Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

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

VOLUME 10       B"H JULY 2002       NUMBER 6

JULY 2002

TIME FOR JEWS TO FACE UP...Guest Editorial....Irving Kett

Why NO to a Palestinian State.....David Wilder
THE LOGISTICS OF TRANSFER (4 Parts)....Boris Shusteff


PEACE AT LAST....Steven Plaut
STOP APOLOGIZING FOR 1967....Michael Freund


THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
Copyright Đ 2002 Bernard J. Shapiro * Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3) *



Before Israelis make fateful decisions about the Golan and YESHA they should read the following lecture I gave back in 1993.This article was a lecture by Bernard J. Shapiro as part of the Torah Learning College, Congregation Beth Yeshurun, Houston, June 23, 1993. The realities today are much obvious and considerably worse.


By Bernard J. Shapiro

A Roman legionnaire stands on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. He watches the city burn and proclaims proudly, "Judea capta est" Judea is destroyed. It will never rise again. Rome's rulers even decreed a change of name for Judea. Henceforth it would be named after the Philistines (or Palestine) and the Jewish connection would be obliterated forever.

Yet, like the legendary Phoenix, rising from the ashes of its own destruction, the new nation of Israel burst onto the international scene in 1948, with the lusty cry of a newborn infant, yearning to breathe free. Five Arab armies rushed to invade Israel and crush the life from the new Jewish State. With unbelievable bravery and heroism the new state survived. Six thousand of its young defenders gave their lives that Israel might live.

In blood and fire was Israel born, and on a hot anvil was she forged. Her youth understood that life in the new Jewish homeland would require sacrifice. With stories of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz embedded deep in their psyches, the young Israeli soldiers fought with the firm conviction that there was "no alternative" (ein brera).


1. Pre-state: Arab attacks on existing Jewish communities and Jewish resistance -- 1921, 1929, 1936-9, 1947.

2. War of Independence (First Arab-Israeli War) 1948-9 -- Israel victorious but at the cost of 6000 killed.

3. Fedeyeen attacks -- 1949-56 & Israeli reprisals

4. Sinai Campaign -- 1956

5. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formed and modern terrorist war begins against Israel -- 1964 (three years before so-called "occupied territories").

6. Six Day War -- 1967

7. War of Attrition at the Suez Canal -- 1969-70

8. Yom Kippur War -- 1973

9. International terrorism e.g. Entebbe -- 1976

10. Lebanese wars -- 1978 and Operation Peace For Galilee -- 1982

11. PLO/Hamas Intifada -- 1987-to present

12. Iraqi SCUD Attacks -- 1991

13. PLO/Labor/Meretz Peace Offensive -- 1992 - War by Appeasement and Deception


Our history unfortunately is filled with sad and traumatic episodes. In 1968, I bought a book entitled THE WAR AGAINST THE JEW by Dagobert Runes. This book documents the Christian persecution of the Jew throughout history. I mention this now, not to cast aspersions on modern day Christians, but to illustrate the nature and severity of the Jew's war for survival through the years . Runes writes: "No group or nation or alliance of nations in all known history has ever perpetuated on a hapless minority such sadistic atrocities over so long a time as the Christians have on the Jews. What the Germans did to six million Jews in the Second World War is only a continuation of long-established Christian bestiality toward the Jewish people, practiced by European Christians and especially the Catholic Church EVERY DECADE OF EVERY CENTURY FOR THE LAST TWO THOUSAND YEARS." Thankfully most modern Christians have accepted the Jews and many are strong supporters of Israel.

As we struggle against the Arab and Moslem world we find that a close connection exists between an old enemy, the Nazis, and our new enemy, the Arabs. Nazi anti-Semitic literature found wide acceptance in the Arab world before and after WWII. Haj Amin el-Husseini, the leader of the Palestine Arabs and Mufti of Jerusalem spent most of the War years in Berlin. He met with Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann and toured the gas chambers. He was so enthusiastic about the "final solution" that he lobbied Hitler personally to rid the Middle East of Jews after the war. Husseini suggested two death camps complete with gas chambers and crematoria: one near Haifa and the other near Tel Aviv, to carry out the "final solution" in Palestine. Husseini, also working for Hitler, organized the Bosnian Moslems into death squads which killed tens of thousands of Balkan Jews in the most brutal fashion possible, the details of which would sicken any audience.


The answer is YES -- But only after mind boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.

The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems. Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam

2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

Islam divides the world between Believers and Infidels. Jews and Christians are relegated to the status of Dhimmis or second class citizens. The Koran clearly calls on Moslems to degrade and humiliate both groups.

The Arab/Moslem world will have to develop a tradition of respect for women, minorities, and human rights in general before they will be ready for peace with Israel. It seems a bit odd that our State Department is pushing democracy and human rights from one end of the globe to the other -- WITH THE REMARKABLE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Why are the Arabs insulated from pressure to democratize their societies?

It is obvious that no peace agreement would be worth anything with people believing in the above Islamic tenets, failing to practice democracy or show respect for minorities and human rights.

Israel's left-wing government headed by Yitzhak Rabin is engaged in a dangerous and ultimately fruitless effort to achieve peace with the Arabs through territorial concessions. A quick look at the map shows that the Arab world contains over 6 million square miles as against Israel's 10,840 -- or roughly 547 times as great as Israel. Only a fool would believe that the way to peace in the Middle East is to give the Arabs more land. A look at history shows that the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel both before and after the 1967 war in which Israel acquired the land giving it the secure borders it has now.

A quick reading of Arab statements on Israel reveals that their determination to destroy the Jewish state has not changed one iota. It was not by accident that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, three years before Israel controlled Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Its National Covenant, its maps, its emblems, its stationery -- all call for the liberation of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

The left-wing Jews in this country and in Israel, personified by the Peace Now movement and the Meretz Party, have given the Arabs a wonderful opportunity. Unable to conquer Israel by military means, they have succeeded in splitting Jewish ranks and spreading their propaganda about "peace in our time." The Arab victory plan is simply this: Seduce Israel into believing that peace is possible and get her to voluntarily give up its strategic territories in the Golan, Judea and Samaria. Once Israel's borders are narrow and vulnerable, terrorists raids and katyusha rockets will be used to terrorize the population.

Arab control of the Golan, and the mountains of Judea and Samaria will allow them to cut off approximately 60% of Israel's water. Their positions on the high ground will allow them to eavesdrop and interfere with all Israeli telecommunications and radar. Large Arab standing armies can threaten to invade, causing Israel to mobilize its troops constantly -- inflicting severe damage on its economy. Within years the Russian immigrants will stop coming to Israel because of the poor conditions. Native Israelis will become demoralized and begin emigrating in droves.

Finally the Arabs will launch a surprise attack. Israel, lacking the buffer of the Golan and the mountains of Judea and Samaria, will be overrun. Most Jews will be killed, but some will escape thanks to American rescue ships. The US congress will pass a resolution condemning the Arab attack and President Clinton will say Kadesh for Israel at a Washington synagogue. The UN will promptly condemn Israel for polluting the soil of Palestine with Jewish blood.


Just like Hitler, who told the world of his ultimate aims in his book, Mein Kampf, the Arabs are not shy about telling us of their ultimate plans. The Islamic fundamentalists, like the Hamas movement or Islamic Jihad, want to destroy Israel in one stage. PLO has adopted a two-stage plan for Israel's destruction: first, get control of Judea and Samaria and second liberate the rest of Israel. Does this make the PLO "moderate?" Should we be negotiating our own demise with them?

Here is what the Palestinians say in their own words to their own people:

"I want to release a part of this Arab territory, and this cannot be done by war...Afterwards we would liberate the rest," Nabil Sha'at, Arafats's chief advisor in 1989.

Do you see his understanding of the need for a peace offensive with the aid of left-wing Jews and the US to force Israel's initial withdrawal?

Sha'at says later in 1989,

"If we achieve part of our territory, we will not relinquish our dream to establish one....state on all of Palestine."

PLO leader Abu Iyad says in 1988,

"The Palestinian state would be a skipboard from which we would be able to release Jaffa, Acre and all Palestine."

Later that same year Iyad says,

"The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the Wes t Bank and in the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the whole territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction."

Yassir Arafat put it best when he said,

"The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine--from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat."

Faisel Husseini, leader of the PLO and head of the negotiating team with Israel in Washington, is the nephew of Haj Amin Husseini the Mufti, mentioned earlier. Both he and Arafat consider the activities of the Mufti during WWII as heroic and in the best Arab tradition. And both claim all of Israel as their country -- in their National Covenant, on their stationery, emblems and symbols.


Benjamin Netanyahu in his new book A PLACE AMONG THE NATIONS, a wonderful book you all should read, writes about the peace of deterrence. That is: the peace resulting from Israeli strength both in its army and in strategic territory. He says, and I agree that we must dig in our heels and remain steadfast, patiently waiting for our neighbors to accept and respect us on our present borders. Peace treaties reflect strategic realities. If Israel is weak, no treaty will protect it. He tells the sad story of how Czechoslovokia was forced to give up the strategic territory of the Sudetenland for "peace in our time" by Chamberlain at Munich in 1938. Netanyahu warns that the drive by the Labor Party to give up the Golan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza will have similar catastrophic results.

But you ask, what are we to do with the Arabs who live in those areas, who are clearly unhappy with Israeli rule? I believe they should have control over their municipal affairs but not over the land of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Labor Party seems to be in a mad rush to give up Jewish claims to this part of Eretz Yisrael. Rabin's Labor Party should pay attention to the words of its founder and father of modern Israel, David Ben Gurion, who said, "No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish people over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish people has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."

The Arabs who wish to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors are welcome. They can even manage their own civil and municipal affairs.

THOSE, HOWEVER, WHO WISH TO TAKE UP THEIR GUNS AND KNIVES TO KILL JEWS OR THROW ROCKS TO CRUSH JEWISH SKULLS, MUST BE DESTROYED OR DRIVEN FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL. Rabbinical authorities have long recognized the ultimate religious priority of saving Jewish lives. For example, the Israeli army is permitted to operate fully on Shabbat because it is necessary to save Jewish lives.

Too many Jews are obsessed with what will satisfy the Arabs. I doubt if there is a single Palestinian or Moslem anywhere that worries about what is good for Israel or the Jewish People. We must remember the words of Hillel when he said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself alone, what am I?" Hillel's message is clear: First take care of yourself, your family and your people and then try to help others.

Remember it took the Christian world two thousand years to accept us as human beings, and this only after the mass murder of a third of our people. It may take the Arabs a while, maybe decades -- but we have no choice but to be patient. The fact that we want peace badly does not mean that it is attainable. To strip Israel of strategic territory like Czechoslovokia before WWII in the pursuit of a phantom illusory peace will only lead to disaster.

Some Jews in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary believe peace is possible. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Benjamin, said it best:

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"

In our Holy Scriptures we read about the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah, who anguished over the fact that his people believed in false prophets of peace and didn't see the dangers facing Israel, cries out in despair, "Peace, peace but there is no peace."

I am sorry that I can not offer you more encouraging words. What I present is:


We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls.

It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a psuedo-peace that is really the wolf of war wrapped in sheep's clothing. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. (Why do some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated PEACE with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers?)

Israelis my age have fought and died in four wars and I understand their desire to be free of constant conflict. Unfortunately, there is no magic cure. I wish I could write more optimistic words. Sadly, beyond the neighboring states that Israel is negotiating with now lies another ring of unmitigated hostility led by Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.

As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.

In blood and fire was Israel born and on a hot anvil was she forged. The brave young soldiers of Israel must take a quick glance back to the crematoria of Auschwitz and then go forth to face the enemy knowing that there is STILL no alternative (ein briera).


This article was a lecture by Bernard J. Shapiro as part of the Torah Learning College, Congregation Beth Yeshurun, Houston, June 23, 1993. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE, and the FREEMANLIST (E-Mail subscriber list).




By Avi Davis

History seems to have selected the first seven days of June as a week in which to regularly test the mettle of Israelis. In that week in 1967, the country's most dramatic war exploded on three fronts after Egypt and Syria had massed their troops on Israel's borders, had dismissed U.N. peacekeepers and blockaded Israeli ports. In the same week in 1982, the Lebanon War, Israel's longest and most controversial, began when the IDF crossed the Lebanese/ Israeli frontier to destroy PLO terrorist bases in southern Lebanon.

The two wars could not have been more different in consequence. The first was a defensive war, a response to a clear provocation by enemies who had vowed to destroy the State and annihilate its population. In the wake of those euphoric June days, there were few nations, outside the Arab world, who were prepared to condemn Israel's pre-emptive air strikes when they were so clearly defensive and had resulted in the destruction of both the Egyptian and Syrians air-forces in the war's first few hours. Resolutions authored by the Soviet Union in both the U.N Security Council and the General Assembly to condemn Israeli aggression failed and the war acquired its legendary status of the David who defeated Goliath.

The second war, while also defensive in character, was a different matter altogether. It quickly turned into a quagmire when the Israelis, after a enjoying a period of relative acceptance, became known to the world as occupiers. As the vacuum left by the routed PLO was rapidly filled by the new Iranian-backed guerilla force of Hizbullah, Israel understood that it was entering a new phase of its 35-year-old war with its Arab neighbors – this one fought as much in the newspapers and television stations of the world as on the ground.

The battle for international public opinion has been joined as a bitter struggle for which Israel can barely claim any substantial victories. Arab propagandists, utlizing extensive commercial contacts with Western power-holders and media executives have for years plied Western airwaves with disinformation, employing eloquent retired statesmen and commentators to canvass their positions. The Israelis, through either lack of awareness, talent or resources are constantly playing catch-up, forced to react to bad press, rather than initiating aggressive positive spin of their own.

A classic example of this occurred last December when the Iranian registered ship Karin A was apprehended in the Red Sea, on a mission to deliver more than 50 tons of armaments to the Palestinian Authority. Here was a public relations bonanza unlike any other. Yasser Arafat had been caught red-handed, his fingerprints all over the operation and the signatures of his chief executives on the invoices. If Yasser Arafat was to be finally delegitimized and made irrelevant in the eyes of the Western media, this was the opportunity to do it.

It was flubbed. The press conference, held in the port of Eilat, carefully placed on display the entire captured arsenal, but it was conducted in Hebrew, accompanied by only a rudimentary English translation. It was also conducted in bright sunshine, without a protective covering offered to the members of the foreign press. Many had to move away to shadier spots for fear of sunstroke. The result was that the Karin A incident and its subsequent investigation was relegated to the inner pages of newspapers and quickly faded from view.

This lack of awareness and attention to detail permeates the Israeli government. Neither Israel's Government Press Office, nor its foreign ministry has a media training center that purposefully maps out media strategy and rigorously trains its spokesmen for verbal combat. Nor does it always choose its ambassadors with an eye on how they will play in Peoria. Israel's most recent ambassador to the United States , David Ivry, the senior representative to Israel's most significant ally, could barely enunciate a coherent English sentence on camera. His duties as a spokesman were eventually delegated to more articulate junior representatives.

There is only one real saving grace in this self-impelled bungy jump into fiasco and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu. For all his shortcomings as a political leader, Netanyahu is the most capable spokesman Israel has ever produced. His supple command of the English language and his ability to reduce sophisticated arguments to easily digested sound bites, gives him a credibility with the media that far exceeds anything in his counterparts. He certainly rivals for sheer class Israel's golden tongued former foreign minister and U.N. representative, Abba Eban.

But Netanyahu's skills are employed in a way that makes Eban look much like a piped-voiced adolescent in a high school debate. He does not wait for attacks but makes pre-emptive strikes, savaging the arguments of his Palestinian interlocutors, aggressively challenging lies and fabrications and leaving his audience with ringing phrases that hang in the air long after he has left the screen. He has learned, as many Arab representatives had before him, that offense is the best form of defense.

Whether Netanyahu is the precursor of a new line-up of Israeli spokesmen remains to be seen. While other fine men, such as Alon Pincus and Mark Regev have adopted some of his techniques, the Government Press Office still shows little sign of altering its lugubrious culture. There are still very few who talk about the media war in terms of strategy and long term planning. Sadly, without such foresight, Israel's second front looks destined to ape the military quagmire of 1982 rather than the brilliantly conceived pre-emptive strike of 1967.

Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for the online magazine




By Irving Kett

Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired

The establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, its successful defense through many wars and constant terrorist attacks, constituted a fantastic opportunity for the Jewish People. Unfortunately history has again proven the truism that momentous opportunities are seldom realized. Despite the countless centuries of Jewish suffering and fervent prayers, culminating in the Holocaust, the failure of the Jews, en masse, to respond positively to the imperatives of history is shocking but not surprising. It is rather a poignant reflection upon the limitations of most human beings to act in a direction other than that of the path of least resistance.

Consider for example the huge number of Holocaust survivors who opted out of going to Israel; the almost total lack of constructive response on the part of Western Jewry, despite being faced with rampant loss of Jewish identity mainly through assimilation and deculturation, except for some financial and political support; the over a million Yordim who refused to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship and deserted Israel for what seemed like greener pastures at a time when Israel desperately needs more Jews just for existence.

In 1921, Ahad Ha-Am the principal antagonist to Herzlian Zionism, just prior to his departure for Palestine, wrote a letter of great historic importance to his friend and ardent Jewish nationalist, Joseph Klausner, who was already living in Jerusalem. Ahad Ha-Am expressed his fears that the Jewish People would fail to lay claim to Eretz Yisroel and that the land would slip through the fingers of Jewry because of Western mendacity, Arab hostility, and above all the widespread indifference of much of the Jewish World. He remained unconvinced to the end of his life (1927) that Jews were sufficiently committed to their national revival and to Jewish continuity. Without this commitment, he reasoned, not even an unambiguous declaration in favor of Zionism by a Western Power (Great Britain) could secure Jewish claims. He never ceased to believe that the securing of all of Palestine was crucial for the survival of the Jewish People. His belief in the need to reconstruct the cultural underpinnings of Jewish life was an accurate and astute reflection of Ahad Ha-Am's judgment of his people's shortcomings. The idea of a so-called "Palestine" state is by now an accepted fact in the minds of most of the world, including Jews. What people fail to realize is that there is simply no room for two countries between the Jordan Rift and the Mediterranean Sea under the best of conditions. That postage-stamp sized area is hardly large enough to support one viable nation. The Arabs at present control 22 national entities and 5,000,000 square miles of territory, an area roughly one and a half times the size of the United States, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Saudi Arabian Peninsula. The Jews lay claim to only one tiny piece of land with about 10,500 square miles. The balance of interest is, therefore, obviously and overwhelmingly in favor of the Jews. It is about time that Jews spoke out unequivocally in demanding the exclusive right to all of the Land of Israel. The alternative is the continuation of the macabre farce which has already claimed thousands of lives. David ben-Gurion, the George Washington of modern Israel and the most important leader in the history of Israel's Labor Party, gave the following message to the 1937 Zionist Congress that was held in Basle, Switzerland: "No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the authority to yield any part of Israel. It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right which under no condition can be cancelled. Even if Jews in a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny this right to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country- to the entire country-exists as an eternal right, and until the full and complete redemption is realized, we shall not yield our historic right".

Just two days after Arafat's historic handshake with the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, on the White House lawn in 1993 that ushered in the infamous Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat made the following declaration on Jordanian Television in Arabic: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in War, we do so in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes , we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel". Even if the territory between the Jordan Rift and the Mediterranean were large enough to accommodate both peoples, Jews and Arabs, the latter have long forfeited their claim to share the area by instigating a century of bloodshed and hatred. Decades ago the Jewish People should have vociferously proclaimed that especially in the light of history the only realistic and recognizable partition that is acceptable is the one that took place in 1922 when Great Britain abrogated its commitment to assist in the establishment of the Jewish People on the territory defined in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. By the act of 1922, Great Britain wrested 77% of the land, promised just five years previously to Jewish settlement, and established the Kingdom of Transjordan. Furthermore the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon to the Awali River were also included in the original area defined in the Balfour Declaration. These two critical areas were already ceded to the French protectorates of Syria and Lebanon in a secret British French pact to carve up the Turkish Arab empire in 1916, known as the Picot-Sykes Pact. That treaty was concluded during World War I, while those areas were still under Turkish rule and even prior to the promulgation of the Balfour Declaration. Jews were prohibited from living in Transjordan, while Arabs from the neighboring Arab states were encouraged by the British Mandatory administration to also settle on the west side of the Jordan Rift, the area that is now Israel. According to the authoritative and highly researched book by Joan Peters in 1984, FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, 90% of the Arabs who were in the area between the Jordan Rift and the Mediterranean Sea at the time of the establishment of Israel in 1948 had come mainly from Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. They settled there at the time that the Jews returned to Israel in the Twentieth Century under the impetus of the Zionist Movement. It is both painful and frustrating to realize how much misinformation is being bandied about by supposedly respected journalists, academics, and politicians. The distortion of facts concerning the Arabs and the Jews can be divided into three principle categories as follows:

1. Only the Jews accepted international compromises for a peaceful solution. In 1937 the British set up the Peel Commission which recommended the partitioning of Western Palestine, giving the Arabs 80% of the land and the Jews 20%. The Jews accepted while the Arabs rejected the proposal and continued their murderous campaign of terrorism which began in the 1920's and continued until the outbreak of World War II when the British Army finally succeeded in quelling it.

The U.N. partition plan of 1947 divided that same area west of the Jordan Rift, allotting 60% to the Jews and 40% to the Arabs. Most of the Jewish area, however, was in the undeveloped desert, called the Negev. The Jewish State was furthermore so torturously configured that it is doubtful that such a country could have long survived. The Jews again accepted the U.N. partition. The Arabs responded by mobilizing the armies of seven Arab nations to attack the nascent Jewish State. Miraculously the almost defenseless Jewish militia prevailed and about 80% of the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was incorporated into Israel. By United Nations estimate 400,000 Arabs fled at the urging of the Arab states, expecting to return when all the Jews were slaughtered by the invading Arab armies. It may be interesting to note that almost a million Jewish refugees from Arab lands were rescued and given homes in Israel.

In the Camp David II conference of July 2000, at the urging of then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, offered the PLO chieftain, Yasser Arafat, the most far-reaching and reckless concessionary proposals imaginable in order to reach a peace agreement. The Arab response was the vicious Arab terrorist war initiated by Arafat in September of 2000 that has already cost the lives of almost 600 Jews to date, that is June 2002, (mostly defenseless civilians) and close to 4,500 wounded. Comparable United States casualties would amount to 36,000 killed and 275,000 wounded in 21 months. It finally became undeniably apparent to the Jews of Israel, except for some fanatic far left fringe groups, that the conflict with the Arabs had nothing to do with land. It was simply a matter of the existence of the Jews and of Israel in the Moslem Middle East. In 1965 Levi Eshkol, the then Prime Minister of Israel proposed direct negotiations with the Arabs to transform the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and her Arab neighbors into permanent borders. The Arabs snubbed that offer and two years later attacked Israel in what became known as the Six-Day War in which the Arabs lost heavily. Some of the so-called "moderate Arabs" now claim that they are prepared to accept Eshkol's offer.

2. The Arabs, who now call themselves "Palestinians", never referred to themselves as anything other than "Arabs" until 1964 when Gamal Abdul Nasser, the dictator of Egypt, established the Palestine Liberation Organization and appointed Yasser Arafat, an Arab living in Egypt, as its head. The latter must have gone to the Jordan River, taken some holy water and baptized his Arabs to make them Palestinians. Until that time the term Palestinians referred only to Jews living in that area prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. During World War II there was a Palestine Brigade in the British Army that fought in Europe composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers. At the time of the British Mandate, Arabs had the word "Arab" stamped on their passports while Jews had "Palestinian" stamped on their passports.

By the same token the term, "West Bank" was only originated by the Arabs in 1949 after the creation of Israel. For over three thousand years it was known by its biblical names of Judea and Samaria. As a matter of fact there never was a "Palestine" as a sovereign entity in all of history. The Romans gave the area that name after crushing the last Judean revolt in 135 C.E. For over 400 years, while under Turkish rule, it was considered to be Southern Syria which is why Syria today still lays claim to all of Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. The only reason that those Arabs call themselves "Palestinian" at this time is to create the impression to an uninformed world that they are a distinct nationality and that the territory occupied by Israel is their ancestral homeland.

3. The historical connection of the Arabs and Islam to the Land of Israel and to Jerusalem was contrived as a challenge to Zionism. Israel and Jerusalem are mentioned over 700 times in the Bible. In the Koran, Jerusalem and Israel is not mentioned even once. Mohammad, the founder Of Islam never set foot in Jerusalem or on any part of Israel. When Jews pray they always face Jerusalem. Moslems face toward Mecca. The sanctity of Jerusalem to the Arabs and the Moslem world was suddenly discovered in 1921 by the newly appointed Grand Mufti, Haj Amin el Husseini, to use as another political weapon against the Jews. Husseini spent World War II in Berlin from where he mobilized Moslem support for Hitler. By the same token, during the 19 years from 1948 until 1967, that Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria and Egypt over the Gaza Strip, there was never a word spoken about creating another independent Arab State named, "Palestine". Both the Jordanians and the Egyptians ruled those areas with a brutal iron hand. The Arabs particularly in the Gaza Strip, were kept in a condition approximating that of a penal colony.

Israel is the only non-Islamic sovereign entity in the Arab/Moslem world from Saudi Arabia to the Atlantic Ocean. This unforgivable violation of Dar al-Islam demands "the dislodging of the Zionist dagger from the heart of the Arab nation" (Anwar Sadat of Egypt). From the viewpoint of Islam (not just fundamentalist Islam), the destruction of Israel " the Little Satan" constitutes the first stage in the impending war against "the Great Satan", that is the United States.

The time is long overdue for Jews to begin making some realistic demands upon the Arabs and the rest of the presumably enlightened world. Transfer must be offered as Israel's counterproposal to a new Arab state that would surely jeopardize Israel's existence. If that concept of transfer should prove too extreme a measure to some people, they should be reminded of the Western allies who after World War II transferred approximately 12 million ethnic Germans for the sake of peace; of the two million Greeks and Turks who were forcibly transferred in 1922. These are just a few of a number of instances of mass population transfers that took place in the Twentieth Century.

Transfer, loud and clear must be Israel's response to the inane policy that the only solution to the bloody century old Arab Jewish conflict is the establishment of another irredentist Arab state on Jewish land. This is just another version of the disastrous "land for peace" approach that has already cost thousands of Jewish killed and wounded since 1993. Of course the Arab world will be up in arms at the suggestion of transferring all the Arabs from Israel, Gaza, Samaria, Judea, and the Golan Heights out of Eretz Yisrael. They can be expected to fight against such a solution even in the interests of peace and of saving Arab lives. They will insist upon continuing their present policy of killing Jews and destroying Israel. The people of Israel are beginning to understand that Arab transfer out of their country is the only moral and realistic solution to their plight. The latest public opinion polls in Israel confirms this assessment which is indicative of the quantum change to a realistic evaluation of their situation that has taken place since Arafat opened undeclared war against the Israel in September 2000. Transfer is one of those seemingly terrible methods of solving an intractable dilemma. Nevertheless, when necessary, it is better and more humane than all other alternatives. The Jews of Israel and their supporters throughout the world must recognize Israel's plight. Every nation possesses the moral imperative to safeguard its existence and the lives of its people. Such a policy must be brought to fruition, unilaterally if necessary, while Israel still has the requisite military power to impose such a solution. It must be accomplished as soon as possible before the Arab states possess nuclear weapons.

Ridding Israel of the Arabs, including those who constitute a dangerous fifth column within the country, will greatly strengthen Israel's deterrence to further Arab aggression. In the long run no conceivable step could bring greater tranquility, not just to Israel, but to the entire turbulent Middle East. There is no need in this article to sketch the details of such a transfer since there are vast underpopulated areas in the Arab world. This is not meant to belittle the logistical problems involved in uprooting and relocating four million people. Many, however, have been forced to live in temporary refugee camps for over fifty years because of Arab intransigence, preferring to use the Arab refugees as a perpetual club over Israel. Furthermore transfer is not a new concept to bring peace with justice to the Middle East. Back in 1943, the former President of the United States, Herbert Hoover, advocated transferring the entire Arab population to Iraq in a book entitled, "The Problems of a Lasting Peace". In 1938 the British Peel Commission likewise proposed population transfer because of the bitter enmity on the part of the Arabs toward the Jews. Even Iraq's first king, Feisal, in 1927 welcomed the idea of bringing Arabs from west of the Jordan Rift to his underpopulated country.

In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the following statement to his Jewish Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.: "I actually would put barbed wire around Palestine, and I would move the Arabs out of Palestine. I would provide land for the Arabs in some other part of the Middle East." He reinforced that statement with a directive to his Under-Secretary of State, Edward R. Stetinius, to the effect that "Palestine should be for the Jews and that no Arabs should be in it." The British Labor Party in 1944 adopted a similar plank. The next year, after World War II, when the Labor Party came to power and the rabid anti-Semitic Ernest Bevin became Foreign Secretary, British policy toward the Jews turned around 180 degrees.

Only when the majority of Jews and our Christian friends come to the realization that all of the Land of Israel belongs to the entire Jewish People, will Israel be able to proceed to a more peaceful and normal national existence. Congressman Richard Armey, the House of Representatives Majority Leader, is a supporter of the transfer-based peace plan. The transfer of the Arabs out of Israel would be the most effective way to respond to Arab savagery. In a moral world it would receive the support of all righteous people. The world must be made to understand the determination of the vast majority of the Jews to protect their existence and that the transfer of the Arabs out of Israel is the only feasible solution. The alternative is the destruction of Israel and a second Jewish Holocaust.

In the intervening years since the 1967 Six-Day War, the Jews of Israel lost much of their moral Judaic/Zionist compass to what has come to be called "Post-Zionism". Nothing illustrated this more than the tragic Oslo Accords of 1993 and also the Camp David Accord of 1978. The result has been bludgeoning world anti-Semitism, Israel's loss of security, countless thousands of her citizens killed and wounded, and the real threat of the nation's demise. We see all around us the shattering of hopes for a more moderate, tranquil, new world order. The concept of the "New Middle East", once so fashionably bandied about by dreamy-eyed thinkers (mainly academics) or traitors in Israel as justification for the disastrous Oslo Accords, has been shown to be nothing but a dangerous wistful grand illusion. Some ideas are so removed from reality that only academics can believe them and venal politicians implement them.

Is Ahad ha-Am's analysis of the Jewish People still valid even after all the intervening years of suffering and disillusionment? In my opinion only a powerful Jewish demand for the transfer of the Arabs will determine whether Israel is finally prepared for meeting this ultimate opportunity for survival. The present situation confronting the leaders and people of Israel reminds me of a quotation from Winston Churchill's book, THE GATHERING STORM. In it Churchill described British Prime Minister Neville Chaimberlain's decision at the fateful Munich Conference in October 1938, "Herr Hitler gave Mr. Chamberlain the choice between dishonorable surrender and war, he chose surrender and got war."




by David Wilder

The Jewish Community of Hebron

June 17, 2002

The Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre describes itself as "established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip" whose goal is "obtaining reliable information on the Palestinian territory."

The latest JMCC public opinion poll [], conducted between 29 May to 2 June 2002 reports the following results: Over 65% of those polled oppose the Oslo Accords, 52.3% oppose negotiations with Israel, 78.9% support continuation of the "al-Aqsa intifada, " and 68.1% support suicide bombings.

And most importantly, 51.1% expect the "end result of the current intifada "to be the "liberation of all historic Palestine," i.e., the destruction of the State of Israel.

On June 24, 2001 the Egyptian daily "Al-Arabi," published an interview with late Palestinian leader Faisal Husseini. Referring to the Trojan horse he said: "Climb into the horse and don't question what type of material the horse is made of. Climb into the horse, and we shall transform your climbing into that horse into a beginning of a building era, rather than an era of the end of hope.Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation, a land no one can sell or buy, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it, even if this requires time and even [if it means paying] a high price . If you are asking me, as a man who belongs to the Islamic faith, my answer is also "from the river to the sea," the entire land is an Islamic Waqf which can not be bought or sold, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it..."

Between July 11 - July 24, 2000, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak met with Yassir Arafat and then President Bill Clinton at Camp David. Israel, in conjunction with the United States position agreed to cede 94% of the West Bank and Gazza to a newly declared Palestinian State, including sovereignty in large segments of north, east, and south Jerusalem. Arafat, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority rejected the proposal, causing cessation of the negotiations. Five weeks later, following a "friendly and informal" dinner meeting between Barak and Arafat and Barak's home, the Palestinian Authority declared war on the State of Israel.

On September 13, 1993, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, together with Yassir Arafat and President Clinton, signed a Declaration of Principals, which stated, "that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process."

From September 12, 1993 to September 2000, three hundred and three Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. From September 27, 2000 to June 17, 2002, 526 Israelis have been killed, including over 350 civilians. Two hundred and nine people have been killed by suicide bombings. Four thousand and ninety nine people have been injured, including over 2,900 civilians.

The US administration has consistently attacked Yassir Arafat's leadership, leading to the conclusion that alternative leadership would produce more acceptable results, i.e. prevention of terror and violence. Possible successors to Arafat might include:

1. Muhammad Dahlan, until recently chief of Palestinian security in Gazza. According to Israeli intelligence forces, Dahlan was responsible for a bus bombing on November 20, 2000 which killed two and maimed three children of the same family. The CIA reportedly has tapes of Dahlan ordering this attack. He has taken an active role in production of mortars fired at Israeli communities, both in Gazza and in Israel proper.

2. Jibril Rajoub, until recently chief of Palestinian security in Judea and Samaria. Rajoub was incarcerated by Israel between 1968 and 1986 for terrorist activities. Maariv newspaper reported that Rajoub was responsible for the murder of 15 Israeli soldiers in September 1996. In 1995 Bassam Eid, a researcher at B'tselem, an Israeli left-wing human rights group said, "I define him as the Saddam of the territories."

The newly appointed head of Palestinian Authority security is Abdel-Razzaq al-Yahya. According to the acclaimed Debka website, "Al-Yahya who lives permanently in Amman is very close to the heads of Iraqi military intelligence in Baghdad and hobnobs frequently with Iraqi agents based in the Jordanian capital. Al-Yahya's appointment will therefore strengthen the pro-Baghdad faction in the Palestinian leadership."

President George W. Bush is reportedly considering creation of a provisional Palestinian State on which the Palestinians could "pin their hopes and dreams." This, despite skepticism expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Collin Powell, concerning Arafat's commitment to reform. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, quoted on June 15 said, "Frankly, the Palestinian Authority, which is corrupt and cavorts with terror . . . is not the basis for a Palestinian state moving forward."

Between the years 1993 and 2002, the Palestinian Authority, under the leadership of Arafat, Dahlan, Rajoub and many others, has proven itself to be at the forefront of terrorism, which has claimed the lives of close to a thousand Israelis. Arafat supported Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. Palestinians danced in the streets following the September 11 World Trade Center catastrophe. Palestinians have stoned to death Israeli children and have dismembered Israeli soldiers. And a majority of Palestinians continue to support such actions.

The Palestinian Authority, despite a pledge to end violence, has violated all its obligations undertaken by the Oslo Accords. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians today reject Oslo as a framework for peace with Israel. Its 'moderate' leadership referred to Oslo as a Trojan horse.

President Bush, following the September 11 attacks, declared war on terrorism. Why should the United States aid and support creation of an additional terrorist state?

And why should the State of Israel agree to creation of an internationally accepted Palestinian state, a state that will undoubtedly continue to utilize terror to achieve its primary goal: 'the liberation of all historic Palestine' and the destruction of Israel?

With blessings from Hebron.



(Part 1 of 4)

by Boris Shusteff

Again, people will say that I am furnishing the Anti-Semites with weapons. Why so? Because I admit the truth?
-- Theodor Herzl. The Jewish State.

Since the inception of modern Zionism, a little more than a century has passed. In the course of that century, Zionism has demonstrated fantastic achievements in areas such as land development, industry, agriculture, technological progress, military advancement, and so on. But there is one specific area in which it has miserably failed - Arab-Jewish relations. The main reason for this is that for the entire century, everything possible was done to avoid even bringing up the issue. What is worse, the problem was always ignored under the assumption that it would eventually resolve itself.

Jewish leaders used every means at their disposal to avoid coming to terms with the truth that Arab-Jewish relations have always been, and still are, a significant problem that requires active efforts at a resolution. While the Arabs raised the issue immediately from the outset, beginning with the very first waves of aliyah, the Jews pretended that the problem did not exist. Already on June 24, 1891, Arab leaders for the first time vocally protested against Jewish settlement in Palestine. They sent a telegram from Jerusalem, signed by 500 people, to the Grand Vizier in Constantinople, asking him to prohibit Russian Jews from entering Palestine and from acquiring land there. These were the two basic demands which the Arabs never abandoned thereafter: a halt to Jewish immigration into Palestine, and an end to land purchase by them.

Jewish leaders always believed that they would be able to coexist with the Arabs. They imagined it would be only natural for the Arabs who inhabited Eretz Yisrael to remain there peacefully, living together with the arriving Jews, because that is exactly how the arriving Jews felt about living together with the Arabs. In defense of the Zionists, it may be said that the lack of any national identification among the non-Jewish population of Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the twentieth century gave the Jews some cause to regard the Arab-Jewish relations problem as being non-existent. Another reason may have been the friendly and peaceful overtures of Emir Feisal, who wrote to American Zionist leader Felix Frankfurter in 1919 that the Arabs "look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement" and that they will "wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home." But the greatest role was most likely played by wishful thinking.

Even so, the most far-seeing of the Zionist leaders, such as Itzhak Tabenkin and Arthur Ruppin, warned of the impending disaster. But especially clear in bringing up this question was Ze'ev Zhabotinsky, who profoundly understood that the issue of Arab-Jewish relations would be the most critical one for the entire Zionist enterprise. Indeed, as history has moved forward, it has become increasingly clear that the success of Zionism now hinges in the most critical way on this single pivotal issue.

In any case, now is not the time to get into the detailed history of Arab-Jewish relations, trying to determine whose fault it is that the Jews and the Arabs are unable to live together peacefully in Eretz Yisrael. Objectively, blame can be laid on both sides. On the Jewish side, the greatest fault lies with allowing the problem to develop to such a great extent, without looking for a solution. It should have been dealt with long ago, when the solution itself was much easier. That does not mean that now the appropriate thing to do is to sit idly, waiting for miracles to happen. On the contrary, the fifty-four years since the creation of the Jewish state have sharply emphasized the problem itself and its resolution has became a task of utmost importance.

The goal of Zionism was always the return of Jews to Zion and the creation there of a Jewish state. This goal has remained unchanged and is no less urgent today (Ariel Sharon's stated aim of attracting another million Jews to the Jewish state is completely in line with it). The problem arises when one tries to define what is meant by "a Jewish state." In reality, however, the term itself is pretty self-explanatory - it is a state for the Jews. To put it differently, it is an ethnically homogeneous state, not unlike many of the European countries (though even this definition is somewhat inaccurate, since Jews are not a distinct ethnic group per se). Let us not be afraid to be accused of racism. This idea has nothing to do with any claims of racial superiority of Jews versus non-Jews, if only because "Jew" is not a racial characteristic, and skin color is not a defining trait of Jews. The idea is simply that the Jewish nation, am Yisrael, the people of Israel, must have a state to call their own.

Those who suffer from pangs of acute liberal sensitivity should keep in mind that an ethnically homogeneous state is not a dirty word and does not constitute a threat to mankind. Many such states already exist. Falling most precisely into this category are Japan and Finland. For some reason, no one complains that in order to become a Japanese citizen, for instance, one must not only be born to Japanese parents but, in addition, must be born in Japan itself. At the same time, even the slightest hint of curtailing the political rights of Israeli Arabs causes an uproar in the whole world, and first and foremost among Israeli Jews themselves.

The events of the second half of the twentieth century have provided more than ample evidence of the fact that mono-national states are generally more stable than multinational ones. Some convincing examples of this may be found in the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union as opposed to the significantly greater stability of Western European nations. The United States is a notable exception, of course, but as such it is an anomaly. As if this wasn't enough, Arab-Jewish relations are complicated by the fact that the entire Arab world has been bent on Israel's destruction, since the founding of the Jewish state. This deep-seated Arab hatred towards the Jews needs to be acknowledged and absolutely must be taken into account, when considering any resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict.

It is especially important not to repeat the mistakes made by Jewish leaders at the beginning of the last century. Since the factors that threaten her existence are so numerous, Israel must reduce them to an absolute minimum. Two vitally important conditions for Israel's survival are eliminating the demographic threat to the Jewish character of the state from Israeli Arabs, and guaranteeing Israel's sufficient strategic military depth. For obvious reasons, the option of creating a new Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (known collectively as Yesha), which is so popular today among "enlightened" circles, does not even remotely achieve either one of these conditions (also, for reasons discussed elsewhere, by this author and others, a Palestinian state in Yesha is virtually guaranteed to be unviable, and promises to be a ticking time bomb). However, both of these crucial goals can be immediately attained if Israel defines as her strategic aim the relocation of the Arabs from the confines of western Eretz Yisrael (a term that refers to all the land west of the Jordan River).

The issue of transfer is a taboo topic in Israel. It is assumed a priori that transfer is impossible, unachievable and immoral to boot. Even to touch upon the subject is politically incorrect. However, carried out in a planned and controlled way, with suitable compensation and assistance provided to those being resettled, and especially with international support, any moral issues immediately drop out of the picture. In addition, as this article aims to demonstrate, the transfer of the Arabs is indeed achievable and it is only the unwillingness of Israeli leaders to discuss it or carry it out that stands in the way. In the present situation the leaders blame the people and the people blame the leaders, complaining that neither one nor the other want it to happen. In reality, however, the situation looks completely different.

According to an annual national security public opinion poll, conducted by the Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University at the end of February 2002, and overseen by Prof. Asher Arian, 46% of Israeli Jews favored transferring Palestinian Arabs out of Yesha. At the same time 31% favored transferring Israeli Arabs out of Israel proper. When the question of transfer was posed in a more roundabout way, 60% of respondents said that they were in favor of encouraging Israeli Arabs to leave the country.

As far as the leaders are concerned, one can read a February 6 report from Jerusalem in The Christian Science Monitor, which quoted Sharon's spokesman, Ra'anan Gissin who said, "If the Palestinians suddenly had a change of heart and decided to move elsewhere, that would be great, but Sharon realizes that transfer cannot be carried out because of the attitude of the Israeli public. What Elon is saying [about transfer] is not something that seems possible to us today."

For all those who declare that transfer is unachievable and impractical it is worth recalling the words of Theodor Herzl that "if the Jews wish to have a State, they will have it." When these words were written in the book The Jewish State they were only a utopian dream. Herzl wrote, The plan [to create a Jewish state] would of course, seem absurd if a single individual attempted to carry it out; but if worked out by a number of Jews in co-operation it would appear perfectly rational, and its accomplishment would present no insurmountable difficulties. The idea depends only on the number of its supporters.

The dream of the great Jewish prophet has materialized. The Jews have built their state. To be more precise, they have made many important steps on the road to its realization. However, without the final step - the transfer of the Arabs - the task of building the Jewish state cannot be considered complete. Perhaps if the Arab attitude toward the presence of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael had been different, this would not be necessary. However, history has made it clear that this is the only way to achieve a permanent and stable resolution to the conflict. And each passing day without resolving the issue weakens Israel more and more, bringing closer the inevitable demise to which the present course of action will lead.

There are three major reasons that make the transfer of the Arabs out of Eretz Yisrael an absolute necessity. First, physically putting some distance between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will completely eradicate any capacity (and, in the long run, desire as well) they have for violence toward Jews. Secondly, it will eliminate the demographic threat to the Jewish state. And thirdly, it will allow Israel to further develop under conditions most appropriate for the Jewish nation - the people that dwells alone.

While many in principle support the idea of transfer itself, even if they are hesitant to talk about it, the practical issue of how to carry it out becomes a real stumbling block. The problem originates from the fact that not a single plan for such a transfer has ever been developed, since Israel's creation. Though the idea has been periodically discussed on the pages of the Israeli press, no one has seriously looked at its logistics. All discussion always ended with the same statement, "Well it was certainly necessary to exercise the transfer option back in 1948 (or 1967 or 1973), but now it is too late, and the train is long gone." This defeatist approach reminds one of a sick man refusing to accept medicine under the pretext that, while he should have definitely taken it earlier, now it is too late, and there is no reason to take it now, since he hasn't already taken it. Meaning that he prefers to die instead of trying to recover from his illness.

To rephrase Herzl, it is long past time to say that, if the Jews wish to transfer out the Arabs, they will do it. This is not to say that it will be easy or painless. However, it can be done, and in order for it to become a reality, a strategy of transfer must be developed. The plan proposed below should in no way be considered as the only possible option or the most correct course of action. Its sole purpose is to demonstrate that it is possible to create a reasonably straightforward way to carry out the transfer. However, no matter what the details are, successfully implementing the transfer plan will be a complex operation that must be approached simultaneously at all levels. As such, it must include the following components:

A. Information campaign in the international arena

B. Information and explanation campaign among Israeli Jews

C. Information campaign among Yesha Arabs and encouragement of resettlement

D. Information campaign among Israeli Arabs

E. Israel's actions in Yesha and the relocation itself.


End of Part 1

(Part 2 of 4)

by Boris Shusteff

Let us now look separately at all the various tasks that lie before Israel.

A. The International Information Campaign.

Israel faces an exceptionally difficult problem on the international arena in terms of substantiating her position. In some ways, the task is nearly impossible, since it has long been clear that no matter what actions Israel takes, the U.N. and most of the international community will consistently condemn them, and no amount of convincing evidence to the contrary makes any difference. It is a foregone conclusion that this will also be the case with the very politically incorrect idea of resettling the Arabs of Yesha.

However, despite these difficulties, it is still necessary for Israel to pursue its international information campaign for two important reasons. The first is that the international community must be made to at least consider the idea of transfer and be made aware of its many advantages. While the chances of winning widespread international support are slim, they are exactly zero if the transfer plan never sees the light of day. The second reason is that Israel does not really need to "convince" the whole world, but needs only a modicum of support from its closest ally - the United States. Even with such limited acceptance, it becomes infinitely easier to carry out the transfer.

The real problem with Israel's international diplomacy is that, until now, it has been a permanent political retreat. While other nations have been presenting plans and ideas, and making demands, Israel has only been responding to all of them, without offering its own alternative. Thus, we have the "Clinton plan," the "Tenet/Mitchell plan," the "Saudi plan," (which are all really the same plan, since they all have the same goal in mind) but no "Israeli plan." It is this lack of an alternative that is leading to Israel's gradually being forced to accept the creation of a new Arab state in Yesha, whether on 16% of the land, or on 42% (Sharon), or on 96% (Barak). In essence, the international community is forcing its ideas upon Israel, and she has only responded saying what she does not want, but not what she does want.

By presenting and aggressively promoting an alternative, Israel's diplomacy can recapture the initiative and put Israel back in control of her own fate. Once there is more than just one well-worn idea on the table about how to solve the problem, it will become possible to consider pro- and counter-arguments for each option, and objectively to evaluate issues like respective sizes of territory, fertility of land, natural recourses, expenses, humanitarian aid, the potential for long-term stability, and so on. With all this in mind, Israel's plan must simply be the creation of this new Palestinian state on part of the territory of one of the existing Arab nations.

Israel's task then consists of demonstrating to the international community that, created virtually anywhere else, a new Palestinian state will be much more viable and will have a far greater chance to develop and thrive, than if it is crammed into the 2,268 non-contiguous square miles of Yesha. At the same time, the threat to world peace would be drastically reduced. The debate must be steered away from the rather weak idea of "the right to land" to the much more worthwhile "right to a normal existence and the diminished threat of massive war." The Jewish state must remind the world that it is not infinitely wealthy as far as lands and natural recourses go, and cannot part with the lands of Yesha, which happen to constitute the heartland of the Biblical Kingdom of Israel. It must make also make clear that if the world really cares about giving the Palestinian Arabs a new state, then the Yesha option is certainly the worst one possible, and will drag the region toward full-scale regional (possibly nuclear) war. The most important consideration here is that transfer will save countless Arab and Jewish lives, provide much greater lasting regional stability, and give the Palestinian Arabs the chance for a far better future than they can ever hope for if a state is made for them in Yesha.

Though many options can be considered for where to create this second Palestinian state (the first one being Jordan), today's geopolitical situation presents two good options for its creation - either on the land of Iraq or of Saudi Arabia. These ideas derive from America's intention to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime, as well as Saudi Arabia's recently proposed "peace plan," (which unfortunately involves squeezing Israel into its unacceptable pre-1967 borders).

Iraq was once already suggested for this role in 1930. Its vast, unpopulated, fertile lands, and a severe scarcity of labor resources made the option ideal at the time. Today, if America is realistically considering toppling Saddam Hussein, the idea of relocating the Palestinian Arabs to Iraq deserves very serious attention. Following the "regime change," a division of Iraq into several autonomous regions (e.g. for the Kurds and Palestinian Arabs) would be one of the best strategic options available. First of all this will forever end Iraq's attempts to gain hegemony in the Arab world (the reason for Iraq's incursion into Kuwait and a major factor in the Iran-Iraq war).

Secondly this will remove from the international agenda the looming need for the creation of a Kurdish state (if the Palestinian Arabs need to have two states, the Kurds obviously deserve at least one). And thirdly, this will solve the Palestinian Arab problem, granting them a second state which will be conveniently located far away from Israel.

The option of resettling the Palestinian Arabs on Saudi Arabian land, as suggested by the American Zionist Bertram Cohen (the so-called "Baruch Plan") has several advantages as well. The most important one is the fact that the Palestinian Arabs can be relocated in close proximity to the Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. Surely, living near these far more significant Muslim holy sites will be much better than pining after a "capital in Jerusalem," which is an almost purely political desire, and which Israel will never agree to divide anyway. Since the Saudis have recently shown such vocal support for various "peace plans" in the Middle East, nothing can be more honorable than sharing their land with their Palestinian brethren. If the Saudis are really interested in peace, their support for this option will truly bring peace to the region, since it will eliminate the major source of constant friction between the Arabs and the Jews.

It must be emphasized that in both these options the size of the territory allocated for the Palestinian Arabs can be at least four or five times larger than the 2,268 square miles of Yesha. The other extremely important point is that in both these options, the problem of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" will be immediately resolved. They will be able to start moving to their new homeland, with humanitarian aid and monetary assistance provided by the world community, with Israel in the lead.

It is also worth remembering that most of the Arab countries were created artificially as a result of the world powers dividing up the lands of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I at their whim. For the sake of peace, it is only logical to carve a piece out of one of these vast lands to serve as a new state for the Palestinian Arabs. As British journalist Peter Hitchens wrote on March 10 in his article "The Only Way to Peace,"

If peace is what the Arab world wants, America is now in a unique position to arrange it. Her military and diplomatic power is at its zenith. Instead of asking Israel to give land for peace, why do we not ask the Arabs, who have so much more land, to give some of theirs, so that Israel's borders are no longer an invitation to invasion.

Finally, it should be noted that even a complete a priori rejection of either the Iraqi or Saudi Arabian options by the world community must not in any way discourage the Israeli initiative. On the contrary, itwill clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of all those countries who loudly clamor about "peace," but insist on doing it only at Israel's expense, not wishing to lift a finger to work toward a real peace. The rejection of the Israeli initiative will mean that the uproar for Palestinian statehood is pure twaddle, used only to cover up the anti-Jewish sentiment of the world community. By introducing its much preferable alternative, Israel will force the countries of the world literally to vote "yes" or "no" for real peace. If Peace is truly important for civilized mankind, it will be forced to look at the Israeli suggestion seriously. After all, current efforts by the international community to resolve the conflict all aim toward the creation of a Palestinian state, a solution of the refugee problem and the signing of a permanent peace agreement. These are exactly the goals that are at the heart of this alternative Israeli plan.

Some may argue that the U.N. and the world powers cannot demand that sovereign countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia share their land for the sake of peace. However, neither can they demand this of Israel, which needs every square foot of Yesha, while the Arab nations have far greater expanses of land which they could spare.

To lend more weight to this argument, and to support all of the explanatory work that Israel's spokesmen do on the world stage, Israel will need to take several important actions "on the ground." The first of these will be the immediate annexation of all the lands of Yesha.

When this is done, Israel will be in the same position as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The discussion will then deal with taking the territories of sovereign countries and all three countries will thus be on an equal footing. The argument that Yesha constitutes "occupied Palestinian territory" is simply false, under every applicable piece of international law. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important ones including the fact that these territories had never been under any sort of Palestinian sovereignty prior to the Oslo agreements, and the fact that Israel won these lands in a defensive war, from an adversary whose sovereignty over them was never internationally recognized. The status of these territories is disputed, rather than occupied. Israel must draw attention to these facts, and, just as it annexed the Golan Heights, must also annex these disputed territories, which are so crucial to its security.


End of Part 2

(Part 3 of 4)

by Boris Shusteff

B. Information Campaign Among Israeli Jews

Explanatory work among Israeli Jews is perhaps an even more important task than the work that awaits Israeli diplomats on the international arena. This is simply because if they are to garner any support for the transfer option, it is the Jews themselves, who must first and foremost understand the justice and necessity of this cause. If the Israeli Jews were convinced it had to be done, the relocation of the Arabs would have been carried out a very long time ago and relations between Israel and the Arabs would by now be much healthier. Recall again Herzl's words about the Zionist dream, which apply so well to this case - the plan only seems "... absurd if a single individual ... [tries] carry it out; but if worked out by a number of Jews in co-operation ... its accomplishment would present no insurmountable difficulties." The problem is that with the exception of Moledet, Israeli political parties not only do not speak out in support of transfer but actually oppose it. This is true both of leftist and rightist parties.

This situation is simply unacceptable, because even the leaders of the nationalist camp openly admit that their opinions diverge from those of their constituents. On March 17, Aryeh Dayan wrote an article in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, analyzing the results of the previously mentioned TAU Jaffa Center survey, which found that 46% of those polled supported the transfer of the Arabs. Dayan quotes deputy minister Yuli Edelstein, of the Yisrael Be-Aliyah party, who said, "The results of the poll unfortunately reflect the reality that I encounter almost every day... Some support transfer quite blatantly, while others use more subtle phraseology, but all agree that something has to be done." Also quoted is Shaul Yahalom, MK of the National Religious Party (NRP), who says, "I hear support for transfer almost everywhere I go." Finally, Dayan writes that MK Michael Kleiner, leader of the Herut movement, feels that "public support of transfer is even greater than revealed by the poll.

'Anyone who wants the existence of a Jewish state knows there is a real demographic problem,' he says. 'Some people are dragged into supporting transfer, but there are many who know that it is unethical and would be embarrassed to admit to the pollsters that they support it.'"

However, in spite of being aware that it is gaining support, all three of these MK are opposed to the idea of transfer. Dayan writes, Edelstein thinks transfer is immoral, not feasible, and dangerous to Israel and Israeli society. "The fact that it has sprung from the terrible distress we are suffering does not make it any less dangerous," he says. ... Edelstein views serious thoughts of transfer as irrational, both because it is immoral and impossible to implement." ... Both Yahalom and Kleiner are worried by the growing support for transfer, but are more moderate in their responses to the problem. "If 46 percent of the public supports transfer, but the only party that advocates it is Moledet, which has only one representative in the Knesset and has never had more than three, the political system will hold it back."

Overall, Dayan's article makes it very clear that even though the idea of transfer is quickly gaining popular support among Israeli Jews, and political leaders are aware of this, the high level of support is not reflected at the government level. Thus, to a significant extent, what holds the transfer option back is the unwillingness of the nationalist camp's leaders to seriously consider it. It is a wonderful example of Israeli "democracy," which effectively shows that the desires of the people are unimportant, and the corrupt Israeli political system will "withstand" the spread of this idea, preventing the people's voices from being heard.

In order to make these voices heard, perhaps Moledet should lead the information campaign in Israel, as the single party that actually supports transfer. Its spokesmen must unceasingly work to promote the transfer idea and constantly explain the myriad reasons for its necessity and its ultimate justice. Because it will only become possible for Israelis to discuss it seriously after changing the attitude towards it among Israeli politicians.

For instance, Moledet should work to refute the objections that are brought up against the transfer policy. As do most of those who oppose transfer, Kleiner, Edelstein and Yahalom base their opposition to it on two main points: that it is unethical and immoral, and besides that, it is unfeasible and impossible to implement. The possibility of implementing transfer is precisely what the present article is hoping to demonstrate. As for the claim that it is immoral - it is obviously based on an emotional gut reaction, without rationally considering the issue in context. Abstractly speaking, it is of course unethical to arbitrarily force large number of people to abandon their homes and move elsewhere. In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, however, in the interest of preserving lives, and making a normal future suddenly possible for huge numbers of people who previously had no hope at all, transfer in fact becomes the most moral choice. It is time that the issue was turned from its head back onto its feet, so that it can stop being taboo in Israeli society and politics. The Israeli leftist camp constantly insists that they "do not want to rule over another people," and the transfer option is of course completely in line with this slogan.

And there are many more reasons why Israelis should support transfer. They must understand that transfer will be advantageous absolutely for everyone and for everything. It will not only eliminate the tension in the Middle East (assuming that the world community assists in relocating the Arabs) but will also significantly enhance the defensive potential of the Jewish state. Transfer will give Israel the perpetual Jewish majority that she needs, increased security, increased strategic military depth; it will lead to a reinvigoration of aliyah, and eliminate the Sword of Damocles that is the "refugee problem." At the same time, the second state for the Palestinian Arabs, from its very beginning, will be built on a healthy foundation, without any possibility of revenge against Israel (and therefore any false hope for it), finally giving the wounds of the conflict a chance to heal.

It should be emphasized that one of the vital benefits that transfer will provide is the complete elimination of the Arab demographic threat to Israel. The state can remain Jewish forever. One need not search for any artificial methods of curbing or otherwise dealing with the high birth rate among the Arabs. The troubling predictions, that the number of Arabs in Israel will soon catch up with the Israeli Jewish population, will simply never materialize.

At the same time, Israelis need to realize that a country for the Palestinian Arabs made up of disjointed parts, and only 2,268 square miles in total area, is absolutely unviable, as has already been mentioned. Virtually no one who today advocates the creation of a Palestinian state in Yesha has seriously considered its subsequent viability and development, but that is what makes all the difference in deciding whether or not it is a good idea. If we also take into account the fact that the Arab population doubles every 16 years, it is more than naïve to think that the Arabs will be satisfied with the tiny parcels of land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and will voluntarily suppress their vengeful ambitions, especially since most of them consider all of "historical Palestine" (including present-day Israel) to be theirs. Meanwhile, in such a situation, Israel would lose the natural protection of the Samarian hills, making it absolutely clear that this option is nothing else but a prelude to inevitable disaster. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Israelis need to understand that the relocation of the Palestinian Arabs to Iraq or Saudi Arabia is, above all, advantageous for the Palestinian Arabs themselves. Various Arab leaders, will, of course, disagree, but these are the same Arab leaders who have unscrupulously used the Palestinians as cannon-fodder and their plight as unending political capital in their incessant attempts to destroy the Jewish state. At the same time, as the transfer is carried out, those Jews who feel the pain of others more strongly than their own, will be able to assist in countless ways in building this new Arab state in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. If the world community decides to help with the implementation of transfer there is no doubt that Israel will take on the lion's share not only in terms of monetary assistance, but also in helping develop irrigation, industry, agriculture, and a multitude of other projects.

Discussion of the resettlement itself must be focused on two key points. First, if there can be any talk about the "return," - and therefore the resettlement - of nearly four million so-called "Palestinian refugees," this means the uprooting and relocation of huge numbers of people. In this case, the actual number of people being moved is unimportant, since mass relocation is a given, and it is infinitely better, both for those people, as well as for the Arabs and Jews of Israel, if the Arabs relocate to some place where they will not immediately be in conflict and at odds with their neighbors. Considering that the vast majority of these people currently live in misery and poverty, a fresh start in a new place will do wonders for them, and with some international aid, great progress can be made immediately.

It's worth noting that almost all the arguments given in favor of transfer thus far have been based on practical considerations of the current situation. However, there is obviously a reason why the Jewish state is where it is, and we must not forget the deep and powerful religious and historical connection that Jews have with these lands. It is obvious that one of the main reasons why so many Israeli Jews are ready to part with Judea, Samaria and Gaza is that they have forgotten (or become indifferent to) the idea that these are primordial Jewish lands and belong to them by right. Part of the information campaign among Israelis must then be aimed at re-emphasizing the historical and religious connection of Jews to their Land. The leading role in helping to fill in this gap in their Jewish education must fall on the National Religious Party, especially with Effie Eitam at its helm.

Interestingly, Dayan's mentions in his article that "Yahalom [says] that the NRP vocally opposes transfer, both in the educational arena and in politics. 'The main religious-Zionist rabbis have ruled that transfer is forbidden by both halacha (Jewish law) and Jewish tradition.'"

Yahalom's statement about this halachic ruling tells us that the NRP is much more concerned with its political capital than with the truth. While this author does not claim to be an expert in halacha, it is doubtful that one can question the halachic knowledge of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the Chief Rabbi of Safed. On March 24 Ha'aretz quoted his answer to a question asked on his "Kippa" Website. Eliyahu wrote, "If someone claims that the idea of transfer is not supported by the Halacha, he simply does not know Halacha. Please show me one rabbi in the world who disagrees with this idea, and can make a single reference to Halacha." Clearly, transfer can't simply be dismissed out of hand the way that Yahalom attempts to do it.

Whatever the halachic ruling on transfer, the case for Jewish rights and ownership of the lands of Yesha is virtually ironclad, if even a minimal amount of Jewish history and religious tradition are taken into account. If the Arabs invoke historic and religious claims to Eretz Yisrael, Israeli Jews must remember that their historic and religious claims to it are much stronger by any objective standard. Actually it is simply enough to take note of a speech made by American (gentile) Senator Jim Inhofe, who put all Jewish Zionists to shame when in a March 4 speech in the U.S. Senate, he declared that Israel has complete rights to the lands of Yesha and demanded that America support these rights.

He said, in particular, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. ...Look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk... In Genesis 13:14-17, ...where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land," - the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true.

If the American senator so convincingly refers to God, then the Jews, who gave monotheism to the world, must not be ashamed to do the same.

When the Jews of Eretz Yisrael feel for themselves that their claims to Judea, Samaria and Gaza are at least as strong, and stronger, than those of the Arabs, they will be one significant step closer to realizing the Zionist dream.


End of Part 3

(Part 4 of 4)

by Boris Shusteff

C. Information Campaign among Yesha Arabs and Encouragement of Resettlement

Let us pause for a moment to consider the big picture. The implementation of transfer will only work well if the majority of those to be resettled do so voluntarily. Forcibly expelling millions of people is not only cruel (though it may be necessary), but also extremely difficult to carry out, even for Israel's very capable army.

However, not many people will shed tears if the Arabs move out from the Jewish state of their own volition. Therefore, Israel's major goal with the Arabs, both within Yesha and Israel, should be to encourage voluntary resettlement. It is essential to make the Arabs understand that they do not have a future in western Eretz Yisrael. As she promotes arguments in favor of transfer in the political arena, Israel must work to let the Palestinian Arabs know that relocation is in their own best interest, and her policies should be conducted with the goal of making the Arabs want to leave.

Even in the current situation, in which the Palestinian Arabs harbor strong hopes for statehood in Yesha, a poll conducted among them by Bir Zeit University on September 7 and 8, 2001 showed that, given the chance, 21.9% of the Arabs would emigrate. That means that over 600,000 Arabs are ready to abandon Yesha in search of better opportunities. Undoubtedly, if Israel were to make clear that she intends to carry out the transfer option, and if she were to provide suitable incentives for the Arabs to resettle, the number of people wanting to leave will considerably increase.

Simply providing a sum of money that would enable a family to move to a neighboring Arab country would lead people to do so in droves. Additional incentive to "act now" (e.g. more compensation given for moving sooner, rather than later) would also help to speed things up. And if all this was actually accompanied by a coordinated international relief effort, including the creation of the Palestinian state in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, the numbers would only increase, and significantly.

Opponents of the idea will certainly argue that it is unjust to impose a decision on people about where they should live. The root of the problem, though, is that the Palestinians have already been forced into miserable refugee camps for decades, unable to build any sort of normal lives for themselves. Because of this, it is only natural that they would pine for living in a better place and a fondly remember "better times gone by." However, considering the fact that over 40% of Israeli Arabs, 50% of Yesha Arabs and over half of the Palestinian refugees are under the age of 16, this means that significantly less than half of all Palestinians were around before 1967, and obviously far fewer before 1948. Their "attachment" to a land, which most of them have never even seen, derives largely from their desire for some kind of better life than the one they have now, coupled with incessant propaganda by their leaders, which has done much to inflame their sense of having been wronged, and nothing at all to improve their lot. Given a true opportunity to leave the refugee camps and start building lives for themselves, it is safe to assume that many Palestinian Arabs would jump at the chance.

One other major factor that keeps the Arabs of Yesha tied to Eretz Yisrael is the fact that much of their livelihood comes from working in Israel. Yehezkel Bin-Nun wrote on March 21 in the Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon that even currently, at a time when Israel has restricted the entry of Yesha Arabs into Israel, significant numbers are still employed in Israel. Bin-Nun writes,

In all, it is estimated that Israelis employ 150,000 Yesha Arabs every day. Terje Larsen, the former UN coordinator for the Palestinian Authority, says that each Arab worker supports approximately 10 Arabs. That means that in all, Israeli companies support 1.5 million Yesha Arabs, or half the total amount. Similarly, Deputy Minister of Defense Ephraim Sneh (Labor) estimates that 40 percent of the PA GNP is derived from Arabs working in "Green Line" Israel.

Clearly, the ability of the Arabs to work in Israel is a key reason that they choose to remain in Yesha. Bin-Nun writes that since Israel has reduced the number of work permits "it is estimated that some 100,000 Arabs have left PA-controlled areas in the past year and emigrated to foreign countries" (let us also not forget the over 600,000 Arabs who want to emigrate). Thus, in order to encourage this emigration, part of the policy of transfer must include stopping the issuance of work permits to Yesha Arabs. Instead of work permits, Israel can issue them resettlement compensation packages, and send them on their way. Since they aren't citizens, there is no reason Israel should feel obligated to provide employment for them. As old work permits expire, fewer and fewer Yesha Arabs will work in Israel. If these policies are consistently implemented and enforced, the Arabs will no longer be able to count on employment in Israel, and the number of those wanting to emigrate will substantially increase.

D. Information Campaign among Israeli Arabs

Encouraging Israeli Arabs to relocate will be much more complicated than doing so among Yesha Arabs and refugees. Yet this must be done, because even on their own, Israeli Arabs constitute a demographic threat to the Jewish character of the state. It will be much more difficult for them (comfortably established in a democratic society) to accept the curtailment of their political rights, but Israel simply has no other choice. At the same time this group of Arabs, raised on democracy, can become the kernel of the new state for Palestinian Arabs in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. This can provide the opportunity to actually create the first ever democratic Arab country.

Meanwhile, Israel needs to pass a law that will stipulate in some form that non-Jewish citizens of the state, while retaining full and irrevocable civil rights, will have no ability to participate in Israeli political life. This will provide a disincentive for Arabs to live in Israel, while not actually curtailing their day-to-day lives there. At the same time it is advisable to follow the suggestion of Michael Kleiner, MK from Herut, who suggests creating a law that will encourage the resettlement of Palestinian Arabs out of Israel into surrounding Arab countries (or to wherever the new Palestinian state may be) with concurrent monetary compensation.

Yet another policy that Israel should implement is a law mandating some type of civil service for every citizen that does not serve in the army. At the moment, the Arabs have a "free ride," as do some groups of Jews, like the ultra-orthodox. However, since the law will be mandatory for all citizens - both Jewish and Arab -Arabs will need to choose between either serving the Jewish state or leaving it.

Israeli Arabs can be given one more option - to convert to Judaism if they prefer to stay put. Jewish history records a case of mass conversion of a non-Jewish population to Judaism. In 120 BCE, after subduing the Idumeans, Jonathan Hyrcanus gave them a choice: expulsion or conversion to Judaism. Over a million of them preferred to remain and converted. Josephus wrote that a hundred years later the descendents of these converted Jews were among the most ardent defenders of the Jewish state in its struggle with Rome.

E. Israel's Actions in Yesha and the relocation itself

Though the importance of all these information campaigns can't be overstated, Israel must accompany them by actions carried out in Yesha, to demonstrate the seriousness of her intentions. It is absolutely clear that the first step is the destruction of Arafat's regime and the annexation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arabs must be led to understand that these lands are an inseparable part of the Jewish state forever. Professor Paul Eidelberg, president of the Yamin Yisrael party, has the very worthwhile idea of selling plots of land in Yesha at low prices to Jews residing anywhere in the world and wanting to move to Israel. Also deserving of consideration is his other suggestion of relocating various governmental institutions to Yesha. The continued development of Jewish life in Yesha must became a priority in Israel's policy. A similarly important task is the development of Yesha's infrastructure including the construction of highways, an airport and a sea-port.

Meanwhile, any attempts on the part of the Arabs to carry out sabotage or terrorist activity must be immediately suppressed in the most brutal way. It is possible, for example, to implement a suggestion by Harvard Professor Alan Derschowitz, an American liberal lawyer. With slight modification, it works as follows: Israel issues a warning that, in a response to any terrorist attack, she will immediately completely level an Arab village or settlement, randomly chosen by a computer from a published list. The essence of the idea is to make the Arabs completely responsible for their own fate, and to make it clear that terrorism will not be merely tolerated, but will be harshly punished. Along with the world community, the Arabs will know precisely what will result if they attack Jews. The use of a computer to select the place of the Israeli response will put the Arabs and the Jews on a level footing. The Jews do not know where the terrorists will strike, and the Arabs will not know which one of their villages or settlements will be erased in retaliation. The word "erased" very precisely reflects the force of Israel's response. The Arabs residing there will be evicted without compensation, all houses and buildings completely demolished, and the settlement itself, with the help of bulldozers and any other necessary equipment, will be leveled into a large field. After the appearance of several such fields the Arabs will lose any desire to commit terrorist attacks and the number of Arabs wanting to leave Eretz Yisrael will certainly increase.

Israel will need to develop something like a timetable for the transfer to take place, establishing certain time windows within which various stages of the transfer should be completed. This information should, of course, be shared with the rest of the world, since Israel's goal is to involve other countries in furthering this process. It is most favorable for the entire transfer process to be as quick as possible, hopefully not to exceed a 5 to 8 year time period. The faster it is completed the better the outcome for all involved. Both the Jews and Arabs can start recovering their lives and establishing real neighborly relations no longer marred by constant conflict.

Israel must make clear to the world community that, if a decision cannot be made within 3 to 5 years to establish a state for the Palestinian Arabs in some viable location, she will be forced to start the forced expulsion of Arabs into Jordan and the Sinai. If all the other elements of the transfer strategy are concurrently implemented throughout this time period, it is valid to assume that the number of Arabs remaining to be resettled will be far less than one million. The rest by this time will likely have left Yesha voluntarily.

During these 3 to 5 years of negotiations with the international community Israel must hold a dialogue with Jordan and with Egypt, on the subject of the Yesha Arabs' relocation there, if the alternative Iraqi or Saudi options are unsuccessful. As incentive for Jordan, for instance, Israel can offer various forms of cooperation in different areas of the project, as well as the usual allotment of generous resettlement compensation payments for each family. At the same time, Israel must make clear to the Jordanian leaders that if an agreement can't be reached, Israel will be forced to forcefully expel the Yesha Arabs. In this case Jordan will only lose from both a moral and a material standpoint.

Needless to say, forceful resettlement will not be a pleasant spectacle. However, it is an undoubtedly much better sight than a situation in which the Arabs flee across the border en masse from a full scale war, toward which they so inevitably now push Israel. Those who consider this kind of transfer legitimate, since it happens as a result of a war, are simply hypocrites. Clearly, in such a situation the number of potential casualties will be significantly greater than during an organized and planned transfer, one unaccompanied by war.

Israel must thoroughly consider and work out the actual operations of resettlement; for example, experts can determine whether it is more advantageous to do it in large or small groups. Decisions must be also made on the subject of the various transfer stages. Perhaps, it is possible to begin with the smaller settlements, giving other Arabs more opportunity to leave voluntarily. We must not forget that the moment resettlement begins, the Arabs will instantly lose any illusions they may still be harboring about the seriousness of Israel's intentions to bring the transfer strategy to fruition.

As an example, the relocation of a small settlement (1,000 people) can be completed within a 48-hour period, similarly to a military border-crossing operation. Israel will supply the relocated community with temporary housing, water and electricity (providing tents, a generator, water cisterns, etc.). The abandoned settlement must be completely demolished level with the ground.

Israel must also warn the Arab world and the United Nations that any attempts by Arab countries to militarily interfere with Israel's actions will be considered by the Jewish state to be acts of aggression, and will be followed by a massive Israeli military response, as well as the immediate expulsion of all the Arabs from western Eretz Yisrael. Of course, much of what is being proposed here is not "nice" or politically correct at all, and many will object to these ideas. But we absolutely must keep in mind the big picture - this is not being suggested because life is good and Israel feels like oppressing some Arabs. It needs to be done because the current situation is absolutely intolerable for all involved, and the alternatives will not provide a permanent solution.


Obviously, life will add its own corrections to this process, and issues which seem absolutely unsolvable or questionably achievable at the moment will be more easily resolved and accomplished when the time comes. What is most important above all is to have a clear goal in sight, and to move towards it. For Israel, the goal is her own long-term stable survival as a Jewish state, for which she must be guaranteed a perpetual Jewish majority as well as secure borders. For the Palestinian Arabs, it is being in charge of their own future, and having the chance to lead normal, productive, happy lives. The only realistic way to achieve all these goals is to resettle the Palestinian Arabs out of western Eretz Yisrael into other Arab states, or to create another separate state for them on lands tailored from the vast territorial expanses of the Arab world. It is just that simple to say, but much harder to put it into practice. When the world community accepts that Israel cannot and will not compromise her own identity as a Jewish state, and when the Arab world becomes actually interested in helping the Palestinian Arabs, rather than using them to try to destroy Israel, and when Israeli Jews understand that the transfer solution is not just the only possible solution, but is also substantiated by the Torah, only then there will be no doubt that Israel will attain her goal. When two spouses truly do not get along and hate one another, it is foolish, useless, and cruel to force them to continue living together. They will never be able to share a bedroom. As Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach once noted, Zohar Ha'Kodesh says that Eretz Yisrael is God's bedroom where He interacts with the Jews, His chosen people, and where others do not belong. They have no business being involved in the relationship between God and the Jewish people. This is especially true now, when all that remains as a home for the Jews is the tiny bedroom called western Eretz Yisrael.

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




Amazing Dylan Lyrics On Israel From His CD "INFIDELS"


by Bob Dylan - 1983

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.




by Steven Plaut

1. Sharon is Trying to Resolve the Problems of the Barbarians with technology from the second century AD which failed to work even back then. Just ask the Chinese and the Romans, and see how well their walls worked. Did they keep out the barbarians?

2. You can shoot mortars and missiles over the fence. Sharon is not planning to build a fence that is 17 miles high.

3. You can dig under any fence.

4. You can sail from Gaza around any fence.

5. You can blow holes in any fence.

6. The fence is not fencing in the Palestinians in small terror enclaves, it is fencing them OUT of Israel by fencing the Jews IN, by putting the JEWS inside cages! In other words it is a form of putting the Jews under siege, not the Palestinians.

7. The fence serves as marker, precedent, and "focal point" in the sense of Schelling, in demarcating the Green Line as the borders of some Palestinian state.

8. The delusion that Israel can just forget about whatever happens on the other side of the fence and go about its business means that the area beyond it will be filled sooner or later with Iraqi, Iranian, self-hating New York Jewish Marxists, and other "volunteers" fighting with the Palestinians. It will be an ideal terror training area that will make the mountains of Afghanistan look like the Catskills.

9. It is yet another excuse for Israel's politicians to pretend the country is not at war. It is make-pretend "action" that serves as figleaf for the total inaction of the Israeli government.

10. It abandons the Jews living beyond the Green Line and signals that Israel considers them legitimate targets for terror. It sacrifices those Jews to the Oslo pagan goddess.




by Steven Plaut

June 12, 2002

It was in the year 2006. The Israelis at long last gave up their attempts to resist the pressures of the world. They elected a new government headed by Prime Minister Yossi Beilin, the original promoter of the Oslo Peace Process, in coalition with the Jewish and Arab parties of the Left. They announced that Israel was willing to accept the unanimous proposal for peace supported by every single country in the world, and would return to its pre-1967 borders, remove all Jewish settlements from the territories of the new state of Palestine, recognize Palestine and grant Palestine all of East Jerusalem, that is, all of the city located east of a line running north-south through Zion Square, renamed Jihad Square.

The world had not seen celebration like that which greeted the Israeli decision since the fall of the Berlin Wall or the transferal of power in South Africa to the black majority. All-night celebrations were held in every city on the planet, but none so enthusiastic as the party held in Tel Aviv in Rabin Square. Speaker after speaker appeared under a banner "Liberation at Last" and praised the decision to agree to the terms of the accord as the ultimate completion of the work and dreams of Yitzhak Rabin.

The settlers were marched out of the lands of Palestine at bayonet point, with crowds of jeering Israeli leftists pelting them with garbage as they moved into their temporary transit camps inside Green Line Israel. Liberal Jews in the United States organized a million man march in Washington together with Arabs and the Nation of Islam to celebrate the breaking out of peace and the final settlement of the conflict. "Peace at Last" was the number one pop single. The State Department sent out a message urging Israel and Palestine to conduct good-faith negotiations and round-the-clock talks on all outstanding issues of disagreement still separating the two sovereign states. At long last, there were two states for two peoples. Land had been exchanged for peace. Peace had at long last broken out in the worldīs most troubled region.

The morning after the Palestine Independence Celebrations, the message arrived in the Israeli parliament, brought in by special messenger. The newly formed government of Palestine had only a small number of issues it would like to discuss with Israel. It proposed that peaceful relations be officially consummated, as soon as Israel turned over the Galilee and the Negev to Palestine. Israeli cabinet ministers were nonplussed. We thought we had settled all outstanding territorial issues by giving the Palestinians everything, they protested. The spokesman for the Palestine War Ministry explained: the Galilee was obviously part of the Arab homeland. It was filled with many Arabs and in many areas had an Arab population majority. Israel was holding 100% of the Galilee territory, and Palestine none at all, and surely that was unfair. As for the Negev, it too has large areas with Arab majorities, but is in fact needed so that Palestine can settle the many Palestinian refugees from around the world in lands and new homes.

Israelīs government preferred not to give offense and sour the new relations, and so offered to take the proposal under consideration. Within weeks, endorsements of the Palestinian proposal were coming from a variety of sources. The Arab League endorsed it. The EU approved a French proposal that the Galilee and Negev be transferred to Palestine in stages over 3 years. Within Israel, many voices were heard in favor of the proposal. Large rallies were held on the universities. The Israeli press endorsed the idea almost in full unison, with only some regional weeklies from the north and south dissenting. Israeli film producers began turning out documentaries on the sufferings of Galilee and Negev Arabs under Israeli rule. Sociologists from around the world produced studies showing that these Arabs were victims of horrible discrimination and that Israel is characterized by institutional racism. Israeli poets and novelists wrote passionate appeals for support of the Galilee and Negev 'Others'.

When Israelīs cabinet rejected the proposal, the pressures mounted. A Galilee and Negev Liberation Organization was founded and immediately granted recognition by the UN General Assembly. It established consulate facilities in 143 countries. Weeks later, the infiltrations began. Squads of terrorists infiltrated the borders between Palestine and Israel, and suicide bombers produced a carnage of 75 murdered Jews a day. The border fences were reinforced, but to no avail. The US State Department proposed that Israel defuse the situation by considering compromise on the matters of the Galilee and Negev.

Six months later, the 'victims of Jewish discrimination' in the Galilee and Negev decided to escalate their protests. Gangs of Arabs lynched Jews throughout the disputed territories. Roadblocks were set up, and entire families of Jews were dragged from their cars by the activists and beaten to death or doused with flames. The EU sent in observers, but warned Israel that there is no military solution to the problems of terrorism and violence. When Israel arrested gang leaders from the riots, the General Assembly denounced Israeli state terrorism against Galilee and Negev Arabs. French universities gave the pogrom leaders, Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bashara, honorary doctorates.

Meanwhile, boycotts of Israel arose throughout Europe. Professors at the US Ivy League colleges demanded a total embargo and divestment from ties with Israel until it ended its racist apartheid regime. The leaders of the Reform synagogue movement supported the State Department and demanded that Israel end its obstinacy.

Israelīs own leftists launched a Movement against Apartheid, and the foreign press reported that 400,000 protested attended a rally by the Movement in Rabin Square. Cars around Israel had bumper stickers that read "My Son Will Not Die for Nazareth" and "Peace Now". The Israeli Left urged people to refuse to do army service outside metropolitan Tel Aviv. The Israeli Labor Party proposed erecting a series of separating barriers throughout the Galilee under the slogan "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors".

But Palestine could not sit idly by. Barrages of rockets and mortars drenched Israeli cities. The death toll rose to 7,000 Israelis per month. The White House and State Department threatened to cut off all supplies from Israel if it dared to launch reprisal raids against independent Palestine. Large cargo ships from Egypt laden with advanced arms entered the port of Gaza. Thousands of volunteers streamed into Palestine to assist in the campaign to rescue the Galilee and Negev Arabs from Israeli oppression.

On the afternoon of Yom Kippur, tank columns cut Israel in two just north of Tul Karem. Palestine offered to withdraw in exchange for transferring the Negev and Galilee to its control. An Israeli newspaper and the Israeli Peace Movement proposed transferring the disputed areas to EU control until things could be settled.

Synagogues in Belgium and France were torched. Teach-ins for Palestine were held on US campuses. A new conference was called in Durban to denounce Israeli apartheid. The White House insisted that Israel not expel the invading Palestine troops who had divided the country, for it was a matter for negotiations and dialogue. The President invited both sides to Camp David, with observers from the Negev and Galilee militias present.

Increasing numbers of Israeli politicians urged that Israel respond to the situation by granting limited autonomy to the Negev and the Galilee. When the government proposed to withdraw from Safed, Arutz Sheva radio broadcast non-stop protests against the move. The government then passed a bill that shut down the opposition radio station. Adir Zik and the owners of Arutz Sheva were thrown in jail as inciters against peace. The Americans offered to send in ground troops to protect the remaining Israeli territories, if Israel decided to accept the proposal to give up the Negev and Galilee. Letīs at long last have peace in the hills that Jesus roamed, suggested the President.

Jews living in the Galilee and Negev were under siege everywhere and the roads were unsafe. The road through the Negev to Eilat was cut by Arab gangs in four places. Leftist Israeli professors officially joined the Arab militias fighting for liberation. Two of them blew themselves up on a Jewish school bus to show their solidarity with the oppressed Arabs. Ahmed Tibi, head of the largest militia, insisted he was doing everything possible to stop the suicide attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa from the Galilee, but the Americans demanded that he do more. The UK demanded 100% effort to stop the violence. The PLO proposed, as a compromise, that instead of being annexed by Palestine, the Negev and Galilee be allowed to form a separate state. The Arab League endorsed the idea.

CNN broadcast a series of specials on the plight of the Negev and Galilee Arabs, and the BBC started referring to Tel Aviv as illegally-occupied Arab Jaffa. Netanya and Beer Sheba were described by them as illegal colonial settlements. When the carnage exceeded 10,000 a month, the New York Times, for the first time, expressed regret in having promoted the peace process and ran as its lead headline "Oops". The Washington Post, however, urged more Israeli flexibility and concessions.

The Negev and Galilee liberation organizations raised their flags over their towns and proposed that the Jews living in their territories be resettled elsewhere. The Palestine War Ministry was shipping them guns and explosives. The first word came of a detention camp north of Nazareth in which Jews expelled from their Galilee homes were being concentrated, with a second camp opened in the Negev near Rahat.

Strange black smoke rose from the chimneys...



The Jerusalem Post, Jun. 12, 2002


By Michael Freund

"Two years prior, Levi Eshkol unveiled a peace plan that could have resolved the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all."

In the 35 years that have passed since the June 1967 Six Day War, Israel has made a lot of mistakes.

Military overconfidence led to a close call in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when invading Arab armies nearly overran the country's defenses. Political overconfidence led to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, when Israel sought to reshape the internal political balance of its northern neighbor.

And it was strategic overconfidence that contributed to the 1993 Oslo accords, which have now brought the country to the brink of disaster.

But of all the errors, miscalculations, and slip-ups in the past three decades, perhaps the greatest of them all has not been one of too much confidence, but precisely the opposite. Namely, a lack of conviction and belief in the justness of our cause.

Ads appearing in various Israeli newspapers of late bemoan the outcome of the Six Day War, lamenting the "occupation" of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. A variety of commentators wish out loud that Israel had never gained control over the territories, fantasizing about what life would be like without them.

But what they conveniently ignore is everything that preceded the 1967 war: the increased Palestinian terror, the massive Arab military buildup, and the public threats by Arab leaders to annihilate the Jewish state.

Left-wing Israeli proponents of withdrawal have cast a fog over history, shifting the focus away from the "whys" of the 1967 war, and replacing them instead with "why us?"

Most people forget, but two years prior to 1967, back when Israel was narrow and tiny and did not yet "occupy" anyone else's land, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol unveiled a peace plan that could have resolved the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all.

SPEAKING TO the Knesset on May 17, 1965, Eshkol proposed to open direct negotiations with the Arab states with the aim of turning the 1949 armistice agreements into full-fledged peace treaties.

Pointing out that Israel's four Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, combined had 60 times the land area of the Jewish state, Eshkol suggested that the pursuit of war by the Arabs was a needless waste of precious human and material resources. Instead, he laid out a vision of peace that would have included open borders, freedom of transit and communications, bilateral trade and economic cooperation, as well as access to the holy sites of all religions.

All he asked from the Arabs, said Eshkol, was "full respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the States in the region." Israel's offer of peace was met two years later with a clear and unequivocal Arab response. Egypt and Syria mobilized their armies and vowed to destroy the Jewish state.

On May 20, 1967, Hafez Assad, who was then serving as Syria's defense minister, said, "Our forces are now entirely ready to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." On May 26, Egyptian president Nasser declared in a speech to his nation, "Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel." At a press conference the following day, PLO founder Ahmad Shukeiry said, "D-Day is approaching. The Arabs have waited 19 years for this and will not flinch from the war of liberation." On May 30, Cairo Radio was even more explicit: "Israel has two choices, both of which are drenched with Israel's blood: Either it will be strangled by the Arab military and economic siege, or it will be killed by the bullets of the Arab armies surrounding it from the south, from the north and from the east." A week later, the war began. And a week after that, it had ended, leaving Israel in control of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.

Instead of grumbling about the result, we should be rejoicing in it. Faced with the threat of extinction, the State of Israel fought off its enemies and liberated the cradle of ancient Jewish civilization, reuniting Jerusalem and depriving our enemies of the platform from which they had sought our destruction.

Israel did not occupy Judea, Samaria, and Gaza - we won them fair and square in an act of self-defense. The war of 1967 was one that Israel neither asked for nor initiated. And the time has come for us to stop apologizing for winning it.

The writer served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.

(c) The Jerusalem Post



The following was written by Eric Hoffer, that uniquely American longshoreman/social philosopher. Hoffer lived from 1902 until 1983. He wrote nine books, countless columns, and hundreds of essays. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He wrote the following in 1968!!


By Eric Hoffer (LA Times 5/26/68)

The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June, he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources.Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.




by Ariel Natan Pasko

June 14, 2002

What's all this debate about expelling or not expelling Yasser Arafat? Have we all gone mad? How will expelling him solve the problem (him). As I recall, Arafat was in 'exile' until 1993, where he was able to lead a terrorist organization and plan attacks on Jews, Israelis and others, around the world and in Israel. Oh yes, he also managed to hobnob with the rich, famous and powerful, lobbying for a 'Palestinian State' in his spare time. Can someone tell me what expelling Arafat will accomplish, other than turning him into a 'victim' again? It is a role he plays very well.

The debate shouldn't be about expelling or not expelling him, either way we're still stuck with his 'leadership' of the Palestinians. The real debate, that has yet to begin in earnest in Israel, is over trying him for crimes against humanity, i.e. the Jewish People and others. The only question for decent people to debate is whether he should receive life in prison or the death penalty.

I believe an Eichmann-like trial would educate a generation here in Israel and abroad about Arafat's murderous criminal activities. It would teach the world how to deal lawfully with terrorism and how not to appease it. Some might say that Arafat, as head of state, is immune to prosecution. Well, guess what? He's not the head of any state yet. Besides, that didn't seem to stop Belgium when they contemplated prosecuting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Let us say that since 1993, as head of the Palestinian Authority, he's wanted peace and he just hasn't been able to stop those nasty Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Tanzim and al-Aksa Brigade terrorists (regardless of the fact that he's officially the leader of those last two groups). Do you believe that? If so, why should we negotiate with him? Either he's in charge, in which case he is culpable for their crimes, or he's not in charge, in which case we should start discussing who is and talk to them.

If he's not responsible for all those bombings and killings since coming here in 1993, on what basis could we try him? How about, for starters, trying him for the death of Americans. For example, a diplomat in Khartoum (1974) and Leon Klinghoffer at high sea (1986). The world might not care about Israelis and Jews killed around the world from the 1960's through 1993 (when his 'immunity' began), but Americans care about the murder of their citizens overseas. We should care about those Jews and Israelis killed, even if others don't, and try him for those crimes as well. Bringing that murderous leader to justice for their deaths would teach the world a moral lesson for years to come. In most democracies, there is no statue of limitations on the crime of murder, or complicity in murder. Just recently, a Connecticut court found the nephew of Ethel Kennedy (RFK's widow) guilty of a murder he committed in 1975 at the age of 15. He's facing life in prison. Why should a serial murderer of the worst kind, be allowed to escape justice just because he's become a 'respectable politician'?

What of the issue of 'world outcry'? We seemed to deal with world criticism during the Eichmann trial, the Demanjiuk trial and with the cries of massacre in Jenin. One lesson to learn is no matter how much the world condemns us, in two weeks there are new headlines. Israel only needs the political strength to stand up for itself. Ariel Sharon and others showed a glimmer of that recently, with regard to the United Nations Jenin inquiry. Besides, fighting terrorism is 'in', and a strong Israel leading the way, would revive our image, one that others looked up to in the past. "We don't compromise with terrorists," was a phrase that previously earned us respect in many quarters. It also set an example that others followed. In contrast to the 'cowboy-style' of carpet bombing that the United States used in Afghanistan (which has raised many muted complaints globally), Israel would, in the full light of day and through a legitimate judicial process, try and execute a mass murderer of innocent men, women, and children.

What comes after Arafat? Won't Hamas or who knows what take over? With over 500 killed and 1,000's injured since the Oslo Accords of 1993, tell me how it could get worse. Either Arafat is in charge and encouraging the terror, or he's in charge but not doing anything to stop the murder, or he's not really in charge and can't control the terrorist groups. Either way he's politically irrelevant, as the Israeli government declared recently. We just need to follow through with the next logical step. Try Arafat and execute him. As I said earlier, educationally, trying Arafat is a great opportunity of which we should take advantage. What many need to begin to understand is that beyond Arafat, the PA and its leaders are Sheikh Yassin, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others. Maybe we should start thinking of negotiating with Sheikh Yassin already. Or, maybe, we have other ways to deal with them, as well.

The real debate over what to do with Yasser Arafat hasn't yet begun in Israel. The only question for decent people to debate is whether he should receive life in prison or the death penalty? If there's a referendum, you know my vote.


Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst and consultant.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments