Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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









Who Will Rally Am Yisrael

To Prevent The Abandonment Of Our Promised Land?

IN THIS ISSUE: Yedidya Atlas, David Basch, Uri Dan & Dennis Eisenberg, Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Elaykim Ha'etzni, Dr. Aaron Lerner, Dan Nimrod, Dr. Steven Plaut, Boris Shusteff and Emanuel A. Winston .................

* * * * * * *

And Much More Inside





NETANYAHU'S CHALLENGE....Uri Dan & Dennis Eisenberg

NICE GUY SHAHAK, Israel's Uniform Fetish....Daniel Doron
















CRIME AND PUNISHMENT....Rabbi Eliezer Waldman





CNN: EYELESS IN GAZA....Emanuel A. Winston




WHO IS ADL FOR? AGAINST?....Richard H. Shulman

YOSSI SARID, HYPOCRITE....Jonathan Rosenblum

IN SEARCH OF A PROPHET....Boris Shusteff

* THE MACCABEAN * [ISSN 1087-9404]
Edited by
Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661
Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
* E-Mail: freemanlist@aol.com
URL: http://www.freeman.org
* Free with Freeman Center membership
1 year: USA $45, Outside USA: $50

(c) 1998 Bernard J. Shapiro



As democracies are committed to do on a periodic basis, Israel will hold new elections on May 17th. Like all Israeli elections, the issues are being obscured and personalities have become paramount. It is way too early for me to give an intelligent analysis of platforms and prospects of the many parties and contenders for the office of Prime Minister. I hope that in the February issue of THE MACCABEAN I will be able to do so.

I would just like to give the reader a very general caution about judging candidates. The so-called centrist parties are apparently left-parties with a new public relations spin. Some so-called right-wing parties fail by most right-wing criteria. The Likud has become a center-left party, though many of its followers are in the Nationalist Camp.

Labor and Meretz have become surrogate Arab parties and this is proven daily by the support they get from Arab voters. By the way, Israel's Arab voters are not supporters of the 'Zionist entity' called Israel. They support 'Palestine.' Paul Eidelberg, one of Israel's most brilliant political/legal thinkers, has said of this phenomenon that democracy is not meant to be a suicide pact. I agree completely with him.

The important thing to remember at this critical time is the following: What you will be hearing from now until the elections will be primarily smoke and mirrors. The truth will be well hidden from view. Candidates will make promises they never intend to keep and party platforms will be a joke. American consultants like that rabid attack dog, James Carville, will try to spread muck and slime over the opposition candidates. I doubt that we will witness any dignity or intelligence in the campaign. There will be few if any discussions of the very serious issues facing Israel.

One could easily give in to despair....but we won't! THE MACCABEAN will be there and will continue to discuss REAL issues that affect the survival and security of Israel.


The many statements by the Netanyahu government on Palestinian and Lebanese violence remind me of the story of the little boy who is beaten by his schoolmates. "If you hit me one more time, I'll really get you back." He is hit one more time. He says: "If you hit me again, I'll really hit you back." They hit him again. He says angrily: " You better not hit me again, I will really get you then."

They hit him again and again, ad nauseam............

The boy never responds. He has no self-respect. No pride. He is afraid, perhaps a coward.

I am not impressed with Netanyahu's threats against either the Palestinians or the Hizballah in Lebanon. Weakness invites aggression and Israeli behavior is the primary cause of the attacks that inevitably befall it. The Arabs are no more to blame than a wolf that dines on sheep. It is their nature to attack Jews.

The fault lies with the Jewish leadership that has made self defense a crime. The fault lies with those who make pronouncements instead of taking action. The fault lies with those who show fear in the face of the enemy. Indeed, the fault lies with those who fail to recognize the enemy.

I grew up on tales of heroic Israelis defending their right to Eretz Yisrael against impossible odds. Where have all my heroes gone?....


We believe that the vote was insincere, a hoax, a deception in line with the Arab strategy of trickery to achieve victory over Israel and continue the (Oslo) process leading to its destruction. Clinton is lying about what he achieved in Gaza with the same skill he lied about Monica.

"If Arafat sprouted wings, became as pious as a choir boy, and angels danced on his shoulders, I would still oppose giving him one inch of Eretz Yisrael.

...............Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

Reprinted form The Jerusalem Post of December 31, 1998


By Uri Dan & Dennis Eisenberg

The very destiny of the Jewish state could be decided within the next four months. Much rests on whether or not Binyamin Netanyahu can prove he is more than a glib TV performer. That he will cease dithering. And that he will make up his mind to combine oratory with positive action.

The insidious dangers of Israelis demeaning themselves, seeking outsiders to help solve their political problems, mount on all sides. Already Labor leader Ehud Barak leans heavily on American spin­doctors on how to persuade Israelis to vote for him. What need is there for foreigners ­ when he has a choice of five million fellow citizens who can give all the advice he needs for the next two thousand years. In this matter, Netanyahu too is guilty. CIA operatives check whether Arab terrorists have been imprisoned by Yasser Arafat as agreed at Wye River. Without much success it seems. They still "escape" with the greatest of ease.

The majority of Israelis in the national camp ­ stigmatized as "right wing" ­ have during the past two years been thrown into disarray by Netanyahu's persistent and fruitless pursuit of the "center" by speaking from both corners of his mouth at the same time. On the one hand, he claims he is determined to stand firm on Palestinians living up to their commitments to stop terrorism, arrest known killers of Jews, cease intifada­style street violence, surrender illegal arms and disarm the grossly overmanned Palestinian militia, which each passing day resembles a full­blown army. Yet this very week Netanyahu's lack of resolve was demonstrated at the Palestinian airport in Gaza where, by mutual agreement, Israeli security officials have the right ­ and duty ­ to check incoming planes. When the Palestinians refused to allow the security officials to examine an Egyptian plane, Israel gave way ­ and there was no check carried out or efforts made to resolve the mystery concerning reports of four unidentified passengers on the aircraft. When is Netanyahu going to stand firm on Israeli rights? Time is short ­ every day of supine lack of purpose and real leadership qualities could drive a nail into his political coffin.

IN essence, Netanyahu faces two major rivals for the premiership: Ehud Barak and Amnon Lipkin­Shahak. Both were highly successful army commanders ­ Barak in the Sayeret Matkal elite unit and Shahak, a paratroop commander. Both became chiefs of General Staff. But in truth neither made a deep impression in that role. Neither man came up with a military answer to the Lebanese problem. So there is precious little reason for either of them to even pretend they were of the same giant­like stature of a Yitzhak Rabin or Moshe Dayan in that role.

Barak's Operation Accountability in 1993 involving air strikes and Shahak's Grapes of Wrath onslaught by both artillery and air strikes, were failures. Neither of them came up with a military plan to handle the wave of suicide bombings after the Oslo Accords. Both Barak and Shahak are politically left wing. Both championed Rabin's Oslo Accords and were major figures in politicizing the armed forces. Barak has proved an ineffectual leader of the Labor Party. Shahak is yet to comment on anything, let alone on any issue which as a prospective prime minister is important to the country. Allied with them as a Netanyahu rival is Dan Meridor, a self­styled prince of the Likud who was and still is in a pique about not being granted greater honor by "his" party.

The onus of ensuring that Israel will continue to be a genuine sovereign state and have the courage and determination to stand up to external pressure now rests squarely on Netanyahu's shoulders. For a start, he must convince the voters who chose him two years ago that he will no longer treat them as idiots. For instance, he has repeatedly made tough speeches about Jerusalem remaining a united city with the right to build anywhere within its boundaries. But to this day, not a single foundation stone has been set in place in the Har Homa neighborhood. Netanyahu talks about his commitment to the settlements, but there has been less activity there in the past two years than under the previous Labor administration.

Netanyahu faces the biggest challenge of his life in the coming weeks. Not only personally, but as prime minister of Israel. Is he big enough and courageous enough to prove himself worthy of the title by bold decisions and deeds? That matters not only to him personally, but to every single man, woman and child who lives in this country.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1998

Reprinted form The Jerusalem Post of December 31, 1998


Israel's Uniform Fetish

By Daniel Doron

Like successive marriages, the blind faith of Israelis that "clean, new" leadership will set all wrongs right represents the triumph of hope over experience. Again and again, our statist distributive system corrupts politics and brings out the worst, even in the best. Rampant statism has ground the Soviet empire to dust, and caused us disaster after disaster. Yet, after each catastrophe, we search amidst the rubble for a new white hope, clinging to the illusion that given the "right" leadership, Israel can revive itself without paying the painful cost of true reform.

Each time we swear never to trust politicians again, but then follow, like enchanted children, the latest pied piper: Yigal Allon, Moshe Dayan, Yigael Yadin, Ezer Weizman or Yitzhak Rabin ­ all, incidentally, ex­generals. Israelis obviously prefer their saviors in mufti. This despite ample evidence that generals, with few exceptions, make poor civilian leaders, and even though our generals, judging by our army's cost and performance, have little to crow about.

In fact, some of Israel's greatest calamities occurred when martial men were at the helm. Yet, we seem unable to resist the belief that by some magic, the sheer force of a "clean" leader's personality will create a land of milk­pure politics and honey­sweet prosperity, delivering everything for free: free education, free welfare, free medicine, free dreams.

W.C. Fields opined that new suckers are born every minute, so charlatans will always prosper. In Israel, blind faith seems so ingrained that the stock of suckers doesn't even need replenishing. How else could Amnon Lipkin­Shahak garner so much support before even making any promises, simply because he seems to be a really nice guy with a winning demi­smile; how could Ronni Milo, a failed mayor who could not even collect garbage efficiently, seem a serious contender, just because he rails against the Orthodox?

True, in contrast to most of our politicians, just being a nice guy must seem a great virtue; and railing against the haredim seems like a positive action plan compared to the pablum of meaningless generalities offered by others. And Shahak may, in fact, turn out to be even more than the mere amiable, reliable, "strong­quiet­type" father figure that so many apparently yearn for. An ex­chief of staff, a man of proven bravery, he has many admiring friends (in the right places) and not too many enemies.

But would it not be more prudent if, before placing our destiny in his hands, we asked a few questions and learned how good a chief of staff he really was, and whether the claims of his critics are plain calumny or have some substance? Our army, as anyone who serves in the reserves knows, is not exactly the paragon of good management; perhaps it cannot be. But whatever happened to the much touted "small but efficient and smart fighting force" first promised by Shahak's predecessor, Ehud Barak (whose own record as chief of staff ought to also pass serious scrutiny)?

If generals fail to accomplish their goals in the military, where they command others to do their bidding, why would they be more successful in our dysfunctional political environment? Should military leaders not be held accountable for the army's less­than­stellar performance and the many mishaps and accidents that regularly plague it? Does it not say something about their leadership?

There is, moreover, a nagging feeling that the army, like politicians and the senior government bureaucracy, has become a part of those interlocking elites that dominate our all­pervasive public sector, as well as our so­called " private sector," that is still so dependent on government granted monopoly rents and other "arrangements" that it cannot be considered really private. It is difficult to recall any former generals who have implemented a reform or agitated for change in any of the fields they have entered, or even many that particularly distinguished themselves as managers.

In fact, the same brave pilots who have risked their life while in service, the same brave army doctors and other dauntless fighters have acted, once in civilian life, in a lawless devil­may­care manner in pursuit of their sectorial interests, proving that our system is able to corrupt even the best of men. Indeed, even while he spoke about the need for change, Shahak, in his capacity as a director of Teva, did not hesitate to vote to keep Eli Hurwitz as chairman of the board, though he was convicted of a felony. Nor does he seem embarrassed at trying to piece together a party with candidates whose positions are known to be worlds apart.

True reform of our destructive system will require breaking the stranglehold of our old elites and their corrupting arrangements. It is highly doubtful that this will be accomplished by "one of the boys," by someone dependent for campaign financing and for political clout on the very same "guys from the Jacuzzi," who run the old cozy system ­ however noble and sincere his intentions may be.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1998


Daniel Doron is director of the Israel Center for Social Economic Progress.


By Dr. Aaron Lerner

December 31, 1998

I have few questions this evening: one each for Ehud Barak, Limor Livnat and of course, prime minister Netanyahu Let's start with Barak:

This is Barak's line when he is asked about Palestinian compliance: The problem of Iran supersedes the problems with the Palestinians. Iran's nonconventional weapons are what threaten our existence ­ not a thousand rifles which are or aren't collected."

By the way. This isn't a chance remark. Not only did Barak say it several times when he spoke this week after the Likud Central Committee meeting. Several other Labor MKs repeated the same phrases ­ almost word for word ­ in the course of the last few days. I think it would be safe to assume that this line of thought received the approval of Barak's American coaches.

But what does Barak's line about the Palestinian rifles mean? I called Aliza Goren, Ehud Barak's spokeswoman, to try and get an explanation. When he keeps on saying that rifles don't matter, I asked, does he also mean the anti­tank missiles and other equipment which the Palestinians have don't matter? No answer.

In fact, she ­ and for that matter ­ her boss Barak ­ are careful not to even accept as a fact that the Palestinians even have any illegal weapons. They both keep saying "if they have them". And this is a puzzle to me. Barak is a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He has been briefed time and again by Israeli intelligence that the PA is armed with the missiles and other illegal equipment and continues it program to import even more. These briefings aren't Likud propaganda. They are fact. So why the waffling?

So I asked Goren the obvious question: If Netanyahu says that there won't be a withdrawal until the Palestinians take care of the matter of their anti­tank weapons and other arms does Barak mean to say that the withdrawal should take place regardless? Goren's answer? Just like her boss: "He did not relate to that."

I asked several more times but no luck. What's the message to the Palestinians? That Palestinian compliance really doesn't matter. Smuggle in whatever you want and it doesn't matter. After all, what really matters is Iran so who cares what Arafat has.

Let's step back for a minute and remember that everyone ­ and I mean absolutely every Israeli party from Meretz to Moledet ­ talks about at least not having a serious foreign army this side of the Jordan. Now if this position is to be more than just a slogan then there has to be a serious commitment to enforcing this limitation.

If Barak today sees fit to ignore the situation ­ when Israel has the most leverage it will ever have to get compliance ­ what can we expect from him later on?

That's not to say that I am ecstatic that Netanyahu saw fit to raise the weapons issue after a long period of silence on it. If I were Netanyahu I would make the weapons issue the key Palestinian violation to focus on. Many analysts are convinced that Arafat will bend over backwards in the coming months to insure that he cannot be blamed for the breakdown in Wye. If Netanyahu focuses on the weapons ­ on specific weapons, something which the American public can readily understand, he could put Arafat in the position that he has no choice but to choose between handing them over and forfeiting his new position with the Clinton team.

Let's consider for a moment the logic of Barak's Iran argument: So the nukes of Iran are more dangerous than whatever Arafat has. Does Barak mean to say that Israel can't handle both issues at the same time? Let me put it in the most basic of terms: If Israel pulled out of the Golan and the West Bank tonight would this seriously change the Iranian threat? Let's not forget that Iran doesn't just want us out of Hebron ­ they want us out of Tel Aviv. Would such a withdrawal reduce Iran's interest in acquiring nonconventional weapons? Let's not be so self centered. Iran wants nukes to shake in the face of Iraq as much as it wants them to have them to threaten Israel ­ perhaps even more.

Would such a withdrawal cause the Americans to take a more active or aggressive stand against Iran? I doubt it. America's lack of will is completely home grown. As is its lack of effective power. We really aren't a significant factor in the equation. Yes. Iran is a serious issue. And it has to be addressed. But what we do or don't do with the Palestinians is, at most, only marginally related to it.

Well, we are almost out of time so I would like to just share with you a few quick thoughts:

A few months ago Minister of Communications Limor Livnat explained in an interview that she could not possibly join up with her pal Meridor in a new party as long as the Arab­Israeli conflict remained a key issue. When and if that was resolved, she explained, the social welfare issues would become the focus of national concern and then she could join up with Meridor and even Milo as they share common views on many social welfare issues. Well, as far as I can tell, the Arab­Israeli conflict is not going to be solved by election day. So why is she even considering joining forces with people who don't share her views on key issues in the Arab­Israeli conflict?

One last question: According to the Cabinet Communique issued after the weekly Cabinet meeting of 28.6.98, "In response to a question from Public Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani on reports in the press according to which an agreement has been reached between the Prime Minister and opposition leader Ehud Barak on withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the Prime Minister made absolutely clear that these reports were false...both he and Ya'acov Ne'eman, who was present at the meeting, possess records proving that these reports...are fabricated."

That's right. We don't have to just rely on his word. Netanyahu says he has written proof. If this is the case then why doesn't Netanyahu do the obvious ­ release the records to the public? That's what the public wants. This week IMRA commissioned a Gallup poll and found that 79.3% of the public (adult Israeli Jews) want the details of the draft agreement ­ if it exists ­ to be revealed to the public. One final note: attorney Ne'eman was careful this week when he said that Netanyahu never agreed to leave the Golan. Let's not forget that Rabin claimed he also wasn't leaving the Golan ­ just withdrawing from 99% of it!


Dr. Aaron Lerner is the Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis).




The die is cast, there will not only be new elections for Prime Minister but also for Members of Knesset! These elections will be extremely hard fought for there is much to divide the Israeli citizenry. Unemployment is 8%, M1 has dropped, wages are eroding for those that are employed and the crop failure because of November's drought has eroded the domestic gross profit.

Then there are the social issues that must be addressed including better education to increase the scholastic achievements of the young people in Israel, as they are recognized to be the true future of the Israeli economy. In any country grappling with social issues, poor neighborhoods are in need of subsidizing and health care must be expanded and affordable.

Attention to the infrastructure of any Nation has to be addressed by all the candidates for all the offices whether they be Members of Knesset or Prime Minister. Much like the American elections. With one very grave difference.

While all the social issues of Israel need addressing there is a major issue that can't wait and is on everyone's mind no matter who they are or what "party" affiliation they may proffer. That issue is which course Israel will take. Will the decisions made in the next few months assure Israel that it is a Jewish State, a State of Israel or a footnote? Upon this political backdrop enter outside influences that wish to alter or to coerce leaders in Israel to make decisions based on their particular political philosophy and vision for the world.

Ever notice that we keep hearing the "New Millennium" buzzwords, like we're on a runaway train catapulting toward this unknown gaping hole. We're unable to control the switches on the tracks because we're going too fast! Faster than the speed of light, or what some people would have you believe. It's time to turn off the noise of those words, and actually delve into what the philosophy is.

Power and power brokers that's what motivates people to say the things they do and to finally believe that what they are doing is honorable. There is an underlying agenda to world politics. It is portrayed subtly. Most don't know it exists but if you really listen to what politicians say, you will understand the New World Order and you will understand the focus of that New World Order.

Over the course of history, we have learned that Socialism is based on any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Capitalism on the other hand is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods by investments, that are determined by private decision and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

It has been determined by many political thinkers that neither one of these concepts can stand alone. Since Capitalism is the wheel that drives world economy and free enterprise, it's faltering creates depressions and political unrest. There must be according to these political thinkers, another way to enter the "new millennium." They have their philosophy as a perfect marriage between these two concepts and there's even a name for this great philosophy!

William Jefferson Clinton introduced it in 1992 during his Presidential campaign. Evidently not too many people heard it as the focus then was on Gennifer Flowers. The term raised its ugly head during the Tony Blair campaign and the new German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder's campaign for election. The Italian Prime Minister and the French Prime Minister are all adherents as well.

THE THIRD WAY. Don't confuse this "Third Way" with that small political party in Israel called the Third Way. Oh no, this THE THIRD WAY is a malevolent concept. It is established to take decision making out of the hands of the people for their economic and political benefit and place that decision and ultimately that power squarely in the hands of the political thinkers, or, the governance.

The Third Way according to Tony Blair stands for a modernized social democracy, passionate in its commitment to social justice and the goals of the center­left, but flexible, innovative and forward­looking in the means to achieve them. The Third Way wants to save capitalism from itself by humanizing it. Sounds like Left leaning gobbledygook and it is.

Israel is looking for her place in the community of Nations. What could this Third Way rhetoric mean to that quest? With the introduction of James Carville into the campaigning for power in Israel, anything can and will be said. The whole Third Way philosophy is leaving chaos and division in its wake. In the United States alone, if anyone is watching the impeachment and subsequent trial of the President for committing a felony while President by lying under oath in a court proceeding you can see very clearly those divisions.

The constitution of the United States is a rule of laws and the United States has been very successful because that rule of law has been upheld, preserved and followed by all its citizenry regardless of status. In the last year, it has become apparent that those that wish to continue following that Constitutional process are castigated, ridiculed and destroyed. The divisions in the United States crossing economic class, race and gender are so deep that it could very well change the Nation.

In Israel, there are already major differences and divisions. There are differences in the makeup of certain sects of Judaism and as in all Nations, economic differences are apparent as well. Different political philosophies are debated, whether they be left wing, right wing or centrist as in all free Nations. Still there is a more serious division in Israel however and that is between those that believe Judaism must be the driving force behind the state of Israel and those that want Judaism relegated to the status of an also ran.

If the likes of William Jefferson Clinton, Tony Blair, Gehrard Schroeder, the French and Italian Premier's have their way, Judaism will be relegated to the status of an also ran. Given the philosophy behind the actions of William Jefferson Clinton, the charade at Gaza takes a more determined tone. He wasn't trying to manipulate the press and internal polls away from what was happening at that time. The impending impeachment hearings weren't why he gave that speech before the PNC.

Knowing the chaos that is Israeli politics, William Jefferson Clinton, ever the campaigner was setting the stage for the fall of the Right Wing.......... Enter James Carville.


By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

President Clinton's order to bomb Iraq on the very day the House of Representatives was to vote on his impeachment inevitably aroused skepticism regarding his motives, and not only by House Republicans but by politicians abroad. One member of the British House of Commons called Clinton a "liar" to bolster an otherwise flimsy argument against the attack on Iraq.

Around the world placards appeared with caricatures of Clinton and Monica Lewinski. The bombing of Iraq was portrayed as a desperate effort on Clinton's part to derail the impeachment proceedings. The President of the United States was thereby accused of using his National Security Council, of endangering the lives of American servicemen, of wreaking death and destruction on Iraq for purely personal reasons!

Mr. Clinton's flawed character aside, this accusation is irrational and scurrilous. There is no reason to doubt the integrity and patriotism of the members of his National Security Council. Nevertheless, even if it be true, as Clinton explained, that the attack on Iraq had to follow immediately after the withdrawal of UNSCOM, lest Saddam further develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, the mere fact that the President's timing could be characterized as a "wag the dog" scenario means that the United States has lost international credibility. The consequences for world peace are incalculable. This is reason enough for Clinton to resign. That he has not is indicative of shamelessness unequaled in the annals of American politics.

The issue, therefore, is not simply a moral one, whatever one may say of Mr. Clinton's extra­marital affairs. Nor is it simply a legal or constitutional issue, whatever be said of the House's impeachment of Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Mr. Clinton is the President of the United States, the one nation that has twice in this century saved mankind from barbarism and tyranny. Hence the American presidency, the most powerful office in the world, must command not only the abiding confidence of mankind, but the fearful respect of mankind's enemies.

This is not a partisan issue, and it is irresponsible for Democrats to portray Clinton's impeachment as a Republican attempt "to undo the results of the 1996 election." No decent and honest person can deny that Mr. Clinton has sullied his office, has made his word and his deeds suspect to an extent unprecedented in American history, and at a time when the freedom and well­being of many nations depend on the leadership of the United States.

That a large majority of the American people have nonetheless supported Clinton throughout his personal predicament may be attributed to two basic factors. First, most people like a charming rogue so long as they are enjoying economic prosperity. (Few realize that this prosperity is largely the fruit of Republican Party programs Clinton adopted to outflank Robert Dole in the 1996 presidential election, which Clinton won by less than a majority of the popular vote.)

Second, the media, especially the ubiquitous CNN, have a left­liberal and therefore pro­Clinton bias. CNN provides or interviews legal and other "experts" who have pooh­poohed Lewinsky affair as a purely personal matter having no consequences for the conduct of the presidential office ­­ as if Clinton's perjury and use of the White House staff to conceal his misdeeds were of no public significance.

The same pundits portrayed retired Judge Kenneth Starr's investigation as "unfair" or as a "crusade to get the President." Again and again they called attention to the forty million dollars spent by the Independent Counsel in the drawn out investigation of the President, ignoring the fact that Clinton had repeatedly obstructed the investigation, had tampered with witnesses, and had used his staff to dig up dirt about women who might otherwise have incriminated him. Also, the media repeatedly referred to the 1998 midterm elections, when the Democrats gained six seats in the House of Representatives, as vote of confidence for Clinton. Remarkable disinformation, since only 36% of the electorate voted in that election, the lowest turnout since 1942! I point this out because the Democratic Party would substitute media­manipulated public opinion for the rule of law. Here we touch the most important issue.


When one speaks of the rule of men versus the rule of law, make no mistake, THE RULE OF MEN TODAY MEANS THE RULE OF THE MEDIA. Those who control the media are accountable to no one. Their increasing power to shape public opinion and thereby determine who shall rule is the greatest challenge to representative democracy.

Supported by the media, Bill Clinton will not resign. He will not step down and save the nation the ordeal and humiliation of an impeachment trial in the Senate. And since it will be very difficult to muster the two­third vote required for his conviction, Clinton will continue in office. His "acquittal" will make a mockery of equal justice under law, will undermine respect for truth, will augment the power of the media, hence will damage the foundations of the American polity.

Letter to the Editor Printed in the Montreal Gazette, December 24, 1998


By Dan Nimrod

Having read that U.S feminists are outraged about the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, I believe that those self-serving moralists ought to be put on the carpet. It was bad enough that during all these months U.S. feminists were playing dead on the most celebrated case of sexual harassment by a notorious president who treats women like disposable diapers. Now the same feminists have elevated hypocrisy to a new height by coming out of their closet in the defence of this sexual predator. The Democrats are surely scraping the bottom or the barrel to save their golden boy from utter disgrace.

Furthermore, the Democratic defenders of the president would have us believe that the whole issue is about an extra-marital affair between two consenting adults which is neither legal nor an impeachable offence. This reasoning is highly flawed. The real issue is about an American president lying under oath to a grand jury, to his presidential aides, to his own family, to a congressional inquiry and to the entire nation for a period of seven months.

The argument that President Clinton has been elected twice and that he continues to enjoy a high degree or popular support is totally irrelevant in this case. Fortunately, the United States is still a country where the law reigns supreme, where even a highly popular president is held accountable to the nation's constitution, which he had sworn to uphold.

Let us hope that the Republican congressmen and senators will not succumb to the scare tactics disseminated by the Democrats that the pro-impeachment Republican camp will eventually pay a heavy price on election day. Since when do Democrats give a hoot about Republicans losing an election anyway?

It is this cynicism that will, I hope, strengthen the resolve of Democrats and Republicans to vote based on what is morally right instead of on what is politically correct.


Dan Nimrod

17 Anselme Lavigne Blvd, Dollard des Ormeaux, Quebec H9A 1N3 Canada

Publications of the Center for Security Policy

No. 98-D 199 -- DECISION BRIEF -- December 14, 1998

Clinton Legacy Watch #34:
A Sovereign Palestinian State,
A Weakened U.S.-Israeli Relationship,
A Greater Danger of War

(Washington, D.C.): For many Americans, Bill Clinton's latest foray into Middle East diplomacy may amount to little more than a distraction from the crisis enveloping his presidency at home. For the United States' most reliable friends and most important allies in the region -- the Israelis -- however, Mr. Clinton's conduct in the Gaza Strip today casts an ominous shadow over their security and the prospects for a real and durable peace.

A Fraud By Any Other Name

That state of affairs is ironic, even surreal, given the day's carefully choreographed effort to conjure up the appearance of peace. Yasser Arafat talked of peace incessantly during his address to the Palestinian National Council and representatives of other organizations (including, among the audience, known murderers of American citizens). Those present even stood on his command and raised their arms in what was interpreted -- in accordance with the script -- by President Clinton, by the press and even by the Israeli government as, in Mr. Clinton's words, "fully, finally and forever" disposing of the thorny problem of the Palestinian Charter.

In fact, this amounts to one of the greatest diplomatic frauds in history. Without striking one word, without adopting a single phrase of alternative text, the Palestinians have "reaffirmed" earlier, equally vacuous declarations that the provisions of their 1964 Covenant that call for the destruction of Israel have been "revoked." Since 30 out of the 33 provisions of this Charter espouse the elimination of the Jewish State and/or attacks on its people, such a step would, if genuine, seem to necessitate that a new Covenant be drafted and formally adopted to take its place.

Now, imagine if Hitler's National Socialist Party had, part way through the Holocaust, proclaimed that unspecified sections of Mein Kampf that blamed the Jews for Germany's troubles no longer represented its guiding philosophy. Would people of the Jewish faith or extraction living in Nazi-controlled Germany have been wise to accept this pronouncement at face value -- without the promulgation of any revised text or statutes, to say nothing of a wholesale redirection of Hitler's policies?

Is it reasonable to ask a people who have repeatedly been the victims of state-sponsored genocide and who are confronted with much evidence aside from the Covenant that the new Palestinian state will be equally committed to the destruction of the Jews and their nation, to settle for less than a clear-cut, formal and unbegrudging rejection of the PLO's hateful Charter? Obviously not.

Yet, Israel's American allies insist that much less is needed. And so, we have the spectacle of President Clinton lending the moral authority of the United States with his presence and his words to a subterfuge. There was no roll call vote, there were no concrete measures taken to strike offending passages or to replace them with commitments to peaceful coexistence with Israel. Worse yet, as the Associated Press reported before the event, "Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour said, 'We will raise our hands and stand up and applaud'....Despite the show of hands, this should not be considered a formal vote, he added."

The U.S. role in perpetrating this fraud is made no less reprehensible by the fact that the Israeli government felt it must accept what the President has legitimated. The unalterable reality, however, is that irrespective of what Prime Minister Netanyahu chooses to say about today's version of Palestinian theater-of-the-absurd, the PLO has not amended -- let alone stricken -- the offensive passages.

This takes on particular import when there is so much evidence that the reason is not Palestinian sensibilities about being tutored on parliamentary procedures. Rather, it is an abiding determination on the part of both Arafat's faction and most of his opponents to achieve the goal defined by the 1964 Covenant: the destruction of the State of Israel.(1)

Encouraging a Palestinian State

Mr. Clinton's trip to Gaza and the West Bank also is regrettable in that it amounts to the first state visit by a foreign leader to the incipient Palestinian nation. Despite Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's absurd efforts to dismiss the unmistakable symbolic import of the President's itinerary, the flames of Palestinian nationalism are being enormously fanned by: his arrival and ribbon-cutting ceremony at the newly opened "Gaza International Airport"; the photo opportunity during his meeting with Arafat in his headquarters under a picture of the city the Palestinians claim will be their capital, Jerusalem; and his address to the proto-legislature in the Gaza Strip.

Even Mr. Clinton's public rhetoric is deliberately inflating Palestinian aspirations. Today, Mr. Clinton actually announced that "the Palestinian people now have a chance to determine their own destiny on their own land." He has complained with approximately the same fervor about Israeli and Palestinian failures to fulfill their commitments -- declaring that "neither has a monopoly on pain or virtue."

Such expressions amount to acts of moral equivalence that are not only unjustified on their face; they serve further to distance the United States from its most reliable friend and important ally in the region. Steps like these can only embolden Israel's enemies.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is doing a fair amount of damage in her own right. At this writing, the First Lady is still scheduled to visit a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, an action in keeping with -- though even more incendiary than -- her earlier public call for a Palestinian state. After all, it will not only serve as a propaganda field-day for those who blame Israel for the deplorable condition of the residents of such camps throughout the Arab world. It will also directly insert the United States into the explosive issue of what the Palestinians call the "right of return of refugees," the millions of people (many of whom have never set foot in "Palestine") who may be interested in populating a new Palestinian state and willing to help liberate what they see as the rest of its territory, namely Israel.

The Bottom Line

This is not the path of a genuine and durable peace. It may produce "progress," all right, but the movement is in a direction that will not result in security for Israel or serve U.S. interests in the region. In the words of a preeminent analyst of Middle East affairs, Douglas J. Feith, in the January 1999 issue of Commentary Magazine: "The Administration's current policy -- increasing U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority while winking at its violations of Oslo and its human rights abuses -- simply reinforces the [Palestinian] regime's most dangerous traits. Down that road lies further misery for the Palestinians and, for Israel, war."(2)


1. See Center Decision Briefs entitled Bibi's Choice: Allow The Palestinians To Acquire A Real -- And Threatening -- State Or Just A 'State Of Mind' (No. 98-D 126, 9 July 1998); and Clinton Legacy Watch #24: An Odious Ultimatum To Israel (No. 98-D 78, 6 May 1998).

2. For additional excerpts from Mr. Feith's essay, see Center Decision Brief entitled Clinton, Stay Home! President's Ill-Advised Trip To Mideast Will Contribute To Conflict -- Not A Durable Peace (No. 98-D 198, 11 December 1998)


NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the Center's Board of Advisors.

(c) 1988-1998, Center for Security Policy

Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio December 15, 1998 / Kislev 26, 5759 .


By Yedidya Atlas


A recent op­ed in The Washington Times asked: "Do foreign leaders tremble when they see President Clinton coming?" Helle Bering, deputy editorial page editor, then answered: "They should, for the American president has made a habit of taking his failing policy initiatives on tour whenever the going gets rough at home."

"In August," Bering pointed out, "Mr. Clinton fled town after his televised Monica Lewinsky speech, descending on the ailing and incoherent Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Now, as the House Judiciary Committee moves towards an impeachment vote later this week, the president is busy packing his bags again. Mr. Clinton's destination this time is the Gaza Strip, where he will be landing at the Palestinian Authority's new and highly controversial airport this weekend after an initial stop in Jerusalem."

One has to wonder what exactly "Slick Willy" had in mind besides attempting to divert media attention from the U.S. House of Representatives vote to impeach him. Initially, the White House propaganda machine claimed Mr. Clinton was coming to Gaza to celebrate the successful implementation of the Wye Plantation agreement. Today, however, the Wye accord has clearly broken down ­ unsurprising, considering it was based on false premises. Palestinian Authority­promoted violence has brought even Mr. Netanyahu to hold fast, and has held up ­ at least temporarily ­ further territorial withdrawals.


It was no surprise that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were received by Mr. Arafat and his cronies with open arms. After all, President Clinton conveniently pledged a further $400 million in American aid to the Palestinian Authority earlier this month. Mr. Clinton's largesse was quite remarkable, considering that it was given in the face of a London Times report that millions in aid from the European Union, designated for housing for refugees living in squalid camps in Gaza, had been diverted to luxury apartments for Mr. Arafat's friends and aides. "In effect, $20 million has been spent without any economic controls and is not recoverable," wrote the EU's own auditors.

Then there is Arafat's personal account in Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv which receives the tax "rebates" transferred by Israel ostensibly to the PA. According to the International Monetary Fund, some $150 million is stashed in said account "not under the control or supervision of the Palestinian finance ministry." Nonetheless, Arafat has the chutzpah to continue to blame Israel for Gaza's declining living standards and 48 percent unemployment, as he did recently at the international donors conference in Washington two weeks ago.

Moreover, "Could there be more to Mr. Clinton's touching attention to the PA's financial situation?" asks The Washington Times' Mr. Bering. "For Palestinians, too, were contributing money to the bottomless Democratic coffers in the 1996 presidential election."


Let's begin with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government corporation created to facilitate a more favorable economic climate in the Middle East in the era of a developing peace process. Yet a closer look at its actual operations produces what critics call a "secret, risk­free subsidy program" for big donors to Mr. Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. This same OPIC issued a $60 million credit for development in the West Bank and Gaza. And who was the recipient? None other than a Washington­based businessman and close Arafat advisor named Hani Masri ­ the same one who donated $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee between March and May 1996 through his company Capital Investment Corporation of McLean (CICM). He was also the founder of "Arab­Americans for Clinton­Gore 96," as well as a trustee of the Democratic National Committee.

And how was the $60 million delivered to Masri? According to a well­documented article in the New York weekly The Forward, the OPIC board approved the establishment in September 1997 of the "West Bank, Gaza and Jordan Fund." Then, in November 1997, an affiliate of Masri's CICM was conveniently appointed the Fund's manager ­ and the borrower of the OPIC­guaranteed loan of $60 million. The exact selection procedure remains unclear, given the fact that neither advertisements nor formal requests for proposals were issued by OPIC.

Nevertheless, beyond the murky financial machinations of the much­investigated Clinton administration, the pushy Clinton visit to Gaza and the PA legislature ­ and not to the Israeli Knesset ­ augurs a premeditated and underhanded diplomatic maneuver, aimed at forcing Israel to accept a previously unacceptable geopolitical fait accompli.


One cannot ignore First Lady Hillary Clinton's declaration earlier this year in support of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Her husband the president subsequently attempted to assuage Israeli concerns at this apparently radical change in American policy, and claimed that this verbal outburst of Lady Hillary was just a personal opinion, and not administration policy. However, no one seriously believes that Hillary the lawyer made such a momentous and ill­advised statement on her own.

Further proof of the Clinton administration's deceitful policy towards Israel was made crystal clear when the White House brazenly ignored Israeli input and sensitivities in setting up the First Family's schedule during their diplomatic sojourn in Gaza. This itinerary included a purposeful visit by Hillary and her daughter Chelsea to a particularly squalid Palestinian refugee camp, accompanied by numerous foreign TV crews. And lest anyone still not read the handwriting on the wall, Mr. Clinton's keynote speech before the Palestinian legislature et al, with its deliberate moral equivalencies between terrorist and victim, for example, or his wanton disregard for historical and even constitutional accuracy, make plain the Clinton bias.

On the other hand, perhaps, given Mr. Clinton's personal political problems back in the U.S. ­ from impeachment proceedings to Chinagate, maybe his open bias on behalf of Arafat and his regime is simply paving the way for Clinton to request political asylum in the safe haven of the Palestinian Authority.


Yedidya Atlas is a senior correspondent and commentator for Arutz­7 Israel National Radio. He also serves as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Freeman Center For Strategicic Studies.



Today, I heard President Clinton's address at the Jerusalem Convention Hall to Israeli youth. In addressing these Jews, he addressed the side in the Middle East conflict that has long been converted to the idea of peace. The Jews have never been the problem. The unfortunate part of Clinton's talk is that he spoke as the vanguard of Arab propaganda to gain for them a new state.

Clinton made numerous assertions about Arab commitments to peace ­­ all false. Thus, Clinton alleged that it was only "extremists on both sides" that are against peace when the reality is that such "extremists" on the Jewish side are infinitesimal in numbers while the "extremists" on the Arab side is made up of the vast majority of the Arab street. (The only exceptions are Arabs that Israeli leftists know.) Clinton spoke of the necessity of both sides recognizing "the dream" of the other. The problem is that the Arab dream continues to remain the disappearance of Israel, a reality that too many Israelis are unwilling to face.

Clinton also spoke for Islam on its alleged "tolerance" ­­ an a historic attitude by Clinton that ignores the actual history and practice of Islam. So­called "Muslim tolerance" only exists when Islam is victorious, like in Muslim countries, and has rendered others as "dhimmis," servant people. A form of "tolerance" may be shown when Muslims have not the power to do otherwise and shows itself most characteristically in the context of Islamic weakness ­­ like when Muslims live as sub­cultures, say in places like Detroit. But this "tolerance" is merely tactical and disappears in the context of Islamic triumph.

Thus while Clinton urges the endangered Israelis to once again "take risks for peace," no such expectation is laid upon the Arabs. The problem in the Middle East has been the lack of commitment to the goals of peace by the Arabs whose religio­nationalistic culture precludes such a lasting peace arrangement with Israel. All that the Arabs offer Israel is the opportunity for a temporary truce in the context of a "peacemaking" that is a deception, a ruse. Such a ruse is designed to enable the Arabs to make advances in achieving their goal for the elimination of Israel. The ruse is pressed on Israel by some allies for self­serving reasons, to gain momentary and temporary abatements of hostilities, a relief that is, alas, all too often embraced by Israeli leaders for short­sighted political reasons.

President Clinton's words in Jerusalem painted a picture of hope that is not supported by the realities of the nature of the Arab enemy and what is attainable in voluntary agreements. The President, like some used car salesman striving to sell a lemon to a victim, was attempting to lull Israel's people about the grave dangers they face from their determined Arab enemies so that Israelis will acquiesce in continuing to strengthen that Arab enemy through further withdrawals by Israel from her territories and more support for Arab diplomatic goals for "Palestinian" statehood ­­ certain to arrive by May 4, with Israel ready or not. These real Arab gains would disturbingly set the stage for further Arab advances on the road to nothing but further Israeli concessions until the point of war and the replacement of Israel.

I do hope that Mr. Netanyahu can use his persuasive power to reach the idealistic Israeli youth, whose attitude was so evident at the convention center. Perhaps he can waken them from their "trance" to the reality that faces them should Israelis critically weaken their nation. With all that Israeli governments, including Netanyahu's, have done to set the stage for a new Arab state on Israel's land, it is hard to visualize a scenario in which Israeli security and goals can in any way emerge enhanced in this Clinton appearance in the Middle East, an appearance in which he is delivering to the Arabs and the world a powerful illusion that a Palestinian state will irrevocably emerge ­­ an appearance on the first day of Chanukah as though to mock the meaning of that Jewish date.

I also watched Netanyahu on CNN in which he fatuously hopes for the jackal to become a bunny. Obviously, Netanyahu is unwilling to openly show his skepticism of what the Arabs can deliver. Netanyahu spoke about a "negotiated solution" to the conflict that is his own desire and that of US policy. The problem is that the Arab enemy will not make any arrangement that does not leave itself enhanced. In every earlier case, in order to "buy" the illusion of making advances toward peace ­­ for domestic Israeli reasons ­­ Israel has agreed to the concessions that have by now led to the trappings of a new armed Arab state within the borders of Israel. It is too much to hope that this will not happen again. Already, Netanyahu shows he is caving in on the requirements of section 33 of the PNC Covenant that requires a 2/3 vote to amend this covenant, the kind of cave­ins that have made Israel a paper tiger in Arab eyes and have surely emboldened Arab expectation that they will indeed have their state by May 4, 1999.

The reality is that what Netanyahu proposes as new Arab "turning" toward peace can only realistically come about from a resounding and unmistakable military defeat of the Arab enemy, which, in stark contrast to the Arabs, Israelis have not been prepared to inflict.

Arab assurance of their expectations for a new statehood was conveyed on the same CNN program by the Arab negotiator, Nabil Sha'ath. He told CNN's worldwide audience that, indeed, there will be such a new Arab state by the 4th of May. He spoke with confidence and with pride and, definitely, without fear. There is no doubt as to the Arab intention and what will in fact happen by that date ­­ an intention believed and expected by all the Arabs. Would that Israeli leaders conveyed the same kind of commitment for Jewish goals on their side. That Israeli leaders don't have such commitment will be once again shown if, in the face of this Arab challenge, there are continued Israeli withdrawals for whatever reason before the magic Arab date that the Arabs have proclaimed. The Arabs have once again thrown down the gauntlet to Israel before the world. Will Netanyahu and the Israelis notice?

I, for one, notice the difference between Arab rhetoric and he Israeli. The rhetoric of the Arab street is, regularly, tinged by a pained skepticism that highlights the alleged "egregious injustices" done to them by Israel and the inadequacy of the performance of the despicable Israeli enemy in fulfilling Israel's obligations. In other words, this rhetoric is based on the ignoring of history and the requirements of justice for Israel and is tactically designed to discount any Israeli concession or magnanimity toward achieving some kind of peace with security for Israel. It is a rhetoric designed to continue to gain the moral high ground on the road to gaining ever more concessions from Israel at the expense of Israel's survival.

Meanwhile, Israeli rhetoric is all too often based on similar denials of history, ancient and modern. Israel's sterling, legitimate claims to live as a nation in its historic ancestral lands are scarcely believed by a majority of Jewish Israelis. The rhetoric of the Israeli street tends toward an ignorant self­criticism, blind to the nature and ominous designs of the Arab enemy. It is "high" on utopian goals for peace in which the "peace partner" is imagined in the image of the Jew and not of the Arab jackal as he is. It is such Israeli viewpoints that are the perfect foils for the continuation of Arab designs as it saps Israel's people of "the gaul to make oppression bitter." Israelis cannot rouse themselves to put aside personal predilections to face the imperialist Arab threat since they are unwilling to make the Arab oppression bitter, to react against the desire of the Arabs to steal the land away from the Jewish people, a goal toward which they are making rapid and ever increasing gains, thanks to the ineptness of Israeli governments unwilling to face reality.


"The Arab enemy is determined to destroy Israel because that is its nature. Like the jackal which kills the lamb because it is a jackal, the Arab must destroy Israel because of who the Arab is ­­ Muslim and fiercely nationalistic, a part of a "glorious Arab nation" that would butcher Jews if it is able."

"When will the Israeli political parties recognize the Arab threat and vie in policies to neutralize this enemy in no uncertain terms?"

The Arabs openly declare their goal, the elimination of Israel. They have a realistic plan for its success. Their strategy is to enter negotiations with Israel in which they gain territorial footholds in key strategic areas, create a state, pack it with new masses, literally millions, of Arabs brought in from Lebanon, Jordan, and wherever, and make life in Israel impossible for the Jews. The plan so far is working on a scale undreamed of by a defeated Arab leadership which less than ten years ago was living in exile in Tunisia.

Today, thanks to Labor and the other parties of the left, these same Arabs, who have not abandoned their aims, are ensconced in Israel's territories and Gaza with their armies growing in size and armaments. Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin­Sadat think tank in Bar Ilan University, has noted the grave danger that these armies especially pose in case of attack from Syria or Iraq through Jordan, or even Jordan if its government should fall to a new anti­Israel regime.

Not only have the mixed multitude of Arabs of the territories gained legitimacy as a people, "an ancient people" they call themselves which claims Israel's capital city, Jerusalem and the entire land of Israel, they now have gained equality in negotiations with Israel. The prospect is that they will add new lands to their holdings without firing a shot. They gained all this in return for meaningless recycled promises that were long ago bought and paid for by Israel many times over and which have never nor will ever be fulfilled.

What is most dreadful is that the formerly staunch nationalist party, Likud, has self­destructed. It collapsed under a leadership that has abandoned its reason and its principles. It committed the colossal blunder of accepting the false Arab definition of the struggle, namely, that the Arabs are truly a national entity from whom Israel took lands ­­ the Arabs say "robbed" and Israel remains silent on the point ­­ and that these Arabs have legitimate rights to express their nationhood. The negotiation process is rigged, thanks to the Likud, to confuse and demoralize Israelis and to enable the Arabs to make additional territorial. Israeli leaders may think that negotiations for a new state will lead to a compromise that will satisfy the Arabs, but sober analysis indicates that it won't. and there will be a showdown.

Meanwhile, the Arabs make gains on the way to the ultimate victory they plan. It is against the background of having agreed to such conditions that Netanyahu plans to run. He hadn't even prepared Israel's people to be prepared to the showdown which is certainly coming. Truly, I can see the necessity that some Israel's may feel in having to give up land as the only practical way to situate the millions of Arabs in the territories. But what I cannot see is the unwillingness of Israelis to see this in its true guise as a grave danger to their existence that must be carefully hedged and controlled and ruthlessly dealt with in case it becomes life threatening to the nation.

But no such caution is apparent on the Israeli main street. Fed on self­deception, the Israel public explains away the dangerous Arab enemy as a someone that can be mollified and negotiated with. The idea that this is a crafty, dangerous enemy with the goal to make Israel disappear has been relegated to the status of some kind of mythical "big bad wolf," a fairy tale. Both Labor and Likud insist on believing the comfortable thought that the enemy can be bought off by a few dunams of land without achieving fully its often stated goals of getting Jerusalem and bringing in up to 2,000,000 more Arabs.

Both large Israeli parties have come to believe that giving in to some of the demands of the enemy, will somehow bring peace for Israel. According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, the Labor party colludes with Arafat, who has agreed not to announce the establishment of a Palestinian state in May 1999 if the Israeli election has not been held by then. What a partnership! Clearly, Labor is Arafat's favorite Israeli party, dependable to help the Arabs gain their new state the way Labor assisted these Arabs in creating the armies that today menace Israel's people. The regularity of Laborite collusion with Israel's enemy has become so ordinary as an event that Laborites have no fear that this collusion will hurt them in Israeli elections.

Can a nation like Israel, too devoid of pride and reason, survive against a determined prideful enemy ­­ an enemy which in pride and reason is everything that Israel is not? The Arab enemy is determined to destroy Israel because that is its nature. Like the jackal which kills the lamb because it is a jackal, the Arab must destroy Israel because of who the Arab is ­­ Muslim and fiercely nationalistic, a part of a "glorious Arab nation" that would butcher Jews if it is able.

Were the enemy clearly recognized as the jackal it is, would any Israelis agree to allow it to roam free and unfettered in the land of the lambs? There would be no question that this jackal must be penned so that he cannot fulfill his destructive nature as concerns his natural victim. There is no question that the nature of this jackal will not be modified by preachments and vain inducements. The only way to thwart him is to curb his ability to hurt Israelis and make war. This is the lesson that Labor, Meretz. and too many of Israel's people besides cannot seem to fathom in regard to this Arab enemy, an enemy whose nature is molded ­­ thanks to an Arab educational system that begins early ­­ so as to be motivated to destroy even a powerless Israel of postage stamp size.

Unless the Arab enemy is physically prevented from achieving his aims, he will continue his efforts. The stronger this enemy is, the stronger will be his determination to fulfill his nature. Feeding such an enemy with jobs and education does not wean this enemy from his goals. It merely makes him a well fed, comfortable, and more dangerous enemy, no less fierce in his determination to achieve his programmed goal of Israel's destruction. That is a lesson that Israelis have not learned from their generous conception of their enemy. All Israel's kindnesses, and there have been many, have not made him less fierce but even more desperate to rid himself of the humiliation of suffering the existence of infidels, Jews, ruling over Islamic lands ­­ a disgrace and an abomination to the Arab sense of himself.

With an enemy with that outlook, the intended victim must forever beware and work as vigorously and as craftily to counter him. When will the Israeli parties recognize the threat and vie in policies to neutralize the enemy in no uncertain terms? It is an issue that should be central. Surely there is election victory for a center­right party that can mobilize Israel's people to face the dangers and position Israel's people for victory in the struggle. Unfortunately, up to now Netanyahu has failed to take that job. Perhaps it is not too late.


Considering the impossibilities imposed on Israel's capacity for survival by the prior Labor government, I can't tell at the moment whether Netanyahu is putting up a good defense against the Arabs. One day, those who survive our times will learn the truth of the sins of omission and commission that will have led to whatever outcome comes about. But, already, it is easy to see that Arab leadership has been spectacularly successful. Their's has been a real quality leadership.

No doubt, the Jews of surrender will argue that the latter could not be true since the Arab people have suffered greatly to achieve the deal that is at hand when they could have had more at less price in 1948. But such Jews would be speaking out of the fog of ignorance and self­delusion that has been their constant companion. In 1948, the Arabs could not have known the strength of the Jews. Then, the Arabs had acted in accordance with goal of what was to be their constant policy: the elimination of Jewish nationhood.

Ever since, Arab policy has been constantly forward if not always successful. They have learned from their Jewish enemies, who ironically are their coaches, to modulate their public rhetoric while keeping pure their message of Jewish destruction beamed to the Arab people. The welfare of the Arab people was never a consideration of Arab leaders. First, second, and third has always been Israel's disappearance. The Arab tactic has been to engage in negotiations through which they advance this goal, a most successful policy.

Through this tactic, the Arabs have gained legitimacy for high profile, partial goals, confused by most Jews with the terminal Arab goals. While in the short run the Arabs pose as interested in peace, the Arab masses correctly know that this is only temporary. It pays off. The Arabs are now addressed by Netanyahu as the "Palestinian people" and as the recognized rulers over "Arab" territories formerly "occupied" by the Jewish "robbers," with the prospect of receiving lots more with the expected cooperation of the same Jewish "robbers."

Such a conception of a Jewish nation of robbers, a conception accepted by almost half of Jewish Israelis, has had devastating consequences on the Jewish community worldwide. What decent young Jew would want to be part of the moral monstrosity that is portrayed as the image of Israel? As a result, many young Jews have voted with their feet to join "worthy" movements elsewhere ­­ anything rather than to be associated with the heartbreak of what they regard as a "misconceived and immoral" attempt to resuscitate ancient Israel on the lands of others. "Thank you Israeli governments," these young Jews say, "for helping us to see the light. And now, a plague on the houses that fight in the Middle East. We will have none of it." Or, at least, these Jews engage in what they regard as the lesser evil of forcing Israel to gut herself in favor of what they think of as a "compromise," but which is in fact the further advance of the Arab enemy. Here is the fruit of grossly inept Israeli policies ­­ a subject of a never ending series of conferences that regularly fail to take account of the massive Jewish contributions to this self­destruction.

Peace was never the true Arab goal in its relations with Israel. The Arabs know that by holding fast to their ultimate design they would keep their people enthused and the way paved for Israel's destruction. As a result of their strategy, public talk of peace while actually making war against Israel, the Arabs have received gifts of diplomatic legitimacy, money, and territory to aid their cause and have sacrificed absolutely nothing for these gains.

In all its "peace­making" that has involved enormous Israeli sacrifices, Israel can point to nothing that has advanced her cause. Unlike de Gaulle who knew he had to restore pride to the French people (NY Times 11/6/98) lest it degenerate into "mediocrity, fight with each other and head for the bistro" (the latter the equivalent of Israeli "trance dancing"), Israeli governments have too often shunned such Gaullist wisdom. How else to regard Sharon's suggestion for unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in the face of enemy attack, which suggests a gross blindness of how this would affect Israeli morale and embolden the enemy and strengthen his propaganda? From such defeatist policies, Israel has reaped well­deserved injury to their nation, hopefully not yet irreparable but in danger to be leading to such a mortal crisis.

After five years of the so­called "peace process," Israelis awake today from their trance dance to find that they have acquiesced in the presence of an illegal Arab military establishment within Israel's borders supposedly forbidden by the Oslo agreement. This establishment has policy goals, both in the domestic and in the foreign policy areas, that are thoroughly at odds with Israel's and is seen as now calling the shots on what the Wye agreement obligates Israel to surrender while feeling no reciprocal obligations toward Israel. At stake are Israel's borders, her own capital city, and her ability to control her population and lands ­­ all now regarded by the world (and too many Israelis, even in their government) as morally legitimate elements to be shaped to the pleasure of Israel's enemies.

It is no secret that the Arabs will continue to reap their harvest from the new Jewish surrender process, agreed to by Netanyahu, that gives the Arabs the diplomatic cover as they continue their relentless march toward statehood and toward Israel's destruction. Arafat will certainly ride the peace train and talk peace while he continues to gain lands, only to unveil his sword when the train stops, as it must. Only the Jewish fools who sacrifice their own people to the calf of the peace process will be surprised.

As to the moral claims of the Jewish people to their land and to the right of Israel to shape herself for survival? The truth to be told, these are not exactly burning issues in the hearts of most Jews. Arab propagandists could not have done better in shaping Israeli policies to bring that end about. When I read of a Lubavitcher Rebbi who fully anticipated the consequences to an Israel that showed a willingness to compromise on her moral rights with an enemy who regarded falsehood as its chief weapon, the truth of Israel's incompetence and precarious condition emerges starkly. Today, it is only a segment of Orthodox Jews who have a full sense of the enormity of the moral and physical tragedy that has befallen the Jewish people and their Israel. It is only they who have shown that they have understood their plight with 20/20 vision as they ride the broken roller coaster of Israeli policy downward to the unmentionable.

Today, Israel still awaits a quality leadership that affirms its people and the traditions that make its society legitimate and great among the nations of the world, a leadership that shows a willingness to work in single­minded devotion to the triumph of the Israeli society. Currently, it cannot rival the Arab leadership in these.


David Basch is an architect in New York and an expert on the Jewish roots of William Shakespeare. His web site, which can be found on the OTHER SITES of the Freeman web site, proves Shakespeare's Jewish origins. He also serves as the Freeman Center's political philosopher.


Translated and reprinted from "Ma'ariv" of December 3, 1998


By Nadav Haetzni

Not only has a Palestinian land law come into being, but a Palestinian law on weapons is also now in effect, according to which it is permissible for the Palestinian Authority to manufacture weapons and accord its citizens the right to bear arms. Both of these laws are part of a new stage in the Palestinian struggle against Israel. Brigadier­General Uri Shoham, the Chief Military Prosecutor: "This is a serious violation of the agreements with the Palestinians." Attorney Tewfiq Abu­Ghazzaleh, Chairman of the Palestinian Legal Sub­committee: "There is no declaration of war here, although I would understand someone thinking that there was. If it were up to me, perhaps I would not submit this law." Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu­Medein declined to comment.

A few days after the signing ceremony at Wye River, Justice Minister Tzahi Hanegbi wrote to the Prime Minister, and called his attention to a new Palestinian law, which was, at that time, in the final stages of enactment. It is called the "Law on Foreign Ownership of Real Estate in Palestine," which was recently brought into law in secret in Gaza, and a copy of which was received by chance by the Justice Ministry. This law amounts ­­ according to jurists ­­ to a declaration of war on the State of Israel.

Justice Minister Hanegbi made it clear to the Prime Minister that the new law severely infringes on Israeli citizens' and authorities' land acquisition rights of Israeli citizens and organizations, from both sides of the Green Line, and complete contravenes the instructions of the agreements with the Palestinians, including the Wye Agreement.

According to the new law, revealed here for the first time, any Israeli citizen or institution, certainly any settler or the IDF, holding land in "Palestine", is harming Palestinian "national security". Together with this, any Palestinian who aids, in any way, the acquisition or possession of land by an Israeli ­­ is guilty of treason. The land will pass automatically to the treasury of the Palestinian state, and the judgment on the Israeli holding the land or the Palestinian selling it ­­ death.

A few months before the enactment of the land law, senior Justice Ministry and IDF officials brought an additional Palestinian law to the Prime Minister's attention. This was the "Firearms and Ammunition Law", which was also passed in secret and signed by "Rais" Arafat last May. According to Chief Military Prosecutor Brigadier­General Uri Shoham, and Central Command Legal Adviser Colonel Shlomo Politis, this law too constitutes a serious infringement of the agreements with the Palestinians. It gives legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority itself, to manufacture weapons and permit citizens to bear arms. All this is seen by the State of Israel as constituting a serious security threat, violates the agreement between the sides, and demonstrates aggressive intentions.

The two laws, on land and on weapons, constitute a single unit of land and fire, and constitute a new and additional stage in the Palestinian struggle against Israel. Despite numerous attempts by political and

professional elements to bring this to the attention of the Prime Minister, both before and after the Wye Agreement, Netanyahu has done nothing. It seems, however, from the Justice Minister's sharp words, that he will soon lead the issue of hostile Palestinian legislation to a serious crisis with the Palestinians.

IDF, the Anger and the Frustration

But these two new laws do not represent the whole picture. For a long time, senior figures in the Justice Ministry and the IDF have been climbing the walls with anger and frustration at Palestinian behavior in the legal sphere. According to unambiguous articles in the Oslo Accords, which were ratified in the Wye Agreement, the Palestinians are required to submit all legislative initiatives to Israel via a special legal committee, in order to enable Israel to examine whether the proposed legislation is in keeping with the agreements. The laws are supposed to be submitted to the legal committee prior to their enactment, so that it would be possible to change or cancel them, before they become law.

Precisely because of this, the Palestinians have not, until today, submitted even one law to Israel. In fact, they are carrying out, by means of legislation, a war against Israel. Countless requests by senior Justice Ministry officials to their Palestinian counterparts, asking them to comply with the agreements and submit the laws which have been enacted or are in the process of being enacted, have simply been ignored. Copies of laws which have reached the Israeli side were obtained by intelligence, or as a result of the monitoring of internet sites and newspapers.

This "legal war", which has been completely ignored by the media, is causing much anger and frustration on the part of the legal officials, who are required to coordinate with the Palestinian Authority. They constantly send letters and memoranda to politicians, but with no real result.

From the Land Registry to the Gallows

The "Foreign Ownership of Real Estate in Palestine" law, revealed here for the first time, marks a new high in this legal war. In its English version, the law is only two pages long, but this was enough to set off all the warning lights among top Justice Ministry officials.

The law, which, as far is known, has already passed through all the legislative processes, defines as "occupiers" the "Israeli occupying authority and its civil and military institutions, settlements and whomever is under their authority." It states that "any actions conducted by or being conducted by the occupying authority (Israel) on Palestinian real estate are considered absolutely null and void." The law contains no definition of what Palestinian land is, so that according to the accepted Palestinian view, the law also applies to land in Tel Aviv, Acre and Haifa, and certainly that in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria."

The law also prohibits "all persons who are not Arab Palestinians, whether they are persons real or artificial, to possess any real estate in Palestine or to obtain any material right, by any reason of ownership ..." However, while regarding citizens of countries "with which there is reciprocity" the Palestinian "Council of Ministers" may permit the holding of real estate, a special article in the law states that regarding "occupiers," that is the government and citizens of Israel, the Council of Ministers has no authority to permit the holding of real estate. Such land would be confiscated immediately by the Palestinian authorities.

Of course, the law prohibits brokerage efforts, sales or approval of transactions to foreigners and "occupiers" from being carried out, and states that "Any Palestinian who violates the terms of this law has omitted the crime of high treason," and will be punished accordingly. A foreigner who violates the law "has committed harm to national security" and will be punished accordingly. The punishment for treason and harming national security is death. Thus, Israelis and Palestinians are to march together from the land registry to the gallows.

"A Severely Racist Law"

So far as is known, the bill has secretly passed through all of the required legislative procedures and was even approved by Yasser Arafat. As stated above, not a word of this was reported to Israel. By chance, the draft legislation reached senior officials at the Justice Ministry last September, including attorney Jean­Claude Nidam, who is responsible for contact with the Palestinian Authority at the ministry. They were shocked and appealed to the highest echelon of the judicial system, with a demand for action.

They clarified that "the orders of the aforementioned law severely damage the real estate rights of the country's citizens and institutions." They also asserted that "the Interim Agreement clearly states that there will be no harm to these rights, and a number of articles explicitly determine that the (Palestinian) Council is obligated to honor the existing rights." Therefore, they stated that, "there is a clear contradiction between the law and the agreement."

They demanded that the Palestinians be informed that the law lacks any validity and is void, and that the lessons from the very fact of its legislation be learned. Senior jurists both in and outside the civil service point to the even more severe implications than those about which the official documents speak. "This is a racist law, which, if it were legislated by a friendly country such as Britain, we would interpret as a declaration of war against us, and which would cause an immediate severing of relations with it," says a senior jurist in the civil service. "We must understand the meaning of the legislation. This law states that any Israeli who owns land in a place that the Palestinians determine is Palestine, certainly in the settlements and in Jerusalem, will be sentenced to death. The same holds true for the Israeli government. This is an intolerable law that harms the very ability to continue coming into contact with whoever legislated the law."

Attorney Dudu Rotem, legal adviser to the Yesha Council, towards whose members the law is especially directed, asserts that the implications are even more serious: "According to this law, if I travel tomorrow to Jericho they can arrest me, since every settler, due to his very ownership of his home, harms Palestinian national security. In fact, this is no law, but a joke. It is a dictator's order that grants legitimacy to murder and racism, and harms every principle of law and justice. However, the interesting thing is not what Arafat does, but what the Israeli government will do regarding this law."

A Clear Threat to Israel

On 6 July, the legal adviser to the IDF Central Command and the Civil Administration, Col. Shlomo Politis, wrote a letter to OC Central Command. He warned against another new Palestinian law which had just been legislated. This is the "Palestinian Firearms and Ammunition Law," which was approved in an order by Yasser Arafat this past May, and which received nearly no exposure.

The law permits the Palestinian Authority to manufacture weapons and to issue licenses to carry all sorts of weapons. The position of the Israeli jurists regarding it is unanimous. Col. Politis' opinion later received further backing from Chief Military Prosecutor Brig. Gen. Uri Shoham. Both view the law as a direct violation of the Oslo Accords.

According to Col. Politis, "The first part of the law, which deals mainly with licensing and carrying weapons by Palestinians, contravenes the orders of the Interim Agreement, since the law authorizes the 'minister of interior' to give a weapons permit for pistols and rifles." This "contravenes what is stated in the agreement's security appendix, according to which the Palestinian Police would be permitted to issue licenses only for pistols." However, it seems that an even more severe aspect of the law is expressed in its second section, which deals with the manufacture and import of weapons. This section, states legal adviser Politis, constitutes "a violation of the Interim Agreement orders which prohibit the possibility of the manufacture and import of weapons and ammunition."

"In the agreement's security appendix," he states, "it even says that the Palestinian Police have an obligation to prevent the manufacture of weapons in the PA areas."

The illegal legislation of this law was brought to the Prime Minister's attention early last August. The issue was even raised a number of times with Netanyahu and in the cabinet by the Justice Minister, but without any result. As was said, there is no disagreement between the jurists regarding the meaning of the law, but the truth is that one does not need to be a legal expert to understand the full severity of the matter: the PA is giving itself the imprimatur to manufacture, import and issue licenses for weapons and ammunition, despite the fact that this imprimatur contravenes both the spirit and the letter of its agreements with the State of Israel, and despite the fact that it is clear to it that manufacturing and licensing weapons constitute a clear and flagrant threat to Israel.

How to Bury a Committee

"There is nothing in our legislation which violates the agreements," claims Attorney Tewfiq Abu­Ghazzaleh, the Palestinian Chairman of the Legal Sub­Committee, the committee was supposed to deal with legal issues arising between the two sides. "I am not claiming that the Israelis are lying in the serious accusations which they are making against us, but there is a misunderstanding here. Regarding the law on weapons, we are trying to create order from the scorched earth situation which existed here when we arrived. Regarding the land law, I would need to check if it has indeed already been published in the official gazette and come into force. If it were up to me, perhaps I would not submit this law, but it has been done to show that we are in control on the ground. There is no declaration of war here, although I would understand someone thinking that there was. I hope that things will be different in the future."

"In general," says Attorney Abu­Ghazzaleh, "I can understand the frustration of the Israeli side. I agree with them, there is a problem, but I hope that it will soon be solved. If it depended on me, it would have been solved already, but we need to create a structure and get organized, especially in the West Bank. We need means and people, I hope that it will happen, I am still waiting to hear from our Justice Minister."

The Justice Ministry and the security establishment have become used to answers of this kind over the last few years. There they claim that Abu­Ghazzaleh's bosses are deliberately sending him to dole out promises, but in practice are making sure that these promises have no cover, or indeed that in the field, the precise opposite will happen. By the way, Palestinian Justice Minister Freih Abu­ Medein declined to be interviewed for this article, despite repeated calls to his office and his home, and promises that he would, "call back."

Abu­Ghazzaleh's basic embarrassment derives from the committee that he heads. The Oslo Accords established a joint legal committee, headed by the two sides' justice ministers ­­ Tzahi Hanegbi and Freih Abu­Medein. It set up a sub­committee headed by Justice Ministry Director­ General Nili Arad, and Attorney Tewfiq Abu­Ghazzaleh. Palestinian legislation, like all other legal issues, was supposed to be submitted to this committee. But for years now, the Palestinians have prevented the convening of the committee. This is hardly a great surprise, and in the Justice Ministry, they say that "This is the only committee in which they are supposed to give and not receive, and therefore, they are making sure that it does not convene or function."

Long months pass until dates are set for the meetings of the committee, and when these dates arrive, the Palestinians cancel the meetings at the last moment. In the few meetings which have taken place, in small forums, the Palestinians have been asked to submit all proposed items of legislation to the committee for its consideration. This has not been done.

Gaza Station Is Not Responding.

One of the severest aspects of the legal war which the Palestinians have declared is the non­functioning of the legal assistance mechanism which was established by the Oslo Accords. According to the Accords, a body was set up which was supposed to carry out a series of legal coordination activities, in the criminal and civil spheres, as is customary between two countries which are not at war.

The mechanism is supposed to see to it that court decisions of the other side are enforced, that bailiff's office decisions regarding the collection of debts are implemented, etc., etc. A senior Justice Ministry official, attorney Jean­Claude Nidam, heads the mechanism. His counterpart is an Arab­Israeli attorney, Jamal Abu­ Toemeh. Dozens and even hundreds of appeals from the Israeli side reach the mechanism daily. These range from decisions against convicted rapists, to detention orders against criminals who fled, requests to summon witnesses, and requests to carry out decisions against Palestinians who owe vast sums to Israelis. All requests are checked and passed on to the Palestinian side, but merit no response. Even attorney Abu­Toemeh, the man in charge on the Palestinian side, does not succeed in obtaining any cooperation on his side. Gaza station is not responding.

The result is severe. Debts of tens of millions of shekels are not collected, and thousands of files involving residents of the territories are closed. The paradox is that the Israeli taxpayer is massively financing the defense of Palestinian Authority residents who are up for trial inside the Green Line, via the public defender's office. Indeed, a considerable portion of our crime is perpetrated by Palestinian Authority residents. But the Authority is avoiding any assistance and cooperation, and at the same time, with characteristic audacity, is insisting that VAT funds ­­ which Israel collects from Palestinian residents ­­ be fully refunded.

In the justice establishment, it is claimed that it is precisely the judicial sphere that could serve as the first, and precedent­setting, area for cooperation between the two entities, Israeli and Palestinian. This is not cooperation between peoples carrying difficult psychological baggage, but two bureaucracies, that take orders from the politicians, and are supposed to obey. But in practice, the Palestinian bureaucrats receive contradictory orders from their politicians, orders to make things difficult and obstruct. And thus, the judicial field has become a battlefield which broadcasts hostility and alienation, just like between two hostile entities.

A new T-shirt will soon go on sale with the caption reading:

Netanyahu gave away the Land of Israel and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

Translated and reprinted from "Ha'aretz", December 16, 1998

Military Intelligence Chief:

Palestinian Authority
is Not Fighting Terror

By Gideon Elon

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is not fulfilling the security commitments it undertook in the Wye Accord, Israel's Military Intelligence Chief Major­General Amos Malka told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday.

Major­General Malka enumerated the articles under which the Palestinian Authority is not complying with its obligations. He said the assessment of Military Intelligence is that the Palestinian Authority has not made a strategic decision to combat terrorism or its infrastructure. Instead, the PA limits itself to reactive operations and action against occasional targets. He added that there is no identifiable orderly Palestinian work plan to combat terror and that the steps taken have not been firm.

The Military Intelligence Chief warned that if the PA does not wage a determined campaign against the Hamas terrorist infrastructure, the organization is likely to resume its terror attacks against Israeli targets within the Green Line. He added that the possibility of Hamas attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers for use as bargaining chips should not be discounted. He noted that reports that the PA intends to reach an understanding with Hamas on halting terror attacks are not correct.

Major­General Malka said that, contrary to the Wye Accord, the Palestinian Authority is not making efforts to collect illegal weapons. He said that the PA is not living up to the agreements regarding the Palestinian police. "They were supposed to submit to us lists of all the policemen, but they have not done so," he said, adding, "the PA is trying to be tricky and instead of firing policemen, it is turning them into civil servants."

The Military Intelligence Chief also pointed out that the Palestinian demands to free security prisoners are likely to encourage riots in the territories. In his assessment, there is a crisis between the PA leadership and the protesters in the street. He added that the recent riots in the territories were initially directed against the PA leadership, who redirected the protests against Israel. Major­General Malka said that it is uncertain that the Palestinian leadership will have sufficient motivation to act forcefully against protesters demanding the release of the prisoners.

Referring to the ramifications of the American President's visit to Gaza, the Military Intelligence Chief said that the Palestinians view the visit as the high­point of the increasingly closer relations between the PA and the United States and as an important step on the way to establishing a Palestinian state. This, despite the fact that Yasser Arafat did not exploit the platform in Gaza to declare his intention to announce the establishment of a Palestinian state in May 1999.

The Military Intelligence Chief added that the PA does not view the event the other day in Gaza as a formal meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC) but rather as a gathering. From the PA's point of view, the Covenant was amended in 1996, and in the invitations sent to PNC members there was no mention made of the intention to change the Covenant. Translated and reprinted from "Ma'ariv", December 16, 1998

Israel: The Palestinians Have
Anti­Tank Guns in Violation
of the Accords

By Yaakov Galanti

During the course of the three­way summit meeting at Erez, Israel gave the Americans a list of weapons which the Palestinian Authority (PA) has in its possession in violation of the Oslo Accords. Israel is demanding that these weapons be collected immediately and transferred to the Americans for destruction.

The list was prepared by Israeli intelligence. Security sources say that the weapons included on the list indicate that the Palestinian Authority is intensively preparing for a military clash with Israel, after they learned the lessons of the Western Wall tunnel unrest two years ago.

According to the list, the Palestinians have thousands of pistols, assault rifles and sub­machine guns in excess of what is permitted under the accords, as well as an unknown number of heavy machine guns and light ammunition.

The PA also has weapons which it is forbidden to possess under the accords, such as thousands of hand grenades and anti­personnel mines, a number of mortars, thousands of kilograms of explosives, hundreds of grenade launchers, dozens of R.P.G.s and Lau anti­tank missiles and even a number of anti­aircraft and anti­helicopter guns.

Security sources expressed concerns that the PA has begun to manufacture weapons, after they recently passed a law permitting this in violation of the agreements.


Reflections On President Clinton's
Alliance With Terror In Gaza

By Rabbi Eliezer Waldman

Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshivat Kiryat Arba

[ 2 Tevet 5759]

The President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, was received in Gaza with much pomp and ceremony. For days in advance American flags were produced to be waved for the leader of the world who was to give respectability to the PLO cause. Thousands of small flags were given to children to wave, and gigantic flags were sewn to be hung next to the PLO flag showing how the United States supports the PLO. Pictures of Arafat and Clinton together with raised hands were displayed with the slogan, "We have a Dream". This dream includes the destruction of the Jewish State.

The President was in all his glory as he addressed the international gathering of terrorists. He applauded the achievements of murderers to proclaim their freedom and independence on Jewish soil. He congratulated them on their new airport which he personally initiated at the ceremonial ribbon­cutting ceremony. He failed to acknowledge that this airport will be used to smuggle arms to be used to implement the goals of Arab terror. He reminded his audience about how much money was raised for the PLO in Washington, and how he would personally continue to raise money for them. His words of praise brought the terrorist dignitaries to their feet with a standing ovation for their good friend from the United States.

Mr. Clinton admitted to his audience how he was personally moved to tears at the plight of the innocent children of Arab murderers of Jews who are in Israeli prisons. Although he did not hear the plight of the innocent children of the victims of those murderers, he declared that it is time that something is done to stop the misery of children from both sides. For this too the President received resounding applause from the murderers. His remarks, while seemingly reasonable on the surface, were, in fact, bordering on incitement to murder. By invoking sympathy for murderers, implying that they be freed to stop the tears of their children, was nothing less than justification for murder. The children weren't crying because of something the Israelis did. They were crying for what their fathers did. Their fathers were responsible for the tragedies of both Jewish and Arab children. How dare the President suggest that Israel as much as consider releasing murderers? By equating the tragedy of both sets of children, the President was not only irresponsible, but acted immorally by suggesting legitimacy to acts of terror.

This entire circus was orchestrated by the American President in order to convince the Israeli government that the PLO really is complying with their part of the bargain, and thus pressure Israel to retreat from more of her homeland. All of the murderers stood up and raised their hands in support of Arafat's meaningless declaration. And, all the while, Arafat's supporters were stoning Jewish soldiers and civilians in Bethlehem, Hebron, Shechem and other parts of Judea and Samaria. Near the Jewish community of Shavei Shomron a seventeen­year­old Jewish girl was stabbed in the back by an Arab. The PLO media continued to incite against Israel, calling for the liberation of "all of palestine". And the PLO "Justice" department enacted a law making ownership of "Palestinian" land by non­Arabs a crime punishable by death.

After the President was on his way home, the thrifty Arabs found another use for the American flags they had saluted at the ceremony. In reaction to the bombing of Saddam Hussein by the United States, they set those flags on fire. Surely Mr. Clinton must know that Saddam Hussein's closest ally is Arafat. No matter how joyous the ceremony, the true feelings and aspirations of Arafat and his followers are not friendship for the United States. Just like Arafat will shake hands with Bibi, because he knows that he can get so much more with a handshake than he can with a gun, so too he can put on a good show for the American president when it suits his purpose. Among those who stood and applauded for President Clinton in Gaza were those who took part in the murder of American diplomats. . . this includes Arafat himself! There can be no doubt that Clinton knew this, but the charade served his personal interests. For this he was willing to suffer the humiliation of playing the fool, and degrading the image of the United States of America before terrorist murderers. Wasn't the burning of the American flag a just punishment for the President's crime of saluting the flag of the PLO terrorists at that celebration in Gaza?

Clinton did speak beautifully before his Israeli audiences. He expressed his admiration for the Jewish people and recalled his promise to his pastor never to let down the Jewish State. He spoke with great respect about the Bible and the realization of the Zionist dream of Jewish return to the Promised Land. Can it be that the Bible of Mr. Clinton obligates us to share the Promised Land with Arafat? It makes one wonder how such a knowledgeable Christian could participate in distortion of Biblical destiny when talking to the PLO, yet display such profound admiration for the Jewish people and our Biblical destiny while in Israel. He knows to whom this Land was promised. . . and it wasn't to the PLO. Not only does the Bible speak about the intrinsic connection between the Jewish People and the Promised Land, but it also describes what will happen when the Land is in the hand of foreigners. "And I will make the Land desolate and your enemies who settle there will become desolate upon it." (Leviticus 26:32) This is why, for two thousand years of our exile, the land remained desolate. Only the unique combination of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel can cause life to blossom here.

While I can never accept Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts to make Oslo work, and while I deplore the fact that he even decided to go to Wye, I am pleased that he had the courage to stop the madness in spite of direct and strong pressure by Clinton to continue. The American President might have made himself a laughing stock at Gaza, but he doesn't have to live here. He will be in the United States, far away from the troubles he helped to foment in the Middle East. Our Prime Minister at least seems to realize that he cannot afford to share Clinton's humiliation by the terrorist gangster, Arafat. For him every mistake costs Jewish lives. No sooner did Israel retreat from Jenin, then we saw Arabs begin to shoot at Jews and then escape to safety in these very areas.

Clearly the PLO never intended to make peace with Israel. They have shown, again and again that they are only using our desire to make peace as a tool to weaken us. The office of the Prime Minister has been issuing countless examples of PLO violations of every agreement they signed. When a legal contract is violated, in any society, that contract becomes null and void. The PLO covenant may not have been nullified, but the Oslo and Wye agreements have been nullified by the violations of the PLO.

The only process which is alive and flourishing is the Divine Process of Zionism. The Jewish people have been reunited with their Land, and authentic Jewish life has been renewed in the heart of Eretz Yisrael. We were privileged to witness a barren desert turn into a flourishing garden. It is irresponsible and immoral for any Jewish leader to lose hope in the Divine Process of Zionism at a time when we are so close to its climax. Rather than continuing a false peace which demands Jewish surrender and stimulates terror, we must stop and reverse the process. The responsibility of Jewish leadership is to continue the Zionist vision, knowing that only this will bring true peace and blessing to Israel and all the nations of the world.

Broadcast on Arutz-7 National Radio on November 26, 1998


By Atty. Elyakim Ha'etzni


The Israeli government's decision to ratify Wye Plantation's shameful give­away of the Eretz Yisrael heartland for American guarantees (which are worth less than nothing) will go down in history as unique. The eight ministers who voted in favor of the betrayal of Eretz Yisrael will be noted in the dark pages of Jewish history among other tragic Jewish figures who weakened, sometimes destroying their own country and people. In addition, the Likud ministers will be remembered as having betrayed the trust of their voters.

Even more deplorable is the role played by the abstentionists, a whole five of them. They will be remembered as moral cowards. By their abstentions, they demonstrated how well they grasped the depth of the catastrophe latent in the planned retreats. Yet other considerations (first and foremost their own career calculations) gained the upper hand. It was their respective egos competing with the eternal ideals of the Jewish people and its homeland. Come election day, what will those who abstained say to their supporters? "Vote for me and I will abstain for you?"

All in all, the outcome of the government vote is astounding: the Land of Israel is to be forsaken not by a majority decision of the government ­­ but by a minority! For Netanyahu to continue with the withdrawal under such circumstances says something about our Prime Minister's character! Furthermore, only a government under pressure, only a shackled government ­­ acting under duress ­­ votes in such a manner.


There's no question that Israel has now been relegated to the status of an American banana republic controlled by Clinton, Albright, and Ross. From this day on, those who remain faithful to Eretz Yisrael will shout at Netanyahu (as they did in the times of the Rabin­Peres government): "You have no mandate!" Generations to come will recall that the government only mustered a minority vote to sanction the relinquishing of the Jewish heartland.

The provisos and conditions which the government attached to its withdrawal decision are essentially worthless. They will likely share the fate of former government decisions that disregarded at Wye Plantation. Take, for example, the former "unequivocal decision" by a solid government majority that there would be no further retreat without extradition. At Wye, Israel dropped this demand. Arafat did not even clearly agree to put the 30 murderers through one of his mock trials!

What Netanyahu brought back from Wye was an American guarantee that Arafat will fulfill his obligations. Even American guarantees, issued as part of the "Hevron Agreement", that it would not pressure Israel for a further withdrawal before Palestinian compliance proved meaningless. Even more ridiculous is the U.S. assurance that a gangster and accomplished liar like Arafat will carry out his obligations. The Israeli government insulted our intelligence with the pitiful declaration that non­prosecution of the thirty terrorist murderers by Arafat's so­called justice system constitutes the breach of an American guarantee. Big deal!


History knows of other political "guarantees." Sixty years have passed since the tragic Munich Accord of 1938 in which the great powers of the day sold Czechoslovakia down the river, thus paving the way for World War II. The similarity in the technique of the two betrayals is remarkable: the four parties to Munich were Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Britain, and France. The Czechs' role was limited to forfeiting their land. In consideration for its retreat from the Sudetanland ­­ the Czech equivalent of Judea and Samaria ­­ the four parties gave Czechoslovakia guarantees regarding the "inviolability" of its new, indefensible borders. Just as Czechoslovakia could only be defended from the Sudetan mountain range, so Israel's coastal plain can only be defended through control of the Samarian mountain ridge. In Munich, artificial legs, in the form of guarantees, replaced Czechoslovakia's amputated limbs.

Alas, with us too, the real parties are Arafat and the U.S.. Arafat does not really deal with Israel. He deals with America, and this third party provides the guarantees. Less than half a year after the Munich guarantees were given, Hitler's troops marched into Prague. The American government's recent guarantees should be viewed in the same light. In the case of Arafat's Mein Kampf ­­ the PLO Charter, we were not even given guarantees. On the contrary, the Wye Plantation text is clear in denying us any formal, legally valid revocation of the charter. What we were promised, instead, is a circus featuring a "Clinton solo performance." Notwithstanding, the Israeli government has decided to insist on a formal revocation of the charter. Even so, when is this to happen? After we have surrendered an additional 7% of the territory: The government had decided that for further withdrawals to take place, the charter would first have to be revoked. Chief PLO negotiator Sa'eb Erekat responded by saying that there will no revocation. And yet, in spite of that, Israel is to give 7% of the territory. A fool's paradise.


Likud and Labor are now both solidly in the Left. The only opposition remaining in Israel protested recently in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square. If not for the personal animosity between Barak and Netanyahu, Labor would have joined the government long ago. Peres, on the other hand, gets along very well both with Netanyahu and with Sharon. They consult Peres continuously. Like sheep, hundreds of thousands of Israelis, abandoned and deserted by their shepherds are now wandering aimlessly. Who is to be the new leader, the new shepherd? The leaders of the National Camp, both secular and religious, must organize very quickly. They must form a political block for the national elections which are not far away in order to give all those loyal to Zionist ideals a new political home.


By Emanuel A. Winston

Yassir Arafat is presumably in Washington to discuss receiving more money from Bill Clinton and the other Donor Countries. But. according to reliable sources in Washington, there is another, more important (dangerous/sinister) reason for his visit. The Donors' Conference is merely a partial smoke screen to begin the campaign to push Israel to the 1948 borders ­ called Auschwitz borders by ultra­Dove Abba Eban.

In addition to seeking money, his mission is to request Clinton's backing for a Palestinian State, with modified borders based upon the 1947 Partition Plan. The game plan is to ask for the 1947 borders to start the Israelis negotiating at point zero (the 1947 borders) and then give up some demands to settle finally for the pre­1967 borders and "a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as the capital of that State and only that State" as Arafat proclaims often. It seems that all of this has already been worked out with the Clinton Administration, American Arabists in the State Department and, very likely, with the covert guidance and input of Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin.

In the interim, the Wye Memorandum has wreaked havoc among the Israelis as they are prodded by Clinton/Albright to give up more and more defensive borders, water resources, and holy sites. Settlements are being surrounded with electric fences that do not include as yet undeveloped land zoned for each settlement, tank traps, watch towers, bulletproof windows on homes, school buses and cars...etc. and so on. Is this Peace?

In further collaboration, we observe Syria's Hafez al Assad giving the "Green Light" to Hezb'Allah to step up their terror operations which have killed 7 Israeli soldiers in Lebanon within the past month. We also see the EU (European Union) led by France and England contrive further pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights to Syria, including its high ground observation positions along with 40% of its water.

The correlation between Clinton, a hostile State Department, the Arabs and the EU will become a classic study for students of geo­politics. The reduction in Israel's land mass will result in a nation that must disappear as her already tiny land is reduced below critical mass. This is intended by the various world leaders, so that the Arabs can complete their take­over in their next assault. Israel's leaders have hopelessly agreed to the dissolution of the State as instructed by a US President who is clearly linked to Arab powers.

Will Bill Clinton be rewarded with a high paying executive position with an oil company plus numerous high paying board memberships? This is something to be watched. Betraying an ally cannot come cheap. Also, look for some of the $400 million in US taxpayers dollars to Arafat to be re­cycled back as political campaign contributions.

Will the Republican Congress step in to defend Israel? Possibly not, given Bibi's bone­headed agreement to the Wye summit, short weeks before November elections which effectively increased support for Clinton and certain Democrats. Arafat is scheduled to meet with Rep. Bob Livingston, new speaker of the House, to request his support for a Palestinian State and the additional funding.


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



By Dr. Steven Plaut

Shortly after the 1967 war, the anti­Semites of the world discovered a new formula for making peace in the Middle East. The formula was very simple: Israel would be asked to place its neck in an Arab hangman's noose and in exchange for this goodwill gesture, the Arabs would promise not to pull the rope. Do­gooders around the world would assure both sides that the formula would work. The Arabs would be reassured by Israel's good behavior. Once reassured, they would have no need for any rope pulling and peace would break out.

The rope in question was a return to the 1949 borders, which Abba Eban once called "Auschwitz borders". The "territories" would be rearmed, Arab armies would return to the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, where they had stood on June 4, 1967.

When Israel refused the offer, the anti­Semites had "proof" that Israel was the obstacle to peace. By refusing the reasonable offer, by refusing to place her neck in the noose, Israel was demonstrating irrational obstinacy. Indeed, the refusal was testament to the militarism and war­mongering aggressive nature of Israeli society. Peace was just around the corner if the Jews would agree to the noose arrangement, but they were preventing peace out of racism and cussedness.

The Israeli Left at first was as obstinate in rejecting the noose offer as were all others. True they might consider nooses under special circumstances that the Arabs were not offering, such as reinforced concrete or steel beams that could prevent ­ they believed ­ the noose from being pulled. But as long as the Arabs and their apologists were offering an ordinary noose with no constraints on its pullability, then it was no deal. After all, when the Israeli neck had been in the noose before 1967 this did not produce peace and the Arabs had repeatedly tried to pull the rope. Why should they not try again?

But over time, attitudes changed. The Israeli far Left and then the Labor Party slowly rejected the old refusals to entertain peacemaking through noose wearing. Such rejection was out of date. The world had changed. Not only should Israel agree to wear a noose, they argued, but Israel should take the initiative to arranging for the noose to be worn. This would prove Israel's new goodwill and peaceful intentions. The Arabs would no longer feel threatened by Israel. Peace would break out in a New Middle East.

The Arabs themselves were confused by this. Some assured the world that the noose would be pulled as soon as the Israeli neck was firmly inside, while others continued to promise that noose­pulling was not on their agenda. Still others said both at the same time.

The result was Oslo/Wye. Noose wearing as a fashion caught on most belatedly when it came to the Syrian front. But now at long last it has arrived. I do not think there were any unilateral­surrender ideological movements in the United States in the 1940s. (There were though in Britain.) Such people would have been regarded as traitors and tarred and feathered. Sure there were unilateral surrenderists during Vietnam, but the situation in Israel is far more like the US in the 40s than the 60s.

Unilateral surrender is now suddenly the main banner of the Israeli Labor Party. There are two "mass movements" advocating unilateral surrender to Syria on the Lebanese/Syrian front (which is one and the same). Both are in essence front groups for Labor and Meretz. One calls itself "Four Mothers", and the other is The Movement for Withdrawal from Lebanon, headed by Shimon Peres' pet poodle Yossi Beilin, the godfather of Oslo. Both advocate unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and from the Golan Heights.

It is the same old handbook for making peace. If Israel would just agree to noose wearing, the Arabs assure us they will never pull the rope. And if Israel refuses, then it is Jewish obstinacy and aggression that is the root cause of the conflict. We even have the Labor Party to confirm this for the entire world.

Unilateral withdrawal and surrender. This is the essence of the phantasies of the Oslo "peace process". Noose wearing as the key to peace. Be it with the PLO or Syria. Churchill said that when offered a choice between shame and war, the Chamberlainites chose shame and got war. History repeats itself.


Dr. Steven Plaut teaches business at the University of Haifa.


By Boris Shusteff

The charter will remain in the hearts of Palestinians, whether they change it on paper or not. We will teach it to our children and our children's children. (The Jerusalem Post, 12/14/98. Quote from an unidentified student)

The Jewish state has made another step towards its self destruction. It had put another break into the building of a second Palestinian state. By accepting the farce of the annulment of the Palestinian Covenant (or "Charter"), Israel has tacitly agreed to the return of the Palestinian Arab refugees, to the dismantling of the Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and to the creation of a second Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The Israeli leaders eagerly accepted Arafat's fake stones as genuine diamonds and will pay an unforgivable price for this. The unchanged Charter will forever serve as proof of Israels indecisiveness and weakness and will become the tombstone of the Jewish state.

Using Charles Krauthammers comparisons one may say that Arafat not only made a profit by selling the "same old rug" for the fifth time, but he also managed to get Israelis to brush the dust off of it and to make it look like something new. The worst thing is that the Israeli leaders themselves understand that the Covenant was not annulled. As MK Benny Begin explained to Arutz­7 on December 14:

"The changing of the charter is contingent upon the calling of a special session of the PNC, before which the members must have been specifically informed as to what issue they will be voting on, Not only is this gathering not an exclusive and official session of the PNC, but the participants received only a simple, modest invitation to come and hear speeches by Arafat and Clinton, and nothing more."

One need not be a mathematical genius to understand that if invitations are sent to only 25 out of the more than 300 PNC members who live outside of Palestinian Autonomy there is no way that Arafat can have a legitimate quorum for amendments of the Covenant. Although there was nothing sophisticated about Arafat's lies it is worth entering the December 14 meeting at Gaza's Shawa center to listen to the PLO chairman. This is what he said, addressing Bill Clinton, "Mr. President, to conclude my speech I remind you that the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in 1996 amended the constitution and canceled all clauses contradicting our agreements, to do with violence and terrorism and anything against the agreements." If Netanyahu was seriously concerned with the Charter's amendments the above statement would have been enough for him to abrogate the Oslo agreement outright, since it is well known that the Charter has remained untouched throughout the entire Oslo process.

On May 7, 1997 Maariv wrote that "at a meeting with Libyan ruler Muammar Qadafi, Yasser Arafat denied that the Covenant had been cancelled and claimed that nothing happened." Arafats denial did not contradict the May 1996 press release of Fatahs internal document published in Ramallah entitled "The Palestinian National Covenant Between Renewal and Being Frozen." This document stated that "the PLO Covenant was frozen, but not annulled, and that no changes were made to the document at the recent session of the PNC." That this is true was proved by the concluding document of the session, published on April 25, 1996. The document included nineteen specific resolutions and decisions, but contained no reference to any decision to amend the Charter.

The Palestinian leaders are well aware that the Charter was not annulled in 1996. This is why they speak about the annulment process not in terms of the past but of the future. The Dubai's daily Al Bayyan, wrote on December 1, that Khalid al­Fahum, former speaker of the Palestine National Council, said that the opposition conference of the 10 Palestinian factions "will express the Palestinian people's rejection to amend the PLO Charter."

Let us listen to Arafats next maxim. He said, "As a part of our commitment made on 6th November at Wye, the Executive Council agreed to confirm this decision. Mr. Clinton, four days ago the Palestinian Central Council reaffirmed this decision." It is interesting to compare this statement with the December, 12 report by Doha Qatar al­Jazirah Space Channel Television, which contains a telephone interview between Faysal al­Qasim, in Doha, with Hasan 'Asfur, coordinator of the Negotiations Higher Committee, in Ramallah:

"Your questions, brother Faysal, are a bit hasty. The abrogation of the charter did not take place today. We only voted on President 'Arafat's letter to President Clinton. This letter asserts that the PNC had made a decision to amend such and such articles. Based on this, the current political commotion is a deception no more no less. I hope you will not be taken in by this deception."

Arafat knew extremely well that the Palestinian Arabs, participants of the Gaza meeting "will not be taken in by this deception." Nevertheless he worded his final appeal to the delegates very carefully in order for them to understand that they are not voting for the Covenants abrogation. He said, "I ask you now as part of the decision issued in April 1996. I request you and appeal to you to approve and confirm the treaties and decisions taken by the Executive council and Central Council, and to support the peace process. Please raise your hands to agree on this." So they enthusiastically raised their hands since they were eager to "approve and confirm" decisions taken by the Central Council. The radio station Voice of Palestine enumerated them on December 12. It reported that the Council:

"expressed its support of our steadfast masses on their land, categorically rejected the Israeli Government's decision to annex holy Jerusalem to the Israeli entity; reiterated its rejection of the Israeli colonial plans to Judaize the holy city and erase its history, civilization, culture, and religious status which is considered sacred by Muslims and Christians all over the world, [and] underlined the Palestinian refugees' rights to return to their homeland."

If one says that the delegates supported "the peace process" one should be reminded that this "process" has resulted in more than 300 dead and several thousand maimed Israelis and in territory being transferred under the PLOs control. Therefore it is not surprising that the delegates "came to their feet and raised their hands, and applauded and cheered." They are very eager for this process to continue. The list of Israeli losses, defeats and surrenders is growing exponentially. The Israeli leaders have admitted defeat and have stopped promoting the truth that there is already a Palestinian state Jordan. They have acquiesced to the presence in Palestine of a separate "Palestinian" people. They have reneged on their commitments not to deal with the PLO and not to allow "establishment of the PLO authority in any part of Palestine." They are very close to accepting the Arab interpretation of Resolutions 242 and 338, thus agreeing to retreat not just from "territories" but from "all the territories" that they gained in 1967 and 1973. Now the Palestinian Covenant, which has remained intact, has been added to this shameful list. Does that mean that Jerusalem is next on this list of surrenders? [12/14/98]


Boris Shusteff is an engineer in upstate New York. He is also a Research Associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.[Arabic translations in Shusteff articles not otherwise attributed come from IG & News.]


By Emanuel A. Winston

CNN's Wolf Blitzer joins his CNN anchors in misstating the facts so they jibe with the story being put out by a President who, as always, is quite comfortable with bending the truth. Blitzer: "Palestinian leaders and factions are gathered here at Shawwa Center to vote on canceling the PLO Covenant." The lady anchor announces: "The President is visiting 'Palestine' today." Walter Rogers says: A Palestinian taxi driver said: "We used to burn these [American flags]." Rogers said with emphasis: "The implications are tremendous. I talked to a Western Diplomat intimately connected with the Israeli/Palestinian Peace Process. President Clinton's visit here moves US to within inches of recognition of a Palestinian State. Clinton and Albright deny this visit is to encourage a Palestinian State but the symbolism is enormous."....according to Rodgers.

The fact is that the so­called leaders who packed the Shawwa Auditorium cannot legally cancel the Covenant and they are not leaders in any sense. Their orders come from one man: Yassir Arafat. They will do as they are told. Clinton knows this, as does Netanyahu. These so­called Palestinian leaders will be told to raise their hands to ratify a letter approved by the Palestinian Executive Committee affirming that some paragraphs in the PLO Covenant have been canceled. This is not a legal vote, therefore, the PLO Covenant calling for Israel's destruction is still operative, binding ­ and still incites Arabs to murder Jews.

The week before Clinton and the American delegation arrived, over 500 members of various terrorist and PLO­sanctioned groups did meet in Gaza regarding the Charter. Members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP. DFLP and other groups declared their opposition to the Wye River Accord with Israel and the ratification of the amendments to the Palestinian National Charter. (AP, JERUSALEM POST, JORDAN TIMES)

The original Covenant was voted into existence in 1964 (before the 1967 Six Days War) by 500 Arabs, many of whom were considered leaders in the Arab world. Religious Muslims voted the equivalent of a religious "Fatwa" which calls for Israel's destruction. (Think about the unremitting nature of the "Fatwa" issued against Salman Rushdie by Iran's Ayatollahs who still refuse to rescind this officially sanctioned death sentence ­ despite pleas from England, America and other nations..)

Clause 33 of the Covenant says it can only be changed or canceled by a by majority vote of the full 500 man body of the Palestinian National Council. Only 23 members of the Palestinian National Council applied for visas to come to Gaza. And in their own words: The people gathered in the Shawwa Auditorium on December 14 have been instructed to raise their hand, providing a well­planned show for the Clinton and the Western media.

Regrettably, there is no substance to the pledge to cancel this deadly Covenant. If one studies Koranic law, you will find passages that allow ­ even command ­ a Muslim to lie or trick any infidel with pledges of a peace treaty until they have sufficient strength to come back in force to kill the enemy. Yassir Arafat, speaking in Arabic, often calms his audience by telling them to be patient because he is following the example of Mohammed's Treaty of Hudaibiya with the Koreish tribe. Here Mohammed made a peace agreement with the Jewish Koreish tribe of Mecca in 628 CE who refused to accept his leadership and convert to Islam. In 2 years he returned with a strong army and slaughtered the Koreishi tribe and conquered Mecca. Arafat first revealed his obeisance to this Islamic principle in Johannesburg, May 10, 1994 when he said: "I'm not considering it [Oslo] more than the agreement which has been signed in 628 CE between the prophet Mohammed and the tribe of Koreish."

So, when Arafat tells his fellow Muslims that they are not to worry about his agreements with Israel...everyone understands ­ except the Jews.

As for canceling the Covenant, it is now irrelevant. The Covenant was a teaching outline for every terrorist group, every terrorist nation. It is the equivalent to a Bible in every Muslim home. In fact, Arafat has said that he will cancel the Covenant when the Jews cancel their Torah. Even if everyone in this hall raises his hand ­ even if Israel accepts this as a sufficient legal method of canceling the Covenant ­ it is not so. Regrettably, Israeli Jews wallow in delusion, even as a corrupt President and an International Terrorist promise better days. Scrapping the Covenant will not eliminate what has already been taught and absorbed as a mark of Arab culture. That hatred has permeated every corner of the Arab world and it no longer needs a scrap of paper called the Covenant.

Shabby theatrics put on with instigation of Clinton's State Department and Arafat's planners were intended to offer the illusion that the Palestinian's will no longer follow the dictates of the Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. That illusion will be shattered by more killings and denials by the authorities who first signed the Covenant and then refused to return to cancel it. Sadly, the Israelis have simply stopped thinking for themselves, as they surrender their sovereignty.


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

Editor's Note: Jewish ostriches should not read the report below. It is quite disturbing and conflicts the view that Israel is making 'peace' with its neighbors.

IsraelWire, Volume I, Issue 332 December 10 1998.. 12/10/1998, 20 Kislev 5759

Egyptian Opposition Paper:
Jews Use Christian Blood For Matza
and Carry Out Human Sacrifices

[Editor's Note: the opposition in Egypt is allied with Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and has strong support in, PA controlled areas, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It anti-Semitic views are widely accepted in the Arab/Moslem world and are expressed through speeches, sermons, cartoons, law, suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings and other attacks on Jews. It is the height of folly for Israelis and Jews to ignore this REALITY.]

Following is a translation of an article entitled "The Talmud, the Jews and Human Sacrifice" which appeared in the Egyptian opposition newspaper Al­Shaab on November 17, 1998. The article was written by Dr. Fahmi Abd al­Salaam.

"Throughout history, the Jews have been known to be a depressed and whiny people. There is a clear connection between the Jewish race and depression, and many writers have described Jewish depression as a trait characteristic of this despicable race. And we all remember Shakespeare's Shylock who was absorbed by dark bitterness and demanded a pound of human flesh.

In the important book "The Jews in Egypt in the Modern Era" by researcher Orpah Abdah Ali, which was published in 1991 and which surveyed the life and activity of the Jews in Egypt from the time of Muhammad Ali through 1967, there is a chapter about the religious ceremonies conducted by Jews on behalf of their God, who is the blood­thirsty God which the Jews invented in accordance with their nature. In that chapter it states that the Talmud, which is full of errors, falsehoods and fabrications, played an important part in the formulation of the of the phenomenon of "fanatic nationalism" among the Jews, and they prefer it over the Torah.

It also states in the chapter that the Jews carry out human sacrifices to please their blood­thirsty God. In this context, the book quotes the Talmud as saying "We have two ways of satisfying our God: the first is on the Feast of Matza [Passover], using matza mixed with human blood, and the second is the circumcision ceremony for our children." This, while the Jewish Encyclopedia says, "The rabbis have given their approval for carrying out human sacrifices of Christians to our God."

The author of the book surveys the methods by which the rabbis slaughter a person prior to his being sacrificed to God:

1. The first method is that the victim is brought while still alive and placed into a large barrel with sharp needles embedded in its side. The needles pierce the victim's skin and his blood begins to drip into the barrel. The more the victim moves due to the pain, the worse his wounds become until finally his body is emptied of all blood. Thus, when his soul departs from his body, the last drop of his blood leaves as well.

2. The second method is used in places which are not secure for Jews, where they are compelled to carry out their crimes quickly without enjoying them: they slaughter the victim by severing his neck and arteries after having placed a receptacle underneath him so the blood will flow into it.

Afterwards, the blood is gathered in a jar. These jars are brought on Passover and Purim to the leading rabbi, who blesses the blood. Then, they mix the blood together with flour to make matza. Afterwards, the matza is distributed to God­fearing Jews and they eat it with an appetite commensurate with the depth of their hatred for Jesus and Christians.

The conditions which the victim must fulfill to be fit for Purim, as noted by the author, are as follows: he must be an adult Christian who is religious ­ preferably a priest ­ and he must be gentle and shy ­ which attests to the quality of his blood ­ and not sexually active. Similarly, he must be a friend of the Jews, so that the blood will not be contaminated by hatred for them. The slaughtering of the victim is entrusted to a group of 7 Jews, of whom at least one must be a rabbi.

I had thought that the matter of Jewish matza mixed with blood was a fabrication, but the shocking thing is that it is a fact, a fact which has been proved in some 400 cases which have become known, while the number of cases that have not been revealed is far higher. It was in this framework that the Jews slaughtered a young Egyptian girl in 1881 in Port Said." (IMRA)


by Rachel 7

"100 Years of Zionism" has been a misnomer for the last 100 years. Zionism is a national movement of at least 2,500 years, at least since the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE. Its goal is the re­establishment of the Jewish people's national sovereignty on their land, the Land of Israel, and the reconstituting of their lives within the framework of their national heritage and culture.

The Jewish people actively pursued Zionism throughout all the past 25 centuries. They did so in several different ways. One way was by means of armed uprisings against foreign occupiers and their various religious and cultural oppressions. Another way was by clinging steadfastly to their land, even after the destruction of the second Temple. As a matter of fact, the phrase "returning after 2,000 years" is, at best, mistaken and misleading, since throughout all those years, when many Jews were indeed in Galut, there was always a vibrant, creative Jewish community present in their own land.

The better known vehicle of active Zionism, however, was the constant, unceasing aliyah­­the physical returning of Jews home. There was not one century in all these years­­until this very day­­without Jewish aliyah. The latest, misleading phrase about "100 years of Zionism" was created partly out of ignorance, but also with intended misinformation. The aim is to dwarf Zionism into a recent, modern movement alone, and cut it down to size and time­frame comparable to the so­called "gradual Palestinian national awakening."

Actually the last hundred years of Zionist movements is just another integral link in the 2500 year­long, unbroken chain of Zionism. One can talk about the 100 years of Modern Political Zionism, or Herzlian or Ahad Ha'amian Zionisms, of Socialist Zionism, and so on. But one cannot, and should not, talk in all honesty about "100 years of Zionism" alone.

The 19th century was filled with Zionist activity. And this was before Herzl and before Bilu and before the so­called "First Aliyah." There were the Hovevei Tsion­­Lovers of Zion­­who supported Jewish settlement in Israel; there were Rabbis, like Kalischer, Mohilever, and Alkalai, who called for, and worked for, the settlement of Jews in Israel; there was aliyah of Chassidim and Mitnagdim, and just many private, simple Jews who went with their families to settle in Israel, because of their age­old Zionist yearnings. There were also those in Israel, who left Jerusalem to start new settlements like Petah Tikva, or those Jews who founded Nes Tsiona, Rishon L'tsion, and other settlements.

The 19th century was also the century of Haskalah­­the Jewish Enlightenment­­which, while letting secular knowledge into the closed Jewish communities, also opened the way to assimilation and abandonment of the Jewish heritage by the younger generation. Many of the young eventually found their way into Socialist and Communist movements, hoping to help build a better and more just and tolerant world, and of course hoping to be accepted as equals in these progressive movements.

Reality disappointed them and kicked them in the face..all too often. Their progressive comrades still saw them as "zhids" and still participated in pogroms against the Jews. These young Jews, however, were so desperate to be accepted and to belong, that they were willing to close their eyes and excuse any insult, any indignity, any pogrom. So much so that some even said: "Never mind the pogroms. The Jewish blood will be the grease on the axles of the revolution." When things got worse, some of these young Jews turned to Zionism to find a land of their own in which they could establish the great messianic dreams of Socialism and Communism. This was the beginning of Socialist Zionism, which actually developed at the turn of the century and hitched onto the Political Zionism of Herzl. The major wave of this Socialist Aliyah constituted the so­called "Second Aliyah." (It seems strange to speak of a "First Aliyah" or a "Second Aliyah" in the 19th and 20th centuries, if you consider that Zionism's actual First Aliyah was the return of the Jews from Babylon.)

Many of those who came in this group of Socialist Zionists still had the solid foundation of Jewish heritage, which they received at home, despite their rebellion against it and rejection of it. Yet their ideology was that of a secular Socialism and Communism, in which they believed with a perfect faith... It was this ideology­­and not their Jewish heritage­­which served as the foundation for their resettling the Land of Israel, and it was this ideology which they transmitted to their next generations. Even the regular public schools, among whose teachers were many members of the Socialist movements, were not considered pure enough for the indoctrination of the young generation, and so a special network of "workers' party" schools was established. The results came all too swiftly, and today we are reaping the whirlwind.

We have Israelis who are totally disconnected from their Jewish heritage, and even from the rest of their people. Israelis who, while speaking the Hebrew language, are as assimilated as any assimilated Jews anywhere else in the world. To these assimilated Israelis­­Zionism is dead. We have Israelis, among them Member of Knesset Yossi Beilin, one of the chief architects of the Oslo process, who proudly announces that he would not mind if his child married a non­Jew. To him, the future of the Jewish people, as a unique people, does not matter, and thus for him and others like him­­Zionism is dead.

We have Israelis, like the Polish immigrant Shimon Peres who, as Foreign Minister of the State of Israel, said to another Israeli­­also an olah ­­"go back to where you came from!" Apparently to him, as to others of his ilk­­Zionism is dead. We have Israelis, such as the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who talks about the Land of Israel as "a piece of real estate." To him, and others like minded, Zionism must be dead. The sad thing is that, most likely, true Zionism was never really alive for them. Because to them, having a state, and a government, and any land of any size, is the end of their Zionist dream.

They are left searching for new content and meaning in life. And so, on the one hand, they clutch at materialism as a new goal, and dream of Israel becoming the "Singapore of the Middle East." On the other hand, in the good old tradition of assimilated, pseudo­liberalism, they try to prove to the world how good and deserving they are, by fighting for any real or apparent underdog, and being ready to sacrifice, sell­out, and attack their own people, in ways which would put the worst anti­Semites to shame.

Presently in Israel there are a split people. There are those for whom Zionism is still very much a living, vibrant reality, just as it has been for our people throughout the millenia. And there are those who desperately strive to assimilate into an imaginary "new Middle East" and/or into a cheap imitation of American Western culture. They fight with vigor to turn Israel into a secular, non­Jewish state (and I am not speaking here of "Orthodoxy, "but of heritage, culture, andidentity), hoping that by doing so they will find favor in the eyes of the Arabs and the other nations of the world. Having lost and given up on their Jewish pride and identity, they cannot function within the family of nations as Jews. They therefore attempt to "pass" by inventing a watered­down, pareve, neutral identity as "Israelis," and in the process they cut off their noses to spite their race...

Although it may too­often seem otherwise, the fact is that this segment of Israeli society is definitely not a majority. But over the years they have taken control­­one way or another­­of the media and of various key positions in the country. They have the gift of gab, and unceasing propaganda is their major method of distorting the true reality of the Jewish state. Besides deligitimitizing any population that is either Jewish­religious or Jewish­patriotic, they succeeded in imposing fear and a sense of intimidation on anyone who dares to express a differing opinion from theirs.

Zionism must fight not only external threats, but perhaps even more serious threats from within. There is a concerted effort to divest Israel of its Jewish identity. Amos Oz and other like­minded intellectuals speak openly about preferring a State of Jews rather than a Jewish State.

Just how bad is it? How low have we sunk? There have been many stories regarding the incidents that occurred after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, involving left­wing incitement and action against anything and everything Jewish, and anyone obviously Jewish­looking. People were beaten because they wore a kippah; children were removed from buses because they were too clearly Jewish. The epitome of this sick behavior, however, was an incident in which an Israeli soldier aimed his loaded rifle at the head of a Jewish child wearing a kippah. What resulted was a horrified secular woman ran to place herself between the gun and the child. This is not Zionism! This is not the fulfillment of any Zionist dream! It conjures up much more readily a picture of another kind of soldier, pointing a rifle at a Jewish child, in a Polish ghetto. Yet it is precisely because of this that Zionism in Israel has a future. It has a future because, in its present form, Israel is still a dream in the making. It has a future because it has not yet reached its goal!

When in the State of Israel, Jews­­obvious Jews, men with kippot, beards, and sidelocks, and women wearing kerchiefs and long skirts­­when Jews are hated, ridiculed, harassed, and physically attacked, like Jews were treated in other countries­­the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

When during some of the ghastliest terrorist bus bombings, a Member of Knesset reassures Arafat that the process will continue, no matter what, and states on the radio to the nation that "We need to remember, however, that the enemy is the right wing..."­­the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

When the land of our Fathers is treated as real estate, and traded for something worth even less than the trinkets given to the Indians for Manhattan Island­­the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

When concerted efforts are made to obfuscate, to distort, and to erase Jewish culture, Jewish heritage, and Jewish tradition in the Jewish State, in its schools, in its media, in its daily cultural life­­the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

When Israelis are more concerned with becoming cheap European and American "wannabes" rather than absorbing and continuing their own, unique, age­old culture and identity, like every self­respecting nation­­the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

When assimilation is as bad as, or worse, than in any Jewish community in the Diaspora, and it now becomes easy to fully understand that "it may be easier to take the Jew out of the Galut, than to take the Galut out of the Jew...," when this is so, it is clear that the goal of Zionism is not yet accomplished!

Zionism is the future of Israel! Zionism is the future of Israel because only in Israel can the Zionist dream be realized! Zionism is the future of Israel because when it is realized, the People of Israel will be a strong, proud, unique nation, fully ensconced in its heritage and building upon it its own, unique life among the nations of the world.

Zionism is the future of Israel because, to paraphrase an old saying "More than the Jews kept Zionism going, Zionism kept the Jews going!" Zionism is the future of Israel because for millenia Jews took this on faith, and this faith was all they had to sustain them through the worst and longest of exiles. We are fortunate enough to be alive at a time in our history when a portion of the dream has taken a concrete form: there is technically an independent State of Jews in Israel. We cannot, we must not, lose our capacity to continue to also keep faith with the rest of the dream!

Zionism is the future of Israel because to all those of little faith, who wrongly believe that Zionism can die or vanish on their say­so, an answer was given a hundred years ago: David Wolfsohn, Herzl's close friend and right hand, spoke at a Zionist banquet. An anti­Zionist heckler called out: "All your Zionism hangs by Herzl's beard. If you shave off his beard, there goes your Zionism." To which Wolfsohn smiled and said: "You are mistaken, sir. For just as with the beard, Zionism will immediately start growing again!"

And Zionism is the future of Israel because, while it is a national dream and a national endeavor, more than anything else, Zionism is nurtured by the single Jew. The poet Naftali Hertz Imber intuitively sensed this when he wrote in the last line of Hatikvah: "Ki rak im achron ha­yehudi, gam achrit tikvatenu"­­for as long as there is a single Jew left, our hope will never end!" And there are many more than a single Jew left. A­M­E­N

All those who are part of the Zionist dream and part of the Zionist effort will also be part of the Zionist future. The others, those who assimilate, those who desert, those who distort and dismiss Zionism, will fall off naturally, along the way.

Therefore the question is not whether Zionism has a future. It does! The question is only which Jews will share that future.


Rachel 7 is the screen name for the dedicated Zionist who heads the Middle East Political Forum on AOL.

Special to the Freeman Center


By Richard H. Shulman


A delegation from the ADL called upon Arafat in Judea­Samaria. He warmly shook each member's hand (Jewish Week, 12/11, p.35). The PA is the world's most virulent center for antisemitism. By what conceit does ADL imagine that it can deal with Arafat or that he will stop working to destroy Israel? Has ADL insufficient sense to realize that it is pronouncing him kosher?

While ADL delegates were shaking Arafat's hand, Arafat's henchmen were stoning or shooting Jews. In my time I have shoveled cow dung; I sooner would handle honest manure than shake Arafat's hand. But it would not be a phony hanging back such as Ariel Sharon's, when he refused to touch the hand into which he was pouring our patrimony at Wye.


For the fist time in three years, a Jewish delegation visited S. Arabia. ADL national director Abe Foxman returned with the message that the kingdom supports the "peace process" and would like to play a role in negotiations (Jewish Press, 12/11, p.70). There's Abe Foxman, again, associating with the most rabid antisemites, the Saudi financiers of untold killings of Jews. One wonders whether the Saudis presented Haj. Foxman with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," as they have done with other prominent visitors, including Henry Kissinger. The British once made the mistake of letting S. Arabia serve as a facilitator in the Palestine Mandate's internal affairs. The Saudis riled the Arabs and roiled the Mandate.

As a supporter of the Oslo process, Foxman thinks he has accomplished something or at least is reporting something favorable to Israel, in relaying Saudi support for the Oslo process. Let Foxman study the ZOA compendium, "Five Years of Palestinian Arab Violation of the Oslo Accords." From it, he could infer that Oslo is the Arabs' prelude to war.

Oslo meshes with Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel. It's is an odd 'peace process" in which Israel keeps talking about ending violence and the Arabs keep accelerating violence.

The Saudis never veered from supporting Muslim insurgents throughout the world, particularly foes of Israel. What is Foxman dong with those enemies of our people?


The Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Center of Southern California have drafted a joint statement with the L.A. division of ADL and the L.A. Jewish Federation Council. The statement suggests how to conduct public discussions on the Mid­East. They plan to send the statement to national Jewish organizations for endorsement.

ZOA urges Jewish organizations to refrain from signing it. Reason: Both US Muslim organizations demonize Israel, support violence against Israel, and publicly defended a Holocaust­denier, Roger Garaudy. ZOA Pres. Morton A. Klein said that both support Hizbullah. Hizbullah is on the official US State Dept. list of terrorist organizations for its activity in Lebanon (Jewish Press, 12/11, p.28).

Why is ZOA's reason germane? First, joint work would help the Muslim organizations into legitimate circles and get favorable publicity. Second, when ADL has to oppose those organizations as antisemitic or as unfairly anti­Zionist, the organizations would feign indignation and protest that the ADL had just worked together with them in recognition of their being acceptable. They would argue, "Surely the ADL wouldn't associate with antisemitic organizations!" It is a persuasive argument.

Foxman's recent outbursts against dissenting Jews and his anti­Pollard and other anti­Israeli idiosyncrasies are becoming more than embarrassments. They are ruining the once stalwart defender of Jewish rights, the Anti­Defamation League.


The Holocaust is only tangentially related to the Arab­Israel conflict. However, Mr. Foxman revealed the same psychological outlook over the Holocaust as over the Arab­Israel conflict. His recent reaction on "60 Minutes" to the controversy over compensation for Holocaust survivors, therefore, was most instructive. It is true, as he testified, that monetary negotiations are preoccupying discussion of the Holocaust, now. (I think that is temporary.) Foxman objected that antisemites describe that as mercenary. He denied that one can compensate monetarily anyone who suffered through the Holocaust. I rue a certain Jewish organization's arrogating to itself the recovered inheritances of Holocaust survivors and their heirs.

On "60 Minutes," someone refuted Foxman's view of the money. It is not compensation but reparation. It is not to undo the crimes but to recover what was stolen from our people. Therefore it is a measure of justice whose neglect would compound the original crime. There should be some penalty exacted from those institutions which profited from our people's discomfit and even pried loose their savings. We cannot let them get away with those thefts. In my opinion, justice requires that reparations should be not the current value of the Jews' inheritances but a punitive value. Of course, there is no chance of imposing punitive damages.

It was wrong of the world to keep silent during the original crimes. It would be wrong to keep silent during this opportunity for reparations. It would be wrong to forego this deterrent effect of pursuing the thieves and making them disgorge their loot. Silence now would forfeit the opportunity to teach how pervasive was the evil then. Such lessons might give people an inkling that this evil has not been eradicated, not from Russia, not from the State Dept., and not from jihad.

Does it have to be from the Anti­Defamation League, of all authoritative voices, that one is told that Jews should conduct themselves to please anti-Semites? Note that the same thread of appeasement runs through the relations of ADL and of many other prominent Jews with our Arab enemies!

To summarize, one wonders if Foxman's "ADL" stands for Arab Defamation League.

Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of December 27, 1998


By Jonathan Rosenblum

The great champion of 'free speech' and 'artistic expression' is rather
selective about which speech and speakers should be protected

One of the many charming aspects of life in Israel that never ceases to amaze is the alacrity with which the self­styled defenders of civil liberties move to suppress speakers of whom they do not approve. Typical was the reaction to a recent column by Yisrael Eichler charging that many of the stereotypes used by the Nazis against Jews have been translated into Hebrew and employed to delegitimize the haredi public.

Yossi Sarid and Anat Maor of Meretz immediately demanded that the attorney­general prosecute him for his words. MK Ophir Pines­Paz (Labor) filed a police complaint against Eichler and urged that he be barred from journalism and the media. Even with the move into yuppiedom, the Israeli Left seems unable to shake its Bolshevik roots. For them, all is permitted; for their opponents nothing. "Eichler is not a Jew. No Jew in the world would tar a fellow Jew with the label of Nazi," Sarid solemnly assured us.

Really, Yossi? When David Ben­Gurion wrote to Haim Guri in 1963, "[Menachem] Begin is clearly a Hitler type, [who would] rule as Hitler ruled Germany," did he cease to be a Jew? When Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz labelled Israeli soldiers in the territories "Judeo­Nazis," did Yossi Sarid howl with anguish? Did he lead those protesting the subsequent award of the Israel Prize to Leibowitz?

When Haim Cohn, former justice of the High Court, commented at an international legal conference that "the Nazis' Nuremberg racial principles have become the law of the State of Israel," did Sarid scream for his scalp? When Maj.­Gen. (res.) Shlomo Gazit said in a public speech that the knitted kippot on the heads of IDF soldiers remind him of the swastika worn by Nazi soldiers, did Sarid protest or call for his prosecution? When Meretz founder Shulamit Aloni described the haredi population as "suck[ing] from the same sinister passions which nurtured the Nazis," did Sarid demand that she resign from the party?

Could it be that what enraged Sarid about Eichler's remarks was not so much the metaphors he chose as his long peyot and the use of those metaphors to defend a populace that Sarid despises? And if the great champion of "free speech" and "artistic expression" is so selective about which speech and speakers should be protected, has he not provided one more example of a process of delegitimization of haredim in this country, not unlike that waged against Jews in Germany from 1933 on?

Interviewed by Yediot Aharonot after Eichler's accusations, Moshe Zimmerman, professor of German history at the Hebrew University, admitted that Eichler's charges were not unfounded and that "many of the images of haredim found in the secular press are drawn from classical antisemitic sources, including the Nazis." Fantasies of violence against haredim abound. Not just anonymous wall posters in Kfar Sava proclaiming, "Exterminate the haredim at birth," in response to the opening of a religious kindergarten, but articles by leading journalists and academics in the mainstream media.

"We have to storm Mea She'arim with machine guns and mow them down," recommends left­wing darling Uri Avneri. "I would take all those weird people from Shas, Aguda, and Degel Hatorah and tie all their beards together and light a match," says Popolitika's Amnon Danker. Yonatan Gefen announces his willingness to cast the first stone in the intifada against haredim, and Prof. Uzi Arnon tells a Kol Ha'ir interviewer, "Haredim should be suspended on an electricity pole."

YOSSI SARID regularly hurls the term "inciter" like a thunderbolt at his enemies, lectures us that words kill, and accuses the entire Right of complicity in the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. Surely, then, he forcefully decried these examples of respected public figures savoring the thought of waging war on haredim. Perhaps, but we must not have heard the news that day.

Haredim are dehumanized every day, portrayed as an undifferentiated mass of black. In Josef Goebbels' propaganda films images of hasidim dissolved into images of running rats, and today, in Israel, haredim are once again portrayed as subhuman beasts, breeding like insects. They are "black ants," "humming locusts," "crass baboons," "backward barbarians," "forces of darkness." Once Jews were accused of killing Christian children and drinking their blood. And today "bloodsucker'' is a favored term for haredim. In place of body­snatchers, Ha'aretz's Yoel Marcus accuses them of being "soul­ snatchers'' and Gideon Samet calls the ba'al teshuva movement the "most disgusting phenomenon of our time."

Hitler, in 1943, explained to Hungarian head of state Adm. Miklos Horthy that the Jews had to be destroyed because they are like viruses that spread contagious diseases and destroy the body's immunological system. And Kol Ha'ir solemnly interviews an "expert on contagious diseases" to explain how haredim spread and threaten all around them. "Parasite" has become used so frequently in connection with haredim that the two terms have become virtually synonymous.

Some have even found in the haredim retrospective understanding for the Nazis. "When I see the haredim surrounded by their large families, I understand the Nazis," wrote sculptor Yigal Tumarkin ­ a statement that did not prevent him from being honored by Yad Vashem. And Tommy Lapid sees the haredim as having usurped the traditional Jewish role of "taking advantage of the gentile, trading in his blood, and laughing at him," only this time with the secular public in the role of the gentile.

One wonders whether he also sees the secular public in the traditional gentile role of "avenger" of these outrages.

If Sarid and company had not been so eager to seize upon Eichler's column as an opportunity to score more points against a prominent haredi spokesman, they might have seen it for what it was ­ a desperate plea to take note of the direction we are headed and how far we have already gone. But that would have required taking a long look in some north Tel Aviv mirrors.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1998


Jonathan Rosenblum is a biographer and contributing editor to the Jewish Observer.


By Boris Shusteff

"By a Prophet I mean a courageous speaker of the truth, a man who by virtue of a higher, divine authority dares to tell the mighty of the earth in concrete cases and in specific circumstances "Thou Shalt!" or "Non licet!" (Pierre Van Paassen, The Forgotten Ally)

The Jewish state is in a dire need of a Prophet. It desperately needs a leader who will put aside all political calculations and will lead a struggle for Zionist principles. She needs a person who will guide the ship of Zionism with a steady hand through the ensuing chaos of Israeli and international politics. She needs a leader who can directly appeal to the soul of the Jewish people, touch its most intimate strings and, like Mattathias, call the people to follow him.

This leader will stop Israel's "flight from reality," the same flight from reality that was characteristic of the world superpowers in the pre­World War II world and that was described by the Dutch born Pierre Van Paassen in his book The Forgotten Ally, published in 1943. Van Paassen wrote that:

"Nowhere does there seem to have been sufficient moral strength and clarity of vision to appreciate the true nature of the powers of chaos. On the contrary, there was again and again a diligent search for a modus vivendi with these powers. All sorts of excuses and justifications for their appearance and growth were discovered and advanced. They were approached for possible collaboration. They were offered compromise after compromise. They were offered one sacrifice after another."

It is Israel today which is looking for all sorts of excuses and justifications to help the PLO in their construction of a second Palestinian state and eventual destruction of the one and only Jewish state. It is Israel which offers compromise after compromise trying to satisfy the appetites of the Arabs. It is Israel which is sacrificing piece after piece of Eretz Yisrael hoping to appease her enemies. Van Paassen characterized this kind of behavior. He called it an "inner paralysis of society by a secret poison." He explained that:

"that poison has its seat and origin in our own unacknowledged guilt, our own failure to assume responsibility for the rise of evil. It is this guilt whose secret poison influences our political action in that it disarms us morally and renders us obtuse and impotent in the presence of political injustice and crime."

Our tragedy, the tragedy of the Jewish people, is in our unwillingness to admit that the world has not really changed in its attitude toward the Jews. The hatred of the Jews has been converted into hatred of their state. It is true that the blood libels are not cited as often as they were a century ago but they are still repeated, particularly in Islamic and Arab countries. The anti­Jewish sentiments reappear time and again whenever they are needed. The recent rise of anti­Semitic rhetoric in Russia easily proves this. While many Arab and Islamic countries loudly call for Israel's destruction, America, Russia and the Western countries pretend that they do not hear, and modern weaponry keeps pouring into the hands of those very nations, who have declared holy war against the Jewish state.

Only fifty years ago, the world witnessed the unprecedented tragedy of the Holocaust the extermination of European Jewry. Today, by brandishing the slogans of the necessity of creating "a Palestinian state" and achieve "peace" in the Middle East it opens the gates to another catastrophe. This time, it is the catastrophe of the Israeli Jews. In the midst of Hitlers extermination of the Jewish people Van Paassen quoted Dr. Gaspar Daubanton, a Walloon Huguenot Minister, who said that:

"There is a mystery about the people of the Jews. The mystery resides in the fact that they, unconsciously perhaps, as a people, are the bearers of Gods word We know they are We feel they are. And deep down in our hearts we hate them for it. For we hate God and do not want to follow His law. In their mere presence there lies always a subtle, often unavowed and undefinable challenge to us, something of a reproof, an accusation. They remind us of something of which we do not like to be reminded there sits the core of the secret of Jewish persecution"

It does not matter to the Arabs that Yossi Beilin prefers that his children marry non­Jews and that Leah Rabin would rather her grandchildren be Arabs than religious Jews. What is important in this situation is that both Beilin and Rabin belong to the Jewish state. They belong to the state where there are still very many people who believe in Judaism and in the Jewish destiny. Therefore no matter how small the state is, it will not be accepted by the Arabs as long as they feel that it is a Jewish state.

But it is a Jewish state and it will remain a Jewish state. It makes sense on this tiny strip of land only as a Jewish state. "And I will give unto you and to your seed after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession." (Gen. 17:8). Now, when we have this land after countless sufferings, wanderings and wars we must do everything to protect and keep it. We do not have to look for any other proof for our possession of this land. No other country in the world is required to prove that its territory belongs to it. Even if we can use the Balfour declaration, or the San­Remo Conference decision, or the United Nations resolutions to support our presence in Eretz Yisrael, we should not have to, since no other nations need any special reasons to have permission for their existence. Professor Paul Eidelberg wrote in Judaic Man:

" the truth is and this will offend moralists that conquest of territory is the basis of possession, and the power to maintain such possession is the only solid title to land in the present world. Indeed, according to the doctrine of legal positivism, which dominates virtually every law school in the West, a law is such only if it is enforceable. This means that law is ultimately based on the primacy of force."

It is because of this primacy of force that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has established a military force more than 50,000 people strong, it is because of this primacy of force that it tries to snatch every single inch of territory that Israel transfers to its control, since, as Israeli spokesmen Moshe Fogel admitted on December 12, the "transfer of territory is irreversible." On December 22, Ugo Tramballi wrote in the Internet version of Milan Il Sole­24 Ore that "the important thing is not the reality but what the majority of Arabs believe." This is an axiom of the Middle Eastern paradigm. The Israeli Jews must accept it if they want to survive as an independent state. Reality does not matter to the Arabs. They have their own vision which defies any and all European, American or the Jewish logic. The Arabs believe that the Jews are occupiers, usurpers and aggressors. It is useless to try to change their beliefs through concessions, compromises, sacrifices and appeasement.

The only way for Israel to exist in its hostile Arab surroundings is through the primacy of force. Primacy of force in Israel's circumstances means immediately spreading her sovereignty to the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It means immediate abrogation of the Oslo agreement. It means a categorical and loud NO to the establishment of a second Palestinian state. It means the establishment of new settlements. Israel is in dire need of a Prophet. She needs a leader who will tell the whole world that the Jewish state is not a sacrifice to be placed on the altar of Arab desires. If the Palestinian Arabs want to live in a Palestinian state, they can move to Jordan. If other countries are ready to cut off a chunk of their own territory for humanistic purposes and satisfy somebodys ambitions, they can do this freely, but they cannot demand this from a sovereign state. Israel needs a leader who will tell Israelis the truth. Who will unite the nationalist Zionist camp by exposing the true intentions of the Palestinian Arabs. Nothing special needs to be done for this. Just direct exposure of the interviews and the speeches of the Palestinian leaders in the Arab media will suffice. It would be enough to broadcast the November 9 interview with the Cairo agency MENA by Dr, Nabil Shath, PA Minister of Planning and International Cooperation. He said that Israel "will not be allowed to keep one square inch of the land occupied in 1967" since this was the "way of implementation of the Resolution 242 in Israel's agreements with Egypt and Jordan." In regard to negotiation of the status of settlements he explained that "We will negotiate on the status of the settlements in the sense of compensating the settlers who have purchased land. We will negotiate on who will pay the compensation or on a formula for transferring 165,000 settlers from the West Bank and 130,000 settlers from East Jerusalem." He also said, "We are not negotiating on the return of the refugees to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because that is their right. We are negotiating on the return of the refugees to their homes and lands in Israel."

The eyes of many Israelis would be opened if they were told of the words of Sakhr Habash, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, who, on October 6, in an interview with the London Al­Quds Al­Arabi, said, "Fatah agreed to mount the PLOs peace assault in 1988 by setting up the Palestinian state according to Security Council Resolution 181." Putting it in plain English, Fatah looks much further then the territory "occupied" by Israel in 1967.

Fortunately there are many Israeli leaders who are ready to fight for Zionist principles. It is enough to mention Benny Begin, Uzi Landau, Michael Kleiner, Rehavam Zeevi, Moshe Peled, Limor Livnat, Eliakim Haetzni, Moshe Leshem. The list can go on. However, the question remains who will dare to try on the mantle of the new Prophet? Who will become the one to put both the holiness and wholeness of Eretz Yisrael above all the other issues? Who will attempt to unite the Jewish people while holding high the banner of Judaism?



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


(Freeman Center price in parenthesis, postage & handling (U.S. only) $2 first book + $1 each additional book).

THE MURDER OF YITZHAK RABIN by Barry Chamish ...Feral House... $12.95

THE KORAN AND THE KAFIR (Islam and the Infidel) by A. Ghosh $7.95

PEACE NOW: Blueprint For National Suicide By Dan Nimrod, 1984, Dawn Publishers $10.00

EYE ON THE MEDIA by David Bar-Illan $14.95

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine By Joan Peters.

Harper & Row (pa) $16.95 (12.95)


Wyndham Hall Press $19.95 ($16.95)

ISLAM, THE ARAB NATIONAL MOVEMENT... Anwar Shaikh...The Principality Pub. $7.95


THE WRATH OF ALLAH...Robert E. Burns $12.95 ($10)

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely on private contributions which are fully tax deductible.


VISIT THE FREEMAN WEB SITE: http://www.freeman.org


Click here to subscribe, and here to see the list archives.


"The primary purpose of the Freeman Center is to improve Israel's ability to survive in a hostile world. This will be accomplished through research into the military and strategic issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the dissemination of that information to the community. Essential to Israel's survival, is the preservation of its present secure borders including Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. We will seek to improve Israel's image in this country as well as counteract Arab propaganda in the community and on college campuses. In pursuit of these goals we intend to maximize solidarity with Israel among the community and combat media bias. We will also work to strengthen Jewish communities in the Diaspora and help ensure their survival."


THE MACCABEAN is totally independent. It may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it will never be silent. Where the safety and security of Israel are concerned, we will bring you the truth no matter how harsh the reality. With Freeman Center membership you receive THE MACCABEAN free each month. If you are concerned with the threats to Israel's survival and wish to play a role in defense of Eretz Yisrael Hashlama (The Land of Israel in its present defensible borders) please join with us at the Freeman Center. Through our publications, speakers and and other educational activities we will make you better informed and more effective in the battles ahead...... ...Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor


ADDRESS_______________________ FAX_____________________________


_______I would like to join the Freeman Center ($65 for U.S.A. $85 overseas) includes subscription to THE MACCABEAN.

_______I would like to subscribe to the THE MACCABEAN ($45 per yr. USA, $50 overseas)

Enclosed is my check to the Freeman Center for $________a tax deductible contribution

Mail to: The Freeman Center, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661