Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   JANUARY 2004             NUMBER 1

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



WE ARE BEING SOLD OUT!...Guest Editorial....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
THE TWO ALTERNATIVES...Guest Editorial....Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons

MA'ARIV POLL: 51%:37% Oppose Unilaterally Removing Settlements....Aaron Lerner
ISRAEL, BAN THE BOMB....Ariel Natan Pasko


HATRED'S ROOTS: On Hating the Jews....Natan Sharansky


THE SILENT KILLERS....Bernard J. Shapiro


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)





By Bernard J. Shapiro






By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On December 23, 2003, Ha'aretz's Baruch Kra published a summary of a video that links the entire Sharon family to a Greek island tourist resort project. If this summary is accurate--and if it isn't, Ha'aretz can expect a massive libel suit--mass demonstrations should be organized demanding Prime Minister Sharon's immediate resignation. Here are the main points of the incriminating video.

"In October 1999, Omri Sharon said that if the Greek island project succeeded 'there would be enough money to pay us all and get us out of here' (emphasis added). The Prime Minister's son is heard saying this to security firm owner David Spector on a videotape obtained by Ha'aretz... It contradicts Sharon's statement to police, when they questioned him on this issue, that he was never involved in this so-called Greek island affair.

"Omri Sharon's meeting with Spector was several months before Spector was to meet Sharon's other son, Gilad, to help him collect money that real estate contractor David Appel owed him. Police suspect that payments made to Gilad Sharon were intended as indirect bribes to Ariel Sharon--then holding the foreign and national infrastructures portfolios--in exchange for his help to get permission from the Greek government for Appel to develop the Greek island tourist resort. The permission never came.

"In the [video] recording Omri mentions the real estate corruption Appel was allegedly involved in, including the Ginaton lands near Lod. Today it is known that the primary suspect in the Ginaton affair, apart from Appel, is Prime Minister Sharon, who is suspected of exerting pressure to expand Lod to include Ginaton. This would allow Appel, who had bought lands there, to avoid incurring financial losses.

"At a certain stage Omri asks Spector if he knew of 'the megalomaniac project in Greece.' Omri said the chances of carrying out the project were slim but if it succeeded, 'there would be enough money to pay us all and get us out of here' (emphasis added).

"The police are expected to charge Appel in the Greek island affair soon--probably with bribing Sharon when he was Foreign Minister in Netanyahu's cabinet. Appel is suspected of transferring millions of dollars to Gilad Sharon by means of a fictitious contract. This was in exchange for obtaining various favors from Sharon, including the promotion of the Greek tourism venture and political help to Appel's real estate ventures. Police suspect that Sharon gave this help when he was already Prime Minister."

Here the reader should focus on the key phrase linked to the Greek island tourist project: "if it succeeded, there would be enough money to pay us all--the Sharon family--'and get us out of here,'"--meaning, to leave the sinking ship of Israel.

Apparently, Israel's days are numbered. It cannot possibly overcome the fact that 50% of the babies born in the country are non-Jewish, that the Arabs in Israel are never going to be assimilated and become bourgeois democrats, that they will never give up their nationalist aims, and that their higher birthrate will allow them to gain control of the Knesset and the country given the democratic principle of one adult/one vote!

Therefore, if the above mentioned video is genuine, Prime Minister Sharon is selling Israel down the tubes, preparing for his and his family's getaway like a thieves in the night. Instead of standing up to foreign pressure, Mr. Sharon pursues a policy of unilateral withdrawal under fire, abandoning Jewish land and tens of thousands of Jews, all the while knowing that the Arabs have no intention of giving Israel peace.

If Israelis have resigned themselves to a Palestinian state on their doorstep, it is only because they have been anesthetized by Sharon who obviously lacks the courage to win the war against Arafat and his gang of terrorists. This is defeatism.

Instead of defeatism, Yamin Israel offers a detailed plan of action leading to Jewish victory, a plan published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Remember: Even the American people--70%--oppose a Palestinian state, a fact that bolster's Yamin Israel's Jewish Victory Plan.

The public must react vigorously against Sharon's cowardly policy. The video reported by Ha'aretz makes his policy appear as sheer treachery. Massive demonstrations should be organized calling for his resignation, the formation of a new government, and the adoption of Yamin Israel's Jewish Victory Plan.




by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons

December 2003

[On 14 December 2003, a letter appeared in the "Jerusalem Post" written by Joseph R. L. Simkins of Texas. After analysing the present political situation, he concluded: "There are only two plausible outcomes: the destruction of Israel or the expulsion of the Arabs." This reminded me of two articles I had written some 16 years ago and I reproduce them here.]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Letter from London

17 August 2005


[I wrote this article in April 1988. It was published in "The Jerusalem Times" (the then Israeli edition of the "Jewish Press" of New York) of "week of July 8 to July 14, 1988", pages 6 & 15, "the Scribe" (the Journal of Babylonian Jewry, London) dated July 1992, page 1, and in a Hebrew translation in the Israeli newspaper "Moledet" dated September-October 1992, pages 24-25. Sadly, it seems more real today than when I wrote it nearly 16 years ago. I am therefore reproducing it word for word as I then wrote it.]

Three years have now passed since the summer of the year 2002 when the Jewish State was liquidated and a P.L.O. state established in Eretz Israel. A few weeks later, in accordance with article 6 of the P.L.O. National Covenant, all Jews and their descendants who had arrived in Eretz Israel since the "beginning of the Zionist invasion" of 1917, were expelled.

Since my family had British citizenship, we were able to go and live in England and together with the tens of thousands of others having British citizenship we arrived in England.

The P.L.O. had allowed for "humanitarian reasons" for every expelled Jew to take one small suitcase of belongings not exceeding $200 in value. Everything else was confiscated. We therefore arrived penniless in England. In view of the high prices of property in England, the best my family could find was a dilapidated property in a slum area of London. As a result of the dampness of the property, two of my children have been hospitalised with rheumatic fever. The strain of such conditions has brought my wife to the verge of a nervous breakdown.

However, Jews who originated from the U.S. or Western Europe were relatively fortunate. We had a place to go to. In contrast, there were over two million Jews who were expelled from Eretz Israel, who originated from Arab or communist countries.

A few hundred Jews from Russia, lacking all alternatives returned to that country. They were almost all arrested as Zionist spies and sent to Siberia or even worse. They had obviously been unaware of a group of Jews, who in the late 1920s, had left Eretz Israel to return to Russia in order to establish a kibbutz there! Stalin had had most of them murdered or sent to Siberia.

Today there are over two million Jews wandering all over the world trying to find a place to live. As in the case of Jews wanting to escape from Hitler in the late 1930s, no country wants to accept them. In those days, President Roosevelt convened an international conference in the French resort city of Evian to discuss their fate, but everyone of the participating 33 countries gave an excuse why not to accept them. Today, there is a slight improvement over the 1930s. The U.S. has agreed to take 2000 Jews and Australia 250. But these numbers are laughable in view of the fact that the wandering Jews number over two million. Every day one reads of cases of these Jews dying of malnutrition and of others committing suicide.

Will this problem ever be solved?

How did we get ourselves into such a mess?

It began in the 1980s, when the Arabs as part of their tactics, began to talk about "peace" in the framework of an "International Conference". The left, who since the Six Day War, had been eager to hand over Judea and Samaria, the heart of Eretz Israel, to the Arabs, jumped on the bandwagon. Groups such as "Peace Now" began to hold rallies and demonstrations with slogans such as "Peace for Territory", and world Jewish "intellectuals", who had never lived in Israel, sent round letters demanding "territorial compromise". They never explained that in view of the fact that over three-quarters of Mandatory Palestine - the area designated as the Jewish homeland - was in Arab hands [i.e. (Trans)jordan], it should be the Arabs who should be handing over land in Transjordan to the Jewish State in exchange for peace. The Arabs played their part to try and weaken the resistance of the Jews, by continually throwing stones, grenades and Molotov cocktails at Jewish vehicles, and attacking Jews in the street.

International pressure to "withdraw" to the pre-1967 borders increased and these were coupled with threats of sanctions. Had the Jews in Israel been united this pressure could have been withstood. But with the left joining forces with the international community, Israel caved in and in 1992 signed an "agreement" with the Arabs to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, and for the removal of all the Jewish settlers who by then had reached over 120,000. The exception was East Jerusalem, and it was agreed that the solution to this "problem" would be "deferred to a later date".

Within three months of signing this agreement, Israel had withdrawn from these areas. There was no money to pay compensation to the 120,000 settlers. All that was available was money to build shacks for these people on the coastal plain. A vague promise was given to build apartments some time in the future, a promise which was never implemented.

A few months later, the Arabs were demanding Israel "returns" Arab Jerusalem, threatening a "Holy War" from the entire Moslem world should they not do so. Here, even the left balked and joined in the chorus that united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Israel. But this "unity" was sadly not to last long. The U.S., Western Europe and Japan, fearing for their oil supplies, argued that since in 1938, Czecho-slovakia had had to surrender the Sudetenland for the sake of "world peace", Israel in the 1990s, could not be allowed to endanger world peace for the sake of just an old wall and a few dirty narrow streets in Jerusalem.

The subsequent selective sanctions by these countries against Israel caused an erosion of the "consensus" existing in Israel on the Jerusalem question. By 1995, Israel had completely returned to the pre-1967 borders. Within a few months, the Jordanians had, as in 1948, razed to the ground the beautifully restored "Jewish Quarter" including its numerous Synagogues. Tombstones on the Mount of Olives, especially the new ones added since 1967, made excellent latrine covers.

Due to these selective sanctions, Israel no longer had the money to provide all of the 150,000 Jews who had been living in the suburbs of East Jerusalem, even with shacks. Many were just given tents. What a traumatic experience it was for residents of Ramat Eshkol to move from their luxurious apartments to tents.

The next stage in the Arabs' campaign was to argue, "You have returned the territory you captured in the Six Day War. Now return us the territory you captured in the War of Independence and we will recognise the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan borders. We therefore demand that you withdraw from Western Galilee, Ramle, Lod, Jaffa, Ashkelon and Beersheba." At this demand even the extreme left-wing Mapam had apoplexy. They had built many of their kibbutzim in these places.

The United Nations went into special session and mandatory sanctions were applied against Israel. This did the trick and by the end of the twentieth century, Israel was confined to the 1947 borders. This also meant the loss of West Jerusalem as the capital, which was transferred to Tel-Aviv.

Despite this withdrawal, the mandatory sanctions imposed on Israel by the U.N. were never withdrawn. The U.N. "did not have the time" to discuss the question. As a result Israel's financial situation became desperate. She argued that just as UNRWA (United Nation s Relief and Works Agency) was still financing millions of Arab "refugees" (many of whom were fictitious), she should finance the now over one million Jews who had been displaced as a result of all the Israel withdrawals. This was resoundingly defeated in a vote of the U.N. [ 1 in favour (Israel) ; 184 against ; 1 abstention (U.S.A.). ]

"The Negev is not really part of Israel," screamed the Bedouins, "It was added as a result of the intervention of President Truman." The State Department accepted this reasoning arguing that Israel had misused President Truman's generosity by building a nuclear station in the Negev and refusing to allow international supervision, and they demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Negev. By this time, Israel had lost all ability to resist and by April 2002, Israel was reduced to a narrow strip of land on the coastal plain and a narrow strip in Eastern Galilee.

Three months later, Arabs armed with just stones, Molotov cocktails and grenades marched on these two narrow strips of land. The regulation commanding soldiers to only shoot in the air and not at any Arabs, were still in force and so the Arabs had no trouble in conquering the area.

Immediately, a P.L.O. "secular-democratic" state was declared in the entire area of Eretz Israel and within a few weeks article 6 of the P.L.O. National Covenant, which authorised the expulsion of all the Jews who had arrived since 1917 was implemented.

Those who had arrived before that date, naively believed that they would have equality in this "secular-democratic" state. Their identity cards were marked with a big red "J" (in Arabic) as in Communist or Arab countries. "Only for statistical purposes," commented a P.L.O. official to the world press. Two months later, the Jews in the P.L.O. state (who numbered over a quarter of a million), were sent to the south of the country for "resettlement". Apologies were made for the use of overcrowded cattle-trucks for this "resettlement". No communication has been received from any of these Jews since their "resettlement" three years ago. "Due to communications difficulties," explained the P.L.O. spokesman. When one remembers the cordial meeting between Hitler and the Mufti and their identity of ideas on "solving the Jewish problem", and also the statement made in May 1948 by the Secretary-General of the Arab League threatening the Jews with "extermination and momentous massacre", one can only fear the worst.

Near to my London damp apartment, lives a former "Peace Now" activist, who was expelled from Israel at the same time as me. "We were wrong in believing the Arabs," he keeps telling me. How this contrasts from the period following the withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, when "Peace Now" supporters danced in the streets of Tel-Aviv celebrating and naively waving slogans "Now Peace".

The Festivals should be times of joy for the Jewish people. However, when in the Festival prayers, the words "On account of our sins, we were exiled from our land" are said, great weeping is heard in the Synagogues. Maybe, after another two thousand stateless years of wanderings, persecutions, pogroms and massacres, we will again have a state. Let us pray that next time, we will use the opportunity wisely.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Letter from Israel

August 2005

17August 2005


[The article "Liquidation of the Jewish State" is one of gloom for the Jewish people. A few months earlier in December 1987, I wrote an article proposing a solution of the Arab-Israel conflict on the basis of transfer. I feel sure that after the initial trauma of the transferees, both Jews and Arabs would live unmolested by each other in their own states and that both peoples would be able to develop the underpopulated and underdeveloped areas of their respective states. I should make it clear that any Arab who would sign his acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state would be able to remain. Also the transferred Arabs would be able to take all their movable assets and would receive as compensation for their immovable assets, the one hundred billion dollars of assets left behind by Jews who had come from Arab countries. As with the last article, I am reproducing it word for word as I then wrote it.]

Three years have now passed since the summer of the year 2002, when the Arabs from both sides of the green line were transferred out of Israel. The green line is now a thing of the past, since three months after this transfer, the Knesset almost unanimously passed a law incorporating Judea, Samaria and Gaza into the State of Israel.

The idea of transfer was first put forward by Theodor Herzl over a century ago. At the same time that Herzl was writing his famous book "The Jewish State", he confided to his diary plans for removing the non-Jewish population from the Jewish State - "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border."

Following in the footsteps of Herzl, many if not most of the Zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion, Weizmann, Sharett, Ussishkin, Tabenkin and Katznelson were to propose such a transfer. Even some members of "Brit Shalom" - an organisation whose aim was for a bi-national Jewish-Arab state - would privately propose transfer!

Nobel Peace prizewinners and American Presidents were to join this list. According to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in it." Even the anti-Zionist, Harry St. John Philby, a confidant of King Ibn Saud, proposed that "Western Palestine should be handed over completely to the Jews, clear of Arab population except for a 'Vatican City' in the old city of Jerusalem."

In 1937, the British Peel Commission proposed a transfer of population, compulsory if necessary. Following this proposal, the Jewish Agency set up a Population Transfer Committee whose function was to prepare a programme for the transfer of Arabs from Eretz-Israel.

Apart from a transfer of Arabs during the War of Independence and a much more limited transfer following the Six Day War, the idea of transfer remained a dead letter. The Arab problem was swept under the carpet by the Israeli Government who argued that transfer was completely unnecessary. Those solitary voices in the 1970s who proposed it were labelled "racist" and cries of "bring them to trial" were heard.

Instead of transfer, the Government decided that the solution was to raise the educational level of the Arabs - in this way they would become loyal residents of Israel! Universities such as Bir-Zeit and the Hebron Islamic College were opened. The Government's expectations (if one can seriously call them that) were proved wrong. These Universities became the hot-bed of anti-Israeli activity.

Once upon a time, it was safe to travel on the roads. In the 1980s some Arabs decided to change all that. Stones were periodically thrown at passing cars and Egged buses on the roads of Judea and Samaria. When these Arabs saw that not only were the authorities unwilling to take the necessary steps to stop this, but even brought to trial and imprisoned Jewish settlers who took the necessary measures for self-defense, these Arabs gained encouragement and intensified their efforts. "Mere" stones were replaced by Molotov cocktails and bullets.

By the time the 1990s had arrived, these Arabs had extended their operations to within the green line. The knifing and shooting of Jews all over Israel became so commonplace that it ceased to be newsworthy material. Almost every day, buses on the Tel-Aviv - Haifa coastal road were attacked. By the mid-1990s Egged had already armoured-plated most of the windows of its buses. In place of a window, only a narrow slit remained. It was not unusual to see people waiting for an hour in the pouring rain for a bus which was armour-plated. Being was more important than well-being. On rare occasions, a passenger was brave enough to venture outside an attacked bus and capture one of the terrorists. Believe it or not, on arrival at the police-station with this terrorist, it was the passenger who would be arrested on a charge of kidnapping! Profuse apologies would be proffered to the terrorist for having been inconvenienced!

As a result in the deterioration of the situation, long long lines formed outside the American Embassy in Tel-Aviv. Yerida became a torrent, aliyah a trickle. In an interview with the "New York Times" in 1996, a Yored declared, "I feel safer in the streets of New York with all its muggings, than in the streets of Tel-Aviv."

The Arab birth-rate soared and Arab immigration to Israel was encouraged under the famous "family reunification" scheme. Statisticians were already predicting an Arab majority within the green line within ten years.

Over the years, voices advocating transfer increased. They began in the 1980s with the entry of the Kach party to the Knesset. As time went on, voices from the Likud, Mafdal and Techiya parties were added to this sole voice. Towards the end of the 1990s, almost the entire religious and right-wing parties were calling for transfer.

Pressure was even building up on the Labour Party. It was pointed out to them that their mentor, David Ben-Gurion, had enthusiastically welcomed the Peel Report recommendation on compulsory transfer. "We must expel Arabs and take their place," he wrote to his son Amos in 1937. During the following year, he had told the Jewish Agency Executive, "I favour compulsory transfer - I see nothing unethical in it." As Prime Minister during the War of Independence, he was asked by his army chiefs what to do with the Arabs of Lod and Ramla. To this question he retorted "Expel them". He expressed anger at the fact that the Arabs of Nazareth had not been expelled. Ben-Gurion's record swayed the Labour Party and they joined in the chorus for transfer.

There were still some liberals who were stubborn. When however they heard that Chaim Weizmann had regarded the transfer of Arabs as "absolutely essential" and had told the British Colonial Secretary that the Jews "will help in getting Arabs out of Galilee", these liberals dropped their opposition to transfer.

As was to be expected, Mapam was vociferous from beginning to end regarding transfer which they described as "unethical" or "a stain on the flag of the Zionist movement". However actions speak louder than words and a study of the history of the Mapam kibbutzim such as Mishmar Haemek and Merchavia show that these kibbutzim put transfer into practice whilst others were just talking about it.

Having a broad consensus on transfer, the Israeli Government fully implemented it in the summer of 2002. It was planned with military precision - advice being gained from the retired generals who had forcibly transferred Jews from the Yamit area twenty years earlier - and was completed within two weeks.

The cost of the operation was relatively low, since it was felt that as long as the Jews who had left Arab countries following the establishment of the State of Israel had not received compensation for their land and property, payment to the transferred Arabs should be held in abeyance. The magnificent villas owned by the Arabs, were in all fairness, given to the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who had lost their property.

Three years have now passed since this transfer and what a change for the better there is in Israel. Jews can walk and travel safely without the fear of stones, knives and shootings. What a pleasure to travel on an overcrowded Egged bus - without the armour-plating it is no longer like a coffin!

Hebron, City of the Patriarchs, is now undergoing reconstruction, under a master plan, to restore it to its original glory. Plans are also being drawn up for Jewish resettlement in the Biblical cities of Shechem and Jericho.

Jewry's holiest site - the Temple Mount - is now truly under Jewish sovereignty. The portions to which it is forbidden to enter under Jewish law have been fenced off and a great Synagogue is at present under construction - in accordance with the proposal made well over half a century ago by Rabbi Yehiel Tukachinsky - on the Herodian addition to the Mount.

Prior to this transfer, billions of dollars were being spent annually to try and maintain internal security. This money has now been transferred to educational and social services. Due to the continual cutbacks in education, schools were ending at ten o'clock in the morning! A full day's education has now been restored and subjects such as music, art and computer-science are now regularly included in the curriculum, (without the need to twist parents' arms for money). Patients who were sent home from hospital only two days after a major operation (unless they had protexia with the hospital staff) can now remain until they have recuperated. Sub-standard old age homes have now been completely renovated. Welfare and happiness of the population has increased by leaps and bounds.

This transfer has also brought benefit to the transferred Arabs. They realise that they no longer live under "occupation" in a "Zionist entity" and they can no longer be utilised by the Arab States as an irredenta. It is reported that some transferees have privately thanked the Israeli Government for having operated this transfer.

Although over a hundred years were to pass from the time Herzl proposed transfer until its full implementation, his motto "If you wish it, this is no fairy tale" has once again been proved right.





900 killed, 6,029 injured, 19,948 attacks 29 September 2000 through 24
December 2003
IDF Spokesperson 25 December 2003

Killed: 632 Civilians + 268 Security Forces = 900 Total Israeli Killed
Injured: 4,274 Civilians + 1,755 Security Forces = 6,029 Total Israeli Injured

Total Attacks*: 8,194 West Bank + 10,974 Gaza Strip + 780 Home Front =19,948 Total

* Does not include attacks with rocks or firebombs.
** "Israeli" includes tourists and foreign workers.

For purposes of comparison:


SEPTEMBER 11, 1993 = 1400

For another comparison which shows neglegent homicide by the framers of Oslo:
Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks Since 1978
Communicated by the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, September

Year; # of Israelis killed in terror attacks
1978: 12
1979: 14
1980: 10
1981: 51982: 2
1983: 6
1984: 7
1985: 14
1986: 7
1987: 5
1988: 14
1989: 32
1990: 23
1991: 26
1992: 39
1993: 38 (thru Sep.9)
15 years before Oslo: 254
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis



The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 27, 2003


By Arieh O'Sullivan

Israel's Amos-2 telecommunications satellite lifted off just before midnight Saturday atop a Russian rocket in Kazakhstan, ensuring Israel's firm membership in the international space market.

The 160-kilo satellite, built by Israel Aircraft Industries' MBT Division, is expected to eventually reach a geo-stationary orbit, where it will provide cellular phone and on-line data links, and television transmissions.

Only seven other nations are capable of developing and producing communication satellites. As much as the design and construction of a communication satellite is a source of pride for this small country, the Zionist endeavor is almost totally a business venture that investors hope will soon recoup the $150 million cost.

David Pollack, director of Spacecom Ltd., the company that markets the satellite services, was monitoring the liftoff from Tel Aviv. Spacecom said that commercial investment is expected to total more than $400 million over the next 11 years.

The Amos-2 is to supplement its sister satellite, Amos-1, launched in 1996. Israel has also built and launched the Ofek-5 spy satellite. Four other Israeli satellites have been launched and since decommissioned.

Spacecom was originally to have launched the Amos-2 atop an Ariane rocket from French Guiana, but this launch was transferred to Starsem, which decided to launch it on a Soyuz-FG rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the Kazakhstan desert.

That large rocket is the same type used to send crews and cargo to the International Space Station. It stands 46.1 meters tall and weighs over 300,000 kilograms at launch.

The Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan is Russia's main launch base for larger rockets such as the Soyuz and the workhorse Proton. Russia leases the base from the former Soviet state.

Israeli officials said they were comforted by the reputation of the Soyuz as the world's most trusted launch vehicle, with over 1,600 successful missions.

The satellite is to have final separation from the four-stage rocket about seven hours after liftoff. It will be in an elliptical orbit and over the next 10 days technicians will use booster engines to bring it out to a 36,000 km. circular orbit, which will maintain it in a stationary position enabling it to focus on the Middle East, Central Europe, and, unlike the Amos-1, the East Coast of the United States. It has a 10- to 12-year life expectancy.

Spacecom had sold all of the transponder space on the Amos-1; the Amos-2, with its larger capacity, will eventually take over from its older sister. The Amos-1 has a life expectancy of some 12 years and will eventually die in 2008.

The Amos-2 is expected to be in service until at least 2014, IAI officials said. Spacecom is now embarking on production of the Amos-3.

Copyright 1995-2003 The Jerusalem Post -




By Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Commentator & Analyst

Few of Israel's planners, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres (perpetual loser) former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin (voted out of his own Party), America's President George W. Bush, etc. have contemplated the full long-term impact of another Arab Palestinian State on the 'other side of Sharon's security wall'. Allow me to suggest a few things that are likely to happen (not necessarily in order of their happening):

1. Each of the nations who have Arab Palestinians on their territory and have refused them citizenship will eject their 'Palestinians' toward the new Arab State of Palestine. Those nations include Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Libya - not inclusive of those Arab Palestinians living now in Europe, America and elsewhere. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already ejected 700,000 Arab/Muslim Palestinians into Jordan after the PLO betrayed their brethren in Kuwait during 1990.

2. The estimated number of Arab/Muslim Palestinians to be ejected from their current residences in Arab and non-Arab countries ranges from 3 to 5 million - depending upon whose figures you believe. (Note! The neo-State of Palestine would be overcrowded if only 500,000 were allowed to enter.)

3. It would be highly probably that most new Arab/Muslim Palestinians migrating into this volatile area of the Middle East would be located in tents or shack slums, pressed up close to the Jewish State of Israel against Sharon's Security Wall. There they will need water, sewage, food, employment which the U.N. and E.U. will demand that Israel provide. Piling up against the Security Wall will provide a Gaza-like condition which will have intended political and practical consequences not yet understood by Sharon and his cronies.

There they will squat in misery and squalor as they have in refugee camps now going on 50 years. They will howl and scream, not against Yassir Arafat (or whomever takes his place) but against the Israelis who will not allow them past the Security Wall to join their Israeli-Arab brethren. That's what they'll say, appealing to the World to pressure Israel into opening the gates.

4. The virtual "Palestine" CITY OF THE WALL will grow to a typical festering refugee camp of squalor, filth and disease. As in other refugee camps, It will be an incubator for discontented youth who will join other Terrorists who will freely operate close to Sharon's Security Wall/Border.

As in Gaza, the Terrorists of many nations will become operating gangs, recruiting new members, manufacturing missiles, mortars, rockets, explosive devices - with no Israeli troops to interfere or disturb their planning. The removal of Jewish residents and Israeli troops will allow Terrorists to form well-organized and efficient armies of conquest through Terror.

5. Local Arab/Muslim Palestinians manufacturing weapons will now be free to produce mortars, Kassem Rockets, 'et al' but, once it's no longer necessary to use the Egyptian tunnels in Rafah to smuggle in weapons, then larger weapons can be trucked, shipped or flown in. That means that larger missile launchers and artillery can be imported into the Terrorist Center of the World - much the same as the 10,000 missile launchers set up by Hezb'Allah in the area of Lebanon after the IDF retreated when ordered by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Launching mortars, missiles over the Wall into the densely populated near-by Israeli cities will be too easy.

Any documents promising peace and de-militarization to Israel which are drafted by the Europeans, the Arabist State Department, the non-Jewish Leftist Jews mandating a "Weapons-Free Zone" will, as always, be unenforceable - if not comical.

6. WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Since the territory abandoned by Sharon will now be free of Israelis patrols or the IDF's snap raids, the Arab Palestinians can import WMD - including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical). Hezb'Allah, Al Qaeda, PFLP, PLO, Tanzim, Al Aksa Brigades, Hamas, 'et al' will have no problem in acquiring NBC - WMD (Weapons of Mass Death) from Iran and Syria which would easily pass into Arab Palestinian hands - and may already have. Israeli intelligence definitely knows that of the 10,000 missiles on the Lebanese border in the zone abandoned by Barak, a substantial number have chemical warheads.

7. It is highly probable that the U.N. and the E.U. will be invited by the Palestinian Authority into the new territory to interfere with any reprisal raids against Terrorists by Israel. Hot pursuit of Terrorists, targeting Terrorist leaders, destroying weapons' depots will be difficult, if not impossible IF the U.N./E.U. troops are interspersed among the 'supposedly' civilian population. That could get worse if American troops are added to the so-called "Peace-Keeping Forces" planned by E.U. through NATO. Be assured that none of these troops would act as Americans are presently doing in Iraq or as Israelis have done to intercept and thwart Terrorist plans. Recall that U.N. troops stationed in Lebanon to stop Terrorists from attacking Israel became a porous line, often assisting Terrorists up and back after their violent missions.

8. I would imagine that Sharon will provoke a civil war when he tries to remove what some of the Media and world governments pejoratively called "settlements" but are really Jewish communities - villages, towns and cities. It has long been the plan of the Arabist State Department, in collaboration with the Labor Left of Israel and now even Arik Sharon, to turn over to incoming Arab Palestinians all the farms, homes, factories, wineries, water, sewage systems and electrical grids all built by the Jews. This will be claimed compensation for the 400,000 Arabs who fled at the behest of the seven Arab armies so they could sweep the Jews from the land into the sea without being impeded by Arab villagers jamming the roads. (As an aside, there is to be no compensation to the some 850,000 Jews who were ejected from the Arab countries where they had lived for centuries, nor will they be recompensed for the properties they were forced to abandoned after the seven Arab countries ignominiously lost the first war of 1948.)

9. Israel (under Sharon) will have also given up the water aquifers under the Judean and Samarian hills that provides Israel with 33% of her fresh water resources. Given the Arab custom of not treating their sewage and allowing it to run down, raw, into the valleys and from there down into the aquifers so that water flowing from it will be heavily polluted. The aquifer will be contaminated and any water coming from there would have to be heavily chlorinated and even boiled in order to drink safely. This situation is already occurring in those areas given over to the Arab Palestinian Authority now under Yassir Arafat's control under the Oslo Accords. Imagine the ground and air pollution when 3 or more million Arabs are packed up against Sharon's Security Wall/Border. Note! The aquifer in Gaza under the control of the PA is now drained so low from excessive pumping that it has been infiltrated with salt sea water. The Arabs call it their "salt tea". Having over-pumped their wells after Israel's Water Authority turned over water control to the P.A., the Arabs then demanded to be connected to Israel's main water carrier.

10. Sharon will have given up the Jordan Valley which was always considered a natural barrier to invasion from Jordan by Arab armies and a natural tank trap. This was confirmed on 6/29/67 by a once secret advisory by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff study of what Israel must keep in order for America NOT to have to rescue her from an attack by any coalition of Arab Armies.

Sharon will also be forced to give up their water rights to the Jordan River. Sharon will have given up the natural barrier of the Judean and Samarian Hills with their steep incline along with their high positions for artillery and the narrow roads that enemy armies would have to navigate to get to the heart of the Jewish country and Jerusalem.

11. Sadly Sharon, along with willing Leftist Jews, seems determined to divide Jerusalem and quit claim on Jewish Rights to the Holy Temple Mount. According to maps and plans developed long ago by Yassir Arafat, Jews, will be allowed to approach the Western Wall - only - with the permission from the Arab Muslim Waqf. The Waqf are the Muslim trustees to whom Moshe Dayan (a non-Jewish Jew) gifted the Holy Temple Mount of King Solomon after Israel liberated the eastern half of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Days War. Like most Leftists he didn't want observant Jews to have a focal point for their rightful historical and religious claims on Jerusalem. The Left started the Oslo process then, although the real planning and conspiracy by Peres, Beilin and Rabin to evict all Jews from the territories began in earnest in the early 1980s.

In effect, under the Sharon/Bush planning, the Eternal Jewish Capital City of Jerusalem will return to the same division when Jordan illegally occupied it for 19 years. King Hussein destroyed 58 Jewish synagogues, drove out the Jewish residents, and turned the ancient Jewish graveyard on the Mt. Of Olives into truck routes with its headstones used as urinal splash plates for Jordanian soldiers. Yes, indeed, Arik, you will surely leave a legacy that no one will forget.

Having free unimpeded access to Sharon's Wall on their side, there will be little problem for the Arabs to dig down 20 or 30 meters (approximately 60 to 90 feet) as they have done successfully in the tunnels from Egypt to go under the Security Wall into Israel's heartland. They can dig - not dozens but hundreds of such tunnels which could only be filled on the Israeli side if and when found. I would imagine that Terrorist operations would ramp up far more viciously than we have seen even in these past 3 years.

In addition, they will have assistance from Arab Muslim Palestinians living inside of Israel as citizens (with full civil rights). Once Sharon has shown the yellow feather of fear and retreat as did Ehud Barak, Israeli Arab citizens will quickly cross over to assist what they consider the likely winner, namely Arafat or his replacement.

Think of Judea and Samaria in terms of a replica of Arafat's mini Terrorist state which he created inside Lebanon. No law except Terror, a free retreat for every Muslim Terrorist to ply his wicked trade - something like the Muslim Jihadists pouring into Iraq through Syria from Egypt, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Chechnya, Yemen, Algeria and even non-Muslim Arabs from France and England. They only will stay long enough to beat or kill enough Americans - if they can and many will move into the new Arab State of Palestine. But, Arafat's new State will be a permanent base of Terror operations against Israel, the Arab nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and then, globally, to America and Europe. It will be a more than a safe haven for Terrorists - it will be their new Terror Mecca created by Sharon and Bush.

Should Israel now feel that she needs to engage in hot pursuit of Terrorists or to try to take out missile launchers, be assured the U.N. would vote sanctions as would the E.U. who has been pouring money into Arafat's pockets and the P.A. - most of it embezzled.

As one looks over Sharon's Wall to a land once brought back to civilization by the Jews, your will soon see a backward conglomeration of a compressed howling mob of Arab Muslim Palestinians made into useful refugees by Arafat or his replacement. It will be one gigantic pest house of disease and sewage running down the middle of the street with hostile Terrorists always pushing, bombing, sniping, suicide bombing and pressing against or under Sharon's Wall. They will always be in contact with the Arabs living in the heart of Israel, breeding in extraordinary numbers and subsidized by Arab nations for birthing new Arab Muslim Palestinians - much as they were paid by Iran, Syria, Saddam and Saudi Arabia to martyr themselves while killing Jews. The end will be intended to be the same either way - that is, kill Jews with bombs or with babies who are later taught - from the age of 3 and up - to hate the Jews, kill them when able and advancing toward being a 'Shaheed' (martyr for Islam).

Look over your War Wall, Arik, and see what you have done. You once had forward vision when you were a General and you were one of the truest and best warriors for the Jewish State of Israel. Now you are old, and as happens to old men, you dream of the past when you could think ahead and plan well. Now, you will try to evacuate Jews and give their life's dreams to the millions of incoming Arabs who will be packed tightly against your Wall.

So, now your legacy is to squeeze Israel behind a Walled Ghetto, 9 miles wide from the sea to its very center. As the millions of Arab Muslim Palestinians are packed into the impossibly small area of Arafat's State, they will begin to do what the Arabs promised in 1947, namely, to push the Jews into the sea.

This will be your legacy Arik Sharon IF you continue to assist the creation of another Arab State of Palestine. You will join Haman, Herod or Hitler in the eyes of the Jewish people. Be assured you will have a place in history as a betrayer of the Jewish people and hated for eternity.

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



The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 22, 2003


By Evelyn Gordon

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's speech to the Herzliya Conference last week was indeed, as this paper's editorial noted on Sunday, something new. But new, unfortunately, is not synonymous with better -- and the plan outlined by Sharon last Thursday represents a significant retreat that will encourage Palestinian terror and worsen Israel's international position.

In his speech, Sharon announced that even if the terror continues abated, Israel will withdraw from an unspecified number of settlements in another few months. But in an effort to pretend that this is not a withdrawal under fire -- the very move that he was twice elected in a landslide on a pledge to prevent -- he said that Israel will compensate for this retreat by "strengthen[ing] its control" over parts of the territories "which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement," and warned that unilateral withdrawal will give the Palestinians "much less than they would have received through direct negotiations."

These caveats have been lauded by the Post and other Sharon apologists as a way of ensuring that unilateral withdrawal, far from rewarding Palestinian terror, will actually worsen the Palestinian position. Unfortunately, one need do no more than read the rest of Sharon's speech to realize just how empty and meaningless these caveats are.

Regarding the threat that the Palestinians will receive less through "disengagement" than through negotiations, the speech makes it clear that this is a strictly temporary measure that in no way prevents the Palestinians from obtaining everything they want in the future. The line to which Israel withdraws, Sharon promised, "will not constitute the permanent border of the State of Israel" or "change the political reality between Israel and the Palestinians;" it will also "not prevent the possibility of returning to the implementation of the road map and reaching an agreed settlement."

In short, the unilateral retreat not only grants the Palestinians short-term gains; it simultaneously assures them that they risk no permanent long-term losses.

Aha, say the apologists, but what about the promise to "strengthen Israel's control" over parts of the territories that Israel wants to keep in any future agreement? This pledge, unfortunately, is vitiated by a series of other promises in the very same speech.

First, Sharon pledged that the plan is "a security measure and not a political one," and that any unilateral steps "will be fully coordinated with the United States," which opposes Israeli annexation of any part of the territories. These statements preclude the possibility that Israel will annex certain areas outright.

Israel could still strengthen its hold by substantially increasing the Israeli population of these areas -- but Sharon also pledged not to do this. Not only will Israel dismantle all unauthorized settlement outposts, even in these areas, but with regard to authorized settlements, "there will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, [and] no special economic incentives." There will also be "no construction of new settlements."

IN OTHER words, Israel will do everything in its power to ensure that its hold on these areas is not strengthened: It will not annex them, it will not build new settlements, it will not expand existing ones, it will dismantle unauthorized outposts, and it will not provide incentives to encourage additional people to move there.

What Sharon's speech boils down to, therefore, is an unadorned withdrawal under fire, with no compensatory moves whatsoever.

It goes without saying that this will encourage Palestinian terrorism. If three years of terrorist warfare can convince even Sharon -- a leading exponent of the perils of rewarding terrorism -- to retreat under fire, the Palestinians have every reason to believe that more of the same will produce more withdrawals. That is especially true now that Sharon and the Likud have broken the taboo against such retreats.

This move will also eradicate all the gains that Sharon has made over the last three years in convincing the rest of the world that Israel has a right to expect an end to terrorism in exchange for a withdrawal. Now that even Sharon has waived this requirement, why should the rest of the world uphold it?

Indeed, the only lesson the international community can reasonably draw from his retreat is the opposite: that with enough pressure, Israel can be forced to concede even its most cherished red lines without a single Palestinian concession in exchange.

This conclusion is almost certain to lead to increased international pressure on Israel for further withdrawals.

Finally, Sharon has almost single-handedly revitalized the Israeli Left. For three years, there has been a virtually wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the Left's method of unrequited concessions proved itself to be a total failure. That is precisely why Sharon, who twice campaigned on a platform of no concessions without an end to terrorism, trounced first Ehud Barak and then Amram Mitzna by the largest margins in Israeli history. Yet now, even Sharon is adopting the policy of unrequited concessions. And, as Haaretz columnist Zvi Bar'el aptly noted on Sunday, once one accepts the premise that "in order to increase security, it is necessary to retreat a bit," it becomes difficult to explain why it does not logically follow that "in order to increase security even more, it is necessary to retreat even further" -- precisely what the Left has been advocating all along.

Sharon's disengagement plan, though vague on details, appears to envision a much more limited retreat than the massive withdrawal proposed a few weeks ago by Ehud Olmert. Yet the underlying principles differ little -- and by virtue of having been advanced by a popular prime minister rather than a fading politician with no political base, the dangers that Sharon's plan poses are infinitely worse.

The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.

Copyright 1995-2003 The Jerusalem Post -





By Louis Rene Beres, Purdue University

The Jewish Press, 12/17/2003

"Do you know what it means to find yourselves face to face with a madman?" asks Luigi Pirandello's Henry IV. "Madmen, lucky folk, construct without logic, or rather with a logic that flies like a feather."

What is true for individuals is true for states. In the always unpredictable state of nations, constructions which rest upon the foundations of ordinary logic may crumble before madness. Understood in terms of Israel's increasingly precarious dependence upon nuclear deterrence, however implicit, this suggests that security built primarily upon threats of overwhelming retaliatory destruction could fail altogether.

For the moment, no single Arab/Islamic adversary of Israel would appear to be irrational. That is, no adversary would appear to be ready to launch a major first-strike against Israel using weapons of mass destruction (in the future, possibly even nuclear weapons) with the recognition that it would thereby elicit a devastating reprisal. Of course, miscalculations and errors in information could still lead a perfectly rational enemy state to strike first, but this decision would not be the product of irrationality.

What is true today, however, may not be true for the indefinite future. Certain enemy states -- Iran now comes immediately to mind -- could ultimately decide that "excising the Jewish cancer" from the Middle East would be worth the costs, however massive they might be. In principle, this prospect might be avoided by Israel with timely "hard target" preemptions, but such expressions of what is known under international law as "anticipatory self-defense" are now exceedingly problematic. The difficulty lies in both tactical and political issues.

Strictly speaking, an Iranian or other enemy "bolt-from-the-blue" CBN (chemical, biological or even nuclear) attack upon Israel with the expectation of city-busting reprisals would not necessarily exhibit true irrationality or madness. Rather, within this state's particular ordering of preferences, the presumed religious obligation to annihilate the "Zionist Entity" could be of absolutely overriding value. Here, the expected benefits of such annihilation could exceed the expected costs of ANY Israeli reprisal.

To a certain extent, an enemy state with such orientations would represent the individual suicide bomber writ large. Just as tens of thousands of Arab males are now willing to die to achieve "martyrdom," so might certain individual states soon become willing to sacrifice themselves to fulfil the presumed will of Allah. In the second case, however, it is conceivable that Iranian or other Arab/Islamic leaders making the decision to strike at Israel would be more willing to make "martyrs" of their own peoples than of themselves. Here, it would be perfectly acceptable to sacrifice huge portions of their respective populations, but only while the leaders themselves were already underway to a predetermined safe haven.

What is Israel to do? It can't very well choose to live, indefinitely, with enemies which might not be deterred by usual threats of retaliation and who are themselves armed with weapons of mass destruction. It can't very well choose to preempt against pertinent Iranian or other military targets, because the tactical prospects of success would be very remote and because the global outcry -- even after America's Operation Iraqi Freedom (or especially after this newest war against Iraq) could be deafening. It assuredly cannot rely too heavily upon the United States, which is continuing to exhaust human and material resources in Iraq and which has serious strategic worries about North Korea. And it cannot place too much faith in anti-tactical ballistic missile defenses, which could require a near-100 percent reliability of intercept to be purposeful in "soft-point" protection of Israeli cities.

The strategic opportunities available to Israel may be very limited; the existential consequences of failure could include national extinction. What shall the Government of Israel do? If Israel's enemies were allpresumably rational in the ordinary sense of valuing physical survival more highly than any other preference of combination of preferences, Jerusalem could begin to exploit the strategic benefits of pretended irrationality. Here, recognizing that in certain situations it can be especially rational to feign irrationality, it could work to create more cautionary behavior among its relevant adversaries. In such a case, the threat of an Israeli resort to a "Samson Option" could be enough to frighten away an enemy first-strike.

If, however, Israel's pertinent adversaries were presumably irrational in the ordinary sense, there would likely be no real benefit to contrived irrationality. This is the case, because the more probable Israeli threat of a massive nuclear counterstrike associated with irrationality would be no more compelling to Iran or any other Arab/Islamic enemy state than if they were confronted by a fully rational State of Israel.

It follows from all this that Israel could benefit from greater understanding of the "rationality of pretended irrationality," but only in particular reference to rational enemy states. In these circumstances where such enemy states are presumed to be irrational in the ordinary sense, something else will be needed -- something other than nuclear deterrence, preemption or ballistic missile defense. Although many believe the answer to this quandary lies in far-reaching political settlements, it is an answer born of frustration and self-delusion, not of deliberate and informed calculation. No meaningful political settlements can be worked out with enemies who seek only Israel's "liquidation" -- a word still used commonly in Arab/Islamic newspapers and texts.

So what is Israel to do? "In the end," we learn from the poet Goethe, "we depend upon creatures of our own making." What shall Israel "make?"

To begin, Israel must understand that irrationality need not mean craziness or madness. Even an irrational state may have a consistent and transitive hierarchy of wants. The first task for Israel, therefore, is to ascertain this hierarchy among its several state enemies, especially Iran. Although these states might not be deterred from aggression by the persuasive threat of massive Israeli retaliations, they could well be deterred by threats to what they do hold to be most important.

What might be most important to Israel's prospectively irrational enemies, potentially even more important than physical survival as a state? One answer is the avoidance of shame and humiliation. Another is avoidance of the charge that they had defiled their most sacred religious obligations. Still another is leaders' avoidance of their own violent deaths at the hand of Israel, deaths that would be attributable to strategies of "targeted killing" and/or "regime-targeting" by Jerusalem.

These answers are only a beginning; indeed, they are little more than the beginning of a beginning. What is needed now is a sustained and conspicuously competent effort to answer in greater depth and breadth.

This effort cannot be confined to Israel or America's established university centers of strategic studies. Rather, it must take place wherever informed and intellectually capable friends of Israel can be found. Indeed, as we are dealing with nothing less than the sacred responsibility of preventing another Holocaust, I submit that the effort to identify workable strategic survival policies for Israel should be undertaken even in the traditional centers of Jewish learning, in all places where Jews gather to study the sacred texts, everywhere that Jews come together in day schools, in Yeshivot and in universities.

Our peril, as always, is great, but our Jewish intellectual resources are also considerable. Our study of Torah must quickly be joined by imaginative teachers and rabbis with the study of looming existential threats to Zion.

The wisdom of Torah must never be detached from our most urgent considerations of survival as a people. Each Jew is responsible for his Jewish brothers and sisters, and every capable Jewish mind must willingly give tangible and timely effect to what beats in each Jewish heart. Moreover, war and genocide are assuredly not mutually exclusive, and preventing a second Holocaust is far too important an obligation to be left to the professional strategists.

© The Jewish Press, 2003. All Rights Reserved.


LOUIS RENE BERES is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) he is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters, including Security or Armageddon: Israel's Nuclear Strategy. Most recently he served as Chair of "Project Daniel," a small-group effort of senior Israeli generals and academics to counsel the Prime Minister on existential threats to Israel.

Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



December 26, 2003

MA'ARIV POLL: 51%:37% Oppose Unilaterally Removing Settlements

By Aaron Lerner

The following are the results of a poll of a representative sample of 602 adult Israelis (including Israeli Arabs) carried out by New Wave for Maariv the week of 26 December 2003, before the suicide bombing in Petach Tikvah.Survey error +/- percentage points.

If an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians, would you support or oppose unilaterally evacuating settlements in the territories?
Oppose 51% Support 37% Don't know/refuse reply 12%

[Please note: the wording of the question does not identify this as being Prime Minster Sharon's plan. A poll earlier this week worded "Do you support the Prime Minister Sharon's unilateral separation plan as presented at the Herzliya Conference?" found:
Yes 59% No 22% No reply/don't know 19%]

Should the army punish the Sayeret Matkal soldiers who refuse to serve in the territories?
Yes 44% No 43% Don't know/refuse reply 13%

Are you satisfied with the performance of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in general?
Yes 38% No 51% Don't know/refuse reply 11%

Compared to last year, do you feel more or less safe going around public places?
More 15% Less 24% Same 59% Don't know/refuse reply 2%

Compared to last year, did your standard of living rise or fall in 2003?
Rise 7% Fall 48% No change 43% Don't know/refuse reply 2%

Asked to Jews: Did you light Chanukah candles this year?
Yes 90% No 10%

Will you celebrate New Years in any way?
Yes 25% No 67% Don't know/refuse reply 8%

How frequently do you go out to restaurants, cafes, cinema, etc.?
Several times a week 9% Once a week 21%
Once a month 26% Less than once a month 13%
Almost never 29% Don't recall/refuse reply 2%

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




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Israel should get rid of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs - its alleged nuclear arsenal - they say. Yet, Iran is working as we speak to get the bomb. Syria has lots and lots of chemical weapons (CW) and missiles to attack with. So does Egypt. In fact, Egypt like its Arab brother Iraq used its chemical weapons in the past. Egypt in the 1960's in Yemen; Iraq in the 1980's against the Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, and Iranians. India and Pakistan have the bomb, so does North Korea. I won't mention the five permanent members of the UN who do too. And Libya?

Libya, that on again, off again sponsor of international terrorism since the 1970's, has plenty of chemical weapons - about 100 tons of mustard gas and nerve agents, according to the CIA - and missiles that could hit Israel and most of Europe. The Germans sold the missiles to them in the 1980's. They also have Scuds from North Korea. Libya also has sought dual-use capabilities that could be used to develop and produce biological warfare (BW) agents. But now Libya's leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - or is that gadfly? - has announced that he will scrap Libya's WMD programs. He promised to put his nuclear facilities under greater international inspection. Sounds like, Iran, huh?

So what do all these Middle Eastern "Ban the Bomb" advocates start to do?

Commenting on Gaddafi's actions, Libya's state-run press made clear that Israel would have to follow suit with its weaponry. The Al-Jamahiriya newspaper said Libya's decision had reversed the "race" to produce weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and placed "exceptional pressure on Israel" to come clean on its own nuclear weapons, which it has neither admitted to nor denied possessing. Following Gaddafi's recent announcement, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher called on Israel to follow Libya's example and get rid of its nuclear weapons program. Maher said, "I hope that other countries in the region...would follow such an example...get rid of and put an end to any nuclear weapons production program," Maher said. Maher did not specifically name Israel, but said, "You know, of course, who I mean." When asked if the international community should start looking at Israel's nuclear capabilities, Maher said: "I said that the steps which Libya took should be a model to follow. This is clear. I won't add anything."

The same day, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, joined in saying, "The Libyan position confirms the importance of pressuring Israel to comply with all laws banning nuclear proliferation and joining the NPT" [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. Moussa added, "It is not logical to make an exception or to be tolerant of Israel on this issue." The Arab states have spoken.

Then, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called on Israel to eliminate its WMD. "We welcome the Libyan decision," Mubarak told journalists during a visit to Sadat City, in southern Cairo. "Israel must also eliminate its weapons of mass destruction." Egypt has for some time called on the Israel to ratify the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and make the Middle East a region free of WMD. Mubarak said that in the mid-1990s he discussed with former Israeli prime minister and current opposition leader Shimon Peres (Labor) the matter of Israel dismantling its nuclear arsenal. Mubarak claimed that Peres - father of the Israeli nuclear program - told him that the issue would be resolved following a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

That's Egypt; former user of chemical weapons itself. That's Egypt, who according to the Monterey Institute of International Studies - which tracks weapons issues - has its own stockpile of deadly Sarin and VX nerve agents, and is believed to working on an offensive BW program as well.

Iran also praised Libya's decision to abandon its WMD program, calling for pressure against Israel to do the same. Iranian officials released a statement that the time has come for the international community to exert pressure on Israel to abandon its nuclear program, referring to Israel as the main threat to the region. That's Iran, the country that not long ago was parading around its new Scud 3's that could hit Israel -allegedly - with markings on them for "Tel-Aviv" and "Jerusalem".

What's with all this concern about Israeli WMD all of a sudden?

The answer is that with the fall of Saddam's regime and American occupation, Iraq has been temporarily taken out of the WMD loop, or so it seems. With the Libyan declarations and Iran's recent signing of the additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which opens the way for unannounced UN inspections of suspect sites, the door has been opened for increased pressure on Israel. Iran and Syria know there's still a lot of focus on their own weapons programs - US President Bush just signed the Syrian Accountability Act which puts a spotlight on Syrian WMD - so why not try to divert attention toward Israel?

Israel has had a frosty "Peace" with Egypt since 1979, and a not much warmer "Peace" with Jordan since 1994. Israel has been in a "Peace Process" for the last ten years with the Palestinians. That "Peace Process" has cost Israel over 1,300 lives from Palestinian warfare. Although the military balance vis-a-vis the Arab-Islamic world has shifted further toward Israel's favor in the last couple of decades - do to its growing technological edge - Israel's "will to fight" or "staying power" has slowly been eaten away in the last decade. Continuous guerilla war and terrorism from the Palestinians, combined with a world-wide propaganda campaign, has put Israel into a defensive posture, and caused it's leadership to refrain from using its substantial firepower. Now, the Arab-Islamic world is trying to pressure Israel to give up its strategic arsenal as well.

According to the latest accounting - September 2003 - of the Jaffe Center's "Middle East Military Balance," the Arab League states and Iran -minus Iraq - vastly outnumber Israel in conventional forces; men under arms, tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, transport aircraft, and helicopters. Let's ignore their naval advantage for purposes of this discussion. Take a look at soldiers - both regular and reserves - Israel has about 650,000 troops vs. 2,750,000 for the Arab League/Iran. Israel has 3,675 tanks and 3,900 artillery pieces, against 15,075 tanks and 17,400 artillery pieces for the Arab League/Iran. Despite Israel's highly touted air force, in numbers it's vastly outnumbered. Israel has 537 combat aircraft, 64 transport aircraft, and 239 helicopters. The Arab League/Iran combo has 4534 combat aircraft, 558 transport aircraft, and 1897 helicopters.

In conventional terms, Israel is outgunned, period. And I haven't even taken into account the greater Islamic world beyond Iran, or the threat of terrorism. Israel's last line of defense is its non-conventional deterrent. Now it becomes clear why those who would threaten Israel most, have joined the "Ban the Bomb" parade.

Israeli policy has always been that it will, "Never be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East," a policy of ambiguity. But from Vanunu in the 1980's on, cracks have opened in the Israeli "plausible denial" routine. Even Shimon Peres some years back, slipped, and implied that Israel does have the bomb. Most estimates place it more precisely at about 200 bombs on the low end, up to as many as 500-600. In the last few years, Israel took charge of three German built submarines. They liked them so much, that they requested Germany to sell them some more. But do to reports that Israel had modified cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to be launched from the subs, Germany declined. I don't have any "inside" info on that, but I sure hope it's true. That would give Israel the "strategic triad" of land, air, and sea launched nukes. Just what Israel's "friends" need, to keep them at bay.

As long as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah elements, al-Qaeda, and whoever else wants to destroy Israel; as long as Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and whoever, continue their own WMD programs; as long as the balance of forces favors Israel's enemies; Israel needs to continue to build up its own non-conventional weapons capabilities, and be prepared to use them. Israel has a moral obligation; in fact, it was created to make sure, a second Holocaust never happens.

Sure Israel should "Ban the Bomb". WHEN THE MESSIAH COMES!

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2003/5764 Pasko




By David M. Jacobs

Anyone reading the World's press or listening to radio broadcasts during the past decade would get the idea that Israel is one of the worst violators of human rights. This impression would have been backed up by the fact that Israel has been condemned at the United Nations more than any other country -- more than China, Iraq or Iran. However anyone with direct knowledge of Israel or who has taken some trouble to analyse the facts would have realized that Israel's human rights record, and standard of democracy, is far higher than that prevailing in any of its neighbouring states.

How has this extraordinary situation come about? The clue lies in the way that the Israeli government and Jewish communities throughout the World have responded to the enemy propaganda onslaught. They have tried to defend themselves by using Public Relations. Now Public Relations were designed for purely peacetime, mainly commercial, purposes. In a conflict situation they are useless. The Israeli Foreign Ministry even calls the department handling counter propaganda the Department of Hasbarah. This Hebrew word, always mistranslated by Israeli diplomats as 'information', actually means 'explanation'. This shows the subconscious defensive role that they take when they 'explain' themselves in public.

The problem is that propaganda or Psychological Warfare, PW for short, is an effective weapon of war, and has little in common with PR. In fact during the Second World War the Americans found that PR specialists tended to be ineffective at propaganda (see Daniel Lerner, Psychological Warfare against Nazi Germany, Cambridge Mass., 1971, p.71).

The purpose of PW is the same as that of all warfare. It is in fact one of the arms of a war machine, and has been referred to as the Fourth Arm, following the Army, Navy and Air Arms. The aim of war as summarized by Clausewitz is 'an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.' PW is more gentle. It employs persuasion and psychological manipulation to achieve the same end. The ancient Chinese sage Sun Tzu, who lived in the Fifth Century BC, who is often considered to be the greatest of all writers on war, wrote: 'To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.' This statement is a good summary of modern propaganda warfare.

PW is operated through Front Organisations and Agents of Influence. There are three types of Front Organisation. Firstly the overt organizations such as the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding or the British Soviet Friendship Society. Secondly the covert ones such as Medical Aid to the Palestinians, which appears to be about giving help to suffering Palestinians whilst its real aim is to rally support for the Arab and Palestinian campaign against Israel. The third type is the infiltrated organization. This is where agents of influence have infiltrated an organization set up for another purpose, and then used it to promote their own cause. The Arabs have been very successful in infiltrating many charities and Church groups in this way. Government departments may also find themselves subject to this type of treatment. There are two types of agents of influence. Firstly the 'useful idiot'. This uncomplimentary term was coined by Lenin to describe the kind of naive ass, often a person in a prominent position, who fell for his propaganda and could be manipulated to publicly aid his campaign. The second type is the conscious agent who fully understands what he is doing and works behind the scenes. Often referred to in the press as a 'mole', he has nothing to do with espionage and his job is to influence policy.

There are various actions that propagandists have to carry out. Some of which need to be described here. One of these is Concealment of Motive, that is pretending to be supporting something, but in reality promoting something else. Next comes Demonisation, this is an unpleasant operation which involves vilification of the opposing side. Then comes an obvious operation, namely Repetition. This is vital in getting ideas across to the public by continuously returning a simple message. Finally comes a complicated concept known as the 'Holy Phrase'. Lasswell (Propaganda Technique in World War, New York 1927, p.66) says of this: ' A propagandist must always be alert to capture the holy phrase which crystallizes public aspiration about it, and under no circumstance permit the enemy to enjoy its exclusive use and wont.'

The great masters of PW were the Soviets. The department concerned with what the Soviets called 'Active Measures' was the First Chief Directorate of the KGB. From there were run all the agents of influence and the front organizations. They were extraordinarily effective in getting their propaganda across. It was they who invented the concept of dezinformatsia, or disinformation. This was not exactly lying, but the putting out of distorted information to confuse, or alter, an opponent's policy.

The reason for the Soviet involvement in Arab PW is that the Arab defeat of 1967 was felt by the Soviets to be a major defeat for Soviet policy and a triumph for the United States. The Soviets also had a traditional Russian reason for supporting the Arabs. For two hundred years the Russians had wanted a 'warm water port' which would give them the opportunity of operating freely in the Mediterranean without worrying about an opponent blocking the Dardanelles. There were a number of Arab ports which could be ideal for this role. Before 1967 Arab propaganda had been totally ineffective. After 1967 with Soviet help Arab PW increased by leaps and bounds. The Arabs were able to use the Soviet front organizations for their own PW as well as many of their agents of influence. Some of the most effective of these were the church organizations, in particular the World Council of Churches which had been set up in Prague in 1948. From that base it was possible to infiltrate not only other church bodies, but the various international charities, especially those giving aid to the Third World.

We now come to the core element in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which is the Islamic dimension. Mohammed got his basic monotheistic ideas from the Jewish and Christian tribes living around him in the Hejaz. He therefore felt that he should get support for his new religion from the Jews. When this failed to materialize it led to bitterness. Islam's relationship with Jews and Judaism thus started off in the Seventh Century very badly, with attacks by the nascent Muslim war band on the local Jewish tribes in the Hejaz, eventually driving all the Jews out of the region. Following these events came the very rapid creation of a mighty Moslem empire stretching from the Indus in the East to the Atlantic in the West and including virtually the whole of the Iberian peninsula, its expansion only being stopped by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732. This vast conquest took place within a century of Mohammed's revelation. The Moslems regarded the territory they had conquered as the House of Islam and considered it inalienable. The territory outside was regarded as pertaining to the House of War.

With this conquest came the regulation of the status of the non-Moslems, more particularly the Christians and Jews, within the Domain of Islam. These were regarded as the People of the Book as they already had scriptures of their own. They were given an inferior status as dhimmis or protected people. They were protected as long as they accepted this secondary status towards their Moslem overlords. The pact, dating rom the Eighth Century, under which this was laid down was known as the as the Pact of Omar. The jews were automatically regarded as inferior to the Christians as, unlike the Christians, there were no Jewish military powers against whom the Moslem forces were fighting.

Islam and the Arabs had traditional PW techniques long before the modern concept of propaganda had been invented. There are two concepts in particular. These are the idea of Taqiya, or dissimulation, and that of the hila, or ruse. Taqiya implies outward conformity to alien customs whilst remaining faithful to Muslim beliefs. Thus the Arabs are able to maintain outward agreement with Western concepts of international law and practice, whilst keeping faith with Islamic tradition which says that Israel is a dhimmi state and stands on which is part of the Domain of Islam, and therefore must be removed. The doctrine of the hila is based on the saying of the Prophet Mohammed when he stated 'War is a series of actions for deceiving the enemy'. Another statement by the general and politician Al-Muhallab in the generation following that of Mohammed was: 'Have the heart to use deception in war, for it enables you to arrive at your goal more certainly than in a bloody body to body battle.'

The combination of traditional ideas of taqiya and the hila combined with Soviet dezinformatsia have enabled the Arabs to run rings round, not only the Israelis, but the whole of the West.

The reason that I stated that the Islamic component constitutes the core of the Arab-Israeli Conflict now becomes clear. It is essentially the resentment of Islam at the rule of the Jews over part of what they regard as the Domain of Islam, not only that but by setting up a Jewish state in such an area in such an area, defeating several Muslim armies, and ruling over Muslims, the Jews have abrogated their dhimmi status and thus torn up the Pact of Omar. It is this, not the percentage of Israeli withdrawal on the West Bank, which has brought about the sense of Moslem fury and humiliation, which is what the conflict is about. By making the World think that the conflict is about the Palestinians, or the minutiae of Oslo, is thus an excellent demonstration of the PW doctrine of Concealment of Motive.

The term Palestine is a post-Biblical expression. It was originally coined by the Romans following the fierce wars that they had to fight against the Jews in the First and Second Centuries AD. In the early part of this century the concept of Palestine was automatically associated in everybody's mind with the Jews. This continued throughout the 1940s. In 1938 when George Antonius wrote his famous book 'The Arab Awakening', in support of the Arab Nationalist position, he made no mention of the existence of a Palestinian People, because at that time such a concept had not come into being. The first moves in this direction were made at an Arab League Council meeting in Cairo in March 1959, and in September 1963 the Council appointed Ahmed Shuqairi as the 'representative of Palestine' to the Arab League. This was the same man who, as the representative of Syria, had said in the Security Council in May 1956 that 'It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria.'

In October 1965 the PLO was still being referred to by the Arab states as representing 'the Arab people of Palestine'. It was not until 1974 that the PLO was invited to participate in a General Assembly debate as 'representing the Palestinian People'. The PLO had managed to gain a platform within the United Nations normally reserved for sovereign states. It subsequently built an impressive power base at the UN, including in the establishment in 1977 of a 'Special Unit on Palestinian Rights'. This meant that the UNICs (United Nations Information Centres) throughout the world were forced to carry PLO propaganda. The final passing of the name Palestine to the Arabs came when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in September 1993 stated that 'the Government of Israel has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian People'. The Arabs had captured the Jewish 'Holy Phrase'.

The Israelis however seemed sublimely unaware that anything had happened, in what had been a brilliant Arab PW operation carried across several decades. The result of this particular PW operation in the military and political spheres has been considerable. It means that the Israelis instead of having merely a frontier problem with the neighbouring Arab states are confronted with a land and people which is virtually coterminous with their own.

The PLO issued its Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel in 1968. This, though they agreed to change it at Oslo, has never been changed. In 1974 the Palestine National Council had issued a 10-point programme, in which Article 8 had stated that 'the Palestinian national authority, after its establishment, will struggle for the unity of the confrontation states for the sake of completing the liberation of all Palestinian soil and as a step on the path of comprehensive Arab unity.' This doctrine has been reiterated many times by Arafat and Palestinian officials since Oslo, but only to their own people. To the West they say something rather different. This is why, until these ideas have been genuinely given up, any withdrawals by Israel constitute a foolhardy strategic risk. However the Israelis seem unable to get this point across to the outside World, nor even to many of their own people, particularly to those on the Left.

One of the aims of a good PW campaign is to get behind your opponents' guard. Here the Peace Campaign comes in. Targeted at the Left Wing of both the Israeli and wider Jewish communities it has had a lot of success. The desperate desire of all Israelis and Jews for peace has been successfully exploited by the Arabs, who have copied the old Soviet Peace Campaigners. It is interesting to note that in Daniel Lerner's book (see above) on PW written originally in 1947, he wrote: 'The will to resist dissolves into a desire for 'peace soon', and finally crumbles into a desire for 'peace now'.' It is interesting to note that these words were used many years before the Israeli Peace Now movement came into being. Although Peace Now is very much a minority movement in Israel, its influence is widespread, and many of the Left refer to themselves as the 'Peace Camp', which gives the impression that only they want peace. In their desperation these people have swallowed the PLO propaganda line put forward to the West. The Peace Now propaganda line gets widely reported in the Western media, and helps to undermine the Israeli government's position.

Another facet of the Israeli Left is its secularism. Because they themselves have largely abandoned Judaism, they cannot accept that Arab policy has an Islamic basis. This enables the PLO to emphasise more effectively the Palestinian Nationalist position. Though a Palestinian identity has been created now, while Article 12 of the Palestine National Covenant stresses that this is just temporary, the ultimate loyalty remains to Islam. The PLO regularly use Christians to front their propaganda operations. The Christians are a tiny minority in the Arab population and need, for their own political security, to keep in with the Muslims. By using them the PLO is able to emphasise the nationalist position, which the Israeli Left, as well as the international Left who share their secularist attitudes, easily swallow.

An important development in the propaganda war has been the affair of Mordechai Vanunu. He was convicted of high treason by publicizing Israel's nuclear secrets abroad. High treason in time of war in virtually all other countries, besides Israel, carries the death penalty. Vanunu was thus very lucky that the country he betrayed was Israel. Instead of being sentenced to death he received a long prison sentence. Nonetheless a huge campaign was launched to free him. It was presented as a humanitarian campaign, but its prime purpose was to deprive Israel of its nuclear deterrent. The 'Campaign to free Vanunu and for a Nuclear-Free Middle East' is another example of the PW principle of Concealment of Motive. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear deterrent. The object of the campaign is to shift the balance in favour of the Arabs and Iran with their much larger conventional forces. The campaign, apart from the usual CND crowd, was operated through the 'useful idiot' type of agent of influence. Many of these were actors, who can be very useful in this role, being as articulate as they are politically ill-informed.

In order to deal with the problem of Israel's lack of a propaganda section in the style of Britain's wartime Political Warfare Executive or the post-war Information and Research Department of the FCO, it will be necessary to change the Jewish and Israeli mindset. This is going to be difficult, as centuries of irrational hatred directed at the Jewish People have resulted in a desire to be loved. Hence the emphasis on PR as opposed to PW. Some of the problems of Jewish identity that were examined by the Chief Rabbi in his article in The Salisbury Review (Summer 1998), are very relevant to the ability of Jews to deal with their neurotic block against using PW.

The other issue that has to be faced is the nature of the conflict itself. This is that it is primarily a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Most Jews and Israelis, even those who are not secularists, are very scared of this fact. Once they are prepared to admit it, the problem can be handled in a more intelligent manner.

If Israel's long term diplomatic and strategic position is not to be further undermined, thus putting the whole state in danger, then Israel and the Jewish People will have to copy the rest of the World and run their own PW agencies.


David M. Jacobs is writing a study of the Middle East Propaganda War. This article was first published The Salisbury Review Winter (1998). It was subsequently reprinted as the editorial of Christian Action for Israel (1st Quarter Newsletter 1999).



December 25, 2003


By Michael Widlanski

Several Israeli media outlets reported that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority condemned the Palestinian human bomb attack tonight north of Tel Aviv.

But the truth is a little different.

Neither Voice of Palestine Radio nor Palestinian State television reported the "condemnation," and VOP radio--which is directly supervised by Arafat-- referred to man who set off the bomb as a "heroic martyr."

He was described as having "died a heroic martyr's death" (Arabic: istash-hada, tenth form reflexive verb for martyrdom). Occasionally the Paletinian media have used more neutral terms to describe the deaths of human bombers, but not in this case.
Describing the "martyrdom" of the human bomber in its 10-PM news was not unique during the Christmas Day broadcasts of Voice of Palestine.

Another Palestinian, who blew up while preparing a car bomb Wednesday night (Christmas Eve) was characterized throughout Thursday's broadcasts as havingdied a heroic martyr's death. (VOP 2PM Akhbar al-Yom news magazine show). So do Yasser Arafat and his hand-picked prime minister Ahmad Qrei'a (also known by his kunya, Arabic nickname, Abu 'Ala) really condemn terror attacks?

In fact the "condemnation" appeared as part of a big headline on the PA/PLO-controlled Palestinian news agency known as WAFA (Arabic: Wikalat al-Anba al-Filistiniyya:Palestinian News Agency), but the heart of the article in Arabic is an extreme denunciation of Israeli "massacres," "crimes" and "atrocities." (See )

Although the article, in line 11, says the "Palestinian Leadership repudiates and condemns all attacks on civilians be they Israeli or Palestinian," its tone is far more condemnatory of Israeli attacks on HAMAS, Jihad and FATAH car bomb makers whose deaths are also treated as Israeli atrocities.

Indeed, the language of the WAFA statement clearly leaves the door open for attacking Israeli civilians "beyond the Green Line" as well as all men and women in Israeli army or police uniforms.

In fact, Palestinian radio and Palestinian television openly encourage attacks against Israeli soldiers, policemen and "settlers" by using songs, coded language and film montages enticing young boys to gain entrance to paradise by becoming martyrs in the struggle against Israeli occupation.

Michael Widlanski, a specialist in Palestinian communications, teaches at Hebrew University's Rothberg School, and he recently completed eight years of research on the Palestinian mass media.



Wall Street Journal, December 2003

On Hating the Jews

By Natan Sharansky

The inextricable link between anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

No hatred has as rich and as lethal a history as anti-Semitism--"the longest hatred," as the historian Robert Wistrich has dubbed it. Over the millennia, anti-Semitism has infected a multitude of peoples, religions and civilizations, in the process inflicting a host of terrors on its Jewish victims. But while there is no disputing the impressive reach of the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little agreement about its cause or causes.

Indeed, finding a single cause would seem too daunting a task--the incidence of anti-Semitism is too frequent, the time span too broad, the locales too numerous, the circumstances too varied. No doubt that is why some scholars have come to regard every outbreak as essentially unique, denying that a straight line can be drawn from the anti-Semitism of the ancient world to that of today. Whether it is the attack on the Jews of Alexandria in the year 38 or the ones that took place 200 years earlier in ancient Jerusalem, whether it is the Dreyfus affair in 1890s France or Kristallnacht in late-1930s Germany--each incident is seen as the outcome of a distinctive mix of political, social, economic, cultural and religious forces that preclude the possibility of a deeper or recurring cause.

A less extreme version of this same approach identifies certain patterns of anti-Semitism, but only within individual and discrete "eras." In particular, a distinction is drawn between the religiously based hatred of the Middle Ages and the racially based hatred of the modern era. Responsibility for the anti-Semitic waves that engulfed Europe from the age of Constantine to the dawn of the Enlightenment is laid largely at the foot of the church and its offshoots, while the convulsions that erupted over the course of the next three centuries are viewed as the byproduct of the rise of virulent nationalism.

Obviously, separating out incidents or eras has its advantages, enabling researchers to focus more intensively on specific circumstances and to examine individual outbreaks from start to finish. But what such analyses may gain in local explanatory power they sacrifice in comprehensiveness. Besides, if every incident or era of anti-Semitism is largely distinct from every other, how to explain the cumulative ferocity of the phenomenon?

As if in response to this question, some scholars have attempted to offer more sweeping, transhistorical explanations. Perhaps the two best known are the "scapegoat" theory, according to which tensions within society are regulated and released by blaming a weaker group, often the Jews, for whatever is troubling the majority, and the "demonization" theory, according to which Jews have been cast into the role of the "other" by the seemingly perennial need to reject those who are ethnically, religiously or racially different.

Clearly, in this sociological approach, anti-Semitism emerges as a Jewish phenomenon in name only. Rather, it is but one variant in a family of hatreds that include racism and xenophobia. Thus, the specifically anti-Jewish violence in Russia at the turn of the 20th century has as much in common with the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia at the turn of the 21st as it does with the massacres of Jews in the Ukraine in the mid-1600s. Taken to its logical conclusion, this theory would redefine the Holocaust--at the hands of some scholars, it has redefined the Holocaust--as humanity's most destructive act of racism rather than as the most murderous campaign ever directed against the Jews.

Reacting to such universalizing tendencies a half-century ago, Hannah Arendt cited a piece of dialogue from "a joke which was told after the first World War":

An anti-Semite claimed that the Jews had caused the war; the reply was: Yes, the Jews and the bicyclists. Why the bicyclists? asks the one. Why the Jews? asks the other.

George Orwell offered a similar observation in 1944: "However true the scapegoat theory may be in general terms, it does not explain why the Jews rather than some other minority group are picked on, nor does it make clear what they are the scapegoat for."

Whatever the shortcomings of these approaches may be, I have to admit that my own track record as a theorist is no better.

Three decades ago, as a young dissident in the Soviet Union, I compiled underground reports on anti-Semitism for foreign journalists and Western diplomats. At the time, I firmly believed that the cause of the "disease" was totalitarianism, and that democracy was the way to cure it. Once the Soviet regime came to be replaced by democratic rule, I figured, anti-Semitism was bound to wither away. In the struggle toward that goal, the free world, which in the aftermath of the Holocaust appeared to have inoculated itself against a recurrence of murderous anti-Jewish hatred, was our natural ally, the one political entity with both the means and the will to combat the great evil.

Today I know better. This year, following publication of a report by an Israeli government forum charged with addressing the issue of anti-Semitism, I invited to my office the ambassadors of the two countries that have outpaced all others in the frequency and intensity of anti-Jewish attacks within their borders. The emissaries were from France and Belgium--two mature democracies in the heart of Western Europe. It was in these ostensible bastions of enlightenment and tolerance that Jewish cemeteries were being desecrated, children assaulted, synagogues scorched.

To be sure, the anti-Semitism now pervasive in Western Europe is very different from the anti-Semitism I encountered a generation ago in the Soviet Union. In the latter, it was nurtured by systematic, government-imposed discrimination against Jews. In the former, it has largely been condemned and opposed by governments (though far less vigilantly than it should be). But this only makes anti-Semitism in the democracies more disturbing, shattering the illusion--which was hardly mine alone--that representative governance is an infallible antidote to active hatred of Jews.

Another shattered illusion is even more pertinent to our search. Shocked by the visceral anti-Semitism he witnessed at the Dreyfus trial in supposedly enlightened France, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, became convinced that the primary cause of anti-Semitism was the anomalous condition of the Jews: a people without a polity of its own. In his seminal work, "The Jewish State" (1896), published two years after the trial, Herzl envisioned the creation of such a Jewish polity and predicted that a mass emigration to it of European Jews would spell the end of anti-Semitism.

Although his seemingly utopian political treatise would turn out to be one of the 20th century's most prescient books, on this point history has not been kind to Herzl; no one would seriously argue today that anti-Semitism came to a halt with the founding of the state of Israel. To the contrary, this particular illusion has come full circle: while Herzl and most Zionists after him believed that the emergence of a Jewish state would end anti-Semitism, an increasing number of people today, including some Jews, are convinced that anti-Semitism will end only with the disappearance of the Jewish state.

I first encountered this idea quite a long time ago, in the Soviet Union. In the period before, during, and after the Six Day War of June 1967--a time when I and many others were experiencing a heady reawakening of our Jewish identity--the Soviet press was filled with scathing attacks on Israel and Zionism, and a wave of official anti-Semitism was unleashed to accompany them. To quite a few Soviet Jews who had been trying their best to melt into Soviet life, Israel suddenly became a jarring reminder of their true status in the "workers' paradise": trapped in a world where they were free neither to live openly as Jews nor to escape the stigma of their Jewishness. To these Jews, Israel came to seem part of the problem, not (as it was for me and others) part of the solution. Expressing what was no doubt a shared sentiment, a distant relative of mine quipped: "If only Israel didn't exist, everything would be all right."

In the decades since, and especially over the past three years, the notion that Israel is one of the primary causes of anti-Semitism, if not the primary cause, has gained much wider currency. The world, we are told by friend and foe alike, increasingly hates Jews because it increasingly hates Israel. Surely this is what the Belgian ambassador had in mind when he informed me during his visit that anti-Semitism in his country would cease once Belgians no longer had to watch pictures on television of Israeli Jews oppressing Palestinian Arabs.

Obviously, the state of Israel cannot be the cause of a phenomenon that predates it by over 2,000 years. But might it be properly regarded as the cause of contemporary anti-Semitism? What is certain is that, everywhere one looks, the Jewish state does appear to be at the center of the anti-Semitic storm--and nowhere more so, of course, than in the Middle East.

The rise in viciously anti-Semitic content disseminated through state-run Arab media is quite staggering, and has been thoroughly documented. Arab propagandists, journalists, and scholars now regularly employ the methods and the vocabulary used to demonize European Jews for centuries--calling Jews Christ-killers, charging them with poisoning non-Jews, fabricating blood libels, and the like. In a region where the Christian faith has few adherents, a lurid and time-worn Christian anti-Semitism boasts an enormous following.

To take only one example: This past February, the Egyptian government, formally at peace with Israel, saw fit to broadcast on its state-run television a 41-part series based on the infamous Czarist forgery about a global Jewish conspiracy to dominate humanity, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." To ensure the highest ratings, the show was first aired, in prime time, just as millions of families were breaking their traditional Ramadan fast; Arab satellite television then rebroadcast the series to tens of millions more throughout the Middle East.

In Europe, the connection between Israel and anti-Semitism is equally conspicuous. For one thing, the timing and nature of the attacks on European Jews, whether physical or verbal, have all revolved around Israel, and the anti-Semitic wave itself, which began soon after the Palestinians launched their terrorist campaign against the Jewish state in September 2000, reached a peak (so far) when Israel initiated Operation Defensive Shield at the end of March 2002, a month in which 125 Israelis had been killed by terrorists.

Though most of the physical attacks in Europe were perpetrated by Muslims, most of the verbal and cultural assaults came from European elites. Thus, the Italian newspaper La Stampa published a cartoon of an infant Jesus lying at the foot of an Israeli tank, pleading, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again." The frequent comparisons of Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler, of Israelis to Nazis, and of Palestinians to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were not the work of hooligans spray-painting graffiti on the wall of a synagogue but of university educators and sophisticated columnists. As the Nobel Prize-winning author Josť Saramago declared of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians: "We can compare it with what happened at Auschwitz."

The centrality of Israel to the revival of a more generalized anti-Semitism is also evident in the international arena. Almost a year after the current round of Palestinian violence began, and after hundreds of Israelis had already been killed in buses, discos and pizzerias, a so-called World Conference against Racism was held under the auspices of the United Nations in Durban, South Africa. It turned into an anti-Semitic circus, with the Jewish state being accused of everything from racism and apartheid to crimes against humanity and genocide. In this theater of the absurd, the Jews themselves were turned into perpetrators of anti-Semitism, as Israel was denounced for its "Zionist practices against Semitism"--the Semitism, that is to say, of the Palestinian Arabs.

Naturally, then, in searching for the "root cause" of anti-Semitism, the Jewish state would appear to be the prime suspect. But Israel, it should be clear, is not guilty. The Jewish state is no more the cause of anti-Semitism today than the absence of a Jewish state was its cause a century ago.

To see why, we must first appreciate that the always specious line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has now become completely blurred: Israel has effectively become the world's Jew. From Middle Eastern mosques, the bloodcurdling cry is not "Death to the Israelis," but "Death to the Jews." In more civilized circles, a columnist for the London Observer proudly announces that he does not read published letters in support of Israel that are signed by Jews. (That the complaints commission for the British press found nothing amiss in this statement only goes to show how far things have changed since Orwell wrote of Britain in 1945 that "it is not at present possible, indeed, that anti-Semitism should become respectable.") When discussion at fashionable European dinner parties turns to the Middle East, the air, we have been reliably informed, turns blue with old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

No less revealing is what might be called the mechanics of the discussion. For centuries, a clear sign of the anti-Semitic impulse at work has been the use of the double standard: social behavior that in others passes without comment or with the mildest questioning becomes, when exhibited by Jews, a pretext for wholesale group denunciation. Such double standards are applied just as recklessly today to the Jewish state. It is democratic Israel, not any of the dozens of tyrannies represented in the United Nations General Assembly, that that body singles out for condemnation in over two dozen resolutions each year; it is against Israel--not Cuba, North Korea, China, or Iran--that the U.N. Human Rights Commission, chaired recently by a lily-pure Libya, directs nearly a third of its official ire; it is Israel whose alleged misbehavior provoked the only joint session ever held by the signatories to the Geneva Convention; it is Israel, alone among nations, that has lately been targeted by Western campaigns of divestment; it is Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among ambulance services in the world, that is denied membership in the International Red Cross; it is Israeli scholars, alone among academics in the world, who are denied grants and prevented from publishing articles in prestigious journals. The list goes on and on.

The idea that Israel has become the world's Jew and that anti-Zionism is a substitute for anti-Semitism is certainly not new. Years ago, Norman Podhoretz observed that the Jewish state "has become the touchstone of attitudes toward the Jewish people, and anti-Zionism has become the most relevant form of anti-Semitism." And well before that, Martin Luther King was even more unequivocal:

You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely "anti-Zionist." And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth; when people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

But if Israel is indeed nothing more than the world's Jew, then to say that the world increasingly hates Jews because the world increasingly hates Israel means as much, or as little, as saying that the world hates Jews because the world hates Jews. We still need to know: why?

This may be a good juncture to let the anti-Semites speak for themselves.

Here is the reasoning invoked by Haman, the infamous viceroy of Persia in the biblical book of Esther, to convince his king to order the annihilation of the Jews (emphasis added):

There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so that it is of no benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed.

This is hardly the only ancient source pointing to the Jews' incorrigible separateness, or their rejection of the majority's customs and moral concepts, as the reason for hostility toward them. Centuries after Hellenistic values had spread throughout and beyond the Mediterranean, the Roman historian Tacitus had this to say:

Among the Jews, all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. . . . The rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. . . . They have introduced circumcision to show that they are different from others. . . . It is a crime among them to kill any newly born infant.

Philostratus, a Greek writer who lived a century later, offered a similar analysis:

For the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity; and a race that has made its own life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table, nor join in their libations or prayers or sacrifices, are separated from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Sura or Bactra of the more distant Indies.

Did the Jews actually reject the values that were dominant in the ancient world, or was this simply a fantasy of their enemies? While many of the allegations leveled at Jews were spurious--they did not ritually slaughter non-Jews, as the Greek writer Apion claimed--some were obviously based on true facts. The Jews did oppose intermarriage. They did refuse to sacrifice to foreign gods. And they did emphatically consider killing a newborn infant to be a crime.

Some, perhaps many, individual Jews in those days opted to join the (alluring) Hellenist stream; most did not. Even more important, the Jews were the only people seriously to challenge the moral system of the Greeks. They were not an "other" in the ancient world; they were the "other"--an other, moreover, steadfast in the conviction that Judaism represented not only a different way of life but, in a word, the truth. Jewish tradition claims that Abraham was chosen as the patriarch of what was to become the Jewish nation only after he had smashed the idols in his father's home. His descendants would continue to defy the pagan world around them, championing the idea of the one God and, unlike other peoples of antiquity, refusing to subordinate their beliefs to those of their conquerors.

The (by and large correct) perception of the Jews as rejecting the prevailing value system of the ancient world hardly justifies the anti-Semitism directed against them; but it does take anti-Semitism out of the realm of fantasy, turning it into a genuine clash of ideals and of values. With the arrival of Christianity on the world stage, that same clash, based once again on the charge of Jewish rejectionism, would intensify a thousandfold. The refusal of the people of the "old covenant" to accept the new came to be defined as a threat to the very legitimacy of Christianity, and one that required a mobilized response.

Branding the Jews "Christ killers" and "sons of devils," the church launched a systematic campaign to denigrate Christianity's parent religion and its adherents. Accusations of desecrating the host, ritual murder and poisoning wells would be added over the centuries, creating an ever larger powder keg of hatred. With the growing power of the church and the global spread of Christianity, these potentially explosive sentiments were carried to the far corners of the world, bringing anti-Semitism to places where no Jewish foot had ever trod.

According to some Christian thinkers, persecution of the powerless Jews was justified as a kind of divine payback for the Jewish rejection of Jesus. This heavenly stamp of approval would be invoked many times through the centuries, especially by those who had tried and failed to convince the Jews to acknowledge the superior truth of Christianity. The most famous case may be that of Martin Luther: At first extremely friendly toward Jews--as a young man he had complained about their mistreatment by the Church--Luther turned into one of their bitterest enemies as soon as he realized that his efforts to woo them to his new form of Christianity would never bear fruit.

Nor was this pattern unique to the Christian religion. Mohammed, too, had hoped to attract the Jewish communities of Arabia, and to this end he initially incorporated elements of Judaism into his new faith (directing prayer toward Jerusalem, fasting on Yom Kippur and the like). When, however, the Jews refused to accept his code of law, Mohammed wheeled upon them with a vengeance, cursing them in words strikingly reminiscent of the early Church fathers: "Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them, and they were visited with the wrath of Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelation and slew the prophets wrongfully."

In these cases, too, we might ask whether the perception of Jewish rejectionism was accurate. Of course the Jews did not drain the blood of children, poison wells, attempt to mutilate the body of Christ, or commit any of the other wild crimes of which the church accused them. Moreover, since many teachings of Christianity and Islam stemmed directly from Jewish ones, Jews could hardly be said to have denied them. But if rejecting the Christian or Islamic world meant rejecting the Christian or Islamic creed, then Jews who clung to their own separate faith and way of life were, certainly, rejectionist.

This brings us to an apparent point of difference between premodern and modern anti-Semitism. For many Jews over the course of two millennia, there was, in theory at least, a way out of institutionalized discrimination and persecution: the Greco-Roman, Christian and Muslim worlds were only too happy to embrace converts to their way of life. In the modern era, this choice often proved illusory. Both assimilated and unassimilated Jews, both religious and secular Jews, were equally victimized by pogroms, persecutions and genocide. In fact, the terrors directed at the assimilated Jews of Western Europe have led some to conclude that far from ending anti-Semitism, assimilation actually contributed to arousing it.

What accounts for this? In the premodern world, Jews and Gentiles were largely in agreement as to what defined Jewish rejectionism, and therefore what would constitute a reprieve from it: It was mostly a matter of beliefs and moral concepts, and of the social behavior that flowed from them. In the modern world, although the question of whether a Jew ate the food or worshiped the God of his neighbors remained relevant, it was less relevant than before. Instead, the modern Jew was seen as being born into a Jewish nation or race whose collective values were deeply embedded in the very fabric of his being. Assimilation, with or without conversion to the majority faith, might succeed in masking this bedrock taint; it could not expunge it.

While such views were not entirely absent in earlier periods, the burden of proof faced by the modern Jew to convince others that he could transcend his "Jewishness" was much greater than the one faced by his forebears. Despite the increasing secularism and openness of European society, which should have smoothed the prospects of assimilation, many modern Jews would find it more difficult to become real Frenchmen or true Germans than their ancestors would have found it to become Greeks or Romans, Christians or Muslims.

The novelty of modern anti-Semitism is thus not that the Jews were seen as the enemies of mankind. Indeed, Hitler's observation in "Mein Kampf" that "wherever I went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity" sounds no different from the one penned by Philostratus 1,700 years earlier. No, the novelty of modern anti-Semitism is only that it was far more difficult--and sometimes impossible--for the Jew to stop being an enemy of mankind.

On closer inspection, then, modern anti-Semitism begins to look quite continuous with premodern anti-Semitism, only worse. Modern Jews may not have believed they were rejecting the prevailing order around them, but that did not necessarily mean their enemies agreed with them. When it came to the Jews, indeed, European nationalism of the blood-and-soil variety only added another and even more murderous layer of hatred to the foundation built by age-old religious prejudice. Just as in the ancient world, the Jews in the modern world remained the other--inveterate rejectionists, no matter how separate, no matter how assimilated.

Was there any kernel of factual truth to this charge? It is demeaning to have to point out that wherever and whenever they were given the chance, most modern Jews strove to become model citizens and showed, if anything, an exemplary talent for acculturation; the idea that by virtue of their birth, race or religion they were implacable enemies of the state or nation was preposterous. So, too, with other modern libels directed against the Jews, which displayed about as much or as little truth content as ancient ones. The Jews did not and do not control the banks. They did not and do not control the media of communication. They did not and do not control governments. And they are not plotting to take over anything.

What some of them have indeed done, in various places and under specific circumstances, is to demonstrate--with an ardor and tenacity redolent perhaps of their long national experience--an attachment to great causes of one stripe or another, including, at times, the cause of their own people. This has had the effect (not everywhere, of course, but notably in highly stratified and/or intolerant societies) of putting them in a visibly adversary position to prevailing values or ideologies, and thereby awakening the never dormant dragon of anti-Semitism. Particularly instructive in this regard is the case of Soviet Jewry.

What makes the Soviet case instructive is, in no small measure, the fact that the professed purpose of communism was to abolish all nations, peoples and religions--those great engines of exclusion--on the road to the creation of a new world and a new man. As is well known, quite a few Jews, hoping to emancipate humanity and to "normalize" their own condition in the process, hitched their fates to this ideology and to the movements associated with it. After the Bolshevik revolution, these Jews proved to be among the most devoted servants of the Soviet regime.

Once again, however, the perception of ineradicable Jewish otherness proved as lethal as any reality. In the eyes of Stalin and his henchmen, the Jews, starting with the loyal communists among them, were always suspect--"ideological immigrants," in the telling phrase. But the animosity went beyond Jewish communists. The Soviet regime declared war on the over 100 nationalities and religions under its boot; whole peoples were deported, entire classes destroyed, millions starved to death, and tens of millions killed. Everybody suffered, not only Jews. But, decades later, long after Stalin's repression had given way to Khrushchev's "thaw," only one national language, Hebrew, was still banned in the Soviet Union; only one group, the Jews, was not permitted to establish schools for its children; only in the case of one group, the Jews, did the term "fifth line," referring to the space reserved for nationality on a Soviet citizen's identification papers, become a code for licensed discrimination.

Clearly, then, Jews were suspect in the Soviet Union as were no other group. Try as they might to conform, it turned out that joining the mainstream of humanity through the medium of the great socialist cause in the East was no easier than joining the nation-state in the West. But that is not the whole story, either. To scant the rest of it is not only to do an injustice to Soviet Jews as historical actors in their own right but to miss something essential about anti-Semitism, which, even as it operates in accordance with its own twisted definitions and its own mad logic, proceeds almost always by reference to some genuine quality in its chosen victims.

As it happens, although Jews were disproportionately represented in the ranks of the early Bolsheviks, the majority of Russian Jews were far from being Bolsheviks, or even Bolshevik sympathizers. More importantly, Jews would also, in time, come to play a disproportionate role in communism's demise. In the middle of the 1960s, by which time their overall share of the country's population had dwindled dramatically, Soviet Jews made up a significant element in the "democratic opposition." A visitor to the Gulag in those years would have discovered that Jews were also prominent among political dissidents and those convicted of so-called economic crimes. Even more revealing, in the 1970s the Jews were the first to challenge the Soviet regime as a national group, and to do so publicly, en masse, with tens of thousands openly demanding to leave the totalitarian state.

To that degree, then, the claim of Soviet anti-Semites that "Jewish thoughts" and "Jewish values" were in opposition to prevailing norms was not entirely unfounded. And, to that degree, Soviet anti-Semitism partook of the essential characteristic of all anti-Semitism. This hardly makes its __expression any the less monstrous; it merely, once again, takes it out of the realm of fantasy.

And so we arrive back at today, and at the hatred that takes as its focus the state of Israel. That state--the world's Jew--has the distinction of challenging two separate political/moral orders simultaneously: the order of the Arab and Muslim Middle East, and the order that prevails in Western Europe. The Middle Eastern case is the easier to grasp; the Western European one may be the more ominous.

The values ascendant in today's Middle East are shaped by two forces: Islamic fundamentalism and state authoritarianism. In the eyes of the former, any non-Muslim sovereign power in the region--for that matter, any secular Muslim power--is anathema. Particularly galling is Jewish sovereignty in an area delineated as dar al-Islam, the realm where Islam is destined to enjoy exclusive dominance. Such a violation cannot be compromised with; nothing will suffice but its extirpation.

In the eyes of the secular Arab regimes, the Jews of Israel are similarly an affront, but not so much on theological grounds as on account of the society they have built: free, productive, democratic, a living rebuke to the corrupt, autocratic regimes surrounding it. In short, the Jewish state is the ultimate freedom fighter--an embodiment of the subversive liberties that threaten Islamic civilization and autocratic Arab rule alike. It is for this reason that in the state-controlled Arab media as in the mosques, Jews have been turned into a symbol of all that is menacing in the democratic, materialist West as a whole, and are confidently reputed to be the insidious force manipulating the United States into a confrontation with Islam.

The particular dynamic of anti-Semitism in the Middle East orbit today may help explain why--unlike, as we shall see, in Europe--there was no drop in the level of anti-Jewish incitement in the region after the inception of the Oslo peace process. Quite the contrary. And the reason is plain: To the degree that Oslo had succeeded in bringing about a real reconciliation with Israel or in facilitating the spread of political freedom, it would have frustrated the overarching aim of eradicating the Jewish "evil" from the heart of the Middle East and preserving the autocratic power of the Arab regimes.

And so, while in the 1990s the democratic world, including the democratic society of Israel, was (deludedly, as it turned out) celebrating the promise of a new dawn in the Middle East, the schools in Gaza, the textbooks in Ramallah, the newspapers in Egypt and the television channels in Saudi Arabia were projecting a truer picture of the state of feeling in the Arab world. It should come as no surprise that, in Egypt, pirated copies of Shimon Peres's "A New Middle East," a book heralding a messianic era of free markets and free ideas, were printed with an introduction in Arabic claiming that what this bible of Middle East peacemaking proved was the veracity of everything written in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" about a Jewish plot to rule the world.

As for Western Europe, there the reputation of Israel and of the Jews has undergone ups and downs over the decades. Before 1967, the shadow of the Holocaust and the perception of Israel as a small state struggling for its existence in the face of Arab aggression combined to ensure, if not the favor of the European political classes, at least a certain dispensation from harsh criticism. But all this changed in June 1967, when the truncated Jewish state achieved a seemingly miraculous victory against its massed Arab enemies in the Six Day War, and the erstwhile victim was overnight transformed into an aggressor. A possibly apocryphal story about Jean-Paul Sartre encapsulates the shift in the European mood. Before the war, as Israel lay diplomatically isolated and Arab leaders were already trumpeting its certain demise, the famous French philosopher signed a statement in support of the Jewish state. After the war, he is said to have reproached the man who had solicited his signature: "But you assured me they would lose."

Decades before "occupation" became a household word, the mood in European chancelleries and on the left turned decidedly hostile. There were, to be sure, venal interests at stake, from the perceived need to curry favor with the oil-producing nations of the Arab world to, in later years, the perceived need to pander to the growing Muslim populations in Western Europe itself. But other currents were also at work, as anti-Western, anti-"imperialist," pacifist and pro-liberationist sentiments, fanned and often subsidized by the U.S.S.R., took over the advanced political culture both of Europe and of international diplomacy. Behind the new hostility to Israel lay the new ideological orthodoxy, according to whose categories the Jewish state had emerged on the world scene as a certified "colonial" and "imperialist" power, a "hegemon" and an "oppressor."

Before 1967, anti-Zionist resolutions sponsored by the Arabs and their Soviet patrons in the United Nations garnered little or no support among the democracies. After 1967, more and more Western countries joined the chorus of castigation. By 1974, Yasser Arafat, whose organization openly embraced both terrorism and the destruction of a U.N. member state, was invited to address the General Assembly. The next year, that same body passed the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution. In 1981, Israel's strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor was condemned by the entire world, including the United States.

Then, in the 1990s, things began to change again. Despite the constant flow of biased U.N. resolutions, despite the continuing double standard, there were positive developments as well: The Zionism-is-racism resolution was repealed, and more than 65 member states either established or renewed diplomatic relations with Israel.

What had happened? Had Arab oil dried up? Had Muslims suddenly become a less potent political force on the European continent? Hardly. What changed was that, at Madrid and then at Oslo, Israel had agreed, first reluctantly and later with self-induced optimism, to conform to the ascendant ethos of international politics. Extending its hand to a terrorist organization still committed to its destruction, Israel agreed to the establishment of a dictatorial and repressive regime on its very doorstep, sustaining its commitment to the so-called peace process no matter how many innocent Jews were killed and wounded in its fraudulent name.

The rewards for thus conforming to the template of the world's moralizers, cosmetic and temporary though they proved to be, flowed predictably not just to Israel but to the Jewish people as a whole. Sure enough, worldwide indices of anti-Semitismin the 1990s dropped to their lowest point since the Holocaust. As the world's Jews benefited from the increasing tolerance extended to the world's Jew, Western organizations devoted to fighting the anti-Semitic scourge began cautiously to declare victory and to refocus their efforts on other parts of the Jewish communal agenda.

But of course it would not last. In the summer of 2000, at Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians nearly everything their leadership was thought to be demanding. The offer was summarily rejected, Arafat started his "uprising," Israel undertook to defend itself--and Europe ceased to applaud. For many Jews at the time, this seemed utterly incomprehensible: had not Israel taken every last step for peace? But it was all too comprehensible. Europe was staying true to form; it was the world's Jew, by refusing to accept its share of blame for the "cycle of violence," that was out of line. And so were the world's Jews, who by definition, and whether they supported Israel or not, came rapidly to be associated with the Jewish state in its effrontery.

To Americans, the process I have been describing may sound eerily familiar. It should: Americans, too, have had numerous opportunities to see their nation in the dock of world opinion over recent years for the crime of rejecting the values of the so-called international community, and never more so than during the widespread hysteria that greeted President Bush's announced plan to dismantle the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. In dozens of countries, protesters streamed into the streets to voice their fury at this refusal of the United States to conform to what "everybody" knew to be required of it. To judge from the placards on display at these rallies, President Bush, the leader of the free world, was a worse enemy of mankind than the butcher of Baghdad.

At first glance, this too must have seemed incomprehensible. Saddam Hussein was one of the world's most brutal dictators, a man who had gassed his own citizens, invaded his neighbors, defied Security Council resolutions, and was widely believed to possess weapons of mass destruction. But no matter: The protests were less about Iraqi virtue than about American vice, and the grievances aired by the assorted anticapitalists, antiglobalists, radical environmentalists, self-styled anti-imperialists, and many others who assembled to decry the war had little to do with the possible drawbacks of a military operation in Iraq. They had to do, rather, with a genuine clash of values.

Insofar as the clash is between the United States and Europe--there is a large "European" body of opinion within the U.S. as well--it has been well diagnosed by Robert Kagan in his best-selling book, "Of Paradise and Power." For our purposes, it is sufficient to remark on how quickly the initial "why do they hate us" debate in the wake of September 11, focusing on anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, came to be overtaken by a "why do they hate us" debate centered on anti-American sentiment in "Old Europe." Generally, the two hatreds have been seen to emanate from divergent impulses, in the one case a perception of the threat posed by Western freedoms to Islamic civilization, in the other a perception of the threat posed by a self-confident and powerful America to the postmodern European idea of a world regulated not by force but by reason, compromise and nonjudgmentalism. In today's Europe--professedly pacifist, postnationalist, antihegemonic--an expression like "axis of evil" wins few friends, and the idea of actually confronting the axis of evil still fewer.

Despite the differences between them, however, anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked, and both bear an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism. It is, after all, with some reason that the United States is loathed and feared by the despots and fundamentalists of the Islamic world as well as by many Europeans. Like Israel, but in a much more powerful way, America embodies a different--a nonconforming--idea of the good, and refuses to abandon its moral clarity about the objective worth of that idea or of the free habits and institutions to which it has given birth. To the contrary, in undertaking their war against the evil of terrorism, the American people have demonstrated their determination not only to fight to preserve the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, but to carry them to regions of the world that have proved most resistant to their benign influence.

In this positive sense as well, Israel and the Jewish people share something essential with the United States. The Jews, after all, have long held that they were chosen to play a special role in history, to be what their prophets called "a light unto the nations." What precisely is meant by that phrase has always been a matter of debate, and I would be the last to deny the mischief that has sometimes been done, including to the best interests of the Jews, by some who have raised it as their banner. Nevertheless, over four millennia, the universal vision and moral precepts of the Jews have not only worked to secure the survival of the Jewish people themselves but have constituted a powerful force for good in the world, inspiring myriads to fight for the right even as in others they have aroused rivalry, enmity and unappeasable resentment.

It is similar with the United States--a nation that has long regarded itself as entrusted with a mission to be what John Winthrop in the 17th century called a "city on a hill" and Ronald Reagan in the 20th parsed as a "shining city on a hill." What precisely is meant by that phrase is likewise a matter of debate, but Americans who see their country in such terms certainly regard the advance of American values as central to American purpose. And, though the United States is still a very young nation, there can be no disputing that those values have likewise constituted an immense force for good in the world--even as they have earned America the enmity and resentment of many.

In resolving to face down enmity and hatred, an important source of strength is the lesson to be gained from contemplating the example of others. From Socrates to Churchill to Sakharov, there have been individuals whose voices and whose personal heroism have reinforced in others the resolve to stand firm for the good. But history has also been generous enough to offer, in the Jews, the example of an ancient people fired by the message of human freedom under God and, in the Americans, the example of a modern people who over the past century alone, acting in fidelity with their inmost beliefs, have confronted and defeated the greatest tyrannies ever known to man.

Fortunately for America, and fortunately for the world, the United States has been blessed by providence with the power to match its ideals. The Jewish state, by contrast, is a tiny island in an exceedingly dangerous sea, and its citizens will need every particle of strength they can muster for the trials ahead. It is their own people's astounding perseverance, despite centuries of suffering at the hands of faiths, ideologies, peoples, and individuals who have hated them and set out to do them in, that inspires one with confidence that the Jews will once again outlast their enemies.

Mr. Sharansky is Israel's minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs. This article draws in part on ideas presented at a conference on anti-Semitism in Paris in May and at the World Forum of the American Enterprise Institute in June. Ron Dermer contributed to this article, which appears in the November issue of Commentary.

Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.




By Laureen Moe

Christian Action for Israel


The word "anti-Semitism" is inadequate. It is a misnomer. The word was coined in 1879 from the Greek words "anti", meaning "against" and "Semite", meaning a descendant of Shem. The word was first used by Wilhelm Marr a German agitator, who created it to explain the current anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe. Since the Arab peoples are also Semitic people it is not the best _expression. Anti-Jewish, and Jew- hatred, are more descriptive. It is more than just prejudice. The word came into general use in the past hundred years and encompasses all forms of hostility manifested toward Jews throughout history.

There can be economic and social or racial anti-Semitism. It didn't reach epidemic proportions until 175 B.C. Previous uprisings against Jews were not really anti-Semitic. It began almost exclusively in countries which later became part of the Roman Empire. Prejudice flared it seems because Jewish people in honouring their Jewish laws, appeared to be in defiance of Gentile governments. The false assumption began to emerge that Jews didn't have any respect for whatever was held in esteem by the rest of humanity.

In the Greek Hellenistic period no other nation denied the gods of it's neighbours; on the contrary they recognized those gods, identifying them with their own deities. These heathen "gods" created a social bond between people in their domains. None of the people refrained from dining at table with their neighbours and from partaking of the sacrifices offered to their gods except the Jews. None of the peoples refused to send gifts to its neighbours temples, except the Jews. None of the peoples was unequivocally hostile to intermarriage except the Jews.

In the eastern Mediterranean area friction arose over the difference in occupations between Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish population was engaged primarily in small scale farming; the non-Jewish population occupied itself primarily in commerce. The sea trade was almost entirely in the hands of the trans-Jordanian cities, which connected Syria, Asia Minor and the regions of the Euphrates with the Arabian countries. The inhabitants of Eretz Israel had connections abroad. Non-Jews also knew that Jews looked upon their land as their divine inheritance.

The first serious manifestation of anti-Semitism was in the days of the Syrian, Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 B.C. Hellenistic rulers saw theunfriendliness of the Jews as obstacles to the cultural scene. He undertook to destroy those laws of the Talmud that he regarded as unacceptable to humanity. To this end he desecrated their place of worship by sacrificing a pig on their altar in Jerusalem, and ordered that the residual juices be sprinkled over the Holy Books containing these Jewish laws.

Greek authors in the first century portrayed the Jewish people as descendants of a mob of lepers. They further stated that because of this uncleanness Jews shunned the flesh of pigs, since pigs were more prone to contract disease. The Gentiles knew that their own pagan religions and practices rendered them unclean in the eyes of the Jews.

The fact remains that even after four thousand years the idea of a covenant between the Jews and Jehovah is still alive; and is mentioned daily in prayers in synagogues throughout the world. The idea of a covenant with God has remained constant. Because Jehovah is immortal He never dies and because He never dies He never has to be reincarnated. Thus the Jews dispensed with the reincarnation rites of the pagans. The Jews' God was invisible. The concept of "one God", Jehovah, being completely withdrawn from sexuality led to a curb of licentious impulses through inner discipline. By contrast, the Greek gods themselves set the pattern for the unbridled lust and perversion which finally weakened the moral fibre of that people; whereas the Jews, even when they later came in contact with the Greeks, refused to indulge in the Grecian sexual excesses, which included even temple prostitution. The Jewish religion did away with all fertility rites.

As a consequence of the Jewish dietary laws, intermarriage was forbidden and no real social intercourse with gentiles was possible. Also, Jews refused to enter into Emperor worship. It was considered to be an expression of loyalty to the state. About their own religious practices a libel began to circulate that Jews actually sacrificed humans on their altars, allegedly using the blood for Passover rites. Further it was said that the sacrificed person must be a Christian or one of their children. This became known as the "Blood Libel" against the Jews. It mattered not that it was a total fabrication.

Another libel circulating was that unclean leprous people were expelled from Egypt, and that the Jews were these people. Therefore, being foreigners, it was stated that the Jews had no right to claim ancient Israel as their divinely given land.

The destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 AD was seen as hatred by God of the Jews, and as punishment. Jews in Rome felt the barbs of Roman writers. Nero's teacher was anti-Semitic. Cornelius Tacitus wrote about every libellous fabrication against Jews that he could find in Greek anti-Semitic literature. Juvenal wrote a poem revealing that to him the Jews were hateful not only to man but to the gods as well.

In the fourth century AD, when Constantine became the Roman Emperor and supposedly converted to Christianity, he harnessed Political power to Religion and passed anti-Jewish laws, whereby Jews were excluded from every sphere of political influence, and denied civic rights.

The Gospel accounts began to be the source from which wrong teachings grew, until the word "Deicide" meant the Jews killed God, and were labelled "Christ-killers". Matthew 27:25 which spoke of some Jewish leaders was used instead to apply to all Jews: "His blood be on us and on our children...Ye are of your father the devil."

Converts to Christianity and converts to Judaism sparked a seriously divisive rivalry. Religious competition began between the Greek fathers of the Church, and Jews. Church laws were passed whereby Jewish relations with Christian women was now punishable by death. Anti-Semitism at this time was mainly limited to the clergy, who were the educated minority.

Islam arose in the seventh century AD, and also attacked the Jews because the Jews did not recognize Muhammad as a legitimate Prophet. The Koran contained their writings; and many statements in it were hostile to Jews. In the Middle Ages church councils legislated to prevent contact with the Jews because Christians were saying after visiting synagogues that the Jews were better priests.

This historical background of centuries of anti-Semitism eventually exploded in the 20th century "Holocaust". The hostility and hatred manifested in the holocaust was therefore not new. As we have stated ancient writings contain much anti-Semitism. In pre-Roman times most people did not read or write. At times, Rome tried to eradicate Judaism and "Jewishness". Followers were assumed to be treasonous and subversive. This in turn led to major revolts on the part of the Jewish community.

The following is a brief summary of Incidents involving Jews in History...

135 B.C
Antiochus Epiphanes desecrates Second Jewish Temple; leading to Hasmonean Revolt against Rome.

70 A.D.
Titus took Jerusalem - second revolt. Over one million Jews killed.

136 A.D.
580,000 men destroyed, 985 towns destroyed - third revolt.

300 A.D.
Purim festival celebrating God's deliverance to Mordecai and the Jews through Esther and the fasting. Lies spread that Jews kill Christians for sacrifice. Emperor Severus also said the Jews purchased 90,000 Christians to kill them.

306 A.D.
Council in Spain banned Christians & Jews meeting or marrying.

325 A.D.
Constantine changed the celebration of Easter on the calendar so that it did not coincide with the Jewish Passover.

379 A.D. Vicious writing by St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose in Milan who said: "The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them." He was called the Bishop with the Golden Tongue. St. Ambrose, Bishop of the Church offered to burn the synagogue himself.

395 A.D.
St. Gregory of Nyssa in sermons and writings characterized Jews as assassins of the Prophets, companions of the Devil, a race of vipers, a Sanhedrin of Demons, enemies of all that is beautiful, hogs and goats in their lewd grossness.

415 A.D.
Bishop Severus BURNED THE SYNAGOGUE IN THE VILLAGE OF MAGONA. BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ST. CYRIL EXPELLED JEWS FROM ALEXANDRIA AND GAVE THE MOB JEWISH PROPERTY. ACCUSATION of Ritual murder by the Jews during Purim. Christians confiscated synagogues in ANTIOCH. These were not hooligans but Church Fathers! AUGUSTINE, JEROME, AMBROSE AND LESSER SAINTS AS ST. CHRYSOSTROM AND CYRIL, added to untruths the new ones that Jews were dishonest and prone to sexual perversions.

717 A.D.
Jews had to wear special yellow garb. Originated in Islam.

1012 A.D.
Emperor Henry II of Germany expels Jews from Mainz, the beginning of persecutions against Jews in Germany.

1096 A.D.
First Crusade. Crusaders massacre the Jews of the Rhineland.

1144 A.D.
First recorded blood libel. In Norwich it was alleged that the Jews had"bought a Christian child before Easter, tortured him with all the tortures wherewith our Lord was tortured and on Friday hanged him on a rood in hatred of our Lord." (England) This notorious allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christians, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals is a complex of deliberate lies, trumped up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their blood-thirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general. It is combined with the delusion that Jews are in some way not human and must have recourse to special remedies and subterfuges in order to appear at least outwardly, like other men. The blood libel led to trials and massacres of Jews. Its origin is rooted in ancient almost primordial, concepts concerning the potency and energies of blood. It is one of the most terrible expressions of human cruelty and credulity. These blood rituals are expressly forbidden in Judaism. (See Leviticus 17;11 etc.)

1190 A.D.
Massacre of Jews in England.

1215 A.D.
The Jewish badge introduced.

1240 A.D.
Talmud burned in France.

1290 A.D.
Jews expelled from England.

1298 A.D.
Massacre of thousands in Germany, in 146 localities.

1306 A.D.
Expulsion from France.

1348 A.D.
JEWS blamed for the BLACK DEATH. Charge laid to the Jews that they POISONED the wells to kill CHRISTIANS.

1389 A.D.
MASSACRES in Bohemia, Spain.

1421 A.D.
270 JEWS BURNED AT THE STAKE. In the 14th and 15th centuries the Inquisition was more intense because the Church and State joined forces. Just being Jewish guaranteed persecution

1480 A.D.
Inquisition in Spain - Jews and Christians burned at the stake.

1483 A.D.
EXPULSIONS from Warsaw, Sicily, Lithuania, Portugal.

1492 A.D.

1506 A.D.
Murders in Lisbon - 4000, "conversos", men, women, and children thrown from windows to street mobs below, due to preaching by Dominicans against the Jews.

1510 A.D.
EXPELLED from Brandenburg, Germany.

1516 A.D.
Venice initiates the ghetto, the first in Christian Europe.

1544 A.D.
The Reformation. At the end of Martin Luther's life the German reformer vilified the Jews in violent pamphlets which could not fail to exert their influence. But because Calvinists were steeped in Old Testament theology, the Dutch people respected the Jews as "the Chosen" people; and were not anti-Semitic in their faith. The reformation was a time of turmoil as the Roman Church and feudalism lost their supremacy. There was a rising up of Nationhood and Luther was a German nationalist. The Talmud was seized and burned everywhere by Papal authority. Jews in Catholic countries and Polish Jews suffered greatly. Luther's anti-Semitic writings were later used in anti-Semitic literature.

1553 A.D.
Rome seized and burned the Talmud by order of the POPE.

1559 A.D.
12,000 copies of Talmud burned in Milan.

1569 A.D.
POPE PIUS V ordered all Jews out of the Papal states.

1593 A.D.
EXPULSIONS from Italy and Bavaria.

1598 A.D.
Ritual murder charge that sent three Jews to their deaths. Execution of the supposed guilty was done by QUARTERING. (In his book the "Birth of the Prison" Michel Foucault describes at length the quartering of a condemned man in 1757. It was done eventually by six horses instead of the four original ones and other means had to come in to play due to the failure evenof six horses as the prisoners limbs were tied to ropes harnessed to the horses. Each horse pulled in a different direction. One horse fell to the ground unsuccessfully. Knives had to be used for severing...)

1614 A.D.
JEWS attacked and driven out of Frankfurt, Germany.

1624 A.D.
GHETTO established in Ferrara, Italy.

1648 A.D.
Leader of the Cossacks, in the Ukraine massacres 100,000 Jews and destroyed 300 communities.

1655 A.D.
Massacres of Jews in war against Sweden & Russia by Poland.

1715 A.D.
POPE PIUS VI issues edict against Jews.

1768 A.D.
20,000 Jews in Poland killed.

1805 A.D.
MASSACRE of Jews in Algeria.

1840 A.D.

1853 A.D.

1858 A.D.
THE MORTARA CASE: Catholics abduct a 7 yr. old Jewish child. A Catholic servant baptized a Jewish child when the child was seriously ill and the church of Rome seized the child. Outcry had no effect on the POPE.

1879 A.D.
Word anti-Semitism comes into existence.

1881 A.D.
POGROMS BEGAN. The word is of Russian origin. It designates attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, rape. There were three major outbreaks in Russia. The word designates more particularly the attacks carried out by the Christian population. Each pogrom surpassed the other in savagery.
KIEV, ODESSA; Here murder of whole families was a common occurrence. Partial data are available for 530 communities in which 887 major pogroms and 349minor pogroms occurred. There were 60,000 dead and several times that many were wounded.

1882 A.D.

1894 A.D.
ALFRED DREYFUS TRIAL in France. Details follow further on in this summary.

1903 A.D.
APPEARANCE of a new issue of the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. In Russia. This spectre of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy aiming at reducing the Gentiles to slavery or extermination loomed up in the medieval Christian imagination and grew out of legends about well poisonings and plague spreading. It was concocted in Paris by an unknown author working for the Russian secret police. It was an alleged conference of the leaders of World Jewry. It was translated into all the world languages. In 1963 a Spanish edition was published. During World War II, the Protocols of the elders of Zion became an implicit justification for the GENOCIDE of the Jews and Nazi propaganda relied on them until the last days of the Third Reich. Smaller pamphlets of it have been distributed in B.C. 1983 published in California... Required reading in most Arab countries, in schools, to this day.

1905 A.D.
Russian pogroms continue. Also in Morocco, Ukraine, 300 dead.

1919 A.D.
3000 Jews killed in Hungarian pogroms.

1920 A.D.
Appearance of ADOLPH HITLER. Also Henry Ford the 1st believes the Protocols; and publishes anti-Jewish articles in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent.

1925 A.D.
MEIN KAMPH appears. Hitler's Plan published in Germany.

1933 A.D.
HITLER appointed chancellor in Germany.

1935 A.D.
Hitler writes his Nuremberg Laws which lead to his Final Solution.

1938 A.D.
Burning in AUSTRIA & GERMANY of Synagogues. Jews sent to concentration camps. Beginnings of the Holocaust.

1939 A.D.
Germany overruns Poland.

1940 A.D.
Gassing, shootings in Polish Ghettos (Jewish).

1941 A.D.
EXPULSION of Jews from the German Reich to Poland. Riots against Jews in Iraq.

1942 A.D.
Mass transports of Jews to Belgium & Holland.

1944 A.D.

1945 A.D.
HOLOCAUST Final Count: 6,000,000 Jews slaughtered.

1946 A.D.
Pogroms in Poland - 42 Jews murdered.

1948 A.D.
BIRTH OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Also Jewish intellectuals shot in Russia.

1952 A.D.
Jews murdered by Communists, and others disappear. Prague trials. Murder of Yiddish intellectuals in Russia and many sent to work camps.

1956 A.D.
Jews expelled out of EGYPT.

1967 A.D.
SIX DAY WAR. Also new publication of Elders of Zion in Arabic.

1968 A.D.
Emigration of last remaining Jews in Poland.

1969 A.D.

1970 A.D.
Beginning of imprisonment in Russia of PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE. ("Refuseniks")

1980 A.D.
Russian imprisonments carry on throughout the 70's to the 80's.

1982 A.D.
War in Lebanon begins after many years of terrorist attacks against the Jews in the Upper Galilee area from the vantage point of Beaufort Castle. Many Lebanese killed over long period of time, but was ignored by the News Media. War in Lebanon gets slanted coverage.

1983 A.D.
Word from Christians in Israel that the PLO planned their next battleground to be Canada via Quebec. Documented proof that Russia planned in 1982 to attack Israel.

The above catalogue is only the tip of the iceberg! One would think that anti-Jewish atrocities would have ended with the nightmare of the Holocaust. One-third of the world's Jews were murdered by an ungodly German conspiracy that had accused the Jews of "conspiracy". It is not often emphasized that two-thirds of the world's Jews survived; and that due to the faithfulness of their G-d. God has again, as in times past, protected them from total extermination, as He promised. (the Book of Esther, and Jeremiah 31:35-37)

The Holocaust was the final catalyst which led to the re-creation of the State of Israel in 1948. But we have to go back at the very least to the DREYFUS CASE to understand the long range process.

Alfred Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy Alsatian family in France. He entered the French Army in 1892 and became a Captain, and the only Jew. He was framed by a fellow officer for allegedly giving secrets to the enemy, arrested and tried for treason. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Eventually Emile Zola took up the fight proclaiming the man's innocence and published an open letter to the President of France titled "I ACCUSE." Dreyfus was eventually declared unjustly convicted by the Parliament of France. The injustice was totally motivated by Jew-hatred.

During the course of the trumped-up trial a Jewish journalist became involved; and he was the man that was to lead the Jews back to their Land. His name was THEODORE HERZL (1860 - 1904 A.D.) and he called European Jewry together in Basle, Switzerland in 1897 at the now famous "First World Zionist Congress". There in 1897 he publicly predicted to friend and foe alike that the Jews would be back in "the Land" of Palestine "within 50 years". In 1947, exactly fifty years later the United Nations passed the "Resolution For the Partition of Palestine", which lead to the declaration of Statehood on May 14,1948.

With the shouts of "death" to the Jews still ringing in his ears from the Dreyfus Trial, Herzl became convinced that the only solution was the mass exodus of the Jews from their present places of residence to a territory of their own... So out of the suffering of the Dreyfus family came the State ofIsrael. Herzl became the father of Political Zionism and founder of the World Zionist organization.

Herzl was born in Budapest. He left a German students society in 1883 in protest against his first encounter with anti-Semitism. He came across this "Jewish problem" again and again in his life. Although he graduated in 1884 with a doctorate of law he left the legal profession and became a famous writer. He wrote many literary works, some of them plays.

In 1891 he became the Paris correspondent of a Vienna newspaper. He pursued politics and organized the first Zionist Congress is Basle in 1897. (In 1960, Israel issued a centenary stamp with a well known painting of Herzl on the bridge at Basle.) The World Zionist organization was formed. He was chairman and remained so for the next five congresses. He knew Great Britain would be the deciding factor in the realization of Zionist aims. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration became the launching-pad for the founding of the modern Jewish state.

Herzl did not have an easy task. Even his own people were difficult on this issue. His heart failed in 1904. He did not live to see the creation of Israel in 1948. But in 1949 he was laid to rest, reinterred in a place that was named in his honour Mount Herzl, in Jerusalem. A Herzl monument stands nearby. The anniversary of his death on the 20th of Tammuz was declared a National Memorial Day in Israel. In the April 1983 issue of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, following a report on Jerusalem there is a picture that could be titled: "The sorrow of the Jewish People". There are three young Israeli ladies, soldiers, who happen to be very beautiful standing or kneeling at the Herzl Tomb site where there are three new graves...the first soldiers to die in the 1982 conflict in Lebanon.

1983 was the 50th anniversary of Hitler's rise to power; since he was made chancellor in 1933. There was an extensive report on this subject in the April 1983 issue of the Jerusalem Post. Their man in Bonn stated: "There has been no substantial break with the past. Therefore West German Democracy must continue to be subject to question by Germans more than by anyone else." The Post also offered these words which are worth contemplating. Perhaps you never considered this. I had not...

"The destruction that Hitler brought on his own people ranks only after the mass murder he committed on the Jews and the destruction and death rained upon the Soviet Union. He left Germany not only physically ruined, but stripped of its' self respect, ashamed of its' place in human history, uncertain of its' identity, seeking refuge in the compulsive reconstruction of material damage."

They also mentioned...

"The war Hitler unleashed and the organized mass murder that was a centralpart of his design cost the lives of 40 million human beings in Europe alone. Among them 6,000,000 Jews - two-thirds of the Jews in Europe. More than 6,000,000 of his own people also died and others were left hungry."

God promised Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you (and your descendants); and I will curse those who curse you" (Genesis 12:1-3) We can see that the Germans have paid an awful price for allowing this man to lead them down a path contrary to Scripture, by declaring them to be a super race. The man who wanted to obtain the whole world, gained nothing but eternal damnation. He and those who followed him lost everything.

What about Canada?

Most of us would be quick to say that our hands are clean. A truly shocking indictment of our role in the Holocaust can be found in the book "None is Too Many". This title was taken from a statement made by an immigration official when a delegation of Jews went to Ottawa in 1939 to ask: "How many Jews will Canada take in?" The Immigration Minister answered "None is too many".

The authors, Irving Abella and Harold Troper, published this book in 1982 and was on the Canadian Best Sellers List. They received an award early in 1983 for it. It is thoroughly researched and documented proof that our top bureaucrat in the Immigration Department, Fred Blair, a professing Christian, wanted no Jews in Canada and did everything he could in the way of roadblocks to prevent it. In studying it I find I want to scream with the agony of our shame.

MacKenzie King didn't want them. Perhaps he was too busy talking to his dead mother and his dead dog as he gazed into his crystal ball (all told in his published diaries). The authors record that Canada's Prime Minister thought Hitler had a good face and that he was sweet. King was deathly afraid of what Quebec would do if he gave in and allowed in refugees. The French-Canadian press was very hostile to Jews (Le Devoir). There was also a very vocal fascist Party in Quebec; headed by Adrianne Arcand.

Blair had the opportunity to rescue thousands, but wouldn't budge on his restrictive policy. He just didn't want any Jewish immigrants.

Lester Pearson said that we didn't have a boat. Ottawa would not listen either to the pleas of George Vanier; even though he was Canadian Ambassador to France and was there on the scene.

Conservative Robert Manion didn't want any either. In the midst of all of the obstruction the Toronto Globe & Mail asked at one point "Does Canada stand for anything?" Manion wanted no Jews as long as Canadians were unemployed. Ernest LaPointe of Quebec and the Le Devoir newspaper and Vincent Massey of External Affairs wanted Jews kept out of Canada. Massey was a fringe member of the Pro-German anti-Semitic Cliveden set centredaround Lord and Lady Astor in London; where Vincent was Canadian High Commissioner.

We had one social worker on the scene and her name was Charlotte Whitton, outspoken Mayor of Ottawa. She fiercely fought not to have Jewish children here as she favoured British children. She led a movement to evacuate endangered British mothers and children. The Canadian Jewish Congress saw her as an enemy of Jewish immigration. Oscar Cohen said she "almost broke up the inaugural meeting of the congress on Refugees by her insistent opposition and very apparent anti-Semitism."

The saddest story I have ever read in my life is the whole chapter from the Abella book titled "The children that never came." It takes care of any pride we may have in being Canadians. It is documented evidence 25 pages in length of continuous pleading on behalf of officials in places like France and Poland to take children whose lives were in immediate danger. Blair's hard hearted efforts lead to the declaration in the end of that chapter that reads: "There were no more schemes to the refugee children. None were needed." By the time of the allied invasion of France in June 1944 most of these children had been murdered. NOT ONE of them had made it to Canada! They had been talking at times about as many as 5000.

I am happy to report that good has come out of the publishing of this book. The authors report that Lloyd Axworthy, current Minister of Immigration, apologized for the behaviour of predecessors and promised that it would never happen again. But also having read some papers by these authors prior to publication, Ron Atkey, former Conservative Minister of Immigration, took the responsibility and opened the doors to the BOAT PEOPLE because he did not want to be known as another Frederick Blair.

In "Bridges for Peace", the 1983 issue from Tulsa, Oklahoma we read about the state of anti-Semitism as in this day, media coverage is slanted.

"While some would have you believe the world is becoming a better place and anti-Semitism is on the wane, I believe that careful observation will prove otherwise. In the last two years, we have seen a growing double standard used by the media in reporting events concerning Israel. And as we saw this past summer in Greece, Italy, and France, this very distorted, even false media reporting about Israel's involvement in Lebanon resulted in attacks against local Jewish communities solely because they were Jewish; regardless of their affiliation with Israel. For example: In France a video tape of a Palestinian boy holding his bleeding, dying sister was repeatedly shown as the result of an aggressive Jewish attack on civilians in Lebanon. Local Frenchmen, incensed by this news, staged an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish march which culminated in the bombing of synagogues and Jewish owned businesses killing many. It was later proven that this video tape was six years old and showing the destruction of the Tel-Zatar refugee camp by the SYRIANS in 1976. Jews were NOT even involved but the ugly head of Anti-Semitism hadalready shown itself."

But it will. One day the Bible says we shall take the hem of the Jews' skirt and go with them to Zion because we know God is with them. Zechariah tells us that the Lord will come and place His feet on the Mount of Olives. He will fight for His people Israel against all the nations of the world. All the land of Israel will dwell in safety and peace when the Messiah comes. He will rule and reign from Jerusalem, the Son of David, sitting on David's throne. (Read 2 Samuel 7:11-16; and Psalm 2:6-8;and 89:20-37) Regardless of Israel's sins of the past the Lord will forgive, cleanse, and restore (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Christians throughout the world are awakening to a call to stand by the side of the Jewish people. Beginning in 1979 Christians in Jerusalem rallied to her side when the governments of the World began to pull their embassies out of Jerusalem in fear because of the Arab oil power. The "International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem" was established. With people like Jan Willem Van Der Hoeven and the Comfort Zion ministry of Merv and Merla Watson, Jews are beginning to be provoked to jealousy. They are watching Christian love in action; and hope is being reborn when they see 5000 Christians celebrating during the Jewish "Feast of Tabernacles", dancing with joy on Mount Zion and supporting them in their hour of need.

If Canada's Joe Clark had kept his promise to move our embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, he would have done better. Six months after breaking his promise he ceased to be Prime Minister; and twelve months later he was removed as Leader of the Progressive-Conservative Party. Coincidence? God hears our promises; even "election promises". The Scripture says God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse her.

Every nation that has persecuted the Jews has, in the long run, inherited the negative side of God's promise to Abram: "and I will curse those who curse you (and your descendants)."

SO IN CONCLUSION: Anti-Semitism is a venomous condition of the heart of man and not just prejudice, hatred or discrimination. Jealousy and envy of the Jew more than anything else seems to be the main root of this condition. It is a spiritual problem. But Jeremiah said it best and it is truth from God's Word... "The heart is deceitful, and desperately wicked; who can know it?".

Anti-Semitism engages man in a conduct that is: inconceivable, unbelievable, shocking, grotesque, incomprehensible, unthinkable, inhumane and intolerable.

This information has been gleaned from Alan Lazerte's course on anti-Semitism given at Fraserview Assembly, January, February and March 1983 as Director of the Canadian Friends of the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem.




By Professor Arieh Zaritsky

[This essay is based on a talk delivered at a conference entitled The Oslo Decade in Review in Jerusalem, September 10, 2003. The conference was sponsored by the Root and Branch Association.]

"Academic Freedom" and "Truth" are the most important aspects of life in higher learning institutions, where civilization is preserved and progresses. Indeed, I cherish these values and exercised them during the first 20 years of service at Ben-Gurion University.

Then, when the Oslo era hit us, all this has changed completely. Many of us, who opposed the so-called "Oslo-PiPi" (Peace Process), were too nave to realize what was going on, but reality slowly sobered us up. It was recognized that betraying one's truth was apparently the easiest way to be promoted, particularly in Faculties where issues are least rigorous such as Humanities and Social Sciences.

As a member of the Natural Sciences Faculty, I was not aware of this issue until the "Merry Days" of Oslo, when the Bolshevik mood prevailing in the so-called Humanities Faculty has penetrated the exact sciences (Natural, Engineering and Medical). My attention was captured when I realized that major essential assets and interests for the survival of Israel were 'sold away' by colleagues, perhaps for gaining some temporary and questionable personal "Fame and Fortune" among our worst enemies abroad.

I have been disillusioned, disappointed, and frustrated. A small part of what I've learned during this last decade is being exposed now. The time will come when more will be told. In fact, a long article about this that I composed was not published in "NATIV" bimonthly because the Editor (Arieh Stav) was warned by his lawyer that those mentioned might sue him, the periodical and the author. Amnon Lord, who delivered a lecture this morning here, knows what I mean. This is an attempt to compose a small part without mentioning names, all of whom are 'registered' in my files.

A typical example of my point is that of a Professor of Geography who heads "The Negev Institute for Regional Development." Remember the plan designed by the Rabin government to deliver to the Palestinian Authority sovereignty over a 5 km stretch surrounding a highway between Gaza and Hevron? It was obvious to us that the plan would mean that Israel would not be able to sustain the Negev (mind you, over 50% of Israel's area). It was not included in the 1947 UN plan and is still being claimed by the Egyptians. That is why my late Genetics teacher in The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who fought in the Negev as a Pal'Mach'nik during the Independence War, distinguished professor Yair Parag Z"L, published numerous articles in daily newspapers and directed letters to that Geographer and others, warning against that plan and asking for their explanations and responses - all in vain! Similar letters by Dr. Ron Breiman (IB"LA) were never answered. Merely by his silence, rather than helping develop the Negev, as this professor claims to do, he helped split it in two. Hasn't he been one of those who established the "Negev Party," which thanks G-d, lost in the elections of 1999?

Another of these establishing that party is a historian specializing in the Israeli Socialist movements. This one refused to offer a teaching job to one of the most talented and wise political scientists that I know, Dr. Ra'aya Epstein of Yerucham, after he investigated her political views. Offering a job to Dr. Uri Milstein, the world-famous historian specializing in Israel's wars, is unheard of - particularly because he was, like myself, raised in the Socialistic movement, so he 'betrayed' it, in their view. Rather, this clique has appointed several of the most infamous Post-Zionist historians and political scientists to the 'Oslo-oriented' newly-established Department of "Politics and Governance" at BGU.

Is anybody surprised to hear, lo and behold, that these two 'Humanitarians' (the geographer and the historian) became presidents of two colleges under the auspices of BGU?

Another post-Zionist who chaired the geography department refused to serve in the so-called "occupied territories," two other 'Humanists' (chairing other departments there) blame Prime Minister Sharon for murder and advocate around the world that he be jailed, and a famous writer incited to kill the settlers even before Oslo's inauguration.

One yarmulke-wearer is always a good cover for extreme leftists as an argument that they are not discriminatory. Such a professor here was recruited from the North American Peace Now movement to compare the responsibility of Jewish mothers who expose their kids to dangers in the "occupied territories" to that of Arab mothers who send theirs to become homicide bombers.

This line of thought culminated in several senior Faculty members initiating and signing a petition to boycott the Israeli Academia. Have we ever heard of such a mental disease, of people who boycott themselves? Why do they remain among the boycotted Academia? On the other hand, have we ever heard of an organization who continues to feed those who boycott it?

There are more, many more, such Auto-Anti-Semites at BGU - the system is rotten from its top.

Couldn't one argue, however, that all my examples prove the existence of absolute "Freedom of Speech" at BGU? Why not compare me to the Biblical Bil'am, who was supposed to curse Israel but was rather led to bless it? Well, this would have been so if we (the many who opposed Oslo) were given the same chance. However, despite the fact that over 90 senior Faculty of BGU are members of PSI (Professors for a Strong Israel Organization), we were not allowed to introduce into the campus any of our lecturers with opposing views. Numerous political conferences (financed by the governmental Misrad Ha'Hasbarah) were organized and conducted on campus in an academic disguise praising the Peace Process and its anticipated 'fruits', brainwashing students and Faculty. When, on the other hand, we wished to organize a balanced conference to discuss the book of Arieh Stav (entitled "Ha'Shalom - Arab Cartoons"), for example, we were told by the then Deputy-President (now, Israeli ambassador to the UK) that "no politics will prevail on campus while I am in office." We had to host Arieh and other distinguished lecturers such as Professor Moshe Sharon at a hall in an obscure community club somewhere in town while the infamous men, Drs. Ron Pundak and Yair Hirshfeld, and Sophian Abu-Zaidah, as well as the infamous women, Dr. Naomi Chazan, Shulamit Aloni and Hannan Ashrawi, were given a free podium at BGU's various so-called 'Humanity' and 'Social' Sciences departments. Even the President of the Zionist of America Organization, Mr. Morton Klein, was not officially invited to BGU when he visited Be'er-Sheva.

Is it strange or unexpected, after all the above, that a student was punished by BGU's Discipline Committee for flying the Israeli flag on campus opposite a group of Arab students (across the fence) who had raised the flag of the so-called "Palestine Liberation Organization" on their Land Day (Yom Ha'Adama) several years ago?

These are just 'the tip of the iceberg' of what was going on at BGU in general during the Oslo Decade. Now, let me tell you a couple of stories about my personal experience.

As many of you know, soon after the signing of the Oslo Accords on the White House's green lawn, I established an electronic mail list, to quickly spread announcements about petitions, demonstrations and other activities of the so-called National Camp. One day in 1999, I was called to the office of my dean (Natural Sciences, remember), in the presence of my department chairman, to warn me not to use my email address at BGU for this purpose. I obviously refused to comply, but tricked them into telling me that BGU received a letter from the office of the Prime Minister, then Ehud Barak, who was annoyed by my activity. At the same time, there was wide activity by other Faculty exploiting the same means (email) to support Barak's policies.

The same email list was apparently effective. Would these people have bothered themselves chasing me otherwise? It was SO effective, that the "Acting Committee" of BGU discussed the issue of "how to stop Zaritsky." The reason they left me alone? They said, "Leave Zaritsky - he is Ready To Fight." The obvious implication should be learnt by all who refrain from fighting because they are afraid of inconvenience.

Another example on record: an official campus security person approached me in June 2002 and asked me (strictly, though politely) to remove postings from my office door because "some people complain." My response was (strictly and politely as well) negative, of course. I asked for an official letter from the General Manager of BGU, who had sent him. And I suggested that he stroll through the corridors of the Humanities Faculty, demanding that the people there remove postings. Again, the lesson is that it pays to be assertive in such cases! It may be best to end my brief lecture on this subject by citing two who are not considered "extreme right," to say the least, one from Academia, the other from the Media.

1. The Knesset's "Education, Culture and Sport Committee" was urgently called by Meretz MK Zehava Gal'on on May 15, 2002, to discuss "The Blow to Academic Freedom in Israel," struck by 43 professors petitioning against the invitation of Dr. Yossi Beillin to Lecture at BGU. This whole issue is interesting and deserves a lecture by itself, but here is what Dr. Yuval Steinitz (MK and Chairman of Foreign Affair and Defense Committee) said at this meeting (my translation):

"As one who graduated at the Philosophy Department in Tel-Aviv University, it is obvious to me that if the Oslo process had been tried and failed several years earlier, and consequently my transformation from 'Peace Now' to the Right and the Likud had happened while I studied for my Ph.D., I would very likely never had been recruited as a lecturer in an Israeli University because the hostile prevailing atmosphere that de-legitimized the Right. The recommendations and the whole surrounding atmosphere is very powerful, hence raised my chances to be awarded the prestigious Allon Fellowship. The chances to be recommended by people like Assa Kasher, for example, would have been dramatically reduced. There was a professor at TAU that was motivated to help my academic career." I can only paraphrase, after observing the so-called Academic Freedom here, "I would still have been looking for a job in Israeli Academia if 'The Oslo Experiment' had been implemented and failed several years earlier, when I was a young, non-tenured lecturer."

2. The media person is an honest Leftist journalist, Ben-D'ror Yemini. This is from his article in Ma'ariv, July 23, 2002 (translated by me): "It is popular among certain circles to compare Israel to the Nazis. If you belong to those who perform such horrendous comparisons, you are considered among the progressive and enlightened forces. The major protest would be one protesting against the protest on simply expressing these things. In an Orwellian conversion, of the Political Correct (PC) inventors, the criticism against comparison is persecution while the attempt to shut the criticism up is Freedom of Speech."

This last citation can be useful as a reminder to the protest of the "nice guys" against the protest of the 43 BGU professors against Beillin's lecture there. Thank you.

Arieh Zaritsky is Professor in the Department of Life Sciences at Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er-Sheva. His research interests are in bacterial physiology (cell division, aging, chromosome and plasmids segregation, growth and morphogenesis) and mosquito biocontrol. His website address is



The Jerusalem Post


By Caroline Glick

"How could you report the war in Iraq if you sided with the Americans?"

"How can you say that George Bush is better than Saddam Hussein?"

These are some of the milder questions I received from an audience of some 150 undergraduate students from Tel Aviv University's Political Science Department. The occasion was a guest lecture I gave last month on my experiences as an embedded reporter with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division during the Iraq war.

Many of the students were visibly jolted by my assertion that the patriotism of American soldiers was inspirational. The vocal ones among them were appalled when I argued that journalists must be able to make moral distinctions between good and evil, when such distinctions exist, if they wish to provide their readership with an accurate picture of the events they describe in their reports.

"Who are you to make moral judgments? What you say is good may well be bad for someone else."

"I am a sane human being capable of distinguishing good from evil, just like every other sane human being," I answered. "As criminal law states, you are criminally insane if you can't distinguish between good and evil. Unless you are crazy, you should be able to tell the difference."

When the show was over, and the students began shuffling out of the lecture hall, a young woman approached me.

"Excuse me," she said with a heavy Russian accent.

"How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?"

"Because it is better to be free than to be a slave," I answered.

Undeterred, she pressed on, "How can you support America when the US is a totalitarian state?"

"Did you learn that in Russia?" I asked.

"No, here," she said.

"Here at Tel Aviv University?"

"Yes, that is what my professors say," she said.

In the weeks that have passed since I gave that lecture, I have not been able to get those students out of my mind.

While campuses throughout the Western world are known as hotbeds for radicalism, it is still hard to believe that Israeli students, who themselves served in the IDF, and who as civilians have experienced more than three years of unrelenting terrorist attacks on their cafes, night clubs, campuses, highways and public buses, could subscribe to such views.

How can they believe it is impossible to make moral distinctions between those fighting terrorism and totalitarian regimes and those perpetrating terrorism and leading such dictatorships?

It is an open secret that many of the most prominent Israeli academics and professors are also identified with the radical leftist fringes of the Israeli political spectrum.

The Hebrew University's Political Science Department was dominated for years by the leaders of Peace Now. Tel Aviv University's Social Science and Humanities Faculties are the professional home to some of the leaders of the even more radical Ta'ayush and Yesh Gvul organizations.

Israeli professors have signed petitions calling for boycotts of Israeli goods. Some have even supported the boycott of Israeli academics by foreign universities and academic publications.

Israel Radio reported this week that the letter written by 13 reservists from the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit in which they announced their refusal to serve in the territories was written for them by a Tel Aviv University professor.

Prof. Rafi Yisraeli from the Hebrew University notes, "It is ironic that the university presidents and Minister Natan Sharansky are now organizing a campaign to stop the boycott of Israeli academics in foreign universities.

A year ago, I discussed the issue, as well as the rampant anti-Semitism on European campuses ,with the president of the University of Paris. He told me, 'What do you want from us? All we are doing is repeating what we hear from Israeli professors.'"

Case in point is Tel Aviv University law professor Andrei Marmor.

Marmor is currently a visiting faculty member at the University of Southern California Law School. Recently he published a policy paper at USC where he argues that Israel's territorial claims to land it secured during the 1948-49 War of Independence are no different from its claims to land secured in the 1967 Six Day War. In his view, both are illegitimate.

Marmor goes on to argue that Zionism cannot claim to be a liberal movement unless it accepts the "right of return" of Palestinians to Israel.

In the mid-1990s, a Tel Aviv University graduate student conducted a survey of the political views of university professors.

The student discovered that not only were the professors overwhelmingly self-identified with far left and Arab political parties, most also expressed absolute intolerance for the notion that professors with right-wing or even centrist views should be allowed to teach in their departments. "Over my dead body," said one.

All of this is well known. Yet knowing of the professors' radicalism, and seeing the effects of such dogmatic views on university students, are different things.

Since my exchange with those students, I have spoken to professors and students at the five major liberal arts universities in Israel to try to understand how the intellectual tyranny of the radical Left on campuses impacts their educational and professional experiences.

Students speak of a regime of fear and intimidation in the classroom. Ofra Gracier, a doctoral student in Tel-Aviv University's humanities faculty explains the process as follows:

"It starts with the course syllabus. In a class on introduction to political theory for instance, you will never see the likes of Leo Strauss or Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman. You will only get Marx and Rousseau and people like that. So, if you want to argue with Marx, you are on your own. You don't know anything else.

"But say you want to dispute your professor. I was taught this class by Yoav Peled, an avowed communist. He was explaining why capitalism is evil. I mentioned the Asian economic miracle -- South Korea, Japan, Singapore.

He went nuts and spent the rest of the class screaming at me.

"Then there is the grading system. In a history course I took, I took a Zionist line in a research paper. My professor gave me a low grade and explained that my grade was the result of my argument.

"Most people toe the leftist line even when they disagree because of the grade discrimination. If you get low grades, you can't get accepted to a master's program and if, in the master's program you get low grades you won't be accepted into a doctoral program."

Avi Bell, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University's Law School, relates a separate but related problem. "Last year I taught a course on the legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of my students were clearly Zionists and also knowledgeable about Israeli history.

And yet, when I received their seminar papers at the end of the term, I saw that most of them wrote anti-Zionist arguments.

"The reason this happened is because there is a dire lack of scholarship in certain areas. For instance, if you want to research the issue of Palestinian policies of land discrimination against Jews, you have to go to primary sources.

No one has written a book about it even though it is a huge issue. But if you want to research the question of alleged Jewish land discrimination against Arabs, you have a bookshelf full of books at your disposal."

Indeed, Dr. Martin Sherman of Tel-Aviv University's Political Science Department was unable to get the university's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies to publish his original work on the hydro-strategic impact of a Palestinian state on Israel. Sherman, with degrees in physics and geology and practical experience as a water adviser in the Ministry of Agriculture, is a recognized expert in the field.

"My paper showed conclusively that the establishment of such a state would involve the transfer of control over 60 percent--70 percent of Israel's water sources to the Palestinians. They wouldn't have it. I was strung along by Shai Feldman [the head of the Jaffee Center] for months and months, until it was finally made clear that it wouldn't be published."

Citing alternate publications in research papers is also not allowed. Another graduate student explained that her professor gave her a low grade on a paper because she cited research published in Netiv magazine. "That is a right-wing propaganda sheet, published in the Occupied Territories," she was told. Her argument that most of Netiv's articles are written by academics and are based on original research didn't matter.

She ran into a similar problem when she cited an article published in the Shalem Center's journal Azure.

Most of the academics and students that I spoke with were happy to discuss their situations and yet averse to the notion of being quoted by name. "I am up for tenure," and "I still need my dissertation proposal approved," were some of the most frequent explanations.

A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state was published on Thursday in Haaretz. According to the findings, a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.

Mexicans, Chileans, Norwegians, and Indians all have higher degrees of pride in their national identities than Israelis. Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?

Copyright 1995-2003 The Jerusalem Post -




By Bernard J. Shapiro

When did the blood begin to flow?
The left-wing Jews watch in silence.
When did they start the killing?
The left-wing Jews do not make a sound.
Why do they make so many die?


The left-wing Jews are happy and do not want trouble.
When every Israeli is dead there, where will the Arabs go to kill more Jews?
The left-wing Jews are sleeping and do not see the blood.
How will they get rid of the bodies so no one will know?
We need to censor the news; shut down Arutz Sheva,
Deceive the people for the good of Israel.


It's all right for the settlers to die.
Rabin said they are not real Israelis. "They can spin like propellers"
Let the Arabs burn those damn right-wing villages.
Mofaz said that it costs to much to protect them.
You'd better stop protesting and calling Beilin and Peres traitors.
You damn settlers are dirty Jewish rats.
Go ahead, crack their skulls, show them who is boss.


We don't need these people,
Let them go back where they came from.
Imprison the settler, beat up the demonstrator, its for good of Israel.
If you don't like what we are doing,
Leave and let the Arabs kill whom we want.
Murder, mutilate, maul, decimate, the Arabs will solve our problem.
Blast, burn, bomb, torture, kill, kill, kill,
Our Arab friends will solve the problem
The left-wing Jews demand silence.


The left-wing Jews want you to shut up, be quiet, go away
The left-wing Jews don't see any blood on their hands.
The left-wing Jews just can't be bothered with such matters.
The left-wing Jews don't want to listen to the cries of the dead.
The left-wing Jews believe in Beilin, Peres, Sarid and Burg.
They are killers, silent killers.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

Oh Land of my Fathers, lovely land of freedom,
Where has thou gone?
To a
New Middle East, across a sea of fog,
Deep into the fantasy world of Beilin & Peres.
Oh love of my fathers, hope of my people,
What has become of your promise of Zion?
Why do you wander drunk and sick?
What has become of thee?


I see no more a land of freedom, love and justice.
I see no more the hope and prayer of the Jew.
I see a monster, a demented monster.
Tell me oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey,
How many dirty deals did you make with our enemies today?
How many Jewish villages did you put in harms way?
How many peaceful demonstrators did you crush and still?
How many Jewish prayers for
Eretz Yisrael did you wreck and bury?
And tell me, how many children will die at the
Hands of the murderers you have set free today?
Tell me the truth, oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey.


Oh demented monster, why did you come?
When will you go?
You'll go when the settlers are all gone.
You'll go when religious Jews are no longer in your way.
You'll go when all Zionists have forsaken Zion.
You'll go when
They are all dead.
Oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey.
It is
We, the people of Israel, who are They.

HOME Maccabean comments