Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

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

VOLUME 11       B"H JANUARY 2003       NUMBER 1



THE 'SETTLEMENTS' ISSUE...Guest Editorial....Joseph Farah

THE FIREMEN AND THE ARSONIST And how they got mixed up....Jock L. Falkson


IF I AM NOT FOR MYSELF...Boris Shusteff
THE "ROAD MAP" IS A TROJAN HORSE by Emanuel A. Winston

EXPLANING 'PALESTINE'.....Martin Sherman

MEDIA COMMENT: MEA CULPA FROM 'Ha'aretz'?....Eli Pollak and Yisrael Medad

The Arrow: Israel's Missile Defense....Ralph Sanders


THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright © 2003 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016

Dear Friend of Israel:

The world is changing in ways we once never thought possible. Militant Islamic terrorists attack Jews, Israelis, Americans and others with bombs, bullets and missiles

The security of Americans, once so assured, was shattered by ruthless terrorist assaults.

The Palestinian anti-Israel (and Jewish) campaign has sparked a furious outbursts of anti-Semitism in Europe – a continent, lest we forget, that 60 years ago became a charnel house for the destruction of the Jewish people.

The enemies of democracy and freedom have launched a campaign aimed at denouncing and undermining our most cherished values.

In such a world there must be voices openly championing freedom, that don't fail to call inhumanity the scourge it is and are willing to take stands against fabrication, untruth, hypocrisy and bias.

Such an institution is the Freeman Center.

Founded 10 years ago with the express purpose of defending Israel and the Jewish people against injustice, the Freeman Center's scope has expanded to embrace the very cause of democracy and freedom itself in the belief that Israel today stands on the very front line of this struggle.

The Freeman Center's activities revolve around matters of national media advocacy, coalition building and the development of resources to be used by students, government officials, journalists, educators and academics for the advancement of Israel's case in the media. In ten years, it has developed into one of the most active and prolific pro-Israel organizations in the country.

A brief review of its activities will suffice to convince you of this truth.

National Media Advocacy

**** Opinion pieces by some of the Center's current and former esteemed research associates and journalists -- including, Louis Rene Beres, Christopher Barder, Michael Freund, Avi Davis, Major Shawn M. Pine, Boris Shusteff , Yossef Bodansky, Mark E. Langfan, Prof. Paul Eidelberg and Emanuel A. Winston -- have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Jerusalem Post, Melbourne Age, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Jewish Week, The Maccabean Online, The Jewish Press and Los Angeles Jewish Journal among hundreds of other papers and journals around the world.

**** Workshops and media advocacy training sessions have been run in Los Angeles , Jerusalem and Houston attracting hundreds of individuals seeking to better represent Israel's case to the world.

**** Freeman Center representatives appear regularly on Fox , CCN, and MSNBC explaining Israel's case and linking its current struggles to America's war against terrorism.

**** The Freeman Center's first film documentary The Massacre of Truth: Jenin and the Foreign Correspondents is currently in production and will be an extraordinary expose of the levels of fabrication and untruth that foreign correspondents will stoop in order to obtain a story. The Freeman Center's landmark book by Yossef Bodansky, ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT was published in both English (1999) and Hebrew (2000).

Coalition Building

**** In Los Angeles the Freeman Center has been instrumental in the founding of the Israel-Christian Nexus, a program funded by the Jewish Community Foundation and aimed at building links between Jewish and Christian groups in support of Israel.

**** In Houston an outreach program has begun with the Hindu community with the aim of developing strong ties with this overlooked group throughout the country based on our common interests of defeating radical Islam. An alliance with Christian Zionists has long been in place.

Resource Development

**** The Freeman Center Web Site, containing thousands of pages of archived materials, is visited by tens of thousands of individuals a month (from 78 countries who download 1560 megabytes of pro-Israel material), including government representatives, politicians, academics and thousands of students at institutes of higher learning. The Web Site has been verified by Google one as being in the top 1% of the world's sites in quality and traffic.

**** The Freeman Center's Web Site and broadcast service (freemanlist), which issues opinion pieces and news from around the world to its subscribers has been rated by the Jewish Internet Directory (third edition, 2002) as "one of the best resources of its kind on the Net".

**** The Freeman Center's Houston library has over 4,000 volumes on Israel and the Middle East, making it one of the richest libraries of its kind in the world and is regularly visited by patrons from around the world.

**** With such an outstanding record of achievement in a relatively such a short space of time, the Freeman Center is an example of will and dedication devoted to a single purpose.

**** But it cannot survive on good wishes alone. Its many activities require active financial support and assistance. You now have the opportunity to do just that.

**** Click here to make a pledge or send a check to be sure that your voice and the voices of those concerned about freedom and liberty are being heard loud and clear. This is your opportunity to make a difference. This is your chance to make sure your beliefs and messages are being delivered to the world.

Support the Freeman Center and you support freedom, liberty and the Jewish people's right to live in security in their own land. Click here to find out how.


Bernard J. Shapiro,
Executive Director




By Avi Davis

Those seeking to identify a date for the commencement of the ruthless Muslim extremist campaign against America, should forget September 11, 2001. There is a far better candidate for that distinction. October 23, 1983 stands as America's first day of post World War 2 infamy. That was the morning Hezbollah guerillas ended the lives of 241 Marines and over 70 French soldiers at the Beirut barracks of the multi-national peace-keeping forces in Beirut. The event claims its mark on history on two counts. It was the first time a Muslim extremist group had caused mass casualties against a U. S. target. It was also the first time since the Second World War that a U.S. military force had failed to seek retribution for a mass attack against American servicemen. Acting under a cautious warning from Caspar Weinberg, Ronald Reagans' Secretary of Defense, the Administration rejected retaliation against Hezbollah so as not to threaten a shaky relationship with Saudi Arabia. Instead, American forces were quickly recalled from Lebanon.

The failure to launch any significant reprisal against this slaughter of American peace keepers, coupled with the hasty retreat was to have catastrophic repercussions. Emboldened by its success, Hezbollah's power and prestige in southern Lebanon was greatly enhanced. In the nest five years it consolidated its political control over southern Lebanon and took pride in the harassment of the Israeli forces lodged in the 14 mile security zone the Israelis had created following their 1982 invasion. From 1983 through 1992 the Israelis suffered 49 suicide attacks by Hezbollah guerillas. Israel's hasty withdrawal in May 2000, mimicking the earlier U.S. retreat, only confirmed what many Muslim extremists had concluded 17 years earlier: neither the Israeli nor American military machines had the stomach for mass losses or for combating the threat of suicide bombings.

For the past twenty years Hezbollah, strengthened by support from the Iranian mullahs and given freedom of movement by the nominal rulers of Lebanon in Syria, was able to become the virtual government of Southern Lebanon. In doing so it began the development of an international network of financiers and fund raising operations that created a steady flow of both arms and cash into southern Lebanon. Quietly Hezbollah became the model and inspiration for all extremist Muslim factions both Sunni and Shiite.

It should therefore come as little surprise that investigations into the Paradise Hotel bombing and the attack on the Arkia plane in Mombassa are pointing to the strong possibility of joint operations between Hezbollah and al-Qaida.

In fact a clear pattern is emerging that suggests Hezbollah is actively cooperating with al-Qaida. Osama Bin Laden was apparently impressed enough with the devastating attacks Hezbollah conducted in Lebanon and Argentina (where it has been fingered as the prime suspect in the 1993 bombings of the Israeli embassy and Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aries) that it adopted similar methods against American facilities in Dharhan in 1996, the U.S embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 and against the USS Cole in 1999.

Western intelligence has now revealed a high level of cooperation between Bin Laden and Imad Muganiyeh, the Hezbullah terrorist who masterminded some of Hezbollah's most spectacular atrocities and kidnappings in Lebanon. Reports have Muganiyeh first meeting with Bin Laden as early as 1995 and those meetings have continued.

More than this, since al-Qaida fled Afghanistan at the end of last year, the Sunday Telegraph reports, between 80 and 100 al- Qaida fighters were provided with false passports by Hezbollah before being relocated to southern Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The same report acknowledges that Hezbollah, working hand in hand with al-Qaida, has set up cells in the Far East including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. It is well known that Hezbollah has operated in Gaza and the West Bank for years, but the recent revelation by the Shin Bet in Israel that al- Qaida has now also joined them there, is chilling evidence of a level of cooperation previously unsuspected.

Such news comes as a dire warning to American, Israeli and Jewish communities throughout the world. A world wide campaign of destruction, linking two of the most fanatical and murderous terrorist operations on earth should be of grave concern to all who understand the war against terrorism as a world war, ablaze with all the lethality of the conflagrations that preceded it. While Iraq certainly presents a menace to world peace, we ignore the growing relationship between al-Qaida and Hezbollah at our peril.

Yet there are signs that some American leaders are starting to get it. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Graham, told CNN in November that the U.S. should launch attacks on Hezballah and Hamas headquarters and training camps. Graham said the U.S. made a major mistake in the 1990s when "al Qaeda was training hundreds, if not thousands of people in the skills of terrorism in those camps in Afghanistan. We had the capability to take those camps out. We chose not to do so." Committee Vice Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby added, "Hezbollah and some others are probably the A team, not the B team or the C team, as far as potential terrorist threats to this country. The U.S. must start planning to take out Hezbollah before they take us out."

Therefore in a post Saddam world, bringing down Hezbollah, whose headquarters and whereabouts is no secret, should become the American military's number one priority. Operating in conjunction with the IDF, the Hezbollah operation in Southern Lebanon must be brought to its knees, its operatives throughout the world identified and eliminated, its financial network dismantled. Syria and Iran must be threatened with reprisals for their continued financial and strategic support of Hezbollah and Saudia Arabia should be made to pay the diplomatic price for its double-faced attitude to the war on terror.

Pursuing al-Qaida may well slake a justified American thirst for revenge. But eliminating that organization's progenitor and model may, in the meantime, be just as effective in delivering a message to all Muslim extremists that the American government failed signally to convey 19 years ago.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.



WorldNetDaily, December 24, 2002


By Joseph Farah

Once again, we're hearing that awful word again in the context of the Middle East debate. "Settlements."

That's what the conflict is all about, we're being told. That's why the Arabs are mad at the Israelis. That's the root of the violence, the terrorism, the hatred.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer raised the ugly specter of "settlement" recently in a speech last week. Kurtzer, the former ambassador to Egypt and one of the architects of the failed peace process, once again blamed Israel as an obstacle to peace.

"Israeli settlement activity cripples chances for real peace," he said. Heal so underlined with emphasis and a pregnant pause this conclusion: "Settlement activity must stop."

What about these "settlements"? What are they? Why are they bad? Why should they be stopped?

I think most Americans and most non-Israelis draw certain mental pictures when they hear this term. I know I did before I began visiting "settlements" in Israel. I discovered they were not armed camps. They were not frontier outposts in alien territory. They were not fortresses built to grab more land for Jews. No. Much to my surprise, I found these "settlements" to be nothing more than communities - peaceful Jewish communities that don't interfere with nor abrogate anyone else's rights. They reminded me of suburban developments in Southern California more than threats to peace.

The word "settlement" itself is loaded. Who is a "settler" in the Mideast? According to the Arabs, only Jews are "settlers." But that simply is not the case.

Arafat himself was born in Egypt. He later moved to Jerusalem. If, at the moment, he is living in the West Bank, he is a "settler" there, not a native. Indeed, most of the Arabs living within the borders of Israel today have come from some other Arab country at some time in their life. They are all "settlers."

For instance, just since the beginning of the Oslo Accords, hundreds of thousands of Arabs have entered the West Bank or Gaza - and never left. They have come from Jordan, Egypt and, indirectly, from every other Arab country you can name - and many non-Arab countries as well. These surely aren't "Palestinians."

Since 1967, the Arabs have built 261 settlements in the West Bank. We don't hear much about those settlements. We hear instead about the number of Jewish settlements that have been created. We hear how destabilizing they are - how provocative they are. Yet, by comparison, only 144 Jewish settlements have been built since 1967 - including those surrounding Jerusalem, in the West Bank and in Gaza. Why is it that only Jewish construction is destabilizing?

The Arab "settlement" activity is not new. This has always been the case. Arabs have been flocking to Israel ever since it was created - and even before, coinciding with the wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to 1948.

And that raises a question I never hear anyone ask: If Israel's policies make life so intolerable for Arabs, why do they continue to flock to the Jewish state? Why aren't they leaving in droves if conditions are as bad as they say?

The truth? There is more freedom under Israeli rule than there is in any Arab country. If you're a headstrong Arab, bent on protest, this is the place to be. Don't try throwing stones at Syrian police. You won't live long. Don't try publishing anti-kingdom newspapers in Saudi Arabia. You won't live long.

Don't try fomenting revolutionary jihadism in Egypt. You won't live long. So, sooner or later, those who are determined to protest, the professional agitators, the future Arafats of the Arab world all come to Israel. The Arab world is happy to be rid of them. This exodus serves two purposes - limiting the threat to Arab regimes and fanning the uniting flames of anti-Israel hatred. It's a population safety valve the totalitarian Arab world just loves.

Prior to 1900, the entire region was a barren wasteland with low populations of Jews, Muslims and Christians. No one had much interest in the Holy Land, as Mark Twain pointed out in his own travels to the area - until the Jews began to return.

Then the economic activity began. The jobs were created. The opportunities appeared. And then the Arabs came.

The "settlement" issue is a canard. It's a propaganda ploy to suggest that only Jews are newcomers to the region. The truth is there are lots of "settlers" and would-be "settlers" in the area - including Arafat and his friends.

By the way, under the Oslo Accords, there are no restrictions whatsoever on Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. These "settlements" are perfectly legal. And I, for one, can see no legitimate reason for them to stop.



Corriere della Sera, December 2, 2002


By Oriana Fallaci

[A French court on Nov. 20, 2002, dismissed a request to ban "The Rage and the Pride," the best-selling book by [leftist] Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci that critics say incites hatred of Muslims.]

I find it shameful that in Italy there should be a procession of individuals dressed as suicide bombers who spew vile abuse at Israel, hold up photographs of Israeli leaders on whose foreheads they have drawn the swastika, incite people to hate the Jews. And who, in order to see Jews once again in the extermination camps, in the gas chambers, in the ovens of Dachau and Mauthausen and Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen et cetera, would sell their own mother to a harem.

I find it shameful that the Catholic Church should permit a bishop, one with lodgings in the Vatican no less, a saintly man who was found in Jerusalem with an arsenal of arms and explosives hidden in the secret compartments of his sacred Mercedes, to participate in that procession and plant himself in front of a microphone to thank in the name of God the suicide bombers who massacre the Jews in pizzerias and supermarkets. To call them "martyrs who go to their deaths as to a party."

I find it shameful that in France, the France of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, they burn synagogues, terrorize Jews, profane their cemeteries. I find it shameful that the youth of Holland and Germany and Denmark flaunt the kaffiah just as Mussolini's avant garde used to flaunt the club and the fascist badge.

I find it shameful that in nearly all the universities of Europe Palestinian students sponsor and nurture anti-Semitism. That in Sweden they asked that the Nobel Peace Prize given to Shimon Peres in 1994 be taken back and conferred on the dove with the olive branch in his mouth, that is on Arafat. I find it shameful that the distinguished members of the Committee, a Committee that (it would appear) rewards political color rather than merit, should take this request into consideration and even respond to it. In hell the Nobel Prize honors he who does not receive it.

I find it shameful (we're back in Italy) that state-run television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones. I find it shameful that in their debates they host with much deference the scoundrels with turban or kaffiah who yesterday sang hymns to the slaughter at New York and today sing hymns to the slaughters at Jerusalem, at Haifa, at Netanya, at Tel Aviv.

I find it shameful that the press does the same, that it is indignant because Israeli tanks surround the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that it is not indignant because inside that same church two hundred Palestinian terrorists well armed with machine guns and munitions and explosives (among them are various leaders of Hamas and Al-Aqsa) are not unwelcome guests of the monks (who then accept bottles of mineral water and jars of honey from the soldiers of those tanks).





In 1991, the United States, during the administration of President George Bush, sponsors the Madrid Conference at which Israel is invited to meet with Jordan and other Arab States to negotiate peace. In a letter to the Government of Israel, the Government of the United States pledges:

"In accordance with the United States traditional policy, we do not support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. [. . . .] Moreover, it is not the United States' aim to bring the PLO into the process or to make Israel enter a dialogue or negotiations with the PLO."

This pledge was indeed consonant with history, strategy, justice and common sense. It was not, however, to be honored. In 2001, President George W. Bush announced that it was a "vision of long standing" of U.S. policy to create a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. Such a state would, of course, be under the rule of the PLO and must be recognized by Israel. The United States proceeded swiftly to have this newly-discovered long-standing vision ensconced in a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

It is now conventional to suppose that the invention of a PLO State in the Land of Israel is wise, just and desirable, even inevitable. Among the platitudes strung into a mantra:

1] It Will Rectify an Historic Injustice to the Arabs On the contrary: Of all that Arabs have demanded for themselves since the end of World War I, they have been given 99.5 percent. In 1921 the League of Nations defined Mandate Palestine, as The Jewish National Home, to be "open to close Jewish Settlement".

In 1922, the British Mandatory Government subtracted the entire region east of the Jordan River, 76 percent of the Jewish National Home to create the Arab Kingdom of.{Trans}-Jordan. It then progressively restricted or banned Jewish immigration and settlement even west of the Jordan River, rigidly blockading the Land of their fathers to Jews trying to escape the gas chambers of Europe.

In 1947, the United Nations attempted to whittle away the remnant of the Jewish National Home with a second partition, If the Arabs had accepted that offer, they would have had 83 percent of the Land of Israel-Jewish National Home, even though the bulk of them had no roots and no history there.

The real injustice is depriving Israel of its historic homeland, in order to invent a 23rd Arab state where none ever existed.

2] It Will End Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory On the contrary: There is no such thing as "Palestinian territory" and there is no "occupation" of what never belonged to any Arab nation. [See, especially, Issues 2, 6 and 8] Furthermore, of the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, 98 percent now live under the rule of the PLO.

3]. Israel Must Comply with United Nations Resolutions: On the contrary: The Arab attack on Israel in June 1967 left Israel in possession of Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Sinai. Then, the U.N. Security Council, that had done nothing to prevent or even deplore the Arab attack, took it upon itself to pass a resolution to guide a future settlement. That was Resolution 242, that calls on Israel to withdraw from"territories" to "agreed and secure borders".

This was very specifically not a demand for a return to the the borders of June 4, 1967 -- which were themselves merely the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence launched by the Arabs to destroy Israel in 1948.

The author of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon, representive of the United Kingdom. He explained to the British Parliament: "It would be wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

The United States was a co-sponsor of Resolution 242, and its representative stated: "The notable omissions -- which were ot accidental -- in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'."

It is now widely and repeatedly alleged that this resolution demands that Israel withdraw from all the territories. That is a lie. It is alleged that this withdrawal is unconditional. That is a lie. It is even alleged that it calls for an independent Palestine-Arab state in the territories. That is a lie.

In accordance with the Israel-Egypt treaty of 1978, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai peninsula, 91 percent of the "territories". That may well be considered is more than sufficient to satisfy the terms of Resolution 242.

In more recent resolutions, the sponsors of No. 242 have reneged on their own positions. The United States has reversed all previous policy statements and promises to Israel and called for a PLO state. Great Britain has turned its own resolution upside down by demanding full withdrawal as well as a PLO state.

These fickle flipflops show that the authors and sponsors of the resolution cannot be trusted to stand by their own creation. Israel thus betrayed should not be expected to bow to every new whim of the moment. Add to that betrayal the role of the United Nations as the world epicenter for hatred of Israel and Jews, and it is absurd to argue that Israel has any obligation to submit to its demands.

4] It Will Bring Peace and Stability to the Middle East On the contrary : It will establish a Middle Eastern national base for terror, that will spread incitement, bloodshed, and mortal danger not only to Israel but also to Arab regimes in the neighborhood.

The citizens supposed to build this peaceful and stable state will be the ones that the PLO regime of the last eight years has programmed to hatred and contempt, to yearn to earn martyrdom by murdering Jews. They will be the hysterics who run through the streets, some in costumes to rival the Ku Klux Klan, brandishing weapons and shrieking curses and threats.

5] It Will Satisfy the Demands of the Palestinian Arabs, Who Will Give Up Terrorism And War and Settle Down to Building a Society On the contrary: The PLO Charter of 1964 defines its sole purpose as the destruction of Israel. (That was three years before 1967, when there were no "occupied territories to liberate.) Despite flimflam to the contrary, that Charter still stands unamended, and so does the goal.

The PLO openly and repeatedly proclaims that it will never settle for less than every inch between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea -including all of what it now the State of Israel. If it condescends to accept a smaller state it will be only as a interim measure, to facilitate the future destruction of Israel. [See Issue 5.]

6] A State of Palestine Will Honor a Pledge to Respect Israel's Right to Exist On the contrary: The PLO has to date made six formal agreements with Israel, and in the past year alone it has pledged seven ceasefires. Not a single term or clause of any of them has been kept for a single day. To expect any other behavior in the future defies basic common sense. Repeated statements by officials of the Fatah, Hamas, and other member bodies of the PLO declare over and over again that their goal is the end of Israel, the expulsion of the Jews, and an Arab Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

7] A State of Palestine Will Be Demilitarized And Thus No Danger To Israel On the contrary: There were limitations in the Oslo Accords - a police force of no more than 8,000 and no heavy weapons. Today the PLO has a military force of at least 50,000 with heavy weapons. More are smuggled in constantly, from Egypt, Syria and elsewhere.

If Israel is deprived of the strategic defense line of the Jordan valley and the highlands to the west, then its width will be reduced to nine miles. The PLO state can become militarized in mere hours (as was the "demilitarized" Sinai in 1967), and forces from Iraq and Syria can sweep in without hindrance.

8] It Will Secure the Human Rights of the Palestinian Arabs: On the contrary: The PLO regime in the areas it controls in Judea, Samaria and Gaza has nothing at all to its credit in human rights, and everything to its discredit. (This should have been expected from the example of its rule over southern Lebanon in the 1980s.) Overseers of human rights who used to keep captious watch on the administration of these areas have been on an extended vacation since September 1993.

9] It Will Solve the Arab Refugee Problem On the contrary: The PLO insists that it will not absorb these exploited people, but will demand their "return" to Israel - meaning the destruction of Israel. The residents of the UN refugee camps also insist they will settle for nothing less than "return", and the UN that runs the camps makes sure the residents do not budge from this determination.

10] It Will Encourage Civic And Economic Development, Raise the Standard of Living and Bring Contentment to the People On the contrary : In areas administered by the PLO, the standard of living drops and hardship increases. Economic development is strangled by graft and corruption, and revenues are squandered. The United States and the European Union have given large donations for development, but the bulk of the money melts away or ends up in private foreign bank accounts.

11] It Will Win the Respect of World Opinion for Israel: On the contrary: "World opinion" is a jigsaw of many mismatched pieces. It includes a professional contempt for Israel, conspicuous especially in journalism and academia. It includes taste-makers of Europe, that has been trying to crush the Jews for two millennia and has not yet given up the habit. It has ancient roots in religious convictions, and in history, and new shoots of resentment and envy. There are even a few examples here and there of good sense and fair play.

The good sense and fair play are not found in that portion of "world opinion" that makes relentless demands on Israel -- sometimes masquerading as "friendly advice in your own best interest". Israel is not obliged to satisfy those demands by making itself shrunken, demoralized, discredited, and vulnerable, nor would it be any better liked if it did.

That is not to say this "world opinion" never approves of anything Israel does. It did welcome with delight the self-demeaning and self-destructive Oslo Accords.

12] If a State of Palestine commits aggression against Israel, then Israel can fight its military forces and win back what it gave away. On the contrary: The supporters of the Oslo Accords in 1993 also said "If they [the PLO] do not keep their commitment to peace, we will just take the land back". But those who said it took their words back -- or ignored that they ever said them.

Now these areas are used as bases for terrorism against Israel. When the IDF goes in even briefly, to close down terror bases and weapons factories and dumps, the world -- including even the United States -- howls for Israel to "get out of Palestinian territory immediately". If those areas were to become territory of an Arab "State of Palestine" any defensive actions by Israel would be branded aggression against a sovereign state. It would be condemned and threatened even more harshly than when it moved against terrorism when these areas were held by Jordan and Egypt -- without sovereignty.

If these areas of the Land of Israel became a PLO state, Israel would lose even minimal control. It could not restrict import of heavy weapons, destroy weapons factories and depots, intercept terrorist activities or arrest terrorists. It could not even prevent the entry of foreign troops from other Muslim countries.

Israel, drastically restricted geographically, will be exposed and vulnerable. When the PLO and its allies launch all-out war, the cost to Israel will be horrendous.

If Israel wins a battle for survival, it still will not be able to regain what it gave away. Even if a PLO State is defeated in battle, it will not cease to exist. In all of the Arab wars against Israel, outside powers have intervened to save them from total defeat. A PLO state can thus survive defeats and repeat its aggressions.

Giving up Judea-Samaria would also mean that Jews would be cut off from the cities and sites that are the heart of their historic homeland. Israel could not prevent Arabs from destroying ancient Jewish sites and relics. There would be no chance to make new discoveries that shed new light on the history of Israel and its people.

Some who are made aware of all these circumstances nevertheless say: "It is useless to oppose a State of Palestine -- it is inevitable". Such passive submission, such moral indolence, is tacit consent to an act inimical to the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. It is a limp surrender of both the past and the future.

For 2000 years, the Jewish people did not despair of restoration to its Land. When the restoration has at last come, those who toss it away betray both their ancestors and their descendants.



The Firemen and the Arsonists.

I have often argued that if Israeli MK's (Members of Knesset) were forced to travel by bus in Israel, the money which is lacking to ensure an armed guard on every bus would miraculously become available. In the same way, I believe those who sympathize with terrorists rather than their unfortunate victims, would be miraculously enlightened if their loved ones fell prey to Palestinian terrorism.

The Firemen and the Arsonists.

And how they got mixed up

By Jock L. Falkson

December 25, 2002

It boggles the mind that sensible people who ordinarily understand right from wrong, seem to be so misguided when it comes to judging Israel's right of defense against the Palestinians' "right" to kill us - in their crimes against humanity.

Israel's position can be likened to that of a Fire Department whose firemen are dispatched to put out fires set by arsonists. If it weren't for the arsonists (read Palestinian terrorists) there'd be no need for the firemen (read Israel Defense Forces) to put out the fires. In this analogy no one should be confused about the respective roles of the arsonists and the firemen.

Turning truth inside out

Yet Palestinians have successfully sold a contrary PR bill of goods to many, including most European nations. The anti-Semitism of the latter, it seems, is so inbred, that they have seamlessly absorbed this big lie from the Palestinians. The plain truth has been turned inside out and Israeli' firemen are blamed for Arab arson!

The fatal "crime" of provocation

Since Arafat's call to intifada two years ago every response by Israel's security forces to Palestinian "conflagrations" has been regarded as a provocation. Palestinian terrorist operations include suicide bus bombings restaurants and shopping malls. Also roadside ambushes and car bombing. And random or targeted killings such as drive by shooting and lynching etc.

Yet Europeans and Israel-haters believe every Israeli response is a provocation which justifies even greater Palestinian terrorist revenge. They counsel that by putting out the fires and going after the arsonists to prevent them setting new conflagrations, Israel only makes matters worse. They say Israel will only provoke the arsonists. This entitles Palestinians to start new and bigger fires in acts of revenge. This is the mechanism by which Israel is made responsible for Palestinian "arson" (read terrorism)!

Intellectual poverty

Israel is persuaded - in her own interests - not to put out the fires. Not to arrest the "arsonists". Not to take out their leaders and planners. Not to fight back against those who attack them with deadly weapons. Not to take preventive measures to frustrate those plotting new, bigger, more deadly terror operations.

If only Israel heeded their advice the fires would eventually burn out and the arsonists would no longer start up new fires. What intellectual poverty!

No cure for recidivist killers

Yes. Palestinian terrorists indeed are serial killers. Basking in the adulation of the Arab street after killing their first Israelis - and getting away with it - recent history shows that terrorists do not stop killing until arrested or are killed by security forces. In contrast to the Palestinians' so called right to be provoked, Israel haters share a consensus that Israel has no such right. Nor even the right of self defense.

Do they expect us to lie down, family by family, to await the "friendly fate" the Palestinians have in store for us? How absurd! Why would anyone think that Jews, in their own sovereign state, would be so stupid as not to defend themselves?

Israel's position has been clear and consistent. We would much rather suffer the slings and arrows of bad mouthing and boycotts - resulting from our fire-fighting defense actions - rather than run out of cemeteries to bury our butchered.

Serial killers - serious consequences

Would any civilized country apply the same "reasoning" to murderers in their own country, and the police who hunt them down? Especially serial murderers - those with whom Israel must daily contend? Surely we all recall how the US recently mobilized thousands of its mighty security apparatus to find just two serial killers, John Lee Malvo and John Muhammed. They were suspected of sniping at 14 or more persons, killing at least 6 in Montgomery County.

9/11 revisited

In killing 3000 Americans and reducing the World Trade Center to rubble, the US came up against the cruel, murderous face of terrorist Islam. Their handiwork clearly visible, the US recognized the enemy and immediately declared war on world terrorism.

Thinking about 9/11 a terrible thought crossed my mind. Suppose passengers on board the second aircraft had also resisted the terrorists - as did those in the plane which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Suppose in the ensuing uproar, blood, guts and panic, the plane veered off course for a few seconds - and crashed into the United Nations building instead?

Would the European Union and so many other nations still be such good friends of Palestinian terrorism, had their top diplomats, officials and homeland visitors been vaporized by the Muslim terrorists? Must it actually happen in order to understand Israel's reality?



The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 13, 2002


By Caroline B. Glick

In an interview last year, former US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross responded somewhat awkwardly to a question of mine about Palestinian corruption and authoritarianism. I had asked him why the Clinton Administration did not raise an eyebrow when it was clear that the Palestinian Authority was an authoritarian regime and completely corrupt. After a brief pause and an embarrassed glance, Ross said, "Well, it wasn't as if the Israelis were particularly concerned about the problem."

In answering the question as he did, Ross was behaving like the consummate diplomat that he is. The Rabin, Peres and Barak governments, who initiated and went forward with the Oslo process, were actually very interested in Palestinian authoritarianism and corruption. But what interested these governments was encouraging this corrupt dictatorship. Rabin, we recall, defended his choice of PLO chieftain Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader by explaining that under the dictatorship of Arafat, the PA would fight terrorism unimpeded by "the Supreme Court and [the human rights organization] B'tselem."

Israeli encouragement of Palestinian corruption was cut from the same cloth as our leaders' support for Arafat's dictatorship. In the early years of Oslo, as the first inklings of Arafat's economic adviser Muhammad Rashid's economic machinations began surfacing, far from discouraging the trend, Israeli political leaders and security brass clamored for meetings with Rashid.

Rather than opposing the systematic terrorization of Palestinian businessmen as Rashid squeezed them out of an ever widening swathe of economic markets, (cement, gas and petroleum, cigarette and mobile telephone imports come to mind most rapidly), Israeli officials dropped all connections to these forcibly disenfranchised businessmen and concentrated all their charms and favors on Rashid and his business partners Palestinian strongmen Muhammad Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub as well as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and from time to time Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala).

The justification for Israeli encouragement of the undermining of any semblance of financial order or legal system for the Palestinians under Arafat's regime was the stability of the peace process. It was argued, or actually, it was taken for granted, that the concentration of wealth in the hands of Arafat's close associates would give them a vested and personal interest in making peace with Israel.

The same men who enriched themselves at the expense of their own people were considered by Israeli and US policymakers to be the best candidates for forcing acquiescence to peaceful coexistence with Israel down the throats of rank and file Palestinian society.

As the law of unintended consequences would have it, in the end just the opposite occurred. These men, together with their boss and business partner Arafat, increased their hold over Palestinian society as expected, but it was the Israelis, not the Palestinians who developed vested and personal interests in continuing with Oslo.

A number of months ago, this column discussed the corrupting impact of the Shimon Peres Center for Peace on the decision-making capability of top Israeli leaders. As I wrote at the time, the fact that the Government of Norway was one of the center's principal contributors may have had something to do with the $100,000 cash prize that the center presented to UN Special Middle East Coordinator Terje Larsen and his wife, Norwegian Ambassador Mona Juul in 1999. And this fiduciary relationship may also have influenced then-foreign minister Shimon Peres's lone defense of Larsen after he libeled Israel in the immediate aftermath of the bloody battle in Jenin refugee camp during Operation Defensive Shield.

As I also wrote in that column, Yossi Ginossar sits on the Board of Directors of the Peres Center. In a tell-all interview with Ma'ariv last week, Ginossar's business partner, Ozrad Lev gave a detailed account of Swiss bank accounts that he and Ginossar managed for Rashid and Arafat. Lev told of the millions of dollars that he and Ginossar received in kickbacks from Rashid and Arafat for their handling of the funds.

While Lev's account is as disturbing as it is revealing, all it serves to do is expose the worst kept secret in Israel. Since 1994, everyone who is anyone in the top echelons of Israel knew full well that Ginossar, who served as special envoy to Arafat for prime ministers Rabin, Peres, and Barak, was Rashid's business partner. Everyone knew that Ginossar was a partner in Rashid's cement and petroleum monopolies. Everyone knew that Ginossar was Rashid's bagman for funds he siphoned off from the PA treasury accounts.

Everyone knew and everyone either stood by silently or actively supported this situation. And Ginossar is far from the only Israeli official who has accrued financial and professional benefit from his activities with the Palestinian Authority.

In his defense, Ginossar told Ma'ariv, "During the entire period of my activities with the Palestinian Authority and other Arab regional officials on behalf of the state, I acted in accordance with the state's requests to me, using my special connections with the Palestinians as a private citizen." This is a disingenuous statement. While Ginossar's intimate relations with Rashid and Arafat may have made him attractive to Israeli leaders, there can be no doubt that Ginossar's access to Israeli leaders made him attractive to the Palestinian leadership.

Because of his official position, the Shin Bet, under Ya'acov Perry, Carmi Gillon and Ami Ayalon, gave Ginossar not only free access to intelligence information about the Palestinians, they also gave him free access to Arafat. When Gaza was declared a closed military zone to which Israelis were prohibited from traveling, Ginossar was chauffeured to Arafat's office in Shin Bet armored cars.

In his interview with Ma'ariv, Lev also spoke of Ginossar's partner Stephen Cohen. According to Ma'ariv's account, Cohen, who is deeply embedded in the Jewish American peace camp, opened up Arafat's kingdom to Ginossar when Rabin first appointed him point man with the PA in 1993. Together the two made millions in kickbacks they received from Rashid for their role in the cement and petroleum monopolies he built.

Americans are more familiar with Cohen than Israelis. For over a decade his name has frequently appeared on the op-ed page of The New York Times as columnist Thomas Friedman's in-house Middle East specialist.

According to a top former governmental official, Cohen made a name for himself as an unofficial channel to Egyptian, Syrian, and PLO leaders as far back as the 1980s. What we learn from Ma'ariv's disclosures is that Cohen's impassioned defense of Israeli concessions to the PLO, which he voiced regularly to key officials in the Clinton administration, like Ross's deputy Aaron Miller and media stars like Friedman, may very well have been influenced as much by pecuniary as ideological motivations. Then too, it has been reported that during the Camp David summit, Ginossar was the most fervent advocate of Israeli concessions to Arafat among the Israeli team.

Stephen Cohen has over the years also enjoyed financial backing from US business tycoon Daniel Abraham. Abraham is also one of the largest backers of the Peres Center. Then too, Cohen's close colleague Nimrod Novick was Peres's chief of staff during the 1984-1988 unity government with Yitzhak Shamir and a close associate of Yossi Beilin's.

Yossi Beilin himself has used his Oslo advocacy to draw large foreign contributions to his think tank the Economic Cooperation Foundation. It has been reported that in his capacity as a chief researcher at ECF, Beilin receives a ministerial salary and an unlimited expense account for his world travels during which he advances his radical views on the need for Israeli surrender to Palestinian terrorism.

And there are many others as well. The sad fact that comes out of a study of the financial interests of high ranking Israeli officials and international peace activists is that while Arafat, Rashid and their associates pocketed their monies and prepared for war against Israel, these top Israeli officials became their chief advocates. These peace profiteers have for nine and a half years made their personal fortunes by illogically arguing that Arafat is both the problem and the solution that without his dictatorial consent, Israel will get no peace deal with the Palestinians.

In a column on the subject back in 1994, Friedman quoted Cohen as saying, "Everyone is ready to tell Arafat how to shave his beard, but as long as they treat him only as a problem and not a solution, the problem just gets worse."

The truth is that the problem has gotten worse because so many so-called peace advocates have made personal fortunes by dint of their close relations with Arafat and his cronies. When we look around us, after two years and three months of the PA terror war and wonder how it is possible that Oslo and the corrupt terror regime it spawned still has domestic and international support, we need only to look to the money for our explanation.

Rather than acting as the catalyst for Palestinian support of peaceful coexistence with Israel, Israeli support for and participation in the emergence of the PA as a wholly corrupt authoritarian regime has created a permanent Israeli constituency for Arafat's regime.

In a column in last Friday's Ma'ariv, commenting on Lev's disclosures, prominent Israeli media personality Dan Margalit called for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into Ginossar's financial dealings with the PA. What Margalit probably does not realize is that in calling for the formation of such a commission he is adding his voice to those calling for an inquiry into the entire Oslo process. Ginossar's double-dealings, corruption, and borderline treason cannot be truly investigated without an impartial (whatever that means) investigation into the entire history of Oslo. As one security source put it to me this week, "Ginossar is never going to be a scapegoat. If he goes down, he'll bring the entire Israeli establishment down ahead of him." If we've learned anything from the past two years and three months, we have learned that this will never happen.

(c) 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



Revised Road Map:
Terrorists safe, settlements frozen, State by Dec, 2003,
in return for verbiage and photo-ops

By IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

#1 Israel commits to stop "attacks on civilians, deportation, building demolition," etc.: Arafat's Fatah Tanzim, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other terrorists not wearing PA security force uniforms when they are out murdering Israelis all qualify as "civilians". Under the road map, Israel forfeits its sovereign right to self defense.

#2 Palestinian security-related obligations limited to talk and photo-opportunities ["begin" action]

#3 Israel forfeits a say regarding Palestinian compliance: There are no standards, benchmarks, etc. for Palestinian performance, with the Quartet "taking into account performance of both parties" = a guaranteed "pass" for the Palestinians as no matter what they do or don't do, the Quartet, out of interests that transcend the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will sign off, balancing the most grotesque of Palestinian behavior against anything they can think up against Israel.

#4 Palestinian state in 2003 - contrary to the many Israeli politicians and analysts who have been asserting that the Palestinian state issue "is not relevant" at the present time, the Road Map makes the Palestinian state immediately relevant as Israel is expected to take its formal position on the Road Map immediately after the elections.

#5 Mention of Saudi peace initiative = right of return of Palestinian refugees

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis



The Jerusalem Post, 29 December 2002

Exclusive: Summary of the Revised Road Map

Below is the official summary of the Quartet's "road map," released to The Jerusalem Post by a highly placed diplomatic source privy to Quartet discussions.

Summary of the Road Map

Stage I - January-June 2003:

The first stage makes explicit reference to the Tenet Plan, Mitchell Proposal and the Saudi peace initiative.

Stage I is not based on a step-by-step approach but on parallelism.

Role of the Quartet: Informal monitoring and consultations with parties to begin formal monitoring and implementation.

Mutual commitments: Both Israel and Palestinians call for an end to violence and both promise to stop incitement. Renewal of Israeli-Palestinian Security Cooperation.

Israeli commitments: Total settlement freeze (including natural growth) and dismantling out posts erected since March 2000. Stops "attacks on civilians, deportation, building demolition," etc. Return to September 28, 2002, positions.

Palestinian commitments: Elections as soon as possible.Undertake "visible effort to arrest, disrupt, restrain terrorists." PA security "begins sustained targeted operations against terror and commences confiscation of weapons." Security reforms. Fiscal transparency - all donations through one account. Political reforms - begin formulating constitution, appoint interim prime minister or empowered cabinet with executive authority."

Stage II June-December 2003:

Stage II will begin after PA elections and ends with the creation of a Palestinian state.

Role of Quartet Movement from Stage I into Stage II is determined by Quartet based upon "consensus judgement of Quartet, taking into account performance of both parties."

Mutual commitments: Attending international conference convened by Quartet where an agree mentwill be reached on the establishment of a Palestinian state with "provisional borders" and "attributes of sovereignty." Continued security cooperation.

Palestinian commitments: Formal establishment of office of prime minister. Ratification of constitution. Consolidation of political reform, institution building.

Stage III January 2004-2005:

Stage III begins after the creation of a Palestinian state.

Role of Quartet: Movement from Stage II into Stage III is determined by Quartet based upon "consensus judgement of Quartet, taking into account performance of both parties."

Mutual commitments: Attending second international conference for final status talks on borders, settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem. Settlements based on UN Resolutions 242, 338, 1397. "Agreed, just, fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue." "Negotiated resolution to Jerusalem."

(c) 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




by Boris Shusteff

A majority of Israeli political observers as well as politicians themselves demonstrate surprising agreement about the fact that the upcoming Knesset elections will be some of the most important in Israel's history. A poll, conducted on December 18 by the Israeli daily Maariv, clearly indicated that the overwhelming majority of citizens are yearning for change. In answering the question "Do you trust the political system in Israel?" 69% of those surveyed answered "NO."

At the same time, all the surveys also clearly indicate that Israelis are hastily avoiding any opportunity to change the system. Otherwise it is impossible to explain why they so persistently cling to the same old parties, which are the stalwarts of this system.

It is especially strange since the Likud candidates list clearly shows that the apparatus will not be easy to defeat. The example of Moshe Feiglin's "demise" must be written into all the history books, into a chapter about the iron steadfastness of bureaucracy. After first being pushed to 41st place on the Likud's list, and then being completely disqualified (while Likud bigwigs remained totally silent), Feiglin's bravado is only a feeble attempt to put a good face on the utterly disappointing results of fighting the system from the inside. His idea of grafting a twig of Judaism onto the tree of a major Israeli party, with the goal of inducing it to blossom with Jewish values, will always be doomed. Because the Likud has plenty of other "gardeners" who will not think twice before cutting off the graft along with all its neighboring green twigs, at the first opportunity they get to facilitate their progress towards the summit.

Certainly, Feiglin's approach has a lot of merit. He is absolutely correct in his assessment that the path to attaining a leading position in Israel can only be by way of a major party. However, it does not necessarily mean that this party must already exist. It is enough to note the shrinking of the Labor party to recognize that a major party can quickly turn into a minor one and perhaps even completely disappear. The opposite is also possible - a small party can rapidly grow into a large one. We may take note of the growth of Shinui, which developed practically out of nothing. Devoid of any decent ideas, Shinui contents itself with Tommy Lapid's demagoguery while the party apparatus encourages religious-secular enmity. Today, polls predict that it will become the third largest party in the Knesset. The horror of the situation is only underscored by the fact that many Israelis view it as the party which is least corrupt and has the most integrity.

We will not spend much time on the fact that the growth of Shinui's popularity is, in itself, a tragedy of major proportions. If large numbers of people in a Jewish state gather to rally under the banner of a party whose platform rests on negating Judaism, then what kind of a Jewish state can we even talk about? In some way, this is understandable, since the roots of the political system in Israel are very remote from anything truly Jewish. As one participant in a message forum at the Israeli internet site brilliantly noted, "if it is mutually recognized that the state laws are Anglo-Turkish, then by definition the state is Anglo-Turkish as well, but in no way is it a Jewish one."

Therefore all of Feiglin's attempts to convert the parties of the Anglo-Turkish system into Jewish parties are useless. As a married person he is undoubtedly aware that attempts by one spouse to completely change the character of the other are absolutely fruitless. The naive newlyweds who believe that this is possible inevitably end in a divorce. Instead of trying to rekindling a Jewish soul within a corrupt Likud, Feiglin would make much more progress toward his goal if, as the leader of a Jewish party he would lead those who still cherish their Jewishness out of the Likud (for example, Yamin Yisrael has on many occasions invited him to its helm).

The fact that Israelis are nostalgic about a truly Jewish political party can be reasonably inferred from the results of a study recently conducted by Dr. Ami Pedatzur and Dafna Kanti, and which appeared in issue 20 of "Panim: Faces of Art and Culture in Israel," a periodical published by the Israeli Teacher's Union. The study examined a broad cross-section of Israeli Jews. It revealed that 20% would consider voting for the Kach party, once founded by Meir Kahane, if it were permitted to run in the elections.

Nadav Shragai, who unveils these results to the general public on the pages of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, stresses in his article that these high levels of hypothetical support for Kach were found among voters for the established political parties. He writes, "The following represents the percentages of Israelis who last voted for other parties who would vote for a Kahanistic list if they were able to: One Israel - 3; Likud -33; Shas - 52; Shinui - 15; NRP - 24; Yisrael Beitenu - 50, National Union - 50, United Torah Judaism - 24." Especially interesting is the fact that the researchers found, that, while the studies from the mid-1980s indicated that most support for Kach came from settlers and residents of development towns, 15 years later, support by these two sectors has declined in comparison with the support of the ideology among immigrants from the former Soviet Union, as well as in the Haredi public.

One does not have to be a great mathematician to see that in this hypothetical election, the Kach party would gain the biggest number of Knesset mandates, and its leader would become the head of the Jewish state. And while it is true that Kach is not running in the elections, and Michael Kleiner lacks Kahane's charisma, nevertheless he did not shy away from offering the second spot on the combined Herut-Yamin Yisrael list to Baruch Marzel - a person who was very close to Meir Kahane, and who is not afraid of his ideas.

Of course, walking on the edge of legality, and trying not to overstep the boundaries drawn by the current Israeli political system, Marzel, as proof of his loyalty to the system, constantly repeats that he left the Kach party 20 seconds after it was banned. He will be forced to repeat this statement as long as the current system stays intact. And the only way to overcome the system, is by means of a political party that can bring about this change.

This can be done only by an ideologically-based party. The only such party on the Israeli political scene is the combined Herut-Yamin Yisrael party. No other Israeli party has even come close to having anything resembling the comprehensive political program developed by Professor Paul Eidelberg of Yamin Yisrael. It is enough to mention just two elements of this program to realize that it is light years closer to the Jewish state that was intended in 1948 than today's Israeli-Anglo-Turkish hybrid.

Article 29 of the 1948 Proposed Constitution for the State of Israel envisioned that,

The Chamber of Deputies [today's Knesset] shall be elected by equal, direct and universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation... The country shall be divided into a number of electoral districts, each 10,000 of the population approximately to be represented by one deputy.

Paul Eidelberg takes exactly the same approach, proposing to "divide the country into 48-60 electoral districts," thus introducing in Israel an electoral system based on "Personalized Proportional Representation".

Let us take another Article from the 1948 Proposed Constitution. Article 77 declares that "future legislation in Israel shall be guided by the basic principles of Jewish Law." Professor Eidelberg advocates an identical policy, writing,

Consistent with the Foundations of Law Act of 1980, and as stated by Professor Menachem Elon, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Jewish Law should be "primus inter pares" (first among equals) vis-a-vis English and American law in Israeli jurisprudence. Jewish law should also be used to make public officials accountable to the people.

In order to transform Israel from an Israeli-Anglo-Turkish state into a Jewish one, the State's laws must be based on Jewish Laws. As Eidelberg wrote, "The rule of law is a basic principle of Torah Judaism and of classical democracy. The rule of law affirms that those who make the laws are obliged to obey the laws." Alas, Israel's judicial system today demonstrates that it is based not on the rule of law, but on the rule of men in power.

Since the Torah forbids us to rely on miracles, the Jews must create a miracle for themselves. If they are hypothetically ready to vote for a Kahanist party that is not even in the running, they must use their votes to bring to power a party that will work to change the system. What is more, they must rid themselves of the "it cannot happen" syndrome. Certainly the socialist-minded Israeli press will always do whatever it can in order to preserve the existing political system. Therefore, it will conduct its polls in such a way as to not even mention those parties that are dangerous to the system among the contenders for Knesset seats.

It is worth remembering that Kahane was elected to the Knesset in spite of the fact that all official polls predicted that his party would not get a single mandate. At that time so-called "travelling polls" by major Israeli newspapers predicted that he would receive 10-12% of votes. Similar polls today forecast that the Herut-Yamin Yisrael list will receive up to 5 seats in the Knesset.

The research of Pedatzur and Kanti strongly suggests that we can expect the arrival of a Knesset party that will be ready to lead the battle with the current Israeli political system. However, if Jews entering the polling booths do not vote with their conscience, and if they do not trust in their strength, they will have no one but themselves to blame for their failure.



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




by Emanuel A. Winston

If you recall Homer's epics The Odyssey and The Illiad, the Greeks build a giant, wooden horse with a hollow belly. A handful of armed Greeks climbed in. The Trojans came out of Troy to receive the huge horse as an offering of peace. At night, the Greeks unsealed the belly of horse, climbed down and killed the Trojan sentries, opening the city gates to the hidden Greek army. After 10 years of useless battle, the Greeks freely slaughtered men and boys, selling the women and girls as slaves. *

The time-honored custom in dealing with small democracies, like the State of Israel, is as follows: America pretends to tell the truth and Israel pretends to believe it.

Behind each plan assembled by diplomats, politicians and dictators one can usually find a hidden agenda. In the case of the "Road Map", one may look for several hidden agendas.

One would be that, in consideration of the coming war with an Arab/Muslim country, Iraq, and the claimed humiliation of the Muslims in losing a war to the Christian West, something of a compensatory nature would have to be offered to the Arab world. This compensation is already built into the Bush/Quartet "Road Map: by the re-partitioning of Israel and more - much more.

In addition, the terms of the "Road Map" plan (as re-written by Colin Powell's U.S. State Department) already embody the unspoken matter of allowing or blinking at the expected non-compliance by the Arab Palestinians - as occurred flagrantly under the Oslo Accords. The words of "responsibility" will be in the Plan but, only Israel will be expected to comply. Every breach on the part of the Arab Palestinians and their Arab nation supporters will be ignored and relegated to useless discussion in the United Nations as before.

Recall that, after the Oslo Accords were signed in 1991, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. State Department to report on the compliance of the Palestinian Authority in order to receive American aid. The State Department regularly issued misleading and false reports of Palestinian Authority compliance every year in order to maintain the cash flow to Chairman Yassir Arafat. Therefore, relying upon any commitment in practice to force compliance by the Arab Palestinians is a virtual non-starter IF the Quartet (U.S. State Department, United Nations, European Union and Russia) is in control.

The concept of a "Trojan Horse" being pulled up on the shores of Israel for a sneak attack is appropriate. Israel has had almost 10 years of bitter experience with those PLO terrorists and illegal weapons being injected into the heartland of Israel from the "Trojan Horse" provided by the Oslo Accords. More than 1000 Israelis have been murdered, thousands more grievously wounded - many maimed for life - including hundreds of children.

Israel has an optimistic tendency to wallow in continual negotiations, affixing words to contracts, expecting them to be meaningful and, if signed, complied with. Arabs and Muslims, on the other hand, will sign anything, agree to anything, knowing that, by custom and culture, they can walk away from any contract (in the name of Islam), with little concern for signatures agreeing to commitments. They seem to know that non-compliance is accepted (even expected) of them and that the West will do nothing punitive when barbarous massacres kill Jews.

The Jews have yet come to grips with this custom. They fuss over every jot and tittle of agreements, fully intending that they will comply and expecting the other side to do the same. When the other party abrogates, they become confused, issue complaints, demand a cure, or they go to the agreement's guarantor(s), usually America, to redress the grievances of violated contracts. When all outside guarantors dodge the issue of compliance, the Jews tend to ignore the breach and try for yet another agreement which incorporates prior broken agreements, hoping for success in the next piece of paper. This tendency of NOT demanding compliance has not been overlooked by the Arab/Muslims, Yassir Arafat, the Europeans and/or the U.S. State Department. In fact, they count on it.

Therefore, the "Road Map" is already shot through with opportunities for non-compliance by the Arab Palestinians. The drafters of this nefarious, impotent - yet hazardous - agreement has already crafted the outcome to satisfy the Arab/Muslims, while expecting Israel to accept every breach and abrogation of the "Road Map". I have little doubt that IF a bit of investigating were done, one would find the fingerprints of the old team of Bush, Sr., Jim Baker, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Daniel Kurtzer, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and all of Arafat's cronies - in essence - all the well-known enemies of the Jewish State.

Remember that the Quartet (especially the State Department) re-wrote the June speech by President George Bush, that had some small mitigating statements requiring that the Arab Palestinians remove Arafat from leadership and cease terror. However, when the Quartet's drafter's re-wrote it, those provisions were removed. The Quartet will, of course, deny hidden agendas or incorporating long-standing bias into this agreement. Recorded history for each of the participants, however, will show a deep-seated bias against the Jewish people which intensified with the successful establishment of a Jewish nation. Their betrayals are invariably couched in the words: "Trust Me." Sure. When we learn to rely only upon ourselves and G-d?

Thus, a "Road Map" has been drawn up which purports to lead to peace but, the hidden agendas contemplate Israel's eventual submersion in a sea of hostile Muslim Arabs fulfilling the mandate of Islam toward all non-Muslims, namely conversion or elimination.

So, the Quartet's "Road Map" is, indeed, a treacherous Trojan Horse to be pulled through the gates of Jerusalem. I cannot help but wonder if Israeli's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon joins his opponent in the January 28th election, Amram Mitzna, along with Peres and Beilin, to pick up the rope leading the latest "Trojan Horse" into the country?

I am reminded that the nations who have gathered again to decide the fate of the Jews are the same nations who participated in killing the Jews. Some collaborated by closing their borders to Jews, even to Jewish children. During WWII, a bill was put before the U.S. Congress to allow in 25,000 Jewish children. The opposition stated that, "It was against G-d's will to allow these children in without their parents". The bill failed and those children were murdered. Over a million and a half children were put to death and these same nations looked on dispassionately.** (Before WWII, England, to their credit, took in 10,000 Jewish children who had been sent out of Germany by desperate parents who could not escape).

But, times change. December 17th, England's Prime Minister Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth invited the arch terrorist, Syria's President Bashar Assad, to London for a red carpet reception and tea with the Queen. Even the LONDON TIMES was shocked and angry. Other British papers castigated Blair for cozying up to State sponsors of Terrorism. Syria hosts at least 10 Terror Organizations.

I have never forgotten nor forgiven these nations and their decision makers, Axis and Allies alike. A cruel world turned on the Jews only 60 years ago and now it seems to be happening again.

Today's American Congress has been a staunch friend and supporter of the Jewish State of Israel as a fellow democracy with shared values and a strong, dependable ally in the Middle East. Let us hope that they will defy the Quartet's re-write and fight the nefarious "Road Map" diktats to Israel.


*"The Trojan War" by Gail Stewart 1996 Microsoft Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia

** Ed Koch (former Mayor of New York), Bloomberg Radio Commentary December 7, 2002:

"We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high."


Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies




by Boris Shusteff

The dissipation and dissolution of the modern Zionist ideology, which at one point contained a Judaic kernel, is now virtually complete. It did not happen all of a sudden, but proceeded slowly, over the past few decades. Conclusive evidence of this is contained within the latest announcement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on December 4, 2002. Speaking at a conference in Herzlia he said,

"The second phase of President Bush's sequence proposes the establishment of a Palestinian state... As I have promised in the past... [this] will be discussed and approved by the National Unity Government... In the final phase... negotiations will be opened to determine the final status of the Palestinian state and fix its permanent borders... Israel must... accept the political plan which I described."

It is impossible to derive from this statement anything but the pure fact that the Israeli Prime Minister accepts "the emergence of an independent democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side... with Israel..."(1). Nevertheless, even the most ardent believers in the concept of the indivisibility of the Land of Israel are still trying to find an explanation to Sharon's pronouncements. Ruth and Nadia Matar, the leaders of the Women in Green, wrote on December 3, in an article titled "A Misreading of Reality," that,

"...there were those who voted for Sharon who did not believe what Sharon seemed to be saying about supporting a Palestinian State... It would appear to be a tactical maneuver on Sharon´s part to appear to go along with the creation of an Arab Palestinian State... In reality, the conditions which Sharon requires would never be acceptable to the Arabs. Sharon´s favoring a Palestinian State, they argue, is therefore tantamount to a non-endorsement."

On November 22, prior to Likud's primaries, Max Singer, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, published a major article in The Jerusalem Post, demonstrating miracles of talmudic thinking in attempts to prove that Sharon's approach to the endorsement of the Arab state is the only one possible. He argues that,

"The question now is not whether there should or will be a Palestinian state, because that will be determined in the future. The question now is what Israel should say about the possibility of such a state. The question of what to say is different from that of what to do" (2).

It is apparent that Singer simply twists the issue, pushing back Sharon's acquiescence to a new Arab state, and stresses that NOW it is not a problem, since it will be "determined in the future." Therefore according to him NOW Sharon only has to decide what to say. He reiterates, "The question we have to ask in deciding what to say about a Palestinian state is what is the most useful thing to say" (2). And explains that "The advantage we get by saying that Israel is ready to agree to a Palestinian state under certain circumstances is that we fulfill our vital need for a vision of an ultimate solution that is believable to the great majority of the public and to fair-minded people in other countries" (2).

It is hard not to notice major flaws in Singer's logic. If the "Palestinian state" is the vision of "the great majority of the public," but in reality Sharon speaks about it only because it is "the most useful thing to say," then he is simply lying to this public. Moreover, Singer writes that this solution is "believable to fair-minded people." Does it mean that this solution is a "fair" one? If that is so, then why must Sharon pretend that he is unwillingly supporting a fair solution instead of whole-heartedly embracing it?

Singer goes to great lengths trying to whitewash Sharon, stating that "When he agrees that eventually there will or must be a Palestinian state, he is dealing with the government's responsibility to decide what to say now" (2). Again, he plays with the words "say" and "now" implying that we do not necessarily have to listen to Sharon NOW, thus hinting that Sharon is just saying empty words to make everybody happy.

Singer's working assumption is that since the majority is in favor of establishing the Arab state, Sharon's "task" NOW is to pacify them, bringing them hope. "He is speaking to the majority of Israelis and others concerned about the future of the region who have to have some hope for what can come after the necessary completion of the military struggle the Palestinians started in September 2000" (2). And, "If in the present circumstances we say Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state, we may lose necessary support from Israelis who are unwilling to keep fighting without a goal that seems realistic, and lose critical international support" (2).

The apotheosis of Singer's explanation of Sharon's behavior comes in the following sentences: "We have to talk about a Palestinian state as the eventual solution now because that is the only label for Palestinian self-rule that we can sell either to most Israelis or to others. This doesn't mean that a more complicated understanding may not become feasible and salable in the future" (2).

Since the whole purpose of Singer's article is to convince nationalist-minded Likud members to vote for Sharon, he transparently hints at this "more complicated understanding". Enumerating_ "arguments against Israel saying that ultimately there will be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan" he writes,

"The second argument is that we can't be sure that at some point a better solution than a Palestinian state won't become possible, and we shouldn't preclude such a better solution even though today we can't convince enough people about what it might be, or what circumstances might make it possible. But talking as Sharon is doing does not forever bar the door to a better alternative" (2).

One must not be a senior fellow of a university to understand that the only "better solution" about which "not enough people are convinced today" is the transfer of the Arabs out of western Eretz Yisrael. By hinting that certain "circumstances might make it possible" Singer caresses the nationalistic ego of those who, while deep in their souls believing that transfer is the only option, nevertheless take the cowardly way out, and convince themselves that it must happen either only after a mega-terror act, in which hundreds of Jews are killed, or in the course of a full-scale war with thousands of casualties on all sides.

When Sharon's defenders bet that his conditions are unacceptable to the Arabs, they miss an extremely important point. They completely disregard the fact that Sharon's statements will embed in the memory of Israel's enemies exactly the words that they want to hear. Contrary to Singer, they will push aside, as empty slogans, all the conditions under which Sharon is ready to accept such a state. Meanwhile, his acquiescence to the creation of another Arab state will become their main weapon in the war against Israel.

Singer's formula, which claims that "the question of what to say is different from that of what to do" is an affront to Moslem mentality.

"Albert Hourani, one of the greatest Arab scholars living in the West, has said that his people [Arabs] are more conscious of their language than any people in the world... Language itself is an act. Even more, by saying that something is so, it is so. For instance, to say that the enemy is a murderer brings instant conviction that the man is a murderer; no proof is required" (3).

By saying that he agrees to a Palestinian state, Sharon creates this state in the minds of the Arabs. Alas, the Arabs will not be satisfied only with words. The state that henceforth exists in their minds will only exacerbate their hatred. They will hate the Jews even more for their procrastination in giving them this state. Now it is theirs, and they will fight for it with even greater fury and stamina than before.

In essence, Sharon's declaration, instead of soothing the Arabs' displeasure will only infuriate them. If we take the position that "the conditions which Sharon requires would never be acceptable to the Arabs, and thus Sharon's favoring a Palestinian State is tantamount to a non-endorsement," one may ask why deceive both ourselves, and the Arabs? Are we not simply baiting the bull of Arab nationalism with this red cloth? Through this, do we not invite additional pressure from the world community?

The whole collection of Sharon's conditions is absolutely ridiculous from the Arab point of view. The paternalistic approach that Sharon's "decoy" takes dealing with Arabs is like spitting in their face. This inferior dhimmi people, the Jews, will decide for them what kind of a country they are allowed to have, with whom they will be permitted to sign agreements, and what they will be able to do inside their borders? Does anyone really believe that this is the road to peace?

If Sharon uses his "Arab state" declarations as a means of dragging his feet and he is positive that his "conditions" will be unacceptable to the Arabs, then the only correct way is to do things in exactly the opposite order. He should state that an Arab state will NEVER be established in western Eretz Yisrael since the Arabs cannot meet the conditions on which such a state depends. Sharon's current approach also does another disservice - demoralizes the Israelis themselves.

This can be easily proven. When asked at the beginning of the summer "If it were possible to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, would you support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state?" only 34% said they will support it (4). Now, when Sharon has vocally made his position clear, the mood of Israelis has changed.

Asked on December 6 in a Ma'ariv poll "Do you support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian sate?" 50% said that they support it.

Whether he realizes this or not, but just by speaking about the possibility of an Arab state in a part of western Eretz Yisrael, Sharon plants new seeds of war. Even if today he manages to miraculously exterminate all those who murder Jews, tomorrow many more will arise who were awakened by his acceptance of such a state. And they will demand their share. As PA Legislative Council member Sa'adi Al-Karnaz said on December 2, 1997, in an interview on Palestinian television, "Our war with Israel and the Jews has not ended and will not end until the establishment of a Palestinian state on the ENTIRE land of Palestine."

1. Text of the amended draft of the "Roadmap" as published in Al Ayyam Newspaper, 20 November 2002.

2. Max Singer. Why Sharon is right not to rule out a Palestinian state. The Jerusalem Post 11/21/02.

3. John Laffin. The Arab Mind Considered. Taplinger Publishing Company, New York, 1975.

4. Public opinion survey conducted by Smith Research among a representative telephone sample of 501 voting-age Israelis (including Israeli Arabs) from May 31- June 3, 2002.



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



Arutz Sheva:, December 26, 2002


by Martin Sherman

Article 16: "...the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine... and [in] enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom."

Article 24: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, [or] on the Gaza Strip..."

Article 26: "The Liberation Organization... does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states."

These excerpts from the Palestinian National Charter, as it was formulated in 1964 by the inaugural convention of the Palestinian National Council in Cairo (where the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded) are of significant consequence, for they point to a fundamental fallacy in the authenticity of the Palestinian claims for national self-determination. As can be seen, they explicitly eschew any claims of sovereignty in the territories of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") and the Gaza Strip, which they openly concede to the jurisdiction of the Jordanians and the Egyptians respectively.

This seriously cuts away the ground from under any claim that the "West Bank" and Gaza constitute the Palestinians' ancient and long-yearned-for motherland, and to which they have unalienable and inexorable rights. On the one hand, this submissive concession of sovereignty over these territories to non-Palestinian rule indicates a remarkable malleability in the national aspirations of the Palestinians, which seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom.

On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with the position taken by the late Zuheir Muhsin, formerly the head of the PLO's Military Department and member of its Executive Council.

Almost a decade and a half after the first public endorsement of the Palestinian Charter, on March 31, 1977, Muhsin made the following declaration in an interview with the Dutch daily Trouw: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

It thus appears that there is room for the "heretical" postulation that the true Palestinian desire is not really a state. Indeed, perhaps the time has come to suggest most of the prevailing conventional wisdom regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is totally unfounded, even misguided. For according to this wisdom, the fuel of the conflict is the lack of Palestinian self-determination, and that the goal of the Palestinians' struggle is to establish a state for themselves. However, the competing explanation, which seems to emerge from the words and deeds of the Palestinians themselves, is quite the opposite. According to this explanation, the fuel of the conflict is not the lack of Palestinian self-determination, but the existence of Jewish self-determination. As long as Jewish self-determination persists, so will the conflict. Moreover, according to the alternative explanation, the goal of the Palestinians is not to establish a state for themselves but to dismantle a state for others - the Jews.

The question that now arises is: Which of these two alternative versions has the greater explanatory power? The answer seems to be unequivocally the latter. For it offers eminently plausible explanations for a range of events, which the former is powerless to account for.

For example:

- It explains why every territorial proposal, which would have allowed them to create a state of their own (from the 1947 partition plan to Barak's offer at Camp David in 2000), never satisfied Arab leadership.

- It explains why only the total negation of Jewish independence would appear acceptable to the Palestinians, as evidenced not only by their rejection of any viable offer for statehood, but by much of their rhetoric and symbolism, in which they invariably portray the whole the Land of Israel, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, as constituting part of Arab Palestine.

- It explains not only why the Palestinians refrained from attempting to exert their national sovereignty in the pre-1967 "West Bank" (as evidenced by their original National Charter), but why today the Palestinians, as an overwhelming majority in Jordan, resign themselves to the rule by a Hashemite Bedouin despot, who represents the minority in the land.

- It explains not only why they rejected the far-reaching generosity of the Barak proposal, but also the violent manner in which they rejected it.

- It explains why the Palestinians stubbornly insist on the "right of return," which would imply placing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians now living in Arab lands under Israeli jurisdiction. It is hardly consistent with an alleged desire to be free of oppressive Israeli control or with an equitable two-state solution.

By contrast, none of the above phenomena can be reconciled with the explanation propounded by the advocates of conventional wisdom. For, in reality, the Palestinians appear to have little motivation in expressing their national sovereignty in territories when they are under non-Palestinian, but Arab, rule. Strangely, this desire only manifests itself in these territories when they fall under Jewish rule. Indeed, Palestinian efforts seem far more comprehensible if seen as directed toward the the undermining and elimination of Jewish sovereignty (by demanding either Israeli withdrawals, where possible, or Arab repatriation, where not), than in the realization of their own independence.

If this is true, then making ever more generous proposals regarding Palestinian statehood will be totally unproductive, indeed counterproductive, for these will induce no peaceable response whatsoever. After all, as Muhsin said, "The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

It will be of great interest to see which explanation the next Israeli government adopts as the foundation of its policy toward the Palestinians - that which has considerable power to account for Palestinian behavior, or that which has none.


Martin Sherman is a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.




By Shawn Pine

In January 2003, Israelis will go to the polls to vote in the most fateful election in the country's fifty-five year existence. The Likud electorate, having rejected Netenyahu's promise of victory, have opted for a continuation of Sharon's policy of attrition. While Netanyahu's promise might have appealed to most Likudniks, the fact that he failed to follow such a policy during his tenure as Prime Minister made the messenger suspect. Consequently, in January Israelis will go to the polls to chose between a continuation of Sharon's policy of attrition or Labor's candidate Amram Mitzna proposal of capitulation.

Early polling has Sharon with a significant lead over Mitzna. This is largely a function of the majority of Israelis coming to the realization that whatever the deficiencies of Sharon's policies, they are based upon a realistic assessment concerning the prospects for achieving a lasting peace with the present Palestinian leadership. However, despite his overwhelming lead in the current polls Sharon is vulnerable on the issue of security. Labor can argue that Sharon's tenure as prime minister has been a security disaster, with Israel suffering more than 4,500 casualties under his leadership, most of them civilians.

Moreover, Sharon's decision to embark on a policy to break the Palestinian will to fight, rather than decisively defeat them, has so prolonged the conflict that it has had a far more deleterious impact on Israel, and the Palestinians, than if Sharon had employed overwhelming force at the beginning of the intifada. Additionally, there is a danger that the international community may feel compelled to enforce an agreement. Should this occur, Israel would find itself internationally isolated and totally reliant on the United States to protect its interests. In such a forum, given the myriad of economic, security, and political concerns of the United States, Israel would undoubtedly find itself under immense pressure to make far-reaching concessions, regardless of whether there is a quid pro quo on the Palestinian side. Finally, given the general values within Israeli society there is always the risk that Israel will sooner tire of the bloody conflict before the Palestinians.

However, whatever the dangers posed by Sharon's policy of attrition, it pales in comparison to the risk that Amram Mitzna is proposing in his call for unilateral disengagement and withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, it reflects a pernicious, delusional psychosis and suggests a convoluted, irrational thought basis void of any realistic assessment of existing realities. Any rational analysis makes it clear that Mitzna's policy of unilateral withdrawal will neither resolve the conflict or stem terrorism.

Indeed, Barak's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and the Rabin/Peres government's insistence on continuing the Oslo process despite overwhelming evidence that Arafat had not undergone a metamorphous from terrorist to statesman that his supporters and apologists have maintained, should have disabused even the most optimistic supporter of the peace process that a lasting peace can be achieved with the present Palestinian leadership.

All of the empirical evidence and historical record suggests that such a policy will only prolong and exacerbate the conflict. Unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza will be perceived by the Palestinians as an Israeli strategic defeat and vindication of the intifada. Indeed, this has been clearly articulated by Hamas leader Aziz-Rantisi when he remarked, in the immediate aftermath of Mitzna's election in the Labor primaries, that Labor's selection of Mitzna was a confirmation of the utility of Palestinian suicide attacks. Considering that Rantisi has repeatedly proclaimed that the goal of Hamas was to "take back all of Holy Palestine from the sea to the Jordan," the record suggests that the election of Amram Mitzna will hardly end suicide bombings.

History is replete with examples of how acquiescence to terrorism and threats of forced only exacerbated the insecurity of nations and the world. Undoubtedly, the most poignant example was Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler. More recently, the United States suffered the events of 9/11 in large part due to the unwillingness of successive Clinton administrations to respond to a myriad of past attacks by Islamic terrorists such as: the 1993 bombing of the World Trade center; the 1996 bombing of the Khobar towers; the 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the 1999 bombing of the USS Cole.

In determining the utility of Mitzna's position of unilateral withdrawal it is important to remember that suicide bombings were the direct result of Israeli withdrawal form the territories. Prior to the Oslo process, when Israeli security forces controlled the territories, suicide bombings were nonexistent. They began shortly after the arrival of Arafat to the West Bank and Gaza. Between January 1994 to April 1996 Israel suffered more than a dozen suicide bombings. It was only with the election of Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, and his initial demand for Palestinian reciprocity in fulfilling its obligations under the Oslo Accords, that the level of terrorism abated. The subsequent election of Ehud Barak, was construed by Arafat, and the PA, as an indication of Israeli weakness and a signal that they could return to a policy of supporting terrorism while receiving political concessions. The election of Mitzna would only reinforce this notion.

In the final analysis, Israel is bleeding because successive Israeli leaders lacked the will to fulfill the fundamental premise upon which governance of people exist. Namely, the obligation of an government to ensure the security of its citizens. This is especially true in a democracy in which people confer upon their leaders the obligation of the government to protect its citizens. It is important to note that Arafat's endorsement of Mitzna is not a strategic decision to make peace. It is just an attempt to rectify his tactical mistake by his categorical rejection of Barak's offer, and the subsequent Clinton proposals. It does not reflect a strategic decision by Arafat to resolve the Palestinian - Israeli conflict within the aegis of a two states solution. Indeed, since Arafat's arrival to the territories he has done nothing to prepare or persuade his people to make peace. Rather, he has systematically and deliberately inculcated the Palestinian people with a virulent stream of anti-Semitic propaganda stating that his goal was to destroy the Jewish State and that his participation in the peace process was nothing more than a means to facilitate that objective.

The Oslo process was born out of the strategic assumption that the core of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict is over the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 War. However, Arafat's categorical rejection of Barak's July 2000 offer of some 97% of the territories, including de facto Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, indicates that the core of the conflict is not over the territories captured in the 1967 Arab - Israeli war. Rather, it is still a function of Palestinian, and general Arab, rejection of the existence of the Jewish state. This is reinforced by scores of polls taken among the Palestinians. These polls have consistently shown that some 75% of the Palestinians view the "right of return" as a nonnegotiable core tenet in any peace process. Nor is this position merely a theoretical concession that they demand. Those same polls have shown that Palestinians believe that if given the "right of return" between 2 - 5 million Palestinians would exercise the "right," thereby effectively destroying the Jewish State.

Consequently, Palestinian support for the peace process was always framed in terms of the ultimate liberation of all of Palestine and the destruction of Israel. Indeed, Arafat made this goal patently clear when he proclaimed, "The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated." (Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995). Within this context, previous Palestinian support for the Oslo Process is understandable. More important, it makes it clear that the differences between Arafat and Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups are tactical in nature and that they share the same strategic objective.

Palestinian supporters and apologists for Palestinian terrorism have repeatedly attempted to exonerate and justify Palestinian extremism by claiming that it is an act of desperation of an oppressed people. However, such a characterization requires abandoning reality. The growing radicalization of the Palestinians has occurred precisely at a time when the Palestinian were achieving greater political freedoms than at any time in their history. Prior to the outbreak of the current intifada, some 98 percent of the Palestinians in the territories were under the control of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and they had physical control of over 40 percent of the territories. If not for Arafat's categorical rejection of the Barak offer in July 2000, the Palestinians would have already had a state in virtually all of the West bank and Gaza.

As Israel prepares to go to the polls in January, it would behoove Israelis to remember George Santayana's warning that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. In this respect, Israelis should remember that the reward for electing the Rabin/Peres government was the creation of the Palestinian Authority and a wave of suicide bombings that only ended with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu. The reward for electing Ehud Barak was the current intifada and the deaths and injury of over 4,500 Israeli citizens. Given this trend, the election of Amram Mitzna may very well signal the end of the modern Jewish State.


Shawn M. Pine is a military/strategic analyst who served for 9 years on active duty in the U.S. Army. He recently returned from Israel where he was a Ph.D. candidate in international relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East. Pine is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Ha'aretz, 29 December 2003


By Eli Pollak and Yisrael Medad

Perhaps the most influential Hebrew newspaper is Ha'aretz. It thinks of itself as the Israeli equivalent to the New York Times or the Swiss Neue Zuericher Zeitung. It sells itself as the "newspaper for thinking people."

More than once, its headlines have directly influenced government activities. Only recently, Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had to retract UN Ambassador Yehuda Lankry's declaration to the United Nations that Israel recognizes the need for a two-state solution in the Middle East.

But during the past year, Ha'aretz's image was tarnished. A study by Ran Farhi, Tomer Tidhar and Eli Pollak of Israel's Media Watch, on the coverage of populations afflicted by the "terror war" in Ha'aretz's weekly supplement during October 2000 through December 2001, uncovered a severe professional failing of the magazine's reporters and editors. The coverage of events in the Ha'aretz supplement was biased. The supplement ignored the difficulties of the Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and gave exhaustive treatment to the troubles of the Palestinian population (92 percent of the articles deal with the Palestinian population, most of them written by Gideon Levy).

During the 15-month period covered by the study, only five articles were published on the terror and war victims on the Israeli side. Considerable attention was given to the issue of refusal to serve in the army (three articles) and to the Left side of the political spectrum (six articles), but no coverage of the right-wing perspective.

Levy's articles, taken separately, did not meet certain basic professional requirements. In many instances the right of response was denied from those accused of perpetrating "acts of violence" against Palestinians. A thorough attempt at verifying the facts was not undertaken. Levy did not follow up on his cases. His articles were "single-track," employing horror pictures that were often unrelated to the topic itself, confusing news and opinions. Jewish settlers and IDF soldiers were presented anonymously, use of biased terms was abundant, including associations with Nazis, and the killing of Jewish settlers was legitimized.

The study, which received broad coverage in the wake of author Irit Linur's scathing critique of Ha'aretz, led to a significant number of cancellations of Ha'aretz subscriptions. The newspaper had to defend itself publicly, and even broadcast a radio advertisement telling us that "Ha'aretz is not really what you thought it is."

Tomer Tidhar and Eli Pollak of Israel's Media Watch undertook a second study of Ha'aretz, for an additional period of eight months, January to August this year. Four months were during the period preceding the publication of the first report, the second four months were post publication.

The new study reveals that Ha'aretz took to heart some of the criticism leveled at it. The first four months were a repeat of the previous 15 months, including parallels between the IDF and the Nazis. On May 4, Gideon Levy wrote "Now the village has turned into a real jail. Habla, Azun, Jit and Punduk, roadside villages, are closed with the new iron gates. The keys are in the hands of the jailer, the IDF. Is the distance between these iron gates and the gates of the concentration camps so large that no one wants to draw the parallel?"

The second four months were different. All of Levy's articles included a response from the IDF.

His style became somewhat less tendentious. Harsh terms aimed against the IDF and the settlers were limited. All the pictures that appeared with his articles were relevant, although there was an abundance of cynical pictures of children.

Instead of presenting his own views, he lets others talk. For example, on May 31 he reports a story by Abed al Ahmar, who upon entering the Israeli detention camp "Ofer" was told by the officer in charge: "Welcome to our concentration camp. What the Germans did to us, we will do to you." Levy then brings the IDF's vehement denial of the story.

There was a greater balance between Left and Right. Three articles described life in the West Bank and Gaza. In some cases, there was clear empathy with the Jewish residents. For example, on June 14, Sarah Lebovitz-Dar reported on the visit of actor Haim Topol to the isolated village of Netzarim in the Gaza strip. Topol came to identify with the residents and donate a monument in memory of slain minister Rehavam Ze'evi. A picture showed Topol with the children of Netzarim.

Four articles dealt with cultural aspects of the right-wing camp. These included an article on Michael Karsh, publisher of the weekly Makor Rishon, a piece about a Jerusalem club "The song of the land" whose theme is the Right wing's sharp criticism of events in Israel and even a review of a book God's Soldier by Micki Sheinfeld - which describes a yeshiva student who serves in the IDF's crack Golani brigade.

This doesn't imply that the magazine ceased dealing with left-wing interests. For example, on June 28, in an article entitled "Searching for B'tselem," Aviva Lurie presented a review of the history of the group, which has consistently championed Palestinian rights. But the article also includes critical questions regarding the veracity of the group's reports, bringing to light conflicting opinions in a balanced way.

The moral of the story is that public media criticism sometimes works. The publishers of Ha'aretz demonstrated a rare sensitivity to the public. Is it too much to ask of other media organs in Israel to show similar trends?




By Ralph Sanders


When the state of Israel came into existence in 1948 no one thought that some fifty years later it would be the first nation in the world to deploy a nationwide defense system for countering incoming ballistic missiles. In those days no one imagined the technological prowess that Israel would someday achieve. The development in Israel of a high tech society with well educated people and a skilled workforce has done much to influence its defense establishment, including its decision to build the Arrow system.

The Arrow is designed to destroy theater (within a specified military area) offensive ballistic missiles. It should be remembered that the Arrow was intended to counter medium and short-range missiles, not intercontinental missiles. At present, Israel does not have to worry about intercontinental missiles since all the Muslim states that might attack Israel are located within the same region and do not need long-range missiles. Arrow is an area defense system, intended chiefly to protect civilians and military targets.

To put the Arrow in proper perspective one must note that the system is not a unilateral Israeli development. Instead, it is a joint U.S.-Israeli cooperative program. The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding in 1986. Yet, the United States is developing its own tactical defense against incoming missiles, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Americans focus their attention on building that system. Arrow's backers claim that this project is apparently the most advanced of its kind in the world.

Scores of Israeli scientists and engineers worry about the peculiar requirements demanded of a defensive system against hostile missiles available to Arab states. At best, Americans view the Arrow as an interim program that might produce some hardware that would meet its own needs. Furthermore, thus far the United States has limited its help to conducting the R&D needed to develop the Arrow and a question remains whether it will help fund the procurement of the Arrow by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

The Arrow system stands as an exemplar of what Israel can achieve technologically. It is not surprising that in their attempt to build a missile-defense system for the United States, American planners are studying the Arrow.

The Threat

Arabs states in the region have acquired their offensive missiles from other countries. Iraq and Syria, for example, imported Scud missiles from Russia. Israelis remember vividly the Scud missiles that Iraq hurled at them during the Gulf War in 1991. Since that date, Israel has become increasingly concerned about the threat posed by ballistic missile proliferation in the Middle East.

Saddam Hussein reverse engineered imported Scud theater missiles, giving them extended range. This modified Soviet missile proved important in Iraq's victory in its war with Iran (although the modified Scud did not decide the outcome of the war). Any idea that Israelis could avoid exposing their homeland to possible destructive attacks evaporated in the Gulf War. For years, Israel's superior air force provided very effective protection for the country's highly urbanized and concentrated population. Even the best Israeli aircraft and pilots could not intercept incoming ballistic missiles and prevent major damage should these missiles hit Israeli targets. The Israelis concluded that they needed an anti-missile capability of their own.

The Iraqis gave their Scud missiles Arabic names: the Al Hussein had a range of 600 to 650 km and the Al Abbas or Al Hijarah had a range of 750 to 900 km. Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya have acquired offensive theater systems, designed to penetrate deep into the territory of potential enemies. During the Iraqi-Iranian War of 1980-1988, the Iraqis fired some 350 missiles of all types. In 1998 Iran tested its Shehab interceptor missile, aiming to increase its range. The Syrians acquired Soviet-supplied Scud missiles and Libya bought No Dong missiles from North Korea.

Offensive missiles in the hands of Arab states can strike Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa, cities in which so much of the Jewish population lives (although the Arabs may prefer to avoid hitting Jerusalem for fear of destroying Muslim holy places such as the golden Dome of the Rock and the silver-domed al-Aqsa mosques, as well as Arab neighborhoods). What's more, a Scud missile can reach an Israeli target in only six or seven minutes. Yet, we should note that the Scud missiles become less accurate as they traverse longer distances.

We should remember that Scud missiles that hit their targets even with high explosive warheads can cause considerable damage.

They can kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of property. During the Gulf War such a Scud missile fired at Saudi Arabia demolished a warehouse housing American soldiers, killing 29 and wounding 97.

By August1990 the Iraqis had built five fixed sites with 28 launchers in western Iraq threatening Israel. Of major importance, the Iraqis had developed mobile launchers that enabled them to set up and fire their missiles in less than 30 minutes. As a result, their enemies found it difficult to locate and destroy them. During the Gulf War reportedly the Israelis had to send special forces into western Iraq to conduct intelligence operations to help counter the Scud threat. We really do not know how many Scuds the Iraqis had during the Gulf War or how many they have today.

During the Gulf War Scud missiles inflicted only minor damage in Israel and, for a short time, kept Israelis confined to their homes. Iraq directed almost 40 Scud missiles at Israel over a six-week period. Saddam Hussein no longer had to rely on an air force to get to the heart of the Jewish state, an air force that he knew would prove vastly inferior to that of Israel's. In the Gulf War the U.S.-supplied Patriot proved less than adequate. The General Accounting Office estimated that as few as 9 percent of the engagements led to warhead kills. (It seems ironic that the only Israeli casualty was hit with debris from a U.S.-supplied Patriot missile.)

Whether the Iraqis have biological and chemical warheads for their Scud missiles is a matter of speculation. After his defection, Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, let it slip that Iraq did have a biological warfare capability. Some analysts think that Iraq no longer requires imports to increase its biological warfare capability, but no hard evidence exists to support this possibility.

Likewise, history has shown that in the past the Iraqis have conducted chemical warfare. They did not hesitate to use chemical agents against the Iranians and the Kurds of northern Iraq. Recently it has been reported that poisonous chemical fertilizers for making chemical bombs have turned up in Palestinian bomb-making factories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. However, thus far the Israelis have not definitively stated that the Palestinians have a chemical warfare capability.

In 1980 Israel dealt Iraq's nuclear progress a major blow by bombing and destroying its nuclear Ossakik reactor. During the Gulf War coalition forces heavily damaged Iraq's ability to develop nuclear weapons and its uranium enrichment infrastructure. Currently, Iraq reportedly has made progress in designing a nuclear bomb, but lacks the nuclear material to give the country a weapons capability. It is highly doubtful that they have attached nuclear warheads to their Scud missiles. At present rumors abound that Israel's enemies might be developing "dirty" or radiological bombs that can spread radioactivity over large areas.

Quite naturally, Israel's political leaders, strategists, and analysts have given this problem considerable attention. In addition, they have had to adjust their missile/air defense deployments to meet the threats of suicide-piloted aircraft, pilotless aircraft, and motorized gliders.

Technological Development

Israel's large pool of highly educated and skilled scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers has enabled the state to undertake difficult and complex technological projects, especially military ones. The Arrow had its origins in President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. Soon after the Star Wars program began, Israel joined in the research and development effort.

The Arrow defensive missile represents one of the most challenging technologies that Israel has ever attempted. It would be the very first time in history that designers developed an interceptor specifically to shoot down incoming missiles. Previously, designers built systems (like the Patriots) to shoot down airplanes and then tried to modify them to hit missiles.

Israel built testing grounds for the Arrow missile system at the Palmachim Air Base south of Tel Aviv. Within recent years Arrow-2 anti-ballistic missiles proved their ability to hit real targets, and not just simulated ones, in vital test flights off the coast of Israel. An Israeli F-15 fighter aircraft at high altitude dropped a live missile which assumed the flight path of an incoming Scud missile. This success occurred after years of failure that previously had cast doubt on the fate of the Arrow program. No matter how successful the Arrow proves in testing, Danny Peretz, the Arrow's program manager, aptly said, "But we know in our hearts and put it in the design that this weapon will be tested only in war."

Israeli developers had to design and build three major components that made up the Arrow system: (1) the solid-fueled Arrow interceptor missile itself (acquiring the target and destroying it); (2) the Citron Tree fire-control system (calculating the firing data); and (3) the Green Pine radar (tracking the target). The Arrow-2 missile system contains a static radar station, batteries, and control center. Its Green Pine radar is designed to pick up and track incoming missiles from as far away as 500 km. The tests had confirmed the successful integration of the missile, tracking radar, and the systems control center.

Although the United States and Israel co-developed the Arrow and its launchers, Israel alone developed the remainder of the system. Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) (the largest and most important company of its type in Israel) was responsible for building the Arrow missile itself. Over the years it has evolved into an enterprise employing more than 25,000 people and manufacturing more than 400 different military and civilian products. The Green Pine Radar was developed by Elta, a subsidiary of IAI. This firm is responsible for conceiving, designing, and producing new generations of electronic systems. The Citron Tree battle management center, built by Tadiran, guides the launches of the Arrow.

The Israelis designed the Arrow to intercept the Scud at a high altitude, destroying the warhead sooner, and at a greater distance from Israeli territory. They had learned a sad, but valuable lesson during the Gulf War when the Patriot hit Iraqi Scuds toward the end of their flight, causing the Scuds to come apart in flight and fall to the ground in broken pieces. Furthermore, the Scuds tended to separate on entering the atmosphere. By intercepting at higher altitudes, the Israelis do not have to worry about separation.

Realizing the limitations of the Arrow, Israel's weapons designers proceeded to build a two-layered defense missile system. The Arrow constitutes the outer layer and an improved Patriot missile serves as the inner one. Just how effective either system will be remains a question. In addition, the Israelis also are developing UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) designed to target launchers for Scud missiles. The UAVs would complement the Arrow theater missile defense system.

Israel's most recent progress occurred on January 5, 2003 at the Palmachim base when the Israel Air Force for the first time launched four Arrow missiles consecutively. The Israelis successfully dispatched these missiles toward different simulated targets, leading Israeli military commanders to conclude that the Arrow could intercept any Iraqi missile, including Scuds.

Because the flight tests were part of a joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow improvement program aimed at assessing the Arrow's performance under special flight conditions, to coordinate with American observers, in this test Israeli developers did not include real interceptions nor real targets. Despite these limits in testing, Major General Dan Halutz observed that Iraq's capabilities presently are limited, and Israel is prepared to deal with any Iraqi attack on Israel.

Strategic Dimensions

The peril of large-scale combined conventional attack that threatened Israel's survival from 1948 through 1973 and beyond has waned but has not altogether disappeared. As noted above, the WMD and ballistic missile threats posed by neighboring and more distant states are growing. The strategic role played by Arrow originates from that fact.

To make optimal use of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, Israel's military establishment must develop concepts indicating how the weapon will be used in case of hostilities. In fashioning such a strategy, one begins with the fact that Israel is a small country with a population concentrated in a few cities. The geographical features of Israel, in large part, determine the kind of strategy its military thinkers can develop.

The Gulf War of 1990 proved a turning point in Israeli strategic thinking. Until that conflict Israel depended chiefly on a combination of superior air and armored power to protect its territory. Israeli doctrine traditionally has called for offensive tactics against its enemies. At times, it took preemptive action when it suspected an enemy was preparing to attack, as in the Six Day War. During the Gulf War Iraq presented Israel with a new strategic challenge as its Scud missiles rained down on Israeli territory. The Patriot missiles which the United States sent to counter the Scud attacks proved less than adequate. After that war Israel decided to develop its own tailormade system that could intercept incoming ballistic missiles. A new strategic age was born for the Jewish state.

Israel had long maintained a formidable nuclear and missile deterrent. Until the Gulf War this deterrent worked. Israel did not have to worry about any Arab nation using weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, chemical, and biological) and designed its deterrent force to forestall conventional ground and air attacks. Israel never publicly acknowledged that it possessed nuclear arms. However, Arab states believed that Israel possessed such weapons and acted accordingly. For example, some experts suggest that during the Yom Kippur War, Egypt did not push deeper into the Sinai because its military leaders feared Israeli nuclear retaliation. When deterrence failed, as it did in the Yom Kippur War, Israel absorbed the initial conventional blows and then deployed its own conventional reserves to gain a victory.

All of Israel's wars were fought with high-explosive warheads. After the Gulf War Syria, Iraq, and possibly Iran may have committed themselves to building weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis realized that although in the Gulf War Iraq refrained from arming its Scud missiles with warheads of mass destruction, in a future war they had to prepare themselves for countering such a possibility.

Absorbing a first strike has become unacceptable to Israel. Military experts in Israel must assume that Arab states might send a hail of missiles fitted with WMD warheads against Israeli cities and military targets. Recently, high-ranking Israeli officials reported that Iraq has airplanes capable of delivering chemical and biological warheads and the IDF must be prepared to counter this as well as the missile threat. If past records are meaningful, Israeli pilots should prove more than able to blunt an air attack.

An enemy WMD first strike might severely cripple Israel's retaliatory capability and prove devastating to its urban and industrial centers. Israel's retaliatory capability comprises aircraft (F-16s and F-15s) and offensive ballistic missiles, the Jericho-2 (a two-stage solid-fueled missile with a range between 1,500 and 3,500 km). Unconfirmed reports exist that Israel is building a 4,800-km range Jericho-3 missile based on Israel's space launch vehicle, the Shavit. Israel also has become a leading developer of a type of UAV that perhaps could be used in a retaliatory mission.

Israel's military leaders have concluded that they no longer can depend solely on a "second strike" strategy. They can destroy any nation that attacks them, but can suffer terrible losses in any war. Therefore, Israel finds it advisable to look to its defenses both active (anti-missile systems) and passive (civil defense).

Although suffering from some major deficiencies of late, Israel civil defense has made some major strides. For instance, in case of a chemical attack local rescue teams, comprising paramedics, firefighters, and security forces, who are first on the scene are getting special protection. Some of these local teams have received from the Home Front Command special suits developed in Israel for protection against chemical and biological weapons. There is controversy if Israel has enough smallpox vaccines, but the Health Ministry is making efforts to have enough for every Israeli.

The Arrow is intended to enable Israel to deter or withstand a surprise Arab "first strike" against military targets or urban centers. It is quite true that during the Gulf War Iraq's theater ballistic missiles enjoyed only marginal military utility. They had small payloads and were inaccurate. Projected improved accuracies, increased payloads, and more lethal warheads could enable them to inflict vast damage to key military and civilian targets in Israel.

The doctrine of "mutual assured destruction" that served the United States so well during the Cold War today has little appeal in Israel. A deadly riposte by Israel would not save the state. It could only inflict enormous damage to an aggressor. Both sides would sustain hits, but Israel could be obliterated. The Israelis have no desire to see Baghdad wiped out if it also meant that Tel Aviv ceased to exist.

Israel's leaders have announced that if an opponent attacks Israel with weapons of mass destruction, Israel would use its right of self-defense and strike back. No longer would Israel refrain from action as it did during the Gulf War. Only if the United States destroys Iraq's theater strike capabilities before the Iraqis could fire them, would Israel's retaliatory blow become unnecessary.

Of course, Israel's response would depend on the "degree of destruction" of the enemy attack. A lot depends on the type of weapons Israel's enemies use and their results. No doubt, a nuclear assault would call for a nuclear response. The effectiveness of possible chemical and biological warfare remains questionable. In large part, the effectiveness of these weapons depends on the degree to which Israel prepares its military forces and civilian population to counter them (e.g., many Israelis have gas masks).

Some Israelis argue that Israel should not respond with weapons of mass destruction even if Arab opponents use such weapons first, otherwise it will lose the moral advantage. At any rate, the Israelis naturally would prefer to blunt incoming missiles before they could cause any damage. That is where the Arrow missile system comes into play. This missile system is designed to add to Israel's deterrent capability. It is intended to allow Israeli leaders sufficient time to make decisions free of "apocalyptic" alternatives.

Some Israeli strategic thinkers argue that Israel must publicly declare that any attack made against its territory by an enemy's ballistic missiles should be considered an attack using nuclear or biological warheads, with the intention of annihilating Israel. Certainly blunting such an attack with a defense shield makes good sense. But Israel requires protection from any incoming missile, irrespective of the type of warhead that it carries.

Operational Considerations

The Arrow anti-missile system became operational in the fall of 2000. It is a two-stage, solid-fuel missile which is linked to Israeli military surveillance satellites that are launched by Shavit rockets. The Israelis know that no system can guarantee an interception rate of 100 percent. A former Israeli defense minister acknowledged this fact when he cautioned that there is no way to seal the skies hermetically against attack.

Nonetheless, the Israeli Defense Forces believe that the Arrow system should be able to intercept a salvo of ballistic missile attacking from ranges of up to 3,000 km. and do so with a very high kill rate. It can achieve such high effectiveness by providing three independent discrete opportunities of interception. The first involves intercepting at the highest altitude possible. If no kill takes place there, two additional interceptors are launched at short time intervals.

The Arrow is part of an integrated system, including an interceptor, a launcher, a Fire Control Radar, a Fire Control Center, and a Launch Control Center. All these components make up a total air warning system.

No matter what its enemies say, Israel can take no chance that they will not use chemical warheads. Wearing gas masks and protective gear, Arrow crews practice reloading the Arrow missile launcher in an environment contaminated with chemical agents. In the fire control center, Israeli soldiers practice tracking and hitting incoming missiles under various scenarios. Unlike the Patriot system, whose fire control system was essentially automated, the Arrow system enables military commanders to decide when to fire.


Although the Israeli public strongly supports the Arrow missile, the system has attracted considerable criticism both inside and outside Israel. First of all, some critics claim that with today's technology no anti-ballistic system can be effective and, therefore, investing in such a system makes little sense. They argue that neither the American "Star Wars" nor Arrow will work. Reuven Pedatzur, an Israeli missile expert, argues strongly that there is no defense against ballistic missiles and implies that the Arrow will prove no exception to this rule.

The finances of the system also have come under attack. Critics charge that although the United States is footing the bill for initial missile development, the final price of $10 billion, of which Israel will pay some 85 percent, will prove too costly for the small nation. They contend that Israel's official cost estimate of only $1.59 billion is simply not believable. Nor is its belief that only one missile in 1,000 will "leak" past the system.

The Center for Defense Information (CDI), an American think tank critical of military establishments in general, argues that although the Arrow has tested well, it is a recently deployed system. Consequently, its effectiveness in actual combat against missiles with chemical or biological warheads remains uncertain. Arrows also suffers procurement criticisms. According to skeptics, Israel Aircraft Industries lacks the capacity to produce the number of Arrow missiles needed to meet a major Arab attack. As a result, Israel looks to the United States to fill this deficiency and in 2002 was negotiating an agreement with Boeing. CDI argues that Israel will have to wait many months before receiving U.S.-manufactured components from Boeing.

CDI also suspects that by this tactic Israel is being devious. It is trying to place itself in an advantageous position in the future to export the Arrow to other countries, thereby cutting into American exports.

Critics argue that another fact clouds the estimates of the Arrow's effectiveness. The system never has been tested against an actual Scud missile. As a result, under actual wartime conditions, Arrow's accuracy cannot be guaranteed. In addition, if the Arrow hits an offensive missile high in its trajectory, it might cause the agents to fall on Israeli territory with deleterious effects. CDI concludes that Arrow has not shown that it can stand alone as a defensive system. It further suggests that Israel is doing its citizens a great disservice by relying so heavily on the Arrow system.

Shawn L. Twing, the news editor for the pro-Arab publication, Middle East Affairs, calls the Arrow project a boondoggle. He charges that the U.S. taxpayer will bear the overwhelming cost of the system and the Israelis will contribute only a paltry sum. Twing also charges that U.S. officials quietly argue that they would rather see Israel spend U.S. money on the relatively low-technology Arrow program than let THAAD's high-technology components fall into Israeli hands and then have Israel illegally transfer the technology to other countries.

At one point Twing curiously seems to imply that even if the Arrow proves successful, it will not work. He explains that decoys and countermeasures could confuse missile defenses. Nuclear, chemical and biological warheads, even if destroyed high in the atmosphere, would inflict unsustainable damage on Israeli territory. If Arab enemies should master the use of multiple re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) on their ballistic missiles, the defense certainly would prove inadequate.

Twing goes on to argue that even Third World countries might overwhelm missile defense systems with a barrage of relatively cheap Scud-class missiles. Lastly, he contends that the defensive nature of the Arrow is contrary to Israel's offensive military doctrine that encourages preemptive strikes to make up for Israel's lack of strategic depth.

All these criticisms add up to the conclusion that ballistic missile defense is not worth the large investment that it devours.


Although these criticisms have some merit, they fail to place the Arrow missile in proper perspective. First of all, one cannot fault all ballistic defense systems, including the Arrow, as being unworkable. We will not know if the Arrow system truly works until the Israelis have to use it in a combat role. It is quite true that the Arrow has passed some critical tests. If fact, Israel's theater anti-ballistic missile program has progressed faster than that of the United States. Nonetheless, recent success in tests does not guarantee favorable outcomes on the battlefield.

As yet, the Israelis do not face sophisticated foes who in the near future probably can attach new technologies such as sophisticated decoys or MIRVs on their Scud missiles. By and large, Israel faces simple, but efficient, ballistic missiles which chiefly represent terror weapons launched against civilian populations.

Nor does hitting chemical and biological warheads during their upward trajectory ensure that fallout will cause catastrophic damage to Israel's land and population. It all depends over whose territory the interception occurs. The threat of nuclear missiles poses a much tougher problem. For the most part, Israel depends upon its own nuclear retaliatory capability to deter such an attack.

Nor do we have a clear idea how destructive chemical and biological agents will be. Chemical attacks are difficult to control. As has happened in the past, they may waft back to the sender. Chemical warfare historically has had no decisive effect on the outcome of any war in which belligerents used it. This failure during World War I influenced World War II belligerents to avoid its use. Biological agents have never before been used in a conflict. One cannot predict how lethal they will prove under wartime conditions, especially against military forces or populations which have prepared to resist it.

The total price of the Arrow system remains unclear. (Henry Cooper in the May 2, 2001 New York Post estimates that it will cost less than $2 billion.) Most likely Israel will expend the funds needed to acquire the system and the United States will continue contributing toward that end. Although critics can censure any estimates of the systems cost, Arrow looks too vital for Israel's survival to be abandoned or terminated because of costs. Nonetheless, Israel's military planners must allocate resources within the competition taking places among the country's various military missions.

What's more, the American contribution to the development of the Arrow could benefit the national security of the United States. Although the United States does not plan to field the Arrow, participation in this project could assist the Americans in their own theater missile defense development. In the past, Americans have benefited greatly from Israeli technology and there is every reason to believe that the same holds true regarding the Arrow. It pays to note that the Arrow missile became operational while the American THAAD system remains in development.

The Israelis have emphasized that the Arrow should lessen the load of the United States if American forces have to make an emergency deployment to the Middle East of the magnitude of the Gulf War build-up. Moreover, they have tried to show how Arrow's electro-optical technology could be integrated into several missile defense systems currently being developed by the United States, especially the U.S. Army's THAAD system. In short, the money that the United States spends on Arrow development does not represent a zero-sum-game for this country.

Israeli spokesmen point out that in regard to cooperation with the United States, the Arrow does not compete with U.S. weapons development. Israel is determined not to spend its limited research and development funds in areas where others have heavily invested. They believe that it is stupid to develop the same technologies.

Although Israel cannot export the Arrow to other countries without securing American permission, it can recoup by exporting other components of its missile defense system. For example, Israel has exported two Green Pine early warning stations against ground-to-ground missiles to India. The Israelis developed all the technology of these radars and consequently need no U.S. permission to export them. However, the question of Israeli export of U.S.-supplied technology still requires scrutiny by American officials.

Israeli experts remind us that the Arrow complicates an enemy's calculations and alternatives in launching its ballistic missiles. The enemy must assume that the Arrow will work, not perfectly, but that it will destroy a certain percentage of their offensive missiles. For example, Israel's enemies cannot be sure that the Arrow will prove unable to protect Israel's second strike force (although the Arrow is chiefly for the protection of the civilian population). In this sense, the Arrow acts like a deterrent.

Arab commanders must have at least a rough idea of the destruction that an Israeli retaliatory strike could inflict on their lands and peoples, especially if they do not have their own defensive systems. They probably have to respect both Israel's retaliatory strength and Arrow's capability. They will likely exert caution before hitting Israel with a WMD missile attack. If they do decide to attack, they must consider two actions: (1) they must launch a considerable number of missiles and (2) they must launch a surprise attack when the Israelis are not prepared to counter them.

Moreover, the Arrow does not necessarily contradict Israel's offensive military doctrine. Under certain political situations, Israel might find itself unable to launch a preemptive strike. On the other hand, the IDF could first launch a military ground or air attack and use the Arrow to protect Israel's residual military capability.

Of great importance, Israel stands as a robust ally of the United States in the Middle East. The degree to which the Arrow strengthens Israel, the stronger will be America's ally.

Final Assessment

Some analysts have suggested that Israel should be lauded for facing up to its strategic situation by developing defensive as well as offensive systems. The Israelis believe that whatever the investment, the overall cost of the Arrow is a small price for decreasing the risks that the country will sustain great damage. Put another way, the Arrow is nothing more than an "insurance policy" in case Israel faces the threat of acute destruction. Insurance policies do not prevent the unwanted from occurring; rather, they serve as an act of preventing against loss. Let us hope that the Israelis will never have to find out Arrow's worth. Peace is preferable.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments