-channel negotiations just when they thought they were getting everything they wanted. Poor Syrians! No wonder they refused to shake hands.

Ya'ari's sycophancy has become his trademark. He must believe, probably with good reason, that only by playing up to Arab leaders will he get exclusive interviews with them. But to exonerate Assad and blame Israel for the failure of the negotiations in 1991-1999 is the kind of groveling that crosses the line of the acceptable. That Ya'ari repeated this canard various times, on radio and television, and with unabashed missionary zeal, emphasized the tendentious nature of the message. Perhaps the US administration was so upset by Shara's refusal to shake hands and its impact on the Israeli public that it decided to rationalize Syrian behavior by placing the blame on Israel. Why Ya'ari should serve as an instrument for such inversion of history is anybody's guess.

The printed press was every bit as uniform. Particularly amusing was its search for something to remove the bad taste created by Shara's hand that didn't shake. At one point it gleefully announced that in the secrecy of the negotiation chamber, Shara and Barak did shake hands. It was a false report, generated by an eager member of Barak's entourage.

Far more serious was the deliberate distortion of Syrian pronouncements. When Shara did not mention the mantra "June 4, 1967" in his abrasive and insulting speech at the White House, the Israeli press pounced on it as a signal of compromise. This was followed by repeated assertions that the Syrians were not insisting on returning to the 1967 lines.

But all these reports were nothing more than part of a disinformation campaign. The Syrians kept reiterating their demand for a return to the 1967 lines at every opportunity. Just this week (December 21) Shara told the London Al-Hayat that the first component of an agreement must be an Israeli withdrawal to the June 4 lines. And the editorials in the official government papers Al-Ba'ath and Tishrin repeated his demand specifically and explicitly. None of this was reported in Israel's ostrich media.

The 'Economist' likes Barak.The vast majority of the world press likes Israeli leaders who make concessions. Even Menachem Begin, vilified as a terrorist and fanatic when he became prime minister, turned into a media darling after Camp David. Well, at least until he committed the unpardonable sin of saving the world from Saddam Hussein's nuclear bomb.The phenomenon is so universal that no one seems to wonder why the media in democratic societies are so eager to see a democracy yield to dictatorial regimes, particularly since the same media would never dream of demanding such concessions of their own governments. But the idea that Israeli concessions equal peace is so entrenched that it has become an accepted truth.

Yet even the sympathy and support for conciliatory leaders cannot suppress the anti-Israel pro-Arab bias, often fed by abysmal ignorance and chronic misinformation, which afflicts some British journalists. An article by Middle East editor of the Financial Times David Gardner in last week's Economist (December 18) is a case in point. Nauseatingly patronizing, Gardner approves of Barak's readiness to withdraw. But this does not stop him from calling Israel's prime minister "the thinking man's thug."


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



Wall Street Journal -- December 17, 1999 Commentary


By Mark Helprin

Neville Chamberlain's disastrous appeasement of Germany was due neither to cowardice nor lack of fiber, for Chamberlain was a man of extraordinary courage and resolution. He failed not in character but in choosing the wrong framework of appraisal. He and millions of others believed that if German grievances could be addressed, the momentum for war would subside. Germany did have grievances that were real and of great moment, but they were as nothing compared with its ambitions, to which they were merely the preliminary. Thus, as in the case of the bull that sees the cape but not the sword, Chamberlain's conception of events, not his essential qualities, proved his undoing.

The whole world took comfort from the common wisdom that his efforts, nobly pursued, would bring peace. On his return from Munich he stood in triumph with the king on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, and people dropped to their knees in prayers of gratitude. The whole world now is comforted by what appears to be emerging concord in the Middle East, but now, as then, misconception rules. Now, as then, there is a cape, and there is a sword.

Peace in our time? President Clinton walks out of the Oval Office with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, right, and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa Is it not unnatural and disturbing for one of the parties in a peace negotiation to be urged from every quarter to "take a risk for peace"? What is the peculiar nature of this peace that it is seen even by its proponents as a risk? Peace should be, to the contrary, a condition not of risk but of surety and amelioration. This peace comes with more than a hint of annihilation because even those who are in the midst of constructing it realize that it is fraudulent. It is built upon the imagined, unjustifiable and untrue assumption that Israel's opponents have grievances but not ambitions, and that in any case the grievances are somehow confined to the Golan and the West Bank.

This when Arab possession of these territories did not prevent the occurrence of three of the four major Arab-Israeli wars, when Yasser Arafat routinely states that his object is to recover Palestine in its entirety, when deep-set opinion throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds has never wavered from this object and does not now, and when the most striking Palestinian demand in the current negotiations is for the unrestricted return of Palestinians to all of Palestine.

More to the point, the question of Palestine is merely an anteroom in the great palace of Arab aspirations regarding Israel. As the Palestinians themselves continually state, the Arab world does not really care about them.

What it does care about is reasserting itself in relation to the West, making pure the Muslim domain, rolling back what it considers the vestiges of colonialism, defeating modernism in its every guise, and removing from the choke point where Africa and Asia are joined the singular and impassable blockage of the Jewish state that literally divides the two great regions of the world of Islam.

There is a word in Arabic, taqiyah, that Madeleine Albright might well look up. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, a source with no known links to Ariel Sharon, describes it as "the practice of concealing one's belief," in which "the Qur'an allows Muslims to profess friendship with the unbelievers . . .on the condition that their hearts contradict their tongues." This is not merely a religious dispensation but a cultural pattern that debases the value of assurances and treaties.

Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders have long understood that Western elites are so wanting to believe any kind of assurance that one actually need not hide one's plans as long as even the flimsiest statement in contradiction of them exists for interested politicians and diplomats to grasp. Though these politicians and diplomats may understand the danger in all this, as it is not a danger to them, they unreservedly recommend a "process" in which, they hope, formal acts and declarations will change the fundamental nature of the participants. About risk, trust, and belief in the power of process it is certain that, from his celestial perch, Neville Chamberlain could tell them a thing or two-even the Israeli prime minister, who does undertake the risk, as did his British counterpart nearly seven decades ago.

Which is not to say that the Palestinians should not have a state. Their immutable desire to destroy Israel should disqualify them not from having a state but, rather, from having the kind of state that could advance their immutable desire to destroy Israel. That is, they should have a totally demilitarized, Vatican-style enclave in the West Bank, back from the higher ground in the west, along the lines of the Allon Plan. Such a thing would have fallen far short of Palestinian expectations, as will any interim state that arises, but had Israel advanced it unilaterally the Palestinians would not now have-before the infancy of their state, in contravention of the Oslo agreements, and well in excess of the needs of dictatorial government-an army of 40,000 men.

This is the proud nucleus of a force three or four times its size that, equipped, clandestinely or not, with infantry-carried or truck-mounted antiarmor and antiaircraft missiles, could function within Israeli territory much like the Russian Spetsnaz. Attacks upon communications, parked or rolling aircraft, mobilization centers, supply depots, and the civilian population could greatly disrupt and demoralize Israeli forces preparing to take to the field or already fighting. As an adjunct to a full-scale offensive, Palestinian formations would have two additional tasks. The first would be to cripple, destroy, or contain Israel's nuclear missiles, which if dispersed on the roads would be vulnerable to irregulars, and if kept concentrated for fear of irregulars would be vulnerable to conventional air assault or a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Destruction of its missiles would not deprive Israel entirely of the nuclear option, if only because of the easier and wider dispersal of gravity bombs to nuclear-capable squadrons that have a talent for getting even to remote targets, but it could disrupt future Arab-Israeli nuclear parity and have therefore a decisive effect on the outcome of battle.

The second would be to keep Palestinian territory secure for the reception of conventional formations, whether Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian, or even a combined Gulf States expeditionary force. Even with possession of the Sinai, the Golan, and the West Bank, Israel's strategic situation in a full-scale war was a nightmare of too many fronts, too narrow a heartland and insufficient strategic depth. The pre-1967 outlines that appear about to emerge once again are for every Arab general an invitation to ponder the feasibility of rapid conquest. Looking at the map shows that Israel was born half conquered to begin with, and that the painful contortions of such borders would be a mortal threat to any nation.

In light of this, the small army of a Palestinian state might have a disproportionate effect, but the sword rests in other hands. Though given the conduct of the peace negotiators you would not think so, Israel's fate depends not upon the mollification of Syria and the Palestinians but, rather, upon the direction of Egypt and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Were Egypt to succumb to the immense economic and demographic pressures that threaten to recapitulate its approximately half-century cycles of radicalization, what is called the "peace of the brave" might be remembered as the peace of the expedient, the temporary, the careless, and the opportune. With ready-made constant support in Iraq, Iran, Libya and other even remoter belligerents, Egypt could easily swing Syria once again into co-confrontation.

In 1973 the Egyptians surprised Israelis who were less overconfident than they are today, crossed the canal, and established a bridgehead in the Sinai after overcoming Israel's first waves of opposition. The way was open for a catastrophic Egyptian thrust beyond the passes and toward an Israel that was not yet mobilized. Rather than taking full advantage, the Egyptians stopped for fear of outrunning their lines of supply and being drawn into a trap. At the highest levels they may also have considered Israel's newly developed nuclear capability. Today Israel has hundreds of warheads and bombs deliverable with great precision by aircraft or intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Because it will be a long time before the Islamic states can field enhanced radiation weapons or count on exceedingly precise guidance, even should they develop credible nuclear forces Israel's deterrent will be protected from a first strike by the Palestinian presence nearby and the direction of the prevailing winds. The issue, however, is not the destruction of these weapons but their neutralization.

One object of the Arab nuclear programs is to offset Israel's capacity to the point where Israel would resort to it only at the very end. So shielded, Arab conventional forces could carefully strike limited targets, in stages, whittling away at Israel until it were reduced to the kind of enclave the Palestinians now only half-pretend to want as an end to their diplomacy. The Sinai has been retrieved, and the West Bank and the Golan seem to be on the way, with hardly a shot. How much preparation, risk, and maneuver, then, would it take to win the Negev? Would Israel make use of atomic weapons, knowing that it would suffer retaliation in kind, to reverse a lost conventional battle for its largely unpopulated desert? What about sections of the largely Arab Galilee, or the forested and remote border with Lebanon?

That it might not triumph in every such battle is certainly something Israel must consider. A comparison of its conventional forces to those of the hypothetical coalition of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (leaving out Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.) favors Israel despite an Arab advantage in critical weapons of 2.4 to 1. Israel's interior lines; far better command, control, communications, and intelligence; highly effective integration of its combat arms; flexible and imaginative doctrine; and superior training and technology make disparities in materiel less important. But this was true as well in 1973, when the Egyptians very dangerously displayed talents and discipline they were not supposed to possess. The hypothetical coalition's 1,700 combat aircraft, as opposed to Israel's 700, include 390 first-line aircraft (F-16 or equivalent) to Israel's 335. It would not be impossible to design a strategy of surge and attrition to offset the superiority of the Israeli Air Force, with antiaircraft missiles and guns in support, as in 1973, combined with surface-to-surface missile and unconventional attacks on air force bases and battle management.

Without going into further detail, similar openings exist in regard to armor, etc. Israel has no monopoly on unexpected victory and, to invert Moshe Dayan's famous pronouncement, the road from Tel Aviv to Damascus also leads from Damascus to Tel Aviv. The orders of battle are here not so far apart that, to survive, Israel need not marshal every military advantage to protect against uncertainties and what it cannot foresee. In war, geography is everything, and by relinquishing its more defensible profile, Israel assumes much of its former vulnerability.

In its missionary zeal to teach the world how to behave properly and decently, the Clinton Administration has used the power and influence of the United States not merely to maneuver Israel into a position of its liking but for unprecedented interference in Israeli electoral politics. The president and Mrs. Albright are in this instance replicating their one and only method of operation in international relations: Give away the store. But by superimposing this pattern on Israel they bear a special responsibility, in that Israel has none of the margins of error or the great reserves of power that allow the U.S. to be periodically weepy and generous in foreign affairs without prejudicing its survival. As with most of Mr. Clinton's policies, this one is designed for the moment when its superficial sparkle will illuminate him to best advantage, but after the flash he will move off to another contrived bright spot, and everyone else will be left in the dark.

Despite the automatic repetition, by journalists and diplomats who have no sense whatsoever of the strategic dimension, that superior power insulates it with near-perfection from the consequences of misappraisal and misjudgment, Israel's military reality and long-term prospects are less certain Partly as a result of American pressure, Israel has not been able to ensure that the rising Palestinian state will actually be demilitarized. Apparently it will not even seek a territorial compromise vis--vis the high ground on the Golan, or benefit by some measure of Syrian disarmament. It operates apart from all consideration of the activities and attitudes of powerful and implacable states such as Iraq and Iran. It will be surrendering its last portions of strategic depth. It appears to be accepting a major shift in the correlation of forces, with no provision for contingencies such as the radicalization of Egypt; the unexpected transfer to its antagonists of nuclear weapons from Russia, China, North Korea, or Pakistan; or the sudden rise of a unified Arab coalition following a single galvanizing event, as in 1967 and 1973.

Chamberlain's tragic fault lay not in the fact that he made peace but in the kind of peace that he made. Just as Britain did, Israel is giving away too much, too quickly, with too little caution, too little thought, and too much fervor. After a century of Holocaust and war, it seems finally to be exhausted. Mesmerized by the beguiling undulations of the cape, which moves with softness, comfort, and color, it does not see the sword, which waits with motionless discipline for the cape to fall.

Copyright (c) 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


Mark Helprin is a novelist, contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal and senior fellow of the Claremont Institute.




(Has he been naughty or nice?)

By Dr. Steven Plaut

While pressuring its ally, Israel, to concede the entire Golan, The US Administration has succumbed to the most critical demands of Assad, the ally of Iran, Sudan, N. Korea, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and China, a leader of international terrorism, a ruthless abuser of human-rights at home, the ferocious occupier of Lebanon, a chief heroine trafficker, a multi-billion counterfeiter of $100 bills, and a systematic violator of agreements:

*Syria would be taken off the List of Terrorist States, ignoring its relations Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, N. Korea, Cuba, and the harboring of some 15 terror organizations.

*Syria would receive a multi-billion dollar foreign aid package, including a program of loan guarantees. The Administration assumes that a reluctant Congress would forfeit the Power of The Purse as has been the case with foreign aid to the non-compliant PLO.

*Syria would become a recipient of a long-term multi-billion dollar military aid package, modernizing its collapsing military, which would threaten Israel and moderate Arabs.

*The Administration aims at avoiding Congressional scrutiny of the Syrian Package. It assumes that a euphoric White House lawn ceremony would guarantee a rubber-stamp Congress, precluding an orderly Hearing Process. Such Hearings may reveal that providing Assad with a generous foreign aid package would produce similar results to the pre-1990 generous cooperation with Saddam. Just like Saddam, Assad would not give up his regional, historical, strategic goals to dominate the Mideast - embedded in the ideology of the Baath Party and the 13 century old ethos of Damascus - in return for US aid and the 450 sqm Golan Heights.

*The US Administration would, formally, legitimize Syrian take-over of its own "Province 19" ("Western Province"), Lebanon. Such a (very real) prospect has already traumatized the Hashemites in Jordan, which is considered to be the "Southern Province" of Assad 's Greater Syria.

*Syria would benefit from multi-billion dollar technological and scientific transfers and exchanges.

*The US Administration would either continue to turn a blind eye to Assad 's-controlled "Medeillin East" Heroine Trail, or would compensate Damascus financially for the loss of the multi-billion dollar income.

*The US Administration would either subtly object to the Damascus-Iran Axis, or would propose to compensate Damascus financially for the loss of Iranian benefits (cash, crude oil and strategic clout).

*The US Administration would persuade international financial organizations, West Europe, Japan and Australia to invest in, and extend foreign aid to, Syria.

*The US Administration would encourage the US business community, through a program of guarantees and other incentives, to invest in Syria.

[Editor's Note: Syria gets all these benefits for the Mitzvah of agreeing to ALLOW Israel to give her the Golan Heights. What a deal!!!!]




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Israel's Prime Minister is a miniature Napoleon. He arrogantly proclaims: "No one can teach me about security!"

So what constitutes a nation's security? First factor, territorial depth. Yet our miniature Napoleon is willing to yield the Golan Heights and most of Judea and Samaria. Second factor, military power, which means maintaining military superiority over potential enemies. Yet our little Napoleon is prepared to enter into an agreement that would result in the American modernization of Syria's military establishment!

Third factor, knowledge of the enemy. Yet our minute Napoleon refers to Syrian despot Hafez Assad as a "great man" -- meaning a man he looks up to, a man he can trust, a man who sincerely desires peace! If our simpleton believe this he can believe anything! But even if he doesn't, his praising the Butcher of Damascus can only disarm the people of Israel.

This third factor needs to be elaborated. Knowledge of the enemy is obviously essential to the highest ranking military commander. He must understand not only the enemy's military power, but also its political system, the character of its people, their relationship to their ruling elites, hence, what holds the enemy's regime together and what can tear them apart. And he must also understand the character of the enemy's allies and the extent to which those allies can provide military, economic, and even diplomatic support. That Israel's miniature Napoleon possesses such knowledge is more than dubious.

A fourth factor of national security is knowledge of what constitutes the power of one's own country. As any military scientist knows, the most important ingredient of national power is not military hardware, is not territory, is not economic resources, is not size of population, but MORALE! It was because of its lack of morale that the United States, the greatest military power on earth, lost the war in Vietnam to a backward nation. On this most important ingredient of national power Israel's former chief of staff is a self-inflated ignoramus.

In the case of Israel, morale requires not only national unity, but national pride and a strong sense of national purpose - which can only be derived from the nation's heritage. On this subject Israel's Napoleon is an utter flake.

This fourth factor also needs to be elaborated if we are to fully understand what constitutes a nation's security, of which Barak boastfully claims to be an expert. The power of a nation also depends on the character of its allies. It goes without saying that Israel's most important ally is the United States. Our highest ranking military commander must not only understand America's political institutions, but the character of its people, especially of its policy-makers and opinion-makers. He must understand America's global interests and alliances, and therefore the character of many nations with which the US has diplomatic relations.

The above is only a brief survey of the ingredients of national power, hence of what constitutes a nation's security. Is it not obvious, however, that the highest ranking military commander (as well as a military scientist) must also possess the knowledge of a political scientist of the highest caliber? This one may learn from the great Karl von Clausevitz, the Aristotle on war, but hardly from Israel's pathetic War College, which, thanks to the late Professor Y. Harkabi, fosters moral relativism and the pernicious doctrine that Israel can only react to, rather than initiate, events in world affairs.

Which takes me back to Israel's diminutive Napoleon, who knows next to nothing about security! He himself lacks the personal qualities required of the highest ranking military commander, let alone of a prime minister. One of those qualities is modesty-this to appreciate diverse points of view and to consider advice from wiser or more experienced counselors. Yet this former chief of staff struts around on the world stage like Napoleon Bonaparte.

Modesty, however, has to be balanced by intellectual independence. Yet Clinton's little toy has confessed that had he been born an Arab he would have been a terrorist! A nice display of the moral relativism Barak may have imbibed at Israel's War College.

But enough! When the prophet Isaiah said "And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them," he was forewarning us of little Napoleons like Ehud Barak!



[The cartoon below is the work of Emanuel A. Winston, whose article appears below.]


By Emanuel A. Winston

How ironic that the Jewish Homeland of Israel, which was to be the great refuge for persecuted Jews, has instead become the most dangerous place on earth for Jews. Even stranger, the Jews have chosen to weaken themselves even as they breathe life into their most dedicated enemies and have themselves made their own country, Israel, that most dangerous place for Jews.

Recall that the PLO was on the verge of extinction when the Israeli government injected them with new life by recognizing them through negotiations little of which was honored by the PLO. Recall how Israel, through AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee), lobbied Congress to forgive Egypt's debts and then went on to lobby for large amounts of aid which Egypt has used to arm itself massively by buying American military equipment. Egypt has received $30 Billion from America since 1979, $25 Billion of which went to building a massive military machine. That money came out of the pockets of American taxpayers to buy peace but, instead, (as planned) that money went directly into the coffers of military manufacturers to advance a war schedule.

Now we see Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, working a deal which will allow Syria to be taken off of the U.S. terrorist list that prohibits the sale of American armaments to that nation. Once off the list, Syria can then receive U.S. credits and outright grants to rebuild its military and its economy. Syria remains a vital threat. This existential threat to Israel will grow exponentially with American armaments.

Think of the billions of dollars in profits that will flow into U.S. arms manufacturers once such sales are allowable. Syria has been looked upon as a great new market for U.S. arms, most of which will be paid for with U.S. tax-payers' dollars. This is one of the reasons armament lobbyists, offering campaign financing to Presidents, have been pressing Congress take Syria off the list of terrorist nations. To do that they need Israel to capitulate on Syria's terms.

Egypt's Generals say they must prepare for War with Israel now that are fully re-armed with U.S. equipment - thanks to Israel's assistance. The media reported that Egypt's President Mubarak may be dying, perhaps of cancer. The next Egyptian government will likely be dominated by those from the radical Islamic Brotherhood who will invoke strict Koranic law and void the Camp David Agreement - such as it is. If Israel has to fight Egypt, it will be against the best American equipment which Israel encouraged the U.S. to sell to Egypt.

With Israel's help, the PLO is now growing stronger, demands territory, water and remains belligerent. The leaders of Israel have foolishly made their own nation the most dangerous place in the world for Jews. Even as the threat grows, Israeli leaders are invited to their own funeral by the Clintons and the E.U. believing that they will be allowed to be partners in the coming economic 'peace' boom which they thought they were buying into!

Did I hear the words: "Stupid - Naive - Suicidal?"

How is it that out of the entire Jewish population only the mediocre and ego-driven dimwits seem to rise to power in Israel? Is the status of political power a magnet for only those with empty minds who seek comradery and a paying job with others who are equally inept and unemployable? Israel's parade of incompetent leaders could easily be replaced with wind-up 'Furbies' who chatter nonsense which is a step above what is said in the Knesset house of psycho-babble. Foreign leaders easily manipulate these wind-up Jews as they march mindlessly off the precipice into the scrap heap of history. These pathetic idiots know they desperately need water to drink so, naturally, they give away their water. They know that they need to closely watch their enemies so, of course, they give away their high ground points of observation. Are these not the acts of mindless children or brain-damaged numbskulls who need to be watched and cared for in an institution?

These pitiful lamebrains make Chelm look like a place of higher learning.

Clearly, for the sake of protecting them from doing more harm to themselves and the country than they have already done, they should be gently rounded up and placed in institutions where they can weave baskets, be bathed and put into crib-like beds. These people are worse than mediocre thinkers whose mental capability is far below those who sweep out the stalls of the Jewish Market, Machane Yehuda. Heaven knows the marketeers have smarter brains for negotiating (bargaining).

They have full-grown adult bodies, with childlike minds making policy decisions which endanger the entire nation. Over the last 51 years, the productive, thinking Jews have made Israel bloom and grow, giving greater benefits to humanity through their scientific and cultural creations; whereas most decisions of Israel's political leaders (especially since the 1967 Six Day War) have made Israel the most dangerous place on earth for Jews. When PM Barak looks into the mirror, would he see the face of a wooden dummy staring back? I think so, if the decisions he has made so far are any criteria of 'dummyship'.

What is it about us Jews that we blind ourselves to threats? Why do we so enjoy the delusion that we can befriend our enemies and they will suddenly take us in their arms? Are we still awaiting the hug and bite of Esau? I think so. We are a sick people in desperate need of affection - approval - acceptance from the rest of the world but it doesn't happen. We risk our lives to achieve these elusive things and, like a nightmare, we run and run but never catch up. The sickest among us strive for political leadership and, once they achieve it, their first act is to genuflect before those who hate us the most. We thought our escape to Israel would relieve the pressure but we were wrong. We also thought our move to Israel would shed the ghetto mentality. Again, we were wrong!

Instead, we concentrated the pressures against us into one of the narrowest points on this earth which only made the job simpler for the anti-Semites among the nations. For a brief moment we were admired for fighting and winning wars against impossible odds. But, our leaders wanted ordinary love, not tough love - so they dropped back to the whining Jew of the ghetto, begging - bribing - wheedling and, as before, the hatred of "the other" once again mounted up against us. They want us pushed back into a smaller ghetto again, perhaps to disappear. We are now in that comfortable ghetto type living we knew so well. With careful deliberation, our succession of leaders lubricated our return to the pathetic, hand-wringing Jew by using the grease of the so-called Peace Process.

We are now back to where it is dangerous to be a Jew in a place where our elimination is merely moments away. Israel, by our own design, has become the most dangerous place on earth for Jews.


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



"All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The suddenness with which the Soviet Empire disintegrated came as a complete surprise to sovietologists. With 20-20 hindsight, many attributed the Soviet collapse to its impossible economy: a whopping $400 billion were spent on (unproductive) military hardware in the 1980s. That decade witnessed the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Some say that by trying to compete with the Reagan defense budget - remember Star Wars? - the Kremlin ran the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

Others emphasize the Soviet's long drawn out war in Afghanistan, which undermined the Russian economy as well as Russian morale. Mention should also be made of GLASNOST as having hastened the disintegration of the Communist superpower.

All these explanations are plausible, but allow me to offer an entirely different one-one relevant to the Arab-Jewish conflict. Here I go beyond the conventional wisdom of political science and offer a METAPOLITICAL explanation for the collapse of Soviet Communism.

I contend that the Soviet Empire disintegrated because it was not only inherently evil, but because IT WAS CALLED THE "EVIL EMPIRE" BY PRESIDENT REAGAN! By calling that empire "evil," Mr. Reagan transcended the morally neutral domain of political science. Being silent about evil (see Isaiah 5:20), encourages the designs of the wicked and corrupts the innocent.

Ponder, therefore, these words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He writes in THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO: "In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are IMPLANTING it, and it will rise up a thousand-fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations. It is for this reason that they are growing up 'indifferent.' Young people are acquiring the conviction that foul deeds are never punished on earth, that they always bring prosperity. It is going to be uncomfortable, horrible, to live in such a country."

There is another "Evil Empire" in the world today, but no statesman dares speak of it. Although this empire is fragmented, it is unified by one goal, the destruction of Israel. Preoccupied with material interests, democratic leaders are silent about this evil.

Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda not only floods the Arab-Islamic world, but makes DER STURMER tame by comparison. Despite Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, Cairo's state-controlled media denigrate anything Jewish, including "Old Testament."

The fighting spearhead of Islamic hatred of Jewish "infidels" is none other than Yasir Arafat, who praises suicide bombers as "martyrs" and repeatedly promises to wage JIHAD, a basic Islamic doctrine. Not that Arafat's PLO can conquer the Israel Defense Forces. Nevertheless, supported diplomatically by Egypt, and aided financially by other Arab-Islamic states, Arafat's goal-advanced by the Oslovian peace process-is to truncate Israel so as to facilitate its eventual COUP DE GRACE by Egypt, Syria, and other members of the Arab League.

The danger confronting Israel, however, is not merely loss of land and "strategic depth," but the consequent loss of national morale or spiritedness which, as any military scientist knows, is the most important ingredient of national power. However, the morale or spiritedness of any nation will be undermined when people see that evil not only goes unpunished but is rewarded. Once a nation's loses its sense of justice, and of honor as well, it will yield to any pressure, to any scoundrel, to any humiliation.

The people of Israel have seen countless Arab crimes go unpunished. Hundreds of helpless Jewish men, women, and children have been murdered by the PLO under orders of Yasir Arafat. Yet the people of Israel have seen this arch-murderer rewarded with money, land, and power. They have seen four of their prime ministers hobnobbing with this Jew-hater. Not only have these politicians been silent about Arafat's evil acts, but they have dignified this bloody villain. By so doing that have obliterated the distinction between man and beast.

Nietzsche defined man as a beast with red cheeks. Unlike a beast, man blushes-he has a sense of shame. It seems, however, that many political leaders in the democratic world are shameless, else they would not consort with Yasir Arafat and even reward this killer with a Nobel Peace Prize.

Come with me, then to Rumania. General Ian Pacepa, head of Rumanian Intelligence under the former Ceaucescu regime, had this to say when Arafat visited Bucharest: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth altogether in one man." Yes, Arafat's hosts shook his hands, but Pacepa reports they could hardly wait to repair to the lavatory!

If Israel's political elites remain silent about the evil personified by Arafat -- it is stamped on his face -- nay, if they consort with this obscenity, this hater of Jews and of Western civilization, they will implant evil in the souls of countless men. They have already done so. The price, as Solzhenitsyn would understand, is horrible to contemplate.



Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio Op-Ed, December 3, 1999


By Moti Karpel

Editor's Note: This article, which was written several weeks ago, has taken on added significance in light of the events in Seattle.


With the onset of the era of the final withdrawals, the last phase of Israeli national self-destruction has begun. We are in for further, more drastic withdrawals - that is, if we do not find a way to stop them. Make no mistake about it: should we choose not to engage in an authentic struggle against current Israeli policy, residents of both the Golan Heights and Yesha - the latter will be transferred to "settlement blocs" - better start packing their bags. All of us by now should realize that the dismantling of Yesha outposts several weeks ago was just the beginning. Should we, the Jewish people, choose to remain apathetic, nothing will stand in the way of what appears to be the imminent suicide of the Zionist state.


For someone unsatisfied with the lip-service of symbolic objections, but who, on the other hand, understands that violence would seriously harm the no-less important - and apparently more important - value of 'unity of the Jewish people,' there is only one option: A widespread popular struggle, grounded in the principle of non-violent civil disobedience. Under the circumstances, only such a struggle can bring the desired results.

Non-violent civil disobedience can take on a variety of forms: settlement activity in violation of government policy; the re-establishment of dismantled settlements; tax rebellion; blocking intersections; refusal to adhere to army orders; conscientious objection to military draft, etc. The common denominator of all these is the complete negation of the use of violence, the refusal to follow orders perceived as illegal or immoral, and the willingness to pay the price in the form of arrest and even imprisonment.


We should begin our efforts with the confidence that the principle of non-violent civil disobedience lies at the very foundation of western democratic tradition. Some years ago, our country's political left invested enormous amounts of energy in an effort to articulate this point, publishing volumes such as "On Democracy and Obedience" and "The Limits of Obedience." Among those defending the citizen's right to engage in civil disobedience were former Supreme Court Justice Chaim Cohen, Professor Asa Kasher, who penned what became known as the "IDF Code of Ethics," and others. Even far-left Meretz chief Yossi Sarid made his opinion known, and in a June, 1990 article in Yediot Acharonot - headlined "This is the Red Line" - he wrote: "The day on which the transfer order [of Palestinians from their homes in Judea and Samaria] is given - a patently illegal order - will be the day of refusal to carry out these orders."

But we need look no look further than the Torah giant, Maimonides, for our moral guidance. "It is obvious that if a King issues a ruling to negate a particular mitzvah [commandment]," writes the Rambam in his epic work Mishneh Torah, Kings 3, 9, "that we may not adhere to his command."

Despite its supposed ideological commitment to the right of non-violent civil disobedience, the political left has, for years now, been seeking to delegitimize such behavior - for the simple reason that the left fears the effective use of such an approach by believing Jews identified with the national political camp. For the Israeli left, virtually any statement rooted in classical Jewish sources is termed "incitement", while every op-ed piece in the right-wing press is "a call to murder." Such accusations are inevitably followed by calls upon the Attorney-General to "open a criminal investigation" against the source of the politically-incorrect statement. The media, the State Attorney's office, and the police join forces to squelch any manifestation of freedom of speech.


Even when a successful program of non-violent civil disobedience finally gets off the ground, it is quickly stifled by "the strong arm of the law." A classic example of this is the "Zo Artzeinu" struggle of the mid-

1990's. The campaign, in which the demonstrators did not employ even a shred of violence, was crushed through one method only: police brutality. The police violence benefited from the full, uncritical support of our media. The current Nimrodi saga has provided us with a superb lesson in the workings of the coordinated agendas of our police, and that watchdog of Israeli democracy - the media.

Sadly, the extensive campaign aimed at brainwashing Israelis to believe that non-violent civil disobedience is not legitimate has been quite effective. Even many 'Jews of faith' now view such behavior to be improper from both a Jewish and a democratic perspective. Some of us have even become convinced that it was Zo Artzeinu, and not the police department, that employed the violence. The quest for "political correctness" and a tendency to bleeding-heartedness have no doubt contributed to this phenomenon. In addition, the urge to manifest the proper expression of "allegiance to the State" - an important concept, but not relevant here - has also made its mark.

It is impossible to silence the principled position that sees in the destruction of Jewish communities in Eretz Yisrael and the expulsion of their residents as an illegal and immoral act. No nationally-aware Jew can remain silent in the face of this, or even 'fulfill his obligation' with a mere vocal protest. Alas, what is most tragic - and even foolish - about the cycle of delegitimization of such protests is the results that this approach is bound to produce. A society that does not encourage, or at the very least permit, a supervised, legitimate and expression of political and moral positions, a society that uses various means to silence divergent views on the fate of the country, is one that effectively invites the outbreak of such an unhealthy, violent, chaotic expression of these energies.

Whomsoever is concerned about our Israeli democracy and the unity of the Jewish People - let him not challenge the legitimacy of a campaign of civil non-violence.


Moti Karpel is a founder of LeChatchila for Jewish Leadership, and editor of its bi-weekly publication.



A truly frightening and accurate analysis. Please read in its entirety and distribute to Israeli policy makers. Maybe something can stop the bleeding. Reprinted from Commentary Magazine, December, 1999


By Yuval Steinitz

WHATEVER THEY may have accomplished or failed to accomplish politically, the Oslo accords of 1993 between Israel and Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization have transformed Israel's security situation in ways that have still not been squarely faced. Much of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza that Israel occupied in the 1967 Six-Day war is now governed by the Palestinian Authority (PA). This embryonic state already possesses a large, militia-like police force comprising some 40,000 men; depending upon the outcome of present negotiations, it may come to acquire a combination of paramilitary and military forces as well. Although Israel will undoubtedly retain military superiority over its fledgling Arab neighbor, the threat it poses in combination with the rest of the Arab world is already significant, and is certain to grow with time.

DESPITE its obvious strategic strengths, Israel has chronically suffered from two Achilles' heels that make its defeat militarily thinkable. The first is demographic. Israel's minuscule population, combined with the sensitivity of Israeli society to the loss of life, casts a giant shadow of doubt over the country's ability to withstand an extended conventional war with the surrounding Arab world. If its enemies could force upon it a conflict lasting months or years, they would significantly improve their chances of prevailing. The Israeli response to this long-standing problem has been to accelerate the moment of cease-fire by rapidly transferring the battleground to enemy territory and/or attacking the enemy's infrastructure by means of air power.

Of much greater importance, however, is the second Achilles' heel, which is geographic. The tiny area of the Jewish State, together with its over-reliance on reserve forces (itself partly a product of the country's demographic weakness), casts a giant shadow of doubt of another kind altogether: namely, over its ability to withstand a lightning strike. An enemy's penetration into the heart of Israel could prevent the mobilization and equipment of its military reserves in addition to interrupting many other vital operations. To this second problem the traditional Israeli response has been a very fast system of mobilization-since the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the entire procedure has been designed to take no more than 24 hours-plus the reliance on superior air power to abort an enemy's attack on the first day of battle.

This is where Oslo comes in: the influx of Palestinian forces into Israel's center has greatly exacerbated the problem presented by the country's second Achilles' heel, to the extent that a total collapse of the overall strategic balances now possible. How so? The approximately 40,000 policemen now at the disposal of Arafat are already organized into a semi-military structure. They are known to have some 30,000 automatic weapons in their arsenal, along with a significant number of machine guns, light antitank missiles, grenades and rocket-propelled grenades, land mines and explosives. They may also have, or be able surreptitiously to obtain from Arab countries, more advanced weapons, including handheld Strela and Stinger surface-to-air missiles. Obviously, these forces are not going to defeat the armed might of Israel in battle. But if; even as currently constituted, they were to be deployed in a coordinated fashion in the opening phases of a broader Arab assault, they could wreak havoc of a decisive kind.

A good portion of the Palestinian police is installed in the towns of Qalkilya, Tulkarem, Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Jenin on the West Bank-in other words, in areas adjacent to Israel's most vulnerable sectors, military and civilian alike. These nerve centers of Israel's life could be successfully infiltrated by a mere 10 percent of the Palestinian police force, thus transforming them into a crucial front in a comprehensive regional conflagration.

Crossing Israel's 1967 borders in small fighting units of ten to twenty men, these 4,000 men could make their way in civilian vehicles along a labyrinthine network of roads and paths with which they are intimately familiar. They would need no more than an hour to reach extremely sensitive points in the heart of Israel. Once there, they could wholly subvert the 24-hour mobilization strategy Israel relies on to fend off the far larger armies of its Arab adversaries.

If Israel were still at the initial stages of an alert, the enormous numbers of its as-yet-unarmed reservists streaming to arms depots and mobilization points would form attractive prey. Gaining control of key intersections or other advantageous locations, the Palestinian guerrilla units would be in a position to create chaos on the roads that serve as the primary arteries of mobilization and, in all probability, to kill large numbers of would-be fighters. They could also attack some of the mobilization centers themselves, most of which are not only within easy striking distance of the West Bank but are also lightly guarded. The damage that can be inflicted by small units operating against the vulnerabilities of a larger and more powerful adversary is not a matter of speculation. Among the wealth of cases that one could cite, some are from Israel's own military past.

During the 1982 war in Lebanon, for example, a few dozen young, untrained Palestinian fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades operating from hills and orchards proved far more effective in delaying Israeli traffic on a vital military highway than batteries of cannons and Katyusha rockets launched from a distance. If mini-units of this kind can succeed against heavily armored columns, how much more damage could they inflict on buses and cars filled with unarmed reservists making their way to equipment depots?

Nor do key thoroughfares, intersections, and mobilization centers exhaust the list of possible targets. In all its wars, Israel has depended heavily on the ability of its air force to gain mastery of the skies at the outset. But most Israeli air bases are quite exposed to guerrilla attack, being located within 20 to 40 kilometers of Palestinian territory. British commando operations in World War II are testimony to how easily an enemy can penetrate such installations. Leading small teams of men, Colonel David Starling of the Special Air Service successfully destroyed 250 German warplanes parked on the runways of military airfields located many kilometers behind Rommel's front lines on the North African front.

Palestinian soldiers need not actually penetrate air bases, as Starling did, to achieve their goal. Lying hidden in the foliage of orchards or farmlands outside an airfield's perimeter fence, they could employ light mortars or handheld anti-tank or surface-to-air missiles to strike Israeli planes. In previous conflicts, the Arabs have never been able to counter Israel's superiority in the air; a surprise ground attack on its planes would thus undoubtedly present an appealing option to Arab war planners.

Finally, targeting the military is not the only means by which a broad series of Palestinian commando attacks could contribute to an effective Arab assault. Terrorist raids on residential neighborhoods or the seizure of national television and radio stations might serve to promote widespread demoralization and civilian flight. Another set of potential objectives consists of technical installations: the electric power plant in Hadera, the oil refineries of Haifa, the chemical tanks of Gelilot, or the switchboards, transformers, and distribution boxes of the Bezek national telephone company. Power outages, huge blazes near Israel's large cities, and temporary interruptions of communication lines would all serve to paralyze if not cripple Israel in the early phases of a war.

ARE THERE no effective counters to the peril posed by the armed Palestinian police? Of course there are, at least in theory. For example, Israel could fortify its border with the Palestinian Authority in particularly vulnerable sectors. It could also draw upon reserve soldiers on kibbutzim to establish lightly armed, mobile patrol teams designed for immediate intervention in any threatened locality. Alternatively, several thousand infantry soldiers could be transferred from fighting units and assigned to a light militia scattered at different points in the Israeli rear.

Whether such measures would work if put to the test is another question. But that aside, there is, in fact, little evidence that Israel's military or political planners are giving serious attention to this or any other aspect of the ongoing transformation of the county's security position.

A number of factors are at work here. For one thing, Israeli military officials, focusing on the extreme relative weakness of the Palestinian forces and the fact that an operation involving dozens of separate guerrilla units against Israel has never been attempted, simply discount the possibility of a synchronized assault. For another, they appear to believe that Israeli intelligence would definitely enjoy between 12 and 24 hours' warning in advance of any large-scale attack, an interval sufficient to seal the borders. And even if a limited incursion were to occur, they argue, attack helicopters could provide sufficient defense for border areas.

These are all questionable assumptions. History seldom serves as a certain guide to future behavior, and to rely inflexibly on precedents is to set oneself up for a shock. It is especially foolish to depend on fixed notions of warning time: Israel's worst military fiasco occurred when it was caught unprepared by the Egyptian attack in October 1973.

Besides, it is not inconceivable that a future Palestinian government, in coordination with the major Arab states, would opt to invade with almost no advance field preparations, in a kind of "get-in, go-shoot" operation wherein commando teams would be dispatched into battle with only an hour or two of notice. This would not only achieve the element of surprise but likely increase the number of Palestinian saboteurs who could be infiltrated. Finally, since these infiltrators would need to traverse but a very short distance before being in a position to wreak major harm, and since any battles that ensued would be taking place in heavily populated areas, attack helicopters would be next to useless, if not calamitous, as a means of response.

Perhaps the most dubious supposition of all, however, is one now being bruited about in Israeli political circles. This is that the Palestinian leadership would itself be reluctant to see a decisive Arab victory over Israel, out of fear that the new Palestinian political entity would then inevitably slip under the control of either Egypt or Syria, two military giants with claims on Palestinian/Israeli territory. Since, in other words, the Palestinians have a vested interest in Israel's survival, they would not participate in any such operation. But this line of thinking is speculative in the extreme, and the very fact that it is seriously on offer suggests how eager many Israelis have become to avoid facing the still very menacing realities of the Middle East. One does not have to go far back into the past for an example of a much greater degree of realism. Here are the words of Shimon Peers in 1978:

"The influx of a Palestinian fighting force (more than 25,000 armed fighters) into Judea and Samaria [would signify] . . . an excellent starting point for mobile forces to advance immediately toward the infrastructure vital to Israel's existence."

Even after he negotiated the Oslo accords, Peres did not alter his gloomy estimation. As he argued in The New Middle East (1993), the situation created by an armed Palestinian State would be strategically fraught with catastrophe: the [country's] narrow "waist" will be susceptible to collapse by a well-organized surprise attack.

Even if the Palestinians agree to demobilize their state from both army and weapons, who can guarantee Israel that after a certain amount of time an army will not be formed, despite the agreement, which will camp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches of the coastal plain, and pose a substantive threat to Israel's security? This, indeed, was the ground of Peres's opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Yet what was self-evident a mere six years ago to Israel's most determined advocate of negotiations with the Palestinians is now being dismissed in the rush to conclude the "peace process."

Almost 2,500 years ago, according to Thucydides, the Greek statesman Themistocles succeeded in persuading his fellow Athenians to transform their city-state into a naval power. Yet despite the vast strategic superiority it thus acquired, Athens still remained vulnerable to a simple, surprise ground attack from Sparta. In order to protect and ensure access to its new strategic assets-that is, its advanced navy and port facilities-Themistocles advocated linking the city of Athens to its port at Piraeus by means of two parallel walls.

Like ancient Athens, Israel enjoys strategic superiority over its neighbors, primarily in the realm of aeronautics and technology. Over the decades, whenever armed hostilities have broken out, this advantage has permitted Israel to strike at its enemies' rear in a manner that has eventually led to victory at the front. After 1967, Israel also enjoyed its own "walls of Themistocles," in the form of the geographic expanses of Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. These double walls are what enabled Israel to survive the successful surprise Egyptian-Syrian attack that opened the 1973 Yom Kippur war but that was neither penetrating enough nor quick enough to take control of Israel's "Piraeus"- its airports, its reserve bases, and the like.

The deployment of light Palestinian forces throughout the West Bank has already collapsed Israel's eastern "wall" of mountains and the Jordan River, neutralizing their vital function of protecting against a sudden lightning strike aimed at the country's soft eastern flank. Indeed, if we were to consult Themistocles, he would assuredly advise us that the current Israeli defense posture is absurd. On the one hand, the state invests billions of dollars in building a modem army; purchasing state-of-the-art warplanes and constructing modern airfields; equipping and training reserve battalions; and deploying Arrow missiles. All this is right and proper and necessary. But on the other hand, it has permitted a situation to develop in which these selfsame modern, expensive systems are liable to be rendered irrelevant. On the basis of such wishful thinking, battles, and wars, are lost.


YUVAL STEINITZ, a new contributor is a senior lecturer at Haifa University and the author of four books in the fields of philosophy and the philosophy of science, as well as numerous articles in Hebrew-language publications on military strategic issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Formerly an activist in the Peace Now movement, Mr. Steznitz now serves as a member of Israel's parliament (Knesset) for the Likud party.





By Louis Rene Beres

[December 20,1999] Those who place hope in outside protection for Israel, primarily from the U.S., assume - more or less - a continuation of traditional international relations. Yet, it is altogether likely that we live in an era of total fragmentation and disunity, a worldwide anarchy that will give new meaning to "Westphalian" international relations and reinforce, rather than reduce, the self-help imperative. Hence, if this presumption of further global disintegration is to be taken seriously by Israeli planners, they will have to accept, however reluctantly, the obligation to face overriding dangers alone. One is reminded here of THE SECOND COMING, the poem by the great Irish poet William Butler Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.


All world politics, and all global strategy, move in the midst of death. To truly understand calculations of war, deterrence and defense, Israeli planners need to understand (1) enemy orientations to death, both individual and collective; and (2) Israeli orientations to death, both individual and collective.


Heinrich von Treitschke, in his published lectures on POLITICS, cites approvingly to Fichte: "Individual man sees in his country the realization of his earthly immortality." Such "seeing" among Israel's current enemies is a source of particular, even existential, danger. The danger is exacerbated by lack of symmetry with "individual man" in Israel, who most assuredly sees such "realization" much less in his own country.


There is great danger for Israel in presuming too much Reason in enemy decision-making and world affairs. Today the use of violence within and between states is often self-propelled and self-rewarding, effectively supplanting Clausewsitz with De Sade. The argument has been made most convincingly by Milan Kundera, in his book THE ART OF THE NOVEL. Describing a sheer force of violence that wills to assert itself as force, he talks about this force as "naked, as naked as in Kafka's novels....The aggressivity of force is thoroughly disinterested; unmotivated; it wills only its own will; it is pure irrationality." If Kundera is correct, what is Israel to do about its enemies? What shall it assume about enemy decision- making processes? Should not Israeli planners throw out the handbooks of political scientists and strategic theorists in favor of Kafka and Kundera? And what, exactly, can they learn from the "fiction" writers?


The great Romanian (French) playwright, Eugene Ionesco, died in April 1994. In his only novel, THE HERMIT, Ionesco claims: "People kill and are killed in order to prove to themselves that life exists." Although a broad philosophical reflection, rather than an immediately useful strategic maxim, it says much about intentions of Israel's enemies and, by extension, about Israel's prospective responses.


To understand and predict global responses to Israeli actions in world affairs, Israeli planners must never forget that their country is always the Jew in macrocosm. For the world, macrocosm and microcosm are indistinguishable and indissoluble. Hence, for Israeli planners to expect global responses to Israeli actions to be detached from millennia of prejudicial hatreds is foolish in the extreme. Israel is not just another state, one among many others. It is unique, sui generis, not in the sense that it is believed to warrant greater justice (a post-Holocaust conclusion one might expect in a world dominated by Reason) but in the sense that it allegedly deserves less, always less, than every other state. Israel and justice cannot be uttered in the same breath for the same reason that Jews and justice cannot be uttered in the same breath. Israel, the Jew in macrocosm, will always be despised, will always be kept distanced from justice. Israeli decision-makers must always plan accordingly.


With further regard to Israel and considerations of justice (again, a paradoxical conjunction of terms), it must be recalled that histories of victimization have never conferred survival upon a people or a state, least of all upon the Jewish People. Such recollection stands in marked contrast to the oft-stated wish that terrible suffering, as in the matter of the Holocaust, cannot possibly be in vain. Eugene Ionesco, for example, offers the following passage from Andre Gide's JOURNAL, dated January 29, 1932: "The idea that so much suffering can be in vain is intolerable to me, it kept me awake all night...." As a "good Westerner," continues Ionesco, "Andre Gide couldn't help but think that suffering was the price of happiness, that suffering has to be rewarded." Yet, Israeli planners must not forget that the world hardly ever pities those who suffer; all the more those who suffer greatly. Often, suffering creates scorn. So it is today with Jewish suffering, the Holocaust and the State of Israel.


Israeli planners are not philosophers. But they should recall Horace's recipe: "Si vis me flere dolendum est primum ipsi tibi" - if you want me to weep, you must first grieve yourself. Before Israel can expect concern from the world, for its past and for its future, its own population must "first grieve" itself; must care, deeply and profoundly and publicly, for its own history and its own essential continuity; for surviving at all costs.

Paradoxically, current government policies of sequential concessions and territorial "compromise" display the very opposite of such needed "grief," suggesting an unwarranted degree of "understanding" and inflated national self-confidence. Further, post-Zionist private sentiments, now widespread throughout Israel, that collective meaning for the post-Holocaust Jewish State is more discoverable in Los Angeles than in enduring Jewish values, also reject essential forms of "grief."


Regarding judgments of rationality and deterrence, Israeli planners must never fail to put themselves into the shoes of enemy decision-makers. What will impact these decision-makers, and therefore Israel's safety, will not be Israeli perceptions or even some "objectively correct" set of facts, but only what they perceive as real. Hence, what may well appear prudent and rational in Tel-Aviv could be taken as cowardly and irrational in Teheran or Damascus. I have in mind, for example, differential views on Israel's decision not to retaliate for 39 Iraqi Scud missile attacks during the 1991 Gulf War. What will be the long-term effects of this decision on Israel's overall deterrence posture? This is an important question, one that needs to be asked again and again and again.


Israeli planners focus, of course, on enemy capabilities and intentions. But do they focus on each variable as separate and discrete, or rather as interdependent and synergistic? As one can affect the other, only the latter orientation is correct and productive.


Israel is unable to ensure its security, even its survival, through reliance on ballistic missile defense and U.S. guarantees. Rather, barring radical transformation of enemy regimes, Jerusalem will have no existential choice but to preemptively destroy unconventional weapons and supporting infrastructures in a timely manner. Although the currently fashionable idea of a "multilayered defense" has its attractions (above all, it puts off the preemption imperative by highlighting far more palatable tactical options), in the end it will mean little. It follows that Israeli planners should look closely and immediately at the following threat dimensions: (1) expected probability of enemy first-strikes over time; (2) expected disutility of enemy first-strikes over time (itself dependent, inter alia, on nature of enemy weaponry, projected enemy targeting doctrines, and multiplication/dispersion/hardening of Israeli unconventional forces); (3) expected collaborative prospects between enemy states (and possibly between enemy state and non-state actors); (4) expected schedules of enemy unconventional weapons deployments; (5) expected efficiency of enemy active defenses over time; (6) expected efficiency of Israeli active defenses over time; (7) expected efficiency of Israeli hard-target counterforce operations over time; and (8) expected world community reactions to Israeli preemptions. It goes without saying that Israel's commitment to the "Peace Process" has greatly impaired its essential preemption option, and that such commitment is even more injurious to Israeli survival than is commonly understood.


The dangers to Israel of a Palestinian state must be understood within the general context of concern for Israeli nuclear strategy and regional nuclear war. Should the "Peace Process" produce a state of Palestine, which is now certain, Israel's substantial loss of strategic depth will be recognized by enemy states, especially by Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, as a significant liability for Jerusalem. Such recognition, in turn, will heat up enemy state intentions against Israel, occasioning an accelerated search for capabilities and, consequently, a heightened risk of war initiated from Teheran or Baghdad or Cairo or Damascus. Israeli planners, of course, might foresee such enemy calculations and seek to compensate for the loss of territories in a number of different ways. For example, Jerusalem could decide to take its bomb out of the "basement" (as a deterrence-enhancing measure) and/or it could accept a heightened willingness to launch preemptive strikes against enemy hard targets. Made aware of such Israeli intentions, intentions that would accrue from Israel's new vulnerabilities, enemy states could respond in a more or less parallel fashion, preparing more openly for nuclearization and/or for first-strike attacks against the Jewish State.


The phrase, "Death to Israel," like the phrase "Death to the Jews," is a phrase that is always uttered in chorus. A hater of Israel, like a hater of individual Jews, is always attached to a crowd or to a mob. In such hatreds, one cannot be alone. It is this communal tradition of hatred, more than anything else, that draws adherents - both among the nations and among peoples within nations. There is little point in seeking to transform this tradition, which is deeply embedded in a generically human desperation to belong. Instead, those who are responsible for Israeli safety and security from enemy attacks should now focus exclusively on what can be changed.


Israeli planners must protect Israel's nuclear forces by some combination of multiplication/dispersion/hardening. Enemy planners, observing such measures, might perceive preparations for an Israeli first-strike. Such erroneous perceptions are all the more likely should Israel simultaneously seek further force protection via appropriate forms of active and passive defenses. Ironically, in seeking to stabilize deterrence by signaling enemy states that its own nuclear forces are secure from enemy first strikes - i.e., that these are exclusively second-strike forces with "assured destruction" capability - Jerusalem could create the impression that it is preparing to strike first. Here, Israel's attempts to convince enemy states that it is not preparing for preemption could backfire, generating new incentives to these enemy states to "preempt" themselves. The alternative, for Israel, would be to deliberately disguise efforts at nuclear force protection from enemy states, but such subterfuge would also carry considerable risk. After all, should Israel's enemies calculate that Jerusalem's nuclear forces are insufficiently protected from first- strike attacks, they would want to exploit current but potentially transient Israeli weakness. Moreover, because insufficient force protection by Jerusalem could encourage Israeli first-strikes, Israel's enemies would have compelling reasons to launch prompt "preemptive" attacks.


Regarding the legal right to preemption, Israel's planners may wish to recall the authoritative jurisprudential argument of Hugo Grotius in his COMMENTARY ON THE LAW OF PRIZE AND BOOTY: "Now, as Cicero explains, this (justification for anticipatory self-defense) exists whenever he who chooses to wait (for formal declarations of war) will be obliged to pay an unjust penalty before he can exact a just penalty; and, in a general sense, it exists whenever matters do not admit of delay. Thus it is obvious that a just war can be waged in return, without recourse to judicial procedure, against an opponent who has begun an unjust war; nor will any declaration of that just war be required....For, as Aelian says, citing Plato as his authority, any war undertaken for the necessary repulsion of injury, is proclaimed not by a crier nor by a herald but by the voice of Nature herself."


Israel's military planners must consider important complex relationships between C3I vulnerability and predelegations of launch authority. To reduce the risks of "decapitation," an objective as essential to Israeli nuclear deterrence as protection of the weapons themselves, Jerusalem might consider increasing the number of authoritative decision-makers who would have the right to launch under certain carefully-defined residual contingencies. But because the deterrence value of such an increase would require that prospective enemies learn (however indirectly and incompletely) that Israel had taken these decapitation-avoidance predelegations (after all, without such learning, enemies would be more apt to calculate that first-strike attacks are cost-effective), those enemies might feel increasingly compelled to "preempt." These premption incentives would derive from new enemy state fears of a fully intentional Israeli first-strike and/or new fears of accidental, unauthorized or unintentional nuclear strikes from Israel. Aware of these probable enemy reactions to its predelegations of launch authority, predelegations which might or might not be complemented by launch-on-warning measures, Israel, reciprocally, could feel compelled to actually strike first, a preemption of preemptive attack that may or may not prove to be net gainful and that may or may not have been avoided by antecedent resistance to predelegations of launch authority. Significantly, this entire scenario could be "played" in the other direction. Here, Iran or an Arab state enemy seeking to reduce its decapitation risks would implement predelegations of launch authority, thereby encouraging Israeli preemptions and, as a consequence, Iranian and/or Arab state "preemptions of Israeli preemption." If all of this sounds dreadfully complicated, it is because this is a dreadfully complicated business. Those who do not feel comfortable with dreadful complications should not be in the strategic planning business. Israel does not need IDF simplifiers. It does not need more "experts." It needs broadly educated planners who are willing to fashion an indispensable strategic dialectic, a nuanced genre that goes well beyond the purely journalistic/reportorial "expertise" of current academic strategists.


The destructiveness of nuclear weapons continues to pose conceptual problems for Israeli planners (military and civilian) and academic strategists. Fearful of association with such terrible weapons, these planners and strategists too often dance around the most urgent questions. As a result, nuclear war involving Israel may become more likely and security benefits that might have been identified in advance may be lost forever.


Israel's planners should be reminded of M. Unamuno's instructive remark about Hegel: "Hegel made famous his aphorism that all the rational is real and all the real rational; but there are many of us who, unconvinced by Hegel, continue to believe that the real, the really real, is irrational, that reason builds upon irrationalities." For Israel, faced with the prospect of unconventional aggression from enemy states, it would be prudent to "build upon irrationalities," i.e., upon the expected irrationalities of an increasingly formidable enemy.


In considering the operation of nuclear deterrence and associated matters of nuclear strategy, including preremption, Israeli planners may recall that such operation impacts and determines the adequacy of pertinent international law. For example, the adequacy of international law in preventing nuclear war in the Middle East will depend not only upon certain treaties (e.g., the Nonproliferation Treaty), customs and general principles of jurisprudence, but also upon the success or failure of particular country strategies in the region. Hence, if Israel's strategy should reduce the threat of nuclear war, either because of successful forms of deterrence or because of essential nonnuclear preemptive strikes, such strategy would have to be considered an essential component of international law.


Even if it could be assumed, by Israeli planners, that enemy state leaders will always be rational, a problematic assumption, to be sure, this would say nothing about the accuracy of information used in making rational calculations. Rationality, we must recall, refers only to the intention of maximizing specified values or preferences. It says nothing at all about whether the information used is correct or incorrect. Hence, rational enemy state leaders may make errors in calculation that lead to war against Israel.


Where Israel should face enemy states bent upon a war of extermination (and where have they faced a different enemy), the following jurisprudential understanding should not be lost: War and genocide need not be mutually exclusive. War might well be the means whereby genocide is undertaken. This should be as obvious today as it was during and after the Holocaust. According to Articles II and III of the Genocide Convention, which entered into force on January 12, 1951, genocide includes any of several listed acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such...." It follows that where Israel is identified as the institutionalized expression of the Jewish People (an expression that includes national, ethnical, racial and religious components) acts of war intended to destroy the Jewish State could assuredly be genocidal. Here it should be remembered that international law is not a suicide pact; nowhere is it written that Israel must wait patiently for a second genocidal assault.


Like it or not, Israeli planners must consider the prospect of Israeli nuclear preemption against enemy hard targets. Ironically, this prospect could be heightened to the extent that Israel puts off non-nuclear preemptions against developing enemy nuclear assets. If it waits too long to exercise conventional preemption options, Israel could face a choice between (1) undertaking nuclear preemption and ensuring survival of the Third Temple Commonwealth; or (2) resisting nuclear preemption and risking destruction of the Third Temple Commonwealth. Israeli planners could accept the rationality of Option 1 where: (a) Israel's state enemy had acquired and deployed nuclear and/or other unconventional weapons judged capable of destroying the Third Temple Commonwealth; (b) Israel's state enemies had made clear that their intentions paralleled their capabilities; (c) Israel's state enemies were believed ready by Israeli decsion-makers to begin a "countdown to launch;" and (d) Jerusalem believed that Israeli non-nuclear preemptions could not achieve the needed minimum level of damage-limitation, i.e., levels consistent with preservation of the State.


I am aware that the juxtaposition of Israel and Jewish extermination inherent in references to "destruction of the Third Temple Commonwealth" is so dreadful that it borders on sacrilege. Yet, it is a juxtaposition that should not be ignored or disregarded. Should Israeli planners fail to take it seriously, the concentration of millions of post-Holocaust Jews in an area smaller than a large county in California could prove a blessing to those among Israel's enemies who would refashion genocide as war. But if we do take seriously the connections between Zionist objectives and Jewish vulnerability in the Third Commonwealth, we will have taken the first critical steps toward ensuring Israeli security, toward making certain that Jewish liberation does not become Jewish misfortune.


Applied to Israel and the Middle East, the fashionable concepts of "security regime" and "confidence building measures" are sheer nonsense, the deleterious fabrications of academics dedicated to looking away from an uncomfortable reality. Exploiting Israeli frustration and fatigue, such concepts appear enormously tempting. They are, however, unforgivably dangerous, generating faith in a "Peace Process" that points only to Israel's dismemberment and disappearance.


There is a marked tendency in Israel to imitate American strategic thinking. This is a serious mistake, as virtually all American academic strategists are paid not to think and, above all, not to depart from prudent (and therefore intellectually sterile) forms of prescription. To use the language of Jose Ortega y Gasset, whose REVOLT OF THE MASSES (1932) is one of the most important books of our century, today's Ph.D. "expert" in Washington or Tel-Aviv is essentially a "learned ignoramus, which is a very serious matter, as it implies that he is a person who is ignorant, not in the fashion of the ignorant man, but with all the petulance of one who is learned in his own special line."


For Israel, the future cannot be separated from the past. They are indissolubly interconnected. To prepare for the future, Israel's leaders must look closely at the past, not only from 1948 onward, but for 5000 years. The point is more than the cliched imperative to learn the "lessons of history." It is to understand that Jewish history is altogether sui generis, that Israel's history is an integral part of this Jewish history, and that an erroneous "cosmopolitanism" (i.e., "Jews are just another people in the worldwide community of humankind") could be a particularly serious mistake.


Regarding the methods of Israeli strategic analysis, it is essential that they be based upon an appropriate dialectic. Hence, analysts must approach their problem as an interrelated series of thoughts, where each thought or idea about, for example, enemy capabilities/intentions presents a complication that moves inquiry onward to the next thought or idea. Contained in this strategic dialectic is an obligation to continue thinking, an obligation that can never be fulfilled entirely (because of what the philosophers call the "infinite regress problem"), but that must still be attempted as fully and as competently as possible. Without such a dialectic, those who work on Israeli security matters will continue to focus only upon discrete moments in time, on static phenomena (e.g., numbers of weapons; types of weapons; leadership personalities, etc), rather than upon appropriately dynamic and generic interactions (synergies).


The term "dialectic" originates from the Greek expression for the art of conversation. Today, a common meaning is that dialectic is a method of seeking truth via correct reasoning. From the standpoint of our concerns, the following operations may be identified as essential but non-exclusive components of a strategic dialectic: (1) A method of refutation by examining logical consequences; (2) A method of division or repeated logical analysis of genera into species; (3) Logical reasoning using premises that are probable or generally accepted; (4) Formal logic; and (5) The logical development of thought through thesis and antithesis to a synthesis of these opposites.


Dialectic likely originated in the 5th century B.C.E., as Zeno, author of the famous PARADOXES, was recognized by Aristotle as its inventor. In the middle dialogues of Plato, dialectic emerges as the supreme form of philosophical/analytic method. In one of these dialogues, Plato describes the dialectician as someone who knows how to ask and to answer questions. This is what should now be transposed to the study of Israeli security matters. We need, in these all-important matters, to know how to ask and to answer questions. This knowledge must precede compilations of facts, figures, and power "balances."


The dialectician needs to recognize the advantages of private as opposed to collective thought. Here we are reminded of Aristotle's view: "Deception occurs to a greater extent when we are investigating with others than by ourselves, for an investigation with someone else is carried on quite as much by means of the thing itself." Understood in terms of Israeli strategic analysis, this suggests some serious limitations to "teamwork," "group projects," "centers for strategic studies," "expert collaboration," etc. It is not that these forms of investigation are inappropriate per se, but that they must be tempered by sober private thinking.


The advantages of a new Israeli strategic dialectic will depend, in part, upon the coherence of the overall academic enterprise. Israel does not face a random set of discrete and wholly separate military threats. Rather, there is a general threat environment within which discrete threat components fit. The task for Israeli academic strategists is not to figure out in advance each and every specific threat component (this is a task of certain government intelligence analysts), but to identify a strategy which will accomodate the understanding of a broad variety of possible threats. This means, inter alia, an obligation to fashion a strategic "master plan," a body of generalized and interrelated propositions from which specific policy options can be derived. Such a plan would not contain all or even most of the "answers," but it would offer a comprehensive and informed framework within which all of the important questions might be addressed. Significantly, such a plan would never be "completed." It would serve those who oversee Israel's security needs continually, incrementally and directly, as an ongoing and expanding set of purposeful guidelines.


"In the areas with which we are concerned," wrote Walter Benjamin, "insight only occurs as a lightning bolt. The text is the thunder-peal rolling long behind." For us, such an "area" is Israeli strategic studies. It is an area that will be ill-served by standard thinking and texts. It is an area that can only be served productively by flashes of understanding that defy (and quite probably contradict) mainstream assessments and analyses.


The current and ongoing disintegration of the world is creation in reverse. For Israel, the Jewish State, there are therefore special lessons to be learned from this disintegration. The geometry of chaos, in a strange and paradoxical symmetry, reveals both sense and form. How shall they be discovered? This is an important question, one that goes far beyond the usual sorts of ON WAR and TRANSFORMATION OF WAR queries. It must not be ignored.


Israel, it seems, can contemplate the end of the Third Temple Commonwealth every day, and yet persevere quite calmly in its most routine and mundane affairs. This should not be the case if Israel could begin to contemplate the moment of its collective disappearance. It follows that Israel must begin immediately to replace reassuringly abstract conceptualizations of End Times with unbearably concrete imaginings of catastrophe. Only then could the leaders of Israel take the steps needed to survive into the Third Millennium.


There exists, among Israel's enemies, a voluptuousness all their own; the voluptuousness of conflict against the Jewish State as such. It is in Israel's strategic interest not to lose sight of this voluptuousness. Israel's enemies, in good part, do not read Clausewitz. They are, in good measure, animated by more primal needs and expectations.


E.M. Cioran, the most dazzling and devastating French philosophical voice since Paul Valery (and an original thinker in the tradition of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein) writes of the Jews as a "People of Solitaries," a People, for all of its recognized lucidity, that "readily sacrifices to illusion: it hopes, it always hopes too much....With so many enemies, any other people, in its place, would have laid down its arms; but this nation, unsuited to the complacencies of despair, bypassing its age-old fatigue and the conclusions imposed by its fate, lives in the delirium of expectation, determined not to learn a lesson from its humiliations...." How true, how especially true is this observation of a "nation" for the State of the Jews, the State of Israel.


When Pericles delivered his Funeral Oration and other speeches, with their praise of Athenian civilization, his perspective was largely military. Recorded by Thucydides, an historian whose main interest was to study the growth and use of power for military objectives, the speeches of Pericles express confidence in ultimate victory for Athens, but they also express grave concern for self-imposed setbacks along the way: "What I fear more than the strategies of our enemies is our own mistakes." Although Pericles exaggerated the separateness of enemy strategies and Athenian mistakes (they were, of course, interrelated and even synergistic), there is an important lesson here for Israel. In observing enemy preparations for war, do not forget that the effectiveness of these preparations will always depend upon Israel's particular responses.


Under contemporary international law, the right of self-defense is not confined to post-attack circumstances. Rather, it extends, under carefully defined conditions, to preemptive or "anticipatory" strikes. In this connection, Israel's leaders and planners should recall Pufendorf's authoritative argument in his ON THE DUTY OF MAN AND CITIZEN ACCORDING TO NATURAL LAW: "...where it is quite clear that the other is already planning an attack upon me, even though he has not yet fully revealed his intentions, it will be permitted at once to begin forcible self-defense, and to anticipate him who is preparing mischief, provided there be no hope that, when admonished in a friendly spirit, he may put off his hostile temper, or if such admonition be likely to injure our cause. Hence, he is to be regarded as the aggressor, who first conceived the wish to injure, and prepared himself to carry it out. But the excuse of self-defense will be his, who by quickness shall overpower his slower assailant. And for defense, it is not required that one receive the first blow, or merely avoid and parry those aimed at him." --------------

A passage in the ODYSSEY speaks of two gates, one of horn and one of ivory. Through the ivory gate false dreams pass to humankind, and through the gate of horn go only the true and prophetic dreams. At this moment in its always precarious history, Israel is sorely tempted by the ivory gate, choosing to base preservation of the Third Temple Commonwealth upon fanciful visions of a "Peace Process," "confidence building measures" and "security communities." Israel would be far better off, however, to pass instead through the gate of horn, preparing to use military force selectively and preemptively in order to endure. This decision will likely occasion greater pain and uncertainty in the short run, but it would base preservation of the Third Temple Commonwealth upon altogether sober assessments of REALPOLITIK and would affirm, rather than reject, the essential obligations of international law.


According to al-Da'wa (THE MISSION), an Islamic publication, the status of Israel is identical to the status of the individual Jew. What is this status? "The race (sic) is corrupt at the root, full of duplicity, and the Muslims have everything to lose in seeking to deal with them; they must be exterminated." Historically, the Islamic world's orientation to extermination of the Jews has not been limited to phrasemaking. Even before Israel came into existence in May 1948, on November 28, 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin, met in Berlin with Adolph Hitler. The declared subject of their meeting was nothing less than "the final solution of the Jewish Question." This meeting, which followed Haj Amin's active organization of Muslim SS troops in Bosnia, included the Mufti's promise to aid German victory in the war. Later, after Israel's trial and punishment of Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Iranian and Arab newspapers described the mass murderer of Jews as a "martyr," congratulating him posthumously for having "conferred a real blessing on humanity" by liquidating six million "subhumans."


Regarding American orientations to genocide in the Middle East, Israel would do well to recall Reagan and Bush administration indifference to extermination of the Kurds. Iraqi documents seized during the Kurdish uprising in March and April 1991 detail mass slayings of civilians, including videotapes of executions, beatings and torture. United States authorities, for years, encouraged Kurdish revolt, and then betrayed this unfortunate people to genocidal destruction. During the late 1980s, the U.S. stood by silently as Saddam Hussein's regime systematically demolished Kurdish villages and towns, and forcibly transferred a half million or more Kurds into specially-created concentration camps. In March of 1991, after encouraging the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against the Baghdad regime, the Bush administration did nothing to prevent new crushing genocidal blows against the Kurds by the Iraqi army.


From the standpoint of international law, we must distinguish preemptive attacks from preventive ones. Preemption represents a strategy of striking an enemy first, in the expectation that the only alternative is to be struck first oneself. A preemptive attack is launched by a state that believes enemy forces are about to attack. A preventive attack, however, is launched not out of concern for imminent hostilities, but for fear of a longer-term deterioration in the pertinent military balance. Hence, in a preemptive attack, the length of time by which the enemy's action is anticipated is very short, while in a preventive strike the interval is considerably longer. A problem for Israel, in this regard, is not only the practical difficulty in determining imminence, but also the fact that delaying a defensive strike until imminence is plausible could be fatal.


In the strict jurisprudential sense, because a state of war exists between Israel and Iran (at Iran's particular insistence), the Jewish State does not need to meet the requirements of anticipatory self-defense. Rather, as there can be no authentic preemption in an ongoing belligerency, an Israeli "first strike" against Iran would need only to fulfill the expectations of the laws of war, i.e., the rules of discrimination, proportionality and military necessity. A legal state of war can exist between two states irrespective of the presence or absence of ongoing hostilities between national armed forces. The principle affirming that the existence of a legal state of war depends upon the intentions of one or more of the states involved, and not on "objective" phenomena, is known variously as the "state of war doctrine;" "de jure war;" "war in the legal sense" and "war in the sense of international law."


Confronting what he calls "our century of fear," Albert Camus would have us all be "neither victims nor executioners," living not in a world in which killing has disappeared ("we are not so crazy as that!"), but one wherein killing has become illegitimate. This is a fine expectation, to be sure, yet unless it is fashioned with a promising view toward effective nonlethal measures of preserving order and justice, the result will certainly be an enlargement of pain and terror. Deprived of the capacity to act as lawful executioners, states facing aggression would be forced by Camus' reasoning to become victims. Why is Camus so sorely mistaken? Where, exactly, has he gone wrong? The answer, it would seem, lies in his presumption, however implicit, of a natural reciprocity among human beings and states in the matter of killing. More specifically, we are asked to believe that as greater numbers of people agree not to be executioners, still greater numbers will follow upon the same course. In time, the argument proceeds, the number of those who refuse to sanction killing will become so great that there will be fewer and fewer victims. The problem, of course, is that Camus' presumed reciprocity does not exist. The will to kill, as we have learned from so many for so long, is unimpressed by particular commitments to "goodness." It follows that executioners may have their rightful place in world politics, and that without them there would only be more victims.


In the realm of world politics, executioners sometimes function as assassins. Although such functioning is almost always an instance of wrongful execution, there are certain carefully circumscribed and residual cases where it may be rightful, permissible, and even distinctly law enforcing. Understood in terms of Israel's security needs, this points to the option of assassination as a form of anticipatory self-defense. In determining whether or not a particular instance of assassination would qualify as such a form under international law, the act: (1) must not be designed to achieve a prohibited objective, but only to forestall destruction of Israel's land and people; and (2) must meet the legal test known to international lawyers as the Caroline - i.e., the danger that gives rise to the preemptive attack by Israel must be judged "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." Thus, if the assassination is undertaken only to destroy the potential threat of the enemy (as a preventive action), it would not qualify as permissible under international law. If, however, the assassination were undertaken in anticipation of immediate enemy aggression (as a preemptive action), it could qualify as an instance of anticipatory self-defense. There are several problems here. First, in the real world, judgments concerning the immediacy of anticipated aggression are exceedingly difficult to make. Second, even where such judgments are ventured, it can never be altogether clear whether the degree of immediacy is sufficient to invoke preemption rather than prevention. Third, in meeting the aforestated legal requirements of defensive intent (#1 above), Israel may have to act preventively rather than preemptively (because waiting to allow a threat to become more immediate could have decisively negative strategic/tactical consequences. And fourth, the actual state-preserving benefits that might accrue to Israel from assassination of enemy leaders are apt to be contingent upon not waiting until the danger posed is "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." Assessments of the lawfulness of assassination as anticipatory self-defense must also include comparisons with alternative forms of preemption. If, for example, the perceived alternative to assassination is large-scale uses of force taking the form of defensive military strikes, a utilitarian or "balance of harms" criterion could surely favor assassination. Such a choice may well have to be made sometime soon in Jerusalem, especially as the territories are transformed into a Palestinian state. Here, deprived of strategic depth, Israel could calculate that it had only three real options: (1) do nothing, rely entirely on deterrence, and hope that enemy states remain dissuaded from striking first; (2) strike preemptively with military force against selected hard targets in enemy states, and hope that substantial reprisals are prevented by persuasive intra-war deterrence, i.e., by compelling Israeli threats of unacceptably damaging counter-retaliation; or (3) strike preemptively by assassination, and hope that this will reduce the overall threat to Israel without escalating into full-fledged military encounters. Although impossible to determine in the abstract, Option 3 might well prove to be the most cost-effective one available to Israel in certain circumstances.


Jurisprudentially, of course, it would be reasonable to examine assassination as a possible form of ordinary self-defense, i.e., as a forceful measure of self-help short of war that is undertaken after an armed attack occurs. Tactically, however, there are at least two serious problems with such an examination. First, in view of the ongoing proliferation of extraordinarily destructive weapons technologies among Israel's enemies in the Middle East, waiting to resort to ordinary self-defense could be very dangerous, if not altogether fatal. Second, assassination, while it may prove helpful in preventing an attack upon Israel in the first place, is far less likely to be useful in mitigating further harm once an attack has already been launched.


Martin Van Creveld writes, in THE TRANSFORMATION OF WAR, that as the lines between political violence and criminal violence become blurred, assassination of enemy leaders will become more fashionable: "Over the last three centuries or so, attempts to assassinate or otherwise incapacitate leaders were not regarded as part of the game of war. In the future, there will be a tendency to regard such leaders as criminals who richly deserve the worst fate that can be inflicted upon them." From the standpoint of international law, a case in point is Saddam Hussein. Based upon the peremptory principle of law known as Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment," leaving Saddam in power, unpunished, was altogether unjust. At Nuremberg, the words used by the Court, "So far from it being unjust to punish him, it would be unjust if his wrong were allowed to go unpunished," represented an authoritative reaffirmation of this principle. The earliest statement 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, most significantly for Israel, the Lex Talionis or law of exact retaliation, presented in three separate passages of the Torah. For ancient Hebrews, when a crime involved the shedding of blood, not only punishment - but punishment involving a reciprocal bloodletting - was required. Shedding of blood is an abomination that must be expiated, "for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it." (NUM. 35:33)


LOUIS RENE BERES (Princeton 1971) is professor of political science and international law at Purdue University, lectures and publishes widely on matters relating to nuclear war, nuclear strategy and terrorism.