Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 11             B"H   JULY 2003             NUMBER 7

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

JULY 2003


THE FREEMAN CENTER TARGETS JAFFEE...Jaffee Center [Misleading] Poll: Israelis More Conciliatory and Optimistic on Key Policy Issues....Bernard J. Shapiro
YAMIT + LEBANON = YESHA?...Guest Editorial.....Mordechai Sones
TALK HEBREW, BUT FIGHT IN TEXANESE...Guest Editorial....Yoram Ettinger
IF AN ALIEN DROPPED IN TONIGHT...Guest Editorial.....Alan M. Dershowitz

DOA - The Road Map....Shawn Pine
HAMAS'S BIG VICTORY....Caroline B. Glick
RESIGN!....Arlene Peck
RISE UP REPUBLICANS!....Michael Freund

WHERE HATRED TRUMPS BREAD - What Does The "Palestinian Nation" Offer The World?....CYNTHIA OZICK

THE LAST RED LINE....Herbert Sunshine
JERUSALEM FACT SHEET - The Jewish Presence Through the Ages....Israel Hasbara Committee


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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

Recently The Freeman Center hosted an Emergency Manhigut Meeting with Moshe Feiglin and Shmuel Sackett. I was inspired by their faith in the future of Israel despite all the horrendous news, political and diplomatic developments. To most of us the situation seems to be HOPELESS and we are entering a period of depression, anxiety and fear for Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) and Am Yisrael (the People of Israel).

Feiglin believed the only answer was a New Jewish Leadership in Israel, even if it took a decade to achieve it. I agree very much in the need for a new for a New Jewish Leadership but worry profoundly about Israel's ability to prevent a marked deterioration in its political and security situation in the next decade UNLESS SOMETHING IS DONE RIGHT NOW!


1. Sackett, who has a great sense of humor despite very difficult circumstances told me a wonderful story about the Jews of Chelm:

"It seems that the simple villagers of Chelm had a serious problem. There was a big hole in the bridge that spanned a river connecting two parts of their village. The Chelmites kept falling through the hole and suffering painful injuries and deaths on the rocky banks of the river below. So they went to their Rabbi and asked him to use his wisdom and come up with a solution to the problem.

The Rabbi thought for a great while and then announced his decision to his congregation. Chelm would build hospitals and emergency centers under the bridge so that those that fall through could receive the best and fastest medical care. Of course, the Chelmites recognized the Rabbi's great wisdom and proceeded to build the medial facilities."

What do we learn from this story? Instead of fixing the hole in the bridge to stop the villagers from falling and hurting themselves, they built facilities to treat the injured. And today the Government of Israel, lead by PM Ariel Sharon, keep negotiating with terrorists INSTEAD of wiping out terrorism. They keep alive the FALSE HOPE OF PEACE, instead of telling the Israeli people the TRUTH about the true goals of thbold> always leads to a more aggressive enemy. Why hasn't Sharon properly labeled the Arabs as enemies?

3. When he took office in 2001, Sharon said that Israel would NOT be Czechoslovakia (circa Munich 1938). There was outrage at his statement by both Jewish leaders and US government figures. Guess what, it is HAPPENING! We must remember that the European powers decided the fate of the Czechs WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Israel seems to be participating in a repeat of Munich with the Quartet. As Santayana said correctly: "Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

4. Israel has lost its Zionist ideology (of course, I mean the Left and the leadership of Israel) that built the country between 1880-1987. History is being re-written by Arabs AND Jews that see no justice in the revival of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael.

5. Many are confused by the so-called conflict between Israel being a Jewish State and a Democratic State. In fact there is no conflict. The Jewishness of Israel is primary and its government should be democratic among its Jewish population plus others loyal to the country like Druze and Christians. Nothing in any democratic country in the world guarantees that those who wish it to destroyed should be allowed to carry out their goal through manipulation of democracy.

That's all for now.

With Love of Israel (or what's left of it if Sharon has his way),

Bernard J. Shapiro, Executive Director and Editor



Israelis More Conciliatory and Optimistic on Key Policy Issues -
Support of Peace AT 2001 Levels

[Freeman Center Editor's Note: Like a lot of pollsters pushing an agenda to prove that Israelis support the "peace process" the Jaffee Center uses deceptive polling practices. The use of the word "peace" in a question is the equivalent of "Do you support the coming of Moshiach" or "if pigs could fly would we see pigs in the sky?" Before you read the article below, please read about my first encounter with Joseph (Yossi) Alpher and Jaffee in Houston.(August 1993)]


By Bernard J. Shapiro

Last week at a press conference, Joseph Alpher, director of the Jaffee Center For Strategic Studies, announced the publication of their new edition of "The Military Balance 1992-1993." The Jaffee Center is a part of Tel Aviv University and is highly respected in Labor and Meretz Party circles. The first "Military Balance" I read was the 1984 edition and I have kept up with the later editions.

I first met Alpher at an AIPAC meeting about two years ago, later learning that he was rumored to be a former Mossad agent. That meeting was quite stormy as I disputed most of his analyses of Middle East politics, especially his statement that Syrian dictator Hafez Asad was ready for peace with Israel. Alpher rejected a proposal of mine to do a "Pro/Con" type commentary format in the Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) and other papers. Although he turned me down, my meeting with him had positive results. It became clear to me that Alpher had access to massive amounts of information, yet could not prevent the politicization of his analysis and conclusions. I founded the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies primarily to provide the American Jewish Community with an alternative source of strategic information, free of political bias.

The new "Millitary Balance 1992-1993" continues this process of politicization. While I have not yet received it from Israel, the press releases alone are enough for great worry. This is the first time in more than a decade that the government of Israel has been in sync (politically) with the Jaffee Center. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin will no doubt use its findings to justify his drive for territorial retreat.

Following is a comparison between the Jaffee analysis of the Middle East and that of the Freeman Center:

Jaffee Center: Israel should open negotiations with the PLO.

Freeman Center: No to negotiations with the PLO. No to the concept that the PLO is moderate. The PLO seeks to destroy Israel in two stages. First, cause Israel to withdraw from its secure borders. Second, to use the new Palestinian foothold to complete the destruction of the Jewish State.

Jaffee: Israel should withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon because it is not big enough to stop Katyusha attacks anyway and its purpose was to stop infiltration. The security zone encourages attacks in the first place since it represents a foreign power on Lebanese soil. Syria and Lebanon can control the border area.

Freeman: The security zone was designed to contain the minimum of Lebanese territory for the maximum benefit in both the battles against infiltration and rocket attacks. With a range of 12 miles the Katyusha could reach only one major Israeli population center, Kiryat Shmona. Just before the new round of fighting in the Northern Israel, large Iranian cargo planes were observed off-loading at Damascus airport new high tech weapons for the Hezbollah. The weapons were put on Syrian military trucks and shipped to the Beeka valley in Lebanon and distributed to the Islamic fundamentalists (Party of God and Hezbollah). Included in the weapons were the Sagger anti-tank missiles which took the lives of several Israeli soldiers and a new improved Katyusha capable of reaching targets 16 miles away with increased accuracy.

Eliminating the security zone would place virtually the whole Galilee within range of the new Katyusha including such cities at Acre and Nahariya. Rabin had three choices in the current fighting: 1. Enlarge the security zone to cope with the new range of the new Katyusha or 2. Pummel Southern Lebanon into submission with massive artillery barrages 3. A search and destroy land operation. He chose the second option because the political consequences of occupying additional Lebanese territory far outweighed the benefits and a land operation would be too costly in Israeli lives. The Jaffee Center calls Rabin's shelling of southern Lebanon "excessive." The Freeman Center has always called for exacting the maximum penalty for the taking of Jewish lives. The Arabs must learn that there is a the high price for the shedding of Jewish blood.

As for the Jaffee view that withdrawal from the security zone would take away the motive for Hezbollah attacks, the answer is simple. Why is there security zone in the first place? Have the professionals at Jaffee forgotten what life was like in Northen Israel before the security zone? Can Syria and Lebanon keep peace on the Lebanese border? Of course they can. Don't forget that it was the supply of arms through Syria that started the current fighting. The Syrians get no credit in my book for temporarily stopping actions that cost Jewish lives. When it serves their purpose, the killing will begin again.

Jaffee: It is clear that a real advance in the peace process cannot be obtained without massive American involvement.

Freeman: While we appreciate the American interest in peace in the Middle East, we recognize two indisputable facts: 1. American geopolitical and economic interests and those of Israel are not identical though they converge in many areas 2. The traditional hostility to Israeli interests in the United States State Department remains a barrier to fair mediation between the Arabs and the Israelis by the US. At the Freeman Center we go beyond these factors and demand that any agreements be arrived at directly and independent of pressure from any party, including America. There is no nation in the world which would allow another to determine great issues of security and survival.

The very suggestion by the Jaffee Center of such American intervention, belies an emasculated concept of Israeli sovereignty. One is reminded of the "court Jews" of medieval Europe groveling at the feet of their royal benefactors seeking protection for their helpless Jewish kinsman. When Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, dreamed of the future Jewish State, it was a dream of proud Jews on an equal footing with all the nations of the world. When Jabotinzky founded the first modern Jewish army, which latter became the Haganah, he did not anticipate that the future Jewish State would take orders from any nation. The nearly 20,000 Israelis who gave their lives defending the independence and security of their country would cry out from the grave if they knew of plans to turn Israel into a "banana republic" subservient to America. That sad result is inevitable if Israel accepts American intervention and security guarantees.

Jaffee: There is a limited amount of time to achieve peace, the so called "window of opportunity," and we should therefore move to the final arrangements and skip the interim agreement with the Palestinians.

Freeman: We conclude that there is no "window of opportunity" and that the concept enunciated by former President George Bush is a hoax similar to his "new World order." There is a "window" but it is not for peace. Former Secretary of State James Baker promised his Arab allies in the Persian Gulf War that if they helped him against Iraq, HE (Baker) would help them force Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. The so called "peace process" is an outgrowth of that promise by Baker. Peace was not a part of the promise -- but a forced amputation of Israel's secure borders was to be labelled "peace." With regard to the negotiations with the Palestinians, the interim agreement is of extreme importance and can not be "skipped." The very purpose of the interim time period is to test the good intentions of the Arabs. The very NATURE of the final arrangement depends on the EXPERIENCE of the interim arrangement

Jaffee: Peace with the Arabs is possible now and if we don't make peace soon the Arabs will have nuclear weapons soon.

Freeman: Peace is possible with the Arabs, 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. It is also obvious that the Jaffee Center has a political agenda and uses its enormous resources and prestige to prove the validity of its political agenda. It would be far better if its research staff would examine the facts and then derive conclusions from those facts rather that vice versa.

[This article was published on August 16, 1993 in the Jewish Herald-Voice, in Houston.]


Jaffee Center Poll:
Israelis More Conciliatory and Optimistic on Key Policy Issues -
Support of Peace back to 2001 levels

8 June 2003

In comparison to last year, Israelis are today more optimistic and supportive of the measures required to move the peace process forward. For example, 59% now agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza in the framework of a peace agreement, up from 49 percent in 2002. The number of those who thought that a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years increased from 54 percent in 2002 to 61 percent in 2003 (the figure in 2001 was 60 percent).

This data results from the 2003 annual survey conducted by the Jaffee Center's project on Public Opinion and National Security. The survey was conducted through face to face interviews with 1103 individuals -- a representative sample of Israel's adult Jewish population.

Additional facets of the change in Israelis' opinion are the following: Those who agreed to abandon all but the large settlement blocks increased from 50 percent in 2002 to 59 percent in 2003. The number of those supporting the idea of separation from the Palestinians by withdrawing unilaterally even if that meant abandoning settlements increased from 48 percent in 2002 to 56 percent in 2003.

The number of those supporting the conceding of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem in the framework of a peace agreement increased from 40 percent in 2002 to 43 percent in 2003.

Also significant is the heightened sense of security in 2003, far surpassing the low points recorded in the 2002 survey. For example: in 2003, 34% of respondents thought the chances were high or very high that war would break out in the next 3 years. This represents more than a 50% reduction from the 79% of 2002. 43% in 2003 predicted that peace would be strengthened between Israel and its neighbors in the next 3 years, a dramatic increase of more than 100% from the 21% of 2002.

In 2003, 38% stated that the Israel Defense Forces had become stronger or much stronger in the last five years, 25% thought the army had essentially maintained its level of strength, and 37% said that the IDF had gotten weaker or much weaker. Comparable figures for 2002 were 11% stronger, 34% the same, and 55% weaker.

Against the backdrop of the recent decision to dismantle illegal outposts, it is interesting to note that 73% of the respondents answered that a soldier may not refuse an order to evacuate settlers, and 27% said that such an order could be disobeyed. To the question whether a soldier might refuse to serve in the territories, 75% answered that a soldier cannot legitimately refuse, and 25% affirmed the soldier's right to refuse the order. Two thirds of the sample answered that a soldier must obey orders in both situations. Another 20% said that they supported the right of the soldier not to obey the command in either of the situations.

A slight majority - 52% - thought that the end of the conflict would not be reached through the intervention of a third party and that the parties themselves must work out the details. 68% of the respondents opposed the idea of the United States imposing a solution on the parties (80% in 2002). This might be the reason why only 40% of Israeli Jews felt that the roadmap would end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Notwithstanding these positions, two-thirds thought that American security guarantees could be relied upon.

The reasons for the changes in attitude of Israeli Jews to more optimistic positions and their greater willingness to compromise over points of contention are to be sought in the end of the war in Iraq and the apparent winding down of the present Intifada.

The survey was directed by Professor Asher Arian, Director of the Project on Public Opinion and National Security at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

The survey was carried out between April 27 and May 23, 2003, and has a 3.1% margin of error. Fieldwork was done by the B. I. and Lucille Cohen Institute of Public Opinion Research at Tel Aviv.




by Avi Davis

If American Middle East policy could be represented as an archeological dig, it would look something like this: the Zinni Mission would be resting atop the ruins of the Tenet Work Plan, which would be crushing the remains of the Mitchell Commission Report, which would be settled on remnants of the pillaged Sharm al Sheikh agreement, all of which would be weighing down the collapsed foundations of the shattered Oslo Accords. If recent history is a reliable gauge, peacemaking produces more embarrassment than it does results and only fosters the impression that the United States is helpless to have any meaningful impact on the Arab Israeli conflict.

Only three weeks into the life of the latest initiative, the Bush Administration's Road Map seems poised to join this historical ash heap. You didn't need to be Nostradamus to predict it : The contemptuousness of Hamas, the weakness of Abu Mazen, the brazen interference of Yasser Arafat, the raw hostility of the Palestinian street were all clear indicators of the impetuousness of any initiative that avoided dealing with the central issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict : the pan-Arab disinclination to recognize Israel's right to exist. Unable to grasp this fundamental obstacle to peace, the Bush Administration's Middle East policy has now become hostage to the kind of unrealistic expectations that churned Clinton's Middle East policies into mud and blinkered millions into believing that peace was just around the corner.

What is it then that caused the Bush Administration to trundle down a road so ridden with pitfalls and cursed with the burned out chasses of so many past vehicles of peace? It is of course a noble American tradition to campaign for peace between belligerents - harking back to the bold interventionism of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson . Such idealism has always been based on the notion that the United States, free of Europe's historical baggage, could wield significant leverage in a world fraught with violence and conflict. Such slogans as 'making the world safe for democracy' and the 'new world order' gained currency and acceptance as distinctly American visions of a world in which violence and conflict would be contained.

But there are some violent conflicts in the world that simply do not lend themselves to resolution by either signatures or handshakes. The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of them. That is because there are no tangible, realistic exchanges that can be made between the two sides that would guarantee lasting peace. No exchange of territory ,no compensation to refugees, no guarantee of statehood will quell the insistent Palestinian demand for Israel's extinction. Such a wish is written in their Covenant, broadcast daily in their newspaper editorials and promoted to their children in textbooks. It is contained in the speeches of their leaders and advertised on posters extolling the deeds of their homicide bombers. The voice of reason that George Bush hears in the moderate tone of Abu Mazen and considers representative of Palestinian aspirations is therefore an illusion. The real voice of the Palestinians, the voice that speaks to their deepest sentiments and nationalistic dreams, is the voice of Hamas.

As years of peace making in Europe once proved, the sin qua non for lasting peace is not the building of walls or the construction of national institutions of defense but mutual acceptance. Israel seems to have gone a long way to accepting the Palestinian right to self-determination. Its prime-minister, for his own baffling reasons, has even accepted the eventuality of a Palestinian state. But the absolute failure of Palestinian leaders to mouth anything other than meaningless platitudes about Israel's right to live in peace and security while doing nothing to prevent Palestinian murder of Israeli citizens leaves the Bush Administration with little choice. The futile quest for reconciliation should be replaced with a pragmatic assessment that any significant change in outlook among Palestinians, no matter what the Israelis do,sayor agree to, is unlikely. Ultimately the focus of the Administration's Middle East policy must shift from conflict resolution to conflict management.

What does this mean? Unequivocal support for the Israeli army's campaign to crush the terrorist networks; compliance in the need to eliminate or exile their leaders; cooperation in smothering their sources of funding. But it also means that the United States must face up to the reality that only years of Palestinian re- education and re-orientation toward peaceful coexistence will bring about a lasting change in relations between Arabs and Jews. Such a reality check, given the conviction among most Americans that all problems have a solution, is a bitter pill to swallow.

But better to swallow the pill than to spend many more fruitless years pretending that ruined policies, all piled on top of one another, create anything more than an impression of powerlessness and failure.


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




By Mordechai Sones


After the Wye Summit, Ariel Sharon announced that yishuv residents should "seize the high ground" around the yishuvim to "create facts on the ground" which he claimed would determine the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in the final status stage. Sharon's advice inspired the Yeshans. They toiled to create outposts. But now, the outposts are producing a practical effect different than the Yeshans intended: by evicting these vulnerable outposts one by one, Sharon may be creating the psychological momentum to facilitate large scale evictions in Yesha in the future.


During the Netanyahu-Sharon administration, Jews throughout different parts of Yesha frequently reported Arab gunfire, especially at night, to local IDF officials, but the officials claimed that the gunfire was caused by "weddings," not night attack training. The IDF officials were not alone in the "weddings" claim. Responding to complaints from Yesha, even the Prime Minister's office claimed in a letter that "shooting.was done at the time of weddings that took place in the area." The letter came the very same week that the Prime Minister and Sharon were carving away further slices of Yesha together at the Wye Plantation. It was only when residents from approximately 40 yishuvim discussed Arab attack preparations that they realized that the IDF officers throughout Yesha were making the same official claim of "weddings" as well. Then, the Israeli HaAretz newspaper broke a story entitled "Palestinians Training Forces to Break Into Settlements and Hold Positions." HaAretz's report about PA training to attack yishuvim was valuable because it again disproved the earlier IDF "wedding" claims. The false claims helped keep Yeshans in the dark about PA attack preparations.


The state of mind that would lead certain IDF officers to deceive Jews into thinking night attack training was only weddings is inconceivable to most Jews and friends of Israel. Despite the evidence, it was hard to believe that the IDF would facilitate a surprise PA attack. Given the ingrained trust of Yeshans for the IDF, many Yeshans still prefer to believe IDF claims instead of their own eyes and ears. Then came the discovery that a handful of IDF officers had arranged a similar surprise for the South Lebanese Army (SLA). On the night of May 22, 2000, one hour before midnight. ".the SLA was still in possession of all its arms and equipment, and the 2,500-man force remained intact.A soldier named Roni, with six years experience in the SLA, related that on 'Monday night at eleven o'clock we got a call from the Israelis [IDF counterparts] telling us that Hizballah is approaching and telling us to leave.'" The simultaneous IDF abandonment and Hizballah advance both achieved the element of surprise, inflicting a double shock on the SLA. By dawn, the SLA collapsed.


The IDF plans to withdraw and the Hizballah advance had both been kept covert. The IDF even skipped its normal withdrawal preparations to avoid tipping off the SLA, preferring to abandon armored vehicles, artillery, computers, and communication equipment to the advancing Hizballah. Had the Israeli government not feared a potential SLA decision to fight the Hizballah, the abandonment of millions of dollars worth of IDF equipment intact to terrorists would not have been necessary. Apparently, most IDF officers were also kept in the dark until the last possible moment so they would not be able to tip off their SLA counterparts. The willingness of the IDF to abandon all that equipment to keep its plans secret from its own officers is powerful evidence indicating how brittle such a policy would have been if people opposed to betrayal would have organized to forestall it.


Eighteen years of defending Israel's northern frontier together left strong bonds of trust between IDF and SLA officers. That night, a handful of IDF officers used that trust to issue orders for the SLA not to resist, paralyzing it. SLA officers later realized that even on their own they still had the firepower and the organization to handily repulse the Hizballah advance. ".Another SLA soldier said, 'We could have stopped them with our weapons,' but the IDF did not shoot and would not allow the SLA to shoot, either." On the day preceding the betrayal, the Israeli officers also deprived the SLA of its key resource for early warning. ".On Monday, May 22, Israeli officers told SLA secret-intelligence-services personnel in south Lebanon to leave." If the Lebanese commanders had placed more emphasis on such early warning indicators, they may have realized that a sudden abandonment was imminent. They could have used the remaining hours of May 22 to prepare their defenses. Barak's midnight abandonment would have been rendered unfeasible. By repulsing the Hizballah advance, the SLA would have suddenly created the issue in Israel whether to follow through with the abandonment. With every additional hour or day the SLA held on, Jews and friends of Israel would have more time to rally and reverse the abandonment before it had become a fait accompli. But instead, on that night, they followed orders and fled. It then became "every man for himself - head for the borders" - dispersing the SLA for good. But Lebanon was not the first time Israel used trust to produce the paralysis and surprise needed to accomplish a betrayal effectively.


After the Israeli government decided in June of 1981 to evict the Sinai Yishuvim, Prime Minister Begin "offered the Defense Ministry to Moshe Arens, but he refused to accept it because of his opposition to uprooting yishuvim." Moshe Arens' principled refusal in fact turned out to be a stroke of luck for the pro-eviction circle in government, because, instead of Arens, they found a Defense Minister skilled in the military art of surprise attack, willing to accept the messy mission of evicting Yamit - Ariel Sharon. With Sharon's acceptance of this mission, the plans to weaken, paralyze, and evict the 17 Yamit yishuvim began. Sharon was familiar with the settlements and the settlers because he had earlier "initiated the establishment of...outposts in the front lines of the Sinai to prevent a withdrawal." The Sinai settlers knew Sharon as someone who intimately understood the years of work and danger they had invested in the yishuvim. Understandably, they assumed he was one leader least likely to betray them. Thus they did not prepare to oppose the evictions. ".Does anyone really believe that Arik Sharon - of all people - really means to evict? And Raful [Rafael Eitan], as the head of the Army, he'll already find some trick. After all, he's 'with us.' We've got to explain, we've got to protest, we've got to strengthen the hand of the government, but a withdrawal there won't be. Begin and Arik won't let the disaster happen. After all, they think like us."


In Yamit.the image of Jewish soldiers swinging rifle butts at religious demonstrators on Israeli television traumatized the nation. Having seen that the IDF eviction of 17 Yamit yishuvim "traumatized the nation," steps had to be taken to create additional capabilities for possible future major evictions without having the IDF brutalize Israelis on television. Sharon, an expert in commando attack operations, may have come to similar conclusions. He was already cognizant that evictions of Jews from Yesha will also be necessary for the implementation of the Camp David Accords. This is where the Oslo Accords came in, authorizing the PA "...the use of wheeled armored the vicinity of the Settlements" with the capability to buckle yishuv gates and drive easily past the Yeshan defenders, none of whom has yet been issued an anti-tank weapon. No outcry occurred against the 45 armored vehicles allowed by Oslo, and evidence indicates that approximately 80 additional armored personnel carriers may have been added to the PA inventory.


Experts in commando operations note that specialized units and armor vehicles plunging through yishuv gates in the dark of night with the element of surprise could preempt the messy civil disobedience that occurred at Yamit and bring the eviction of Yesha to a swift and irreversible conclusion. To ensure the element of surprise is preserved, it is possible that plans to suddenly abandon Yesha would also be entrusted only to a similar handful of IDF officers, as in Lebanon. The success of this inner circle is far from assured. It will depend on keeping the Yeshans and most IDF officers ignorant or at least paralyzed on the night of abandonment. The yishuvim have not yet adopted meaningful countermeasures because most Yeshans are not yet conscious of the danger of a first strike, possibly combined with a sudden evacuation order. Thanks to the false IDF "wedding" claims and other official disinformation, a sudden Arab attack against yishuvim would still have the shock of surprise. Although the IDF often promises weapons to be made available to the Yeshans once a PA onslaught is imminent, the order to release and distribute such weapons would depend on an Israeli cabinet decision. A PA first strike's chances of success would increase if a handful of IDF officers issued orders to the yishuv security coordinators (ravshatzim) not to resist, but to evacuate. Such orders would have to come from the top, of course, i.e. Sharon himself. Is Sharon preparing to give such orders? One important clue stands out. He has assigned the same IDF general who carried out the surprise abandonment of Lebanon to be the OC Central Command, with Yesha under his jurisdiction, Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky. The perpetrator of Yamit is now working together with the perpetrator of Southern Lebanon. Yesha is apparently their target. This is not to say that the eviction of Yesha was Sharon's personal agenda, rather it was already implicit in the specific language that Menachem Begin signed at Camp David, specifying for the first time in history that "Palestine People" would henceforth be "Palestinian Arabs," thus setting the basis for evicting Palestinian Jews.


The majority of IDF officers who have studied Israel's strategic defenses recognize the Yeshan high ground as vital. Yet a decorated IDF general, like Barak, attempted to give away 98% of Yesha in exchange for a signature of dubious value. How can one explain this strategically suicidal behavior on his part? He may be part of a segment of Israel's policy elite that hides behind the ideologies of "Right" and "Left." What this segment actually pursues is the goal of abandoning Yesha to an Arab Palestinian state. By speaking in the name of the majority of Israelis who support peace, this tiny minority manages to keep a grip on our government and media that would be impossible to hold if their covert agenda was exposed. Apparently, Sharon may have become part of this small but influential segment of Jews pressing for the abandonment of Yesha. Struggling to understand this segment, let us spell out that most secular non-religious Jews see Jewish history as a valuable tradition, but among them is a small element engaged in a campaign to erase this tradition. Members of this segment were behind the "secular revolution." Some commentators have referred to this as "self-hatred," but "irritation with a Covenant" may be more accurate. For 3,200 years, there often have been Jews possessing a desire to reject a Covenant that they see as an irritating burden rather than a unique blessing. The presence of Jews in Biblical Israel (Yesha) is a living, breathing embodiment of this Covenant. In today's secular culture, the secular segment has metastasized in Israel as well as abroad. For them, the Covenant is no longer merely an irritation, but intolerable. The intolerability is such that they are willing to blindly sacrifice Israel's strategic viability and cultural heartland. To get rid of Biblical Israel and its Yeshans, they make concessions to Arabs whose commitment to Israel's elimination is so deep that it is impervious to appeasement. That is why, from the very beginning, this "anti-Covenant" segment of our government, military, and cultural elite tried to block, hinder, and discourage settlements in Yesha. But the settlements have persisted and held. The more yishuvim hold, the more Israel's elite is aggravated with this intolerable irritant, going to ever-greater convoluted means to be rid of them. Sharon's recent gratuitous concessions to the Arabs may be another indicator that he has become a member of this dangerous segment. Sharon, like Barak and Netanyahu before him, is expending diplomatic and military energy to make a policy of abandonment look like a "peace process." Therefore, significant numbers of people still cling to the idea of a peace process, which is merely a mask for the abandonment process hidden behind it. Once they understand that a betrayal and not a peace process is taking place, they would turn against it.


Abandoning or evicting people who are armed depends upon wearing them down, and then suddenly collapsing them in a surprise attack. If the first strike/eviction against yishuvim is not a fait accompli within a day or two, Yeshans still wavering whether to evacuate may begin finding the courage to resist. If the Yeshans do not summon the courage to take effective countermeasures against eviction, they will have acquiesced in their own betrayal by default. And in the eyes of the world we will have forfeited the moral right to our homes and our land. Because the hills on which our homes sit are the strategic backbone of Israel, our obligation to defend them goes beyond our obligation to protect our property from theft. The survival of Israel itself is at stake. Despite official attempts to confiscate and limit the weapons and ammunition available to yishuvim, each yishuv still has more weapons, ammunition, and trained personnel on hand than was available for the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In the historical sense, it was their heroism that placed these resources in our hands, and it would be immoral for us to squander them in paralysis when Israel's own survival is at stake. But by exposing the covert eviction preparations, we can diminish the political support for the abandonment of Yesha and eliminate the element of surprise. If we adopt effective countermeasures, we can neutralize the threat of eviction.



[Freeman Center Editor's Note: Kol Hakavod to Yoram Ettinger, who never shies from speaking the truth no matter how harsh the reality. Having been born and raised in Texas myself, we speak the same language.]

Published in Hebrew on June 20, 2003 by Makor Rishon weekly


By Yoram Ettinger

A REMINDER: President George W. Bush was welcomed at the traditional Senate Luncheon, following inauguration, by Senator Mitch McConnell: "I trust that you shall lead us in the best tradition of JOSHUA and KALEV." The legacy of Joshua and Kalev features in this week portion of the Torah. Joshua and Kalev (in contrast to the other 10 vacillating "leaders"/spies) stood for FAITH AND DETERMINATION, against immense odds, in the pursuit of The Road Map to the Cradle of Jewish History (Hebron, Jerusalem and Schkhem/Nablus, rather than Tel Aviv and Haifa). Will President Bush ABANDON the legacy of Joshua and Kalev, straying away from the Original Road Map, and adhering to a road map devised by those who opposed the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, those who have professed appeasement of terror regimes (including No. Korea), those who rushed to embrace the Arafat regime, those who discounted the prospect of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, those who undermined the regime of the Shah in favor of Khomeini, etc.???

Hang Tough,


TALK HEBREW, BUT FIGHT IN TEXANESE, Makor Rishon, June 20, 2003

PHIL GRAMM, THE TEXAS AGGIE, who was a powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a presidential candidate, was astounded to hear from a prominent Hebrew University professor, that Israeli concessions could moderate the PLO. "Professor", he responded, "I'm not a Mideast scientist. But, I was told at Texas A&M, where I taught economics, that if your kids are threatened by a poison ivy, you don't water and fertilize it. The only was to de-poison the ivy is by uprooting it!"

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S ROAD MAP HAS IGNORED GRAMM'S COMMON SENSE. Moreover, the Department of State's Road Map has overlooked the track record (since the late '50s!) of the Fatah/PLO/PA as the role model of systematic and violent violation of agreements (concluded mostly with Arab countries as well as with Israel), international terrorism, hijacking, murder of ambassadors, treachery, corruption, suppression of human rights and oppression of Christians. CONTRARY TO GRAMM'S RECOMMENDATION, the Road Map prescribes further watering and fertilizing of the poison PLO/PA ivy. It defies the 1,200 Israelis (proportionally equal to 60,000 Americans!) murdered by PLO and Hamas terrorists, harbored by the PA. Once in a while, Israel trims some branches of the poison ivy in a surgical manner, deluding itself that trimming could de-poison the ivy. However, trimming tends to strengthen the roots, and the potency of the poison keeps growing, unless the ivy is completely uprooted.

THE TEXAN RESIDENT, LYNDON JOHNSON, was known for his social compassion and political ruthlessness. "When confronted by a rattle snake, don't wait until it bites you; grab a hue and hit the head - and not the tail - of the snake!", LBJ advised his political allies. Israel has ignored LBJ's advice since the eruption of the unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism, triggered by the 1993 Oslo Accord. In its battle against Palestinian terrorism, Israel has focused on the tail - rather than the head - of the PLO/PA/Hamas snake, which keeps on biting. On the other hand, LBJ's legacy has been adopted by Turkey, Peru, Germany, Italy and the US, thus yielding military victories over Kurdish (PKK), Armenian (ASALA), Shining Path, Baader Meinhoff and Red Brigade terrorists, as well as the terror regimes of Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003).

IN 2003, PRESIDENT BUSH OF MIDLAND TEXAS launched the war on Saddam's regime (and may have determined its outcome) by dropping a few smart bombs - a few thousand tons each - on the bunker of the political and ideological elite. In 2002, he bombed the political, ideological and financial headquarters of the Taliban in Kabul. 1986, President Reagan instructed the US Air Force to target Qaddafi's Presidential Palace. In contrast, Israel has mostly targeted terrorists, who execute the strategy and ideology enunciated by their political leadership.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S ROAD MAP HAS LEGITIMIZED THE SELF-DEFEATING, AND ARTIFICIAL, DISTINCTION BETWEEN "POLITICAL PLO" and "TERRORIST PLO", as well as the non-existing distinction between the top of the PA/PLO pyramid (Arafat) and the entire structure of the PA/PLO pyramid. It has reinforced the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed Moral Equivalence - professed by the Department of State - between a terrorist regime and its democratic victim. The Road Map has legitimized an underlying pitfall of the Oslo Process, which refers to a most lethal endemic enemy as a partner for co-existence. It has thus further handcuffed the hands of Israel's Defense Forces.

WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH CONSIDER SURGICAL ELIMINATION OF TERROR LEADERS AND CELLS in Afghanistan and Iraq, while refraining from the destruction of the Taliban and the Saddam regimes (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would the former two time Governor of Texas contemplate negotiation with any of Saddam's deputies and lieutenants, who were intimately linked to Saddam during the last few decades (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would the principle-driven President Bush have entertained the idea of a cease fire with Afghani or Iraqi terrorists, rather than the eradication of the civilian and military infrastructure, which fed the fire of terrorism (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would President Bush take seriously a proposal to entrust the security of Basra, in Southern Iraq, to Saddam's regime, as a test of its intentions and capabilities (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would Paul Bremer, the Governor of Iraq, allow members of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam's security forces to join the governing bodies of Free Iraq (as is Israel pressured to do)?!

SHOULD PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE ACTED IN FACE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM in accordance with the Road Map, and in a manner, which he pressures Israel to act in face of Palestinian terrorism, he would have failed in his mission, becoming the laughing stock of global and US public opinion! THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE'S ROAD MAP IS FERTILIZING AND WATERING THE LETHALLY POISONOUS OSLO PROCESS. The Road Map has sacrificed the (blood-saturated) lessons of the last 10 years - since the signing of the Oslo Accord - on the altar of wishful thinking. The Road Map has dealt another blow to Israel's personal and national security, has undermined Israel's confidence in its own cause and power, has eroded Israel's capability to withstand pressure, has chopped Israel's posture of deterrence, has radicalized Arab expectations and demands, and has therefore added more fuel to the fire of terror and war, which has further distanced Jews and Arabs from peace.

THE ROAD MAP CONSTITUTES A THUNDERING REFLECTION OF THE TEXAS COLLOQUIALISM: Fool me once shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me." In order to free itself of the deadly trap of the 1993 Oslo Process, the 1998 Wye Accord and the 2003 Road Map, it is incumbent upon Israel to continue talking Hebrew, but fight in Texanese!



National Post


Alan M. Dershowitz

If a visitor from a far away galaxy were to land at an American or Canadian university and peruse some of the petitions that were circulating around the campus, he would probably come away with the conclusion that the Earth is a peaceful and fair planet with only one villainous nation determined to destroy the peace and to violate human rights.

That nation would not be Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Russia or Iran. It would be Israel.

There are currently petitions circulating on most North American university campuses that would seek to have universities terminate all investments in Companies that do business in or with Israel. There are also petitions asking individual faculty members to boycott scientists and scholars who happen to be Israeli Jews, regardless of their personal views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. There have been efforts, some successful, to prevent Israeli speakers from appearing on college campuses, as recently occurred at Concordia University.

There are no comparable petitions seeking any action against other countries that enslave minorities, imprison dissidents, murder political opponents and torture suspected terrorists. Nor are there any comparable efforts to silence speakers from other countries.

The intergalactic visitor would wonder what this pariah nation, Israel, must have done to deserve this unique form of economic capital punishment. If he then went to the library and began to read books and articles about this planet, he would discover that Israel was a vibrant democracy, with freedom of speech, press and religion, that was surrounded by a group of tyrannical and undemocratic regimes, many of which are actively seeking its destruction.

He would learn that in Egypt, homosexuals are routinely imprisoned and threatened with execution; that in Jordan suspected terrorists and other opponents of the government are tortured, and that if individualized torture does not work, their relatives are called in and threatened with torture as well; that in Saudi Arabia, women who engage in sex outside of marriage are beheaded; that in Iraq, political opponents are routinely murdered en masse and no dissent is permitted; that in Iran members of religious minorities, such as Baha'is and Jews, are imprisoned and sometimes executed; that in all of these surrounding nations, anti-Semitic material is frequently broadcast on state-sponsored television and radio programs; in Saudi Arabia apartheid is practiced against non-Muslims, with signs indicating that Muslims must go to certain areas and non-Muslims to others; that China has occupied Tibet for half a century; that in several African countries women are stoned to death for violating sexual mores; that slavery still exists in some parts of the world; and that genocide has been committed by a number of countries in recent memory.

Our curious visitor would wonder why there are no petitions circulating with regard to these human rights violators. Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza -- an occupation it has offered to end in exchange for peace -- worse than the Chinese occupation of an unarmed, non-terrorist Tibet?

Are the tactics used to combat terrorism by Israel worse than those used by the Russians against Chechen terrorists? Are Arab and Muslim states more democratic than Israel? Is there any comparable institution in any Arab or Muslim State to the Israeli Supreme Court, which frequently rules in favor of Palestinian claims against the Israeli government and military? Does the absence of the death penalty in Israel alone, among Middle East nations, make it more barbaric than the countries which behead, hang and shoot political dissidents?

Is Israel's settlement policy, which 78% of Israelis want to end in exchange for peace, worse than the Chinese attempt at cultural genocide in Tibet? Is Israel's policy of full equality for openly gay soldiers and members of the Knesset (parliament) somehow worse than the policy of Muslim states to persecute those who have a different sexual orientation than the majority? Is Israel's commitment to equality for women worse than the gender apartheid practiced in Saudi Arabia?

Our visitor would be perplexed to hear the excuses made by university professors and students for why they are prepared to delegitimize Israel while remaining silent about the far worse abuses committed by other Countries.

If he were to ask a student about the abuses committed by other countries, he would be told (as I have been): "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel now."

This reminds me of an incident from the 1920s involving then-Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell. Lowell decided that the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be reduced because "Jews cheat."

When a distinguished alumnus, Judge Learned Hand, pointed out that Protestants also cheat, Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject; we're talking about Jews."

It is not surprising, therefore, that as responsible and cautious a writer as Andrew Sullivan, formerly editor of The New Republic and now a writer for The New York Times Magazine, has concluded that "fanatical anti-Semitism, as bad or even worse than Hitler's, is now a cultural norm across much of the Middle East and beyond. It's the acrid glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis. They all hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed."

Our intergalactic traveler, after learning all of these facts, would wonder what kind of a planet he had landed on. Do we have everything backwards? Do we know the difference between right and wrong? Do our universities teach the truth?

These are questions that need asking, lest we become the kind of world the visitor would have experienced had he arrived in Europe during the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Alan M. Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard.



American Spectator, June 26, 2003


by Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East analyst & commentator

It appears that with the consent of the Sharon government and the approval of the Bush Administration, in a few years Jews will be transferred to holding camps (aka "concentration camps"). The "Road Map" envisioned by Bush, redesigned by the "Quartet" comprised of the U.S. State Department (led by Colin Powell), the E.U. (European Union), the U.N. (United Nations) and Russia plans another Palestinian State which will soon naturally spread into what remains of Israel proper.

The Sharon government along with the political Left, comforts themselves with the delusion that the Arab Muslim Palestinians will revert to being peaceful neighbors and the Arab nations will cease their efforts to eliminate the non-Muslim presence of the Jews.

The non-Jewish world of Christians is both astonished and amused by the suicidal decision of successive Jewish governments in their fruitless attempts to appease what they view as a savage Arab Muslim culture. They were surprised and impressed with the ability of the Jews to repulse a disproportionate number of Muslim Arabs who attacked the Jewish nation in six wars. Mind you, that did not make the Europeans friendly to the Jews but, they were surprised that Jews would fight back.

Both the Europeans and the Americans, hoping to pacify the Arab oil nations, forced Israel to give up the fruits of their victories after each war. The so-called 'even-handed' brokers of these "Retreats for Peace" always assured Israel that the hostile Arabs would be mollified by Israel's gestures.

But, they never were.

There was always another war, another wave of Terror and, always, the proclamation by the Imans, the Ayatollahs, the Kings and Dictators of the Arab nations was that next time they would succeed and "dance in the blood of the Jews".

The fractious Jews of the Left always dreamed the dreams of being the procurers of Peace but, the Jewish victims always paid with their lives and the lives of their children and spouses. It was so easy for the Europeans, the Arabists in the U.S. State Department and even the Terrorist Chieftains to recruit these gullible Jews of the Left. Nothing has changed over the years as we now see a once glorious warrior who once defeated hordes of Muslim Arabs, change into a fat, old man led by the nose by an American President who is himself a child in matters of foreign affairs and who ignores the tragic history of the Jewish people. George Bush, with his wife walked through the ashes of Auschwitz and choked up for a moment but then they went on to sell the Jewish State to the Muslim Arabs in order to gain an improved image as he electioneers for the 2004 Presidential elections.

Even as Islam slams President Bush in the face in Afghanistan and Iraq, with American and Allied soldiers being killed daily, nevertheless, he moves to appease the savagery of the Arab Palestinians. Bush presses Sharon to not only accept a plan that calls for another Terrorist Arab Palestinian State but forces him to allow it to be born - even if the Terror never ceases.

Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon begins to look like a fool as he offers feeble objections to what is clearly a suicide note in the name of the Jewish people. Even as Terrorism ramps up, at the insistence of Powell and Condolezza Rice, Sharon is about to accept a temporary three-month temporary cease fire which even the Leftists recognize is merely a ploy to allow the rebuilding and re-arming of Hamas and all the other Terrorist organizations fathered and still controlled by Arafat's PLO. This would include but is not limited to Fatah, Tanzim, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and more, such as Hezb'Allah and Al Qaeda deployed within all of these Terrorist organizations. They are all interconnected, like a many-armed hydra with one head: Yassir Arafat's PLO who controls them all. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabiacontinue to fund and support Terror and the Terror organizations, denials notwithstanding.

Sharon, therefore, will withdraw and weaken Israel's ability to interdict the build-up of forces and infrastructure which the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) under General Shaul Mofaz has broken up. As it stands for the moment, Terrorists find it more difficult to travel safely or to smuggle in their explosives or to reconstitute their leadership but, Sharon and Bush will give them that opportunity for three months. The Terrorists will also be under the protection of the Bush Administration or International Monitors from the U.N. and E.U. That includes the CIA under George Tenet's training programs to teach the Palestinians to sniper shoot better, avoid electronic intercepts and generally to function more efficiently. Arafat, Hamas and the others will also have the time to search out implanted Israeli Arab spies and kill them.

Now you may think that Sharon is behaving stupidly or is simply too old for the job. Well, you might be right. His inability to protect the Jewish nations is clear even to those of us who still honor him as a once great warrior and builder of the communities called "settlements". Sharon, like Shimon Peres, is a museum piece and totally dysfunctional in today's dangerous world.

Sharon is setting up a situation where more Jews will be killed in greater numbers than ever before. When the Terrorist State of another Arab Palestine is established, it will begin to fill up with the three to five million Arab Muslim Palestinians who will be forcibly ejected from all other Arab countries. Israel will be hard-pressed to maintain her borders and her sovereignty.

In the early 1980s, I wrote numerous articles on the plans of Yassir Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Peres wherein the Jews would be forced out of the territories and Arafat would pull into the vacuum the millions of other Arabs 'claiming' to be descendants of the 450,000 original Arabs who left Israel when she was born in 1948.

The hordes of Muslim Arab Palestinians would then begin to howl that they were too compressed and need more room (more Lebensraum). Israel's borders would begin to sag and finally break under the load of Palestinian humanity. The Europeans would demand that Israel allow the Arabs to enter all of Israel, knowing that the Jewish State of Israel would vanish with the crush of Muslims.

It was clear then; it is clear now. The Jewish State will be ushered out of existence by the Left, by the Europeans, by the Arabist State Department. The Jews will not riot or revolt but will passively accept their fate as before, like the sheep on Sharon's ranch who continue grazing after the predators eat one of their brethren.

So where will the remaining Jews go? There will be only a few nations who will accept some of them/us and, with this slide into a full scale Holocaust 2, they/we will be pushed into refugee camps and there they/we will stay. The Jews of America and Europe will be deeply affected as they are pressured into silence and assimilation. They too will need state or national protection, as is happening in France, Germany, Russia today. Without the State of Israel, Jews in the world at large, will once again become that easily targeted community.

The Jews of America, like the Jews of Israel, cannot yet grasp that possibility just as they cannot recall the history of their own people. I would suggest that you "Pack Your Bags for Babylon" but, there is no Babylon to take us - even as useful slaves.

This then will be the legacy of Arik Sharon, the Jewish Left and the Bush/Powell cabal IF they are allowed to re-partition Israel and force her to withdraw into vulnerability. I cannot help but wonder if politicians and bureaucrats would be so quick to experiment with the lives of people if they were required to spend years in prison for the murders they caused by taking risks that always result in more Terror, death and grievous wounding. Perhaps we should have returned to the honored Japanese practice of ritual suicide ('Sepaku') for those who dishonor their position of power and bring disaster onto the people. Imagine the exodus of politicians who were required to pay for the harm they brought to their nations and their people.



DOA - The Road Map

by Shawn Pine

A little more than a month after its unveiling the road map to peace is effectively dead. The political process in implementing the road map will continue, but these will be nothing more than attempts to facilitate the illusion of peacemaking that has characterized the Israeli - Palestinian peace process since 1993. The recent visit to the region by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and attempts by Arab states in the region to try to formulate a cease-fire among the various Palestinian militant groups, continue to perpetuate a surreal political facade against the harsh reality on the ground.

The road map will probably be kept on a political life support system for a few years, as was its predecessor the Oslo Accords. However, in the end the plug will be pulled and the road map will go the way of the Oslo process. Unfortunately, this will occur only after extracting an excruciating political price on its US, European, and Arab proponents and a more tangible price on Israelis and Palestinians. The road map has failed not because it was flawed in its construct, which consisted of a step by step implementation of empirical steps designed to test the resolve of both sides to reach a final and fair settlement. Rather, it will fail because it was fatally flawed in the strategic assumptions and underlying premise which formed the basis of the road map.

The road map was based upon a number of assumptions. These assumptions included: that the US strategic military victory over Iraq could serve as a surrogate to an Israeli strategic military victory over the Palestinians; that the Arab states, impressed by the decisive US victory would be cowed and would acquiesce to US pressure for them to aggressively cut off support to Palestinian militant groups; that after almost three years of a devastating war of attrition the Palestinians were ready to abandon terrorism as a means of achieving their political aspirations; and that the core of the conflict between the Israel and Palestinians was over the territories that Israel captured in with 1967 War.

Unfortunately, most of these assumptions were erroneous and collectively they resulted in a flawed and failed policy. The Palestinians show little inclination to reign in and dismantle its myriad of Palestinian militant groups. Thus far, Arab states in the region been reluctant, for their own domestic and regional reasons, to exert the requisite pressure to stop funding of these groups. While the US military defeat of Iraq has dealt Islamic militant groups a debilitating financial and psychological blow it has not destroyed their will to continue their struggle. Indeed, while the military defeat of Iraq has enhanced Israelis strategic military security it has left it more vulnerable politically. The timing of the implementation of the road map suggests that it was done as a quid pro quo for European and Arab acquiescence to US military operations in Iraq and to placate regional and European resentment over those operations. Consequently, rather than view its actions as a source if emulation, the United States has adapted a "do as I say, not as I do" approach for other countries facing similar threats. Such a policy will hardly solidify the moral positioning of the United States or enhance its prestige as the sole global hegemon. Indeed, the reluctance of the United States to unconditionally support Israel in its own struggle against Islamic terrorism will be perceived by its enemies as a weakness.

A reading of the road map makes it clear that political progress in fulfilling Palestinian national aspirations is contingent upon the Palestinians reining in and dismantling the various militant groups. Not only is maintaining control over indigenous militant groups a prerequisite for implementation of the political aspects of the road map, it is a fundamental obligation of any political entity that wishes to be a full member of the international community. That the Palestinians lack the will and/or capability to fulfill this basic premise of nationhood suggests that the time is not propitious for the establishment of a Palestinian political entity. Ironically, the Palestinians need only look to Israel and Ben-Gurion's actions against various Jewish groups for inspiration. While a painful episode in Israeli history, and one which has engendered much animosity and hatred to this day, it was a political prerequisite for Israeli statehood.

The road map represents at least two strategic/political threats to Israel. First, the failure to immediately disarm and destroy the terrorist infrastructure of Palestinian militant groups threatens the security of Israeli citizens. The longer these groups operate, and evoke Israeli counter responses, the more entrenched these groups become and the broader political support they receive from the broader Palestinian public. US, European, and Israeli pressures only serve to further enhance the political power base and popularity of these groups, much the same way that Saddam Hussein's stature was enhanced despite his strategic defeat in the first Gulf War. Just as it required his physical removal and destruction of his regime to remove the threat that Hussein posed to the region, so too must Palestinian militant groups be destroyed.

Equally dangerous is the prospect that the process of the road map will supplant its tangible operative concepts and its main goal (securing a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians) for the sake of continuing the implementation of the road map process. As with the Oslo process, the bureaucratic exigency of continuing the road map will override what would become perceived as a peripheral issue (cessation of terror). This will create an environment in which the Israelis will be pressured to offer tangible concessions in return for what has historically been demonstrated to be vacuous promises. Once Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority sense that they can extract political concessions without fulfilling their obligations they will have little incentive to reign in militant Islamic Palestinian groups. This will only serve to embolden Palestinian extremists to increase and accelerate their attacks. This is nothing more than a repackaging of the Oslo Accords which resulted in the 2000 Palestinian intifada.

Under this process, terms such as the need to "maintain the momentum towards peace" and "not to let terrorism win" will represent the lexicon of the road map much as it did during the Oslo process. Proponents of the process will argue that we cannot "allow terrorism to win" and that we must defeat those "opposed to peace" by accelerating the process. As the parties move deeper into the process their prestige and political credibility will become more interlocked with the process. As some point, they will be support the continuation the road map long after its chance of success will have become nullified by the reality on the ground. The net result of this process, should it reach its logical conclusion, will be the establishment of a militant Palestinian state alongside a strategically truncated Israel.

The current strategy is to try to obtain a "cease-fire" in hopes settling the reality on the ground to justify implementation of the political aspects of the road map. The expectation is that once a cease-fire is achieved there will be an advancement on the political phase and an improvement in the conditions in the living conditions of the Palestinians. The hope is that this will serve to undermine the legitimacy of groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad while concomitantly allowing Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to build a power base so that he can ultimately bring these groups to heal.

Unfortunately, this attempt merely illustrates the tenuous facade in which the parties are negotiating. Obtaining a "cease-fire" will not lead to the success of the road map for two reasons. First, Palestinian militant groups recognize that their popularity is a function of their militancy. Each attack enhances their prestige among their constituency. In many respects these groups are in a zero sum game with Abbas and the Palestinian authority. The more they are absorbed into the general Palestinian bureaucracy the more power they will lose. Consequently, they will not readily surrender what they perceive to be the source of their strength. Especially when considering that the core tenet of these groups is the physical destruction of Israel. More important, this strategy fails to address the basic road bloc in preventing the implementation of the road map. Namely, the fact that nearly 80 percent of Palestinians believe, as core fundamental tenet, that the existence of the state of Israel within any borders is an anathema and inconsistent with Palestinian national objectives.

For decades Palestinian society has been inculcated with the most vitriolic, violent anti-Semitic/Israeli rhetoric. It will take at least a generation of reorienting Palestinian society to allow them to build a base for democratic society and instill in them the notion of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Unfortunately, the formulators of the road map only gave themselves a few years under the mistaken premise that a defined reward, the establishment of a Palestinian State within a short period of time, would be able to supplant decades of political and cultural animosity that have become part of the Palestinian psyche.

History is replete with examples of mortal enemies making peace with each other. However, in modern history this has occurred only when one side experienced a decisive strategic defeat. This is an existential struggle of the most dangerous kind. Where one society yearns for peace and the other struggles for the destruction of that society. Because the Israeli society seeks resolution of the conflict, they are much more vulnerable to third party manipulation, coercion, and pressure.

The solution to the conflict is obvious. There needs to be one political and military voice that not only will profess to speak for the Palestinians but has the force and will to carry out its political decisions. This will occur only when the Palestinian militant groups are either brought to heel or eradicated from within its midst. Only then can there emerge a Palestinian society that will seek a resolution of the conflict through negotiation and with the understanding and acceptance that whatever Palestinian political entity emerges, it will not geographically supplant Israel.

By its nature countries/peoples engaged in an existential struggle can only be resolved with the strategic defeat of one of the antagonists. The United States intuitively understood this when it launched its crusade against Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a score of other countries. However, for some inexplicable reason it is failing to apply the same standard when it comes to Islamic terrorism emanating from the Palestinians. Unfortunately, by its failure to recognize the strategic long-term threat that groups like Hamas, and Islamic Jihad represent to the United States, its is pursuing a very myopic and ephemeral strategy.


Shawn Pine is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He recently returned from Israel where he was a Ph.D. candidate in international relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He received a Master of Arts degree in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Texas at Austin and holds a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service degree from Georgetown University.

Prior to attending Georgetown University, he served three years in the Golani Brigade of Israeli Defense Forces. He completed nine years active duty as an officer in the United States Army and served in a myriad of positions including: serving with the Multinational Force and Observers mission in Sinai, Egypt, commanding a mountain training camp at Fort Lewis, Washington, and serving as detachment commander of the Fort Sam Houston Counterintelligence detachment, San Antonio, Texas. He is currently serving as a counterintelligence officer. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East. In addition to THE MACCABEAN, his works have appeared in Israel Affairs, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, The Jerusalem Post, and Nativ. Most recently, he contributed an article to the recently published work 'From Rabin to Netanyahu: Israel's Troubled Agenda.'



The Jerusalem Post, Jun. 20, 2003


By Caroline B. Glick

Hamas's latest offer is to temporarily stop massive attacks inside pre-Six Day War Israel, while continuing with smaller attacks. Massive attacks by Hamas, it says, will be limited during this undefined period to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The offer is contingent on Israel agreeing to stop all targeted killings of Hamas members and releasing all terrorists from jail.

Israel's latest offer is to stop targeted killings of Hamas leaders and commanders if Hamas agrees to stop all terrorist attacks everywhere. In addition, Israel will continue expelling Israelis from their homes in unauthorized communities in Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinian Authority's latest offer is to form a unity government with Hamas if its leaders agree to announce they accept a temporary cease-fire (hopefully) ahead of PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell today. The offer does not seem to be limited in time. That is, even if Hamas does not oblige Abbas ahead of his meeting with Powell, its representatives will still be allowed to join his government.

For his part, Powell is poised to demand that Israel make a new offer that includes releasing terrorists from jail and ending targeted killings of all Hamas terrorists except for "ticking bombs" narrowly defined. The US will expand its demand that Israel increase the pace and breadth of expulsions of Israelis from unauthorized communities and stop building the wall that is supposed to keep Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating into pre-Six Day War Israel.

At this juncture, the demand that Hamas be dismantled as a fighting force is not on the table.

What does all of this talk bode for Hamas? We have a model in Hizbullah. Following the failed Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon in 1996, Israel agreed to stop fighting Hizbullah in populated areas. That is, it allowed Hizbullah freedom to operate on its own favored territory. Ending IAF air strikes against Hizbullah targets in populated areas effectively neutralized Israel's military advantage against the terrorist force.

Likewise, Israel's willingness to forgo the option of targeted killings of Hamas terrorists means that Israel is conceding its most powerful weapon against Hamas. As one Palestinian source puts it, "Why do you think this is their first demand? Because it is the Israeli weapon they most fear. Take away the targeted assassinations, you lose all deterrence against them." The upshot is that Hamas will be allowed to retain its finances, arms, leadership, foot soldiers, and access to public opinion. Hamas is now being legitimized by all parties.

Of course, Hamas's second demand to end demolition of the homes of terrorists is already on the road map. No doubt this tool, which has worked to deter hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians from becoming suicide bombers, will soon be loudly condemned by the members of the Quartet, and Israel will agree, in a later stage of negotiations perhaps after this cease-fire fails? to end the practice.

What is the significance of all these rounds of negotiations with Hamas for the PA? What they expose is that the PA has not made a decision to fight terrorism. Abbas has made this repeatedly clear. His security chief Muhammad Dahlan's demand this week that known murderers Tawfik Tirawi and Rashid Abu Shabak be appointed to head his forces in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip is simply further proof that the PA security forces will continue to be terrorist forces.

In offering Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah seats at his cabinet table, Abbas is merely solidifying the already existing unity of forces. This unity has existed overtly since Yasser Arafat and Marwan Barghouti formed the "Unified Resistance of the Intifada" in the fall of 2001 to coordinate terrorist attacks among Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PLO member organizations like the DFLP and the PFLP.

As for the US, the Bush administration seems intent on repeating the policy that scored its predecessor so badly. Powell made this point clear on Wednesday, when he was quoted as saying, "I am encouraged that both sides seem to realize that they cannot allow this immediate wave of terrorism to stand in the way of progress down the road map. There is no alternative."

The main problem of all the discussions with Hamas is what they say about the Israeli government generally and about the leadership of Ariel Sharon specifically. Just one week ago, Sharon declared that he would wage an all-out war against Hamas, now he is bargaining with it. Was the attempted hit on Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi simply a negotiating tactic? Was Sharon simply putting the notion of targeting Hamas leaders on the table in order for him to concede it? Possibly.

At the very least, it appears that Sharon, who was elected overwhelmingly in 2001 to end his predecessor Ehud Barak's ruinous diplomatic policies, has now adopted them as his own. And it is impossible to blame Sharon's actions on US pressure. In stepping back from his earlier criticism of the Rantisi hit, US President George W. Bush at least showed last week that he will not advance his Middle East policy at the cost of an overt confrontation with Israel.

As for Sharon, he is beginning to look more and more like Shimon Peres. Until Peres's ascent to national leadership in the 1980s and 1990s, he was one of the most compelling strategic thinkers in Israel. His visions were at once vast, ideologically sound, and pragmatic. But at a certain point it seems that Peres abandoned all his previous convictions in order to enjoy personal popularity among Israel's social elites and European intellectuals. Like Peres, Sharon seems to have abandoned strategic (and moral) clarity for vapid slogans.

Aside from negotiating with Hamas after declaring war on it, the other glaring example of this intellectual shallowness is Sharon's defense of dismantling the outposts. Just last year, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said: "Every evacuation [of settlements] under terrorism and violence will strengthen the terror and violence. It will endanger us." And yet, as civilians are massacred on buses and little girls are shot dead on highways, Sharon is dismantling them. He is doing so to prove what is already as clear as the roundness of the earth that Israel is willing to make compromises for peace. Americans do not need further proof of this fact.

The final question is what our habit of repeating past mistakes says about the way decisions are made in this country. What it says is that today there is no open debate about the future we want for ourselves.

Take the example of the murder of Noam Leibowitz on Tuesday night. In crawling under the eight-meter high wall of separation between Route 6 and Kalkilya, the terrorists put paid to the quaint notion that a new Maginot line can work for us. Yet rather than allow this simple truth to come out, Israeli newspapers and broadcast media invited only the wall's chief proponents to explain why it still works.

For its part, the IDF was quick to say that it will be building 21 military camps and dozens of static outposts along the wall to guard it. So in order to guard a worthless wall, the IDF will be building static defenses that will themselves become attractive targets for terrorists.

As for the larger strategic blunder of regurgitating Oslo, we are told by our media elites that there is no alternative. No other plan exists, they say. Tel Aviv University held a three-day conference this week in which the participants at the failed Camp David summit sat and discussed why their operation was a success, even if the patient died. There has been no discussion whatsoever of Tourism Minister Benny Elon's plan to end the war. His plan, which involves the dissolution of the PA and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Jordan is completely unknown to Israelis, even as Elon himself has twice traveled to the US to explain his alternative to American audiences. Perhaps his ideas have merit. Perhaps some do and others do not. How can we know?

That Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel through genocide is known by all. So why is no one pointing out how dangerous it is to be negotiating with these murderers? The time has come for the citizens of this country to demand that our leaders contend with reality. We need to be able to tell ourselves that there is something pathological about a people that insists on repeating its mistakes. We must demand and embrace discussion of alternatives to failed strategies. Our political leaders, academic and media elites must be put on notice that we insist that alternative voices be heard, because what stands in the balance is not about them. It is about our survival.



[FREEMAN CENTER: Read carefully and see if there is any indication of "peace" with Israel. Please let me know if you can find it....Bernard]

Document: Complete Text of Hamas/Islamic Jihad Declaration

Aaron Lerner

29 June 2003

IMRA has obtained a translation of the complete official Arabic text:


Out of our desire for the unity of the Palestinian ranks at this dangerous phase which our people and our cause are going through, and in order to protect our national unity achieved through the intifada and the resistance and documented by the blood of the martyrs, and as our contribution to consolidating Palestinian national dialogue on the basis of adherence to the rights of our people, and in order to protect our internal front from the danger of schism and confrontation, and in order to prevent the enemy from having any excuse to wreck it, and in an assertion of the legitimate right to resist the occupation as a strategic option until the end of the Zionist occupation of our homeland and until we achieve all our national rights, and in response to efforts by many in the Palestinian and Arab arena who care about the unity of the Palestinian national ranks, we declare the following initiative:

A. Suspension of the military operations against the Zionist enemy for three months, effective today, in return for the following conditions:

[Bernard's Note: False charges and slanders.]

1. An immediate cessation of all forms of Zionist aggression against our Palestinian people including incursions, demolitions, closures and sieges on cities, villages and refugee camps. This includes the siege imposed on President Yasser Arafat, house demolitions, leveling of agricultural land and assaults against land, property and Christian and Islamic holy sites, especially the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque. In addition, the immediate cessation of all individual assassination operations, massacres, all arrests anddeportations against our people, leaders, cadres and fighters.

2. The release of all prisoners [terrorists] and detainees, Palestinian and Arab, from occupation prisons without condition or restriction and the return to their homes first and foremost of those who have spent long periods and those with lengthy sentences, women, children, the sick and elderly.

B. In the event that the enemy does not heed these conditions and commitments, or breaches any of them, we see ourselves unencumbered by this initiative and we hold the enemy responsible for the consequences.

Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Islamic Jihad 29.6.2003

Dr. Aaron Lerner
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)



Arafat already promised it all in 1993 Texts


September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.


Yasser Arafat
The Palestine Liberation Organization


September 9, 1993

His Excellency
Johan Jorgen Holst
Foreign Minister of Norway

Dear Minister Holst,

I would like to confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and cooperation.


IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Traditionally, every Jewish child who learned Torah was taught the text and the commentary of Rashi - Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki - the famous 11th century French Biblical and Talmudic commentator. In the beginning, literally, of Genesis, Rashi asks a question, "Why does the Torah start with the story of creation? Since the Torah is a book of laws for the Jewish People, why doesn't it begin with the first law given by G-D to the Jews, the law for establishing a calendar?" He answers, that it starts with the creation narrative to establish that G-D is the Master of the Universe. Then Rashi says the most amazing thing that still resonates almost a thousand years later. Based on earlier sources and a thorough knowledge of the meaning of Judaism, Rashi says, "So, that if the nations come to Israel and say, 'you are thieves - in Hebrew, She-Kevash-Tem, you conquered and occupied - the land from the nations living there', you can tell them that all the universe is G-D's, He created it a nd gave it to the nations, and when He decided, He took it from them and gave it to us."

Three things become starkly clear today. First, that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently used the same Hebrew root/term - Kibush, occupation - as the Israeli Left has used for years to denigrate the miraculous victory of the 1967 Six-Day War. It's the same term, 'occupation', used by most of the world in their criticism of Israeli policies in the 'territories'. The Israeli Prime Minister has adopted the language of the self-haters among the Jews - those disconnected from Jewish history and tradition - and the Judeo-paths among the nations. Second, that Rashi's explanation of the Torah has in fact come true. The nations today claim, as Rashi explained they would, that we 'stole' the land from others, namely the Palestinians. And finally, that the only basis for the Jewish People's national life in their homeland is G-D's promise as set down in the Bible, not history, not security, but G-D's promise to their forefathers. Rashi told the Jewish People to tell the world, "He took it from them and gave it to us."

A true Israeli leader needs to stand up, not frightened of anyone or anything, and declare, "The Master of the Universe took it from them and gave it to us." The Promised Land belongs to the Jews exclusively, and not to any other nation!

Any Israeli Prime Minister, who can't get on TV or go to a meeting with world leaders and say these words, should either quit or commit suicide before rejecting the promises of G-D and working to help another group take over part of the Land of Israel. As King David said, "If I forget you Jerusalem - a term for the entire Land of Israel - let my right hand wither - rather than sign any false peace agreement - let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth..." (Psalms 137: 5-6) rather than agree to foreigners taking over part of the Jewish People's homeland.

If someone can blow themselves up to gain a state not their own, if kamikaze pilots can kill themselves in war, if soldiers can risk their lives in 'suicide missions', then the Israeli Prime Minister can quit or 'step out' rather than lie to the world and say, "We must end the occupation". Occupation is when you 'steal' someone else's land. The Jewish People liberated parts of their Promised Homeland in stages, first in 1948 and then in 1967 with G-D's help. The Jewish People didn't 'steal' anything. Sharon, Tell The World The Truth!

Every Jew, in fact, every Christian and Muslim, know that the Land of Israel was promised to the Children of Israel, the Jewish People, by G-D forever. The same G-D they claim to worship. So why continue to perpetuate this lie called the 'Peace Process'? The Palestinians might gain some temporary control over the land for G-D's own reasons, but in the end, it will be taken from them and returned to its rightful tenants - I didn't say owners - because G-D is the only true owner of everything.

It's true that a democratically elected government in Israel, might choose for political expediency to transfer control over parts of the Jewish People's homeland to others; and that in political terms it might be seen as legitimate; but in the Court of Final Justice, above, there never will be any Spiritual Legitimacy to the act. Anyone going against the will of G-D will ultimately have to account for their actions, reward and punishment is a basic concept in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Heaven help those who try to take away the 'Promise'.

Why lie to the Palestinians? Why make them believe they are right, that Israel 'stole' their land? Why fool them into believing that Israel will give them land and a state? What's most important for them and the world to understand is, that no matter what the Israeli government decides to do, it has no Religious Legitimacy in Judaism. No Israeli leader or government has the moral, historical, or spiritual right to take away parts of the Promised Land from the Jewish People and give it to others. It's not theirs to do with as they please; the Land of Israel is an inheritance from G-D and it is not for one generation to decide what to do with it. It is also for all future generations of Jews. It will never be accepted by Jews steeped in their heritage and tradition, or by G-D. "Ani Ma'amin... I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even if he takes a long time to come, I believe every day, he's coming!" It's one of the thirteen principles of faith as codified by Maimonides. The Jews will get back their homeland; the Palestinians will not have a state. So why start now so close to his coming?

The Land of Israel was promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Master of the Universe told them that even though their children will suffer terrible exiles - an educational and cleansing process - in the end, He would bring them home. In the 1948 War of Independence, G-D gave political sovereignty to the Jews for the first time in almost 2,000 years. In the 1967 Six-Day War, G-D returned the Holy City of Jerusalem in its entirety - including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount - to the Jewish People. Hebron - Judaism's second holiest city - with the Cave of the Patriarchs, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the city King David ruled from before Jerusalem, was returned as well. Truthfully, Judea and Samaria - the so-called West Bank - is drenched in Jewish history and Jewish holy sites. The Jewish People have been brought home!

Those who have built their world-view on security needs and have claimed that we cannot allow a Palestinian state to come into existence because of that, have missed the point. The Palestinians, and the world, are playing the 'Peace Card'. Even if they promised up and down, that there would be a thousand years of 'Peace', how can Israel spurn G-D's promise?

Once there was a nice family who lived in a rough neighborhood. They wanted to get along with their neighbors, but the neighbors hated them, and used to throw rocks and break their windows all the time. One day, the leader of the neighbors came over and said, "This is my house," and demanded it. The owner, father of the nice family replied, "No it's not, its mine." The neighbor insisted. Not wanting any more trouble, the owner invited him in to talk. The neighbor demanded the house and refused to leave, he threatened the owner. The owner decided to 'be nice' and offered him a room. Later, the neighbor claimed that the owner's wife was in fact his wife. He implied he would kill the owner. The owner of the house, thought for a moment, "My wife, my life" and then decided to share his wife. "Why cause problems?" He thought. The neighbor emboldened, next claimed the owners arm. "Give me your arm or else," he demanded. Well, the owner had a tough time, he thought, "my arm or my life, hmmm" and he meekly cut off his arm. Finally, the neighbor demanded, in the most insolent way imaginable, "Give me your heart..." The Land of Israel is the Jewish People's heart!

Members of the ruling Likud Party and the National Camp have for years based their claim to the 'occupied territories' meekly on historical claim, and more importantly have said for security reasons they couldn't give it away. The Israeli Left in contrast, has argued for quite some time that control over Judea and Samaria is a security liability and not an asset. They have argued that the only true security is in 'Peace' with the Arabs and not the status quo. The American President, George Bush has basically said the same thing, recently, following the lead of European leaders. And what about settlement leaders, those so-called right-wing extremists who spurn all talk of 'Peace'?

After the recent Israeli cabinet's decision to accept the 'Roadmap' with objections, the spokesman for the Yesha Council - of Jewish Settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza -Yehoshua Mor-Yosef said, "What is done is done. What we can do is try to amend the roadmap and shift it to the right." Shift it to the right? It's not a matter of a little shift here and a little shift there. And these are the so-called leaders of the 'Settlement Movement'!

Sharon, the Likud, the National Camp, the Yesha Council, have all missed the point. The Israeli Left never had it. To the world, well what can we say? Except, "He took it from them and gave it to us." There is no spiritual legitimacy to retreat from the Land of Israel. There is no spiritual legitimacy in refusing to graciously receive G-D's Promised Land. There is no spiritual legitimacy to any of these so-called 'Peace' agreements.

Sharon, Tell The World The Truth!


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

(c) 2003/5763 Pasko




By Arlene Peck

We've all heard the expression, "Never Again".

I think those of us who grew up hearing it, actually believed it.

"But, lately, I've been getting that "deja-vu" all over again" feeling that the so-called "Road Map" to peace, that "Master Plan" to exterminate a new generation of Jews, is unfolding right before my eyes!"

Only this time, it's the Jewish State that's being "railroaded " to Auschwitz.

How many of us are still reeling after hearing Sharon use the "O" (Occupation) word when referring to those brave Jewish towns and cities called Judea-Samaria and Gaza?

Is the "Bulldozer" now "bulldozing" his "his own" principles?

Worse than that is how the world is sitting on the sideline while Bush and his Arab buddies ride around that damn golf cart again, hugging and posing for photo-ops.

Is this how it happened sixty years ago when the Americans, the British, the French and all the other "good Christians" "shook their heads and sighed a collective tsk tsk" But, thank G-d it's the Jews, and not us!"

I have a difficult time understanding how a civilized world would ever allow a monster like Hitler to not only rise to power but also to galvanize an entire nation to action.

Tell me.

Is the rise of Arab "Nazism" different?

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

After two years of non-stop terror attacks and killing sprees is going to be rewarded by their very own state.

And all they have to do is promise not to do it as much anymore.

They really, really want to be good and they won't direct their 'militant' bombings at anyone but the godless Jewish soldiers and 'settlers'.

However, I believe that to the Arabs the 'settlements' means all of Israel.

Jordan is the real Arab-"Palestine" and transfer isn't the forbidden word it used to be. Lord knows, when it comes to transferring the quarter million Jews out of Judea-Samaria, Gaza and half of Jerusalem, the world never had a problem with it.

The Arabs should be the ones to be transferred out of the Jewish homeland where they, the Arabs are the "occupiers".

However, according to their textbooks and leader, Arafat, they believe "Arab" came from "Judea" and that Jerusalem has nothing to do with Jewish history and that Jesus was a "Palestinian".

Why don't people 'get it'?

Maybe I'm too basic but in all these happy, touchy, feely meetings between President Bush and his Arab consortium, has anyone asked the Israelis what THEY might want? Obviously nobody has ever told President Bush that for over fifty years Israel has been a sovereign state. I don't remember Israel being voted as the fifty-first state and him as the boss.

Does the outside world REALLY know what's best for them? Shouldn't something as important as that be enough to call a vote by Israel's general population? Democracy?

Yeah, right. No wonder the "Palestinians" accepted this Road Map to Auschwitz unequivability before the ink was still damp.

When the Arabs say "settlements" or "occupation" they really mean ISRAEL...all of it!

These were the same words used before 1967 when Israel liberated today's "occupied" territories.

There were no Jewish settlements or "occupation" by Israel in the territories in question but that did not prevent Arab attempts to eradicate the Jewish state.

So, why doesn't the Bush Administration and others "Get it"? Maybe they do.

The same way they "got it" during the last Holocaust.

"Tsk...Tsk, thank G-d it's the Jews, and not us!" How many times do we have to say, "Never again?"

Since Sharon has apparently turned into Barak by offering the heart and soul of his country away in his vying to keep the good will of Bush, is it possible to have the man committed?

Force him to resign? Can Israel have a re-call? However, who is there to lead?

What lunacy to issue 25,000 work permits so more terrorists can blow up more civilians?

If that weren't enough, the freeing of a couple hundred killers from prison, removing the IDF from hotbed towns and unfreezing assets so they can buy more bombs is unforgivable!

Sharon must be removed from office. He cannot be allowed to govern any longer. His entire Cabinet has allowed themselves to become emasculated.

This monstrosity of a peace deal that was hatched in Aquaba is going to grow until Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and the other leftist 'Osloids') get their leftist wish of destroying the Jewish State!

The result will be that Arabs can live ANYWHERE, including within the Jewish State, but Jews cannot live in the new state of "Palestinian".

Didn't George Bush say a "democratic Palestinian State?"

It's obvious that the Arab plan is to "ethnically cleanse" the land of all Jews. Or perhaps, an Apartheid-like action whereby Jews are racially denied equal rights.

The Muslims can have four wives, ten children with each one.

They are populating at an alarming rate all over the world.

They de-Christianize and de-Judaize everything in their wake and somehow, it's acceptable.

I had Father Keith Roderick on my television show not so long ago with author Avi Davis and we discussed how at every chance they are tearing down the churches and building Mosques in their place.

Synagogues, they just blow up. Can you imagine the riots and the waves of destruction they would leave had the 'demands' been reversed?

It works like this. The United States, for whatever reason puts tremendous pressure on the leaders of Israel to accede to their demands or they won't support the Jewish State?

What price is Israel paying now for that support? It is the sacrifice of their country.

Accepting a similar "peace" deal as was crammed down their throats ten years ago which led nowhere? This is another road map to peace aka Trojan horse that will bury another 1,300 Israelis?

What would move the Israelis to consider Oslo II?

Hamas gives press conferences at which they continue calling for a March to Jerusalem.

And folks, they mean it.

They negotiate and it somehow reminds me of the nice girl that said she wasn't a hooker until she was offered a lot of money for her service.

Then the only point of contention was the price. Mahmoud Abbas, only point of contention with the terror organizations is how much or how little of the terror tactics they should continue to achieve the result they want.

And, at this point in time, they are still complaining it's not enough.

Someone should tell our President, that if after his 'love-fest' with the Arabs and their peace mission, this road-trap is going to be terrible for America's interest.

It makes a mockery out of Bush's pledge to "hunt down the evil-doers" and "destroy then.

Instead, he's creating a sovereign-safe haven for every terrorist in the world, Then, he puts into place the most dangerous 'home base' for every 'evil doer' in the world to come back and plan their destruction of the rest of the Western world.

It will be nothing more than a terrorist training ground just as it is today.

But now they'll have a National Charter. The only message he's sending is that "Terrorism pays if you do it.

There will be weekly bombings in Starbucks and America's shopping centers weekly because the Arabs will have gained in their terrorism tactic. Once again we will breed contempt for America's power and our will to use it.

I'm no political maven. But I cannot help but wonder why Israel, with her military might, allows herself to be bogged down playing "Oslo Peace talks".

We didn't follow this example after 9/11 in dealing with terrorists. We handled a difficult situation in Afghanistan and Iraq by bombing the hell out them and gaining control.

I used to think that war would be a terrible thing.

But, Israel has the means and plenty of reason to use their resources. Do the Israeli Defense Forces have one more Six-Day War left in it? I hope so.



The Jerusalem Post, June 4, 2003


By Michael Freund

Nearly twenty years ago, while some of my teenage friends were out doing the kinds of things our grandparents generation would have thought morally reprehensible, I was busy doing something they might have considered even worse: handing out flyers on behalf of a Republican presidential candidate.

I still remember the sneers, and the occasional smiles, which my nascent political activity evoked, as I stood there in New York's Grand Central Station, a yarmulke perched on my head, trying to persuade rush-hour commuters to cast their ballots for Ronald Reagan.

At the time, the very idea of a "young Jewish Republican" was still something of an oddity, as most Jews continued to lean leftwards, carrying on what for many was the equivalent of an inviolable family tradition, namely, to vote Democratic come thick or thin.

In the intervening years, of course, that has started to change, as increasing numbers of American Jews have begun to find a comfortable ideological home in the GOP, a place where they can park their political identities while still remaining true to their belief in the need for a safe and secure Israel.

But whatever gains that Republican have made among American Jews in recent years are now in danger of being erased, and the person to blame for this may be none other than George W. Bush himself.

Though Bush received just 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, the aftermath of 9/11 and the president's tough stand against Yasser Arafat enthralled numerous American Jews, leading to what many perceived to be a potentially galvanizing shift among the Children of Abraham away from the Democrats and towards the party of Lincoln.

Indeed, a May 8 Boston Globe article recently noted that "after a year and a half of strong statements from President Bush about fighting terrorism, along with his equally strong backing of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, some prominent analysts in both parties say they detect a shift in the Jewish community" toward the Republicans.

But that shift is now at risk, as Bush heads to Aqaba today for a summit meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Abu Mazen, where he will press for implementation of the road map leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

By compelling Israel to make concessions inimical to its security, Bush is gambling not only with the future of the Land of Israel, but also with that of the Republican party itself.

His pursuit of the road map, and his insistence that Israel turn over territory to its enemies, has rightly evoked a growing sense of anger and frustration among many pro-Israel American Jews and Christians.

After all, how can Bush possibly justify coercing Israel to appease Arab terror at the same time that America is using force against it? And why should the Palestinian regime be rewarded with statehood when the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were punished with removal from power?

With next year's presidential election campaign just around the corner, Bush is playing with political fire, making it virtually impossible for American Jews who support Israel to fully embrace him and his party.

Consider, for example, the letter sent to the White House last week by the official Israeli branch of Republicans Abroad, in which the group warned the president that pressing ahead with the road map "will only serve to alienate American Jews and the Christian right."

In the letter, the group's leaders noted that, "We are aware of increasing numbers of American citizens, both here in Israel and in the United States, who are now considering abandoning the Republican party as a result of your Administration's pursuit of the 'Road Map'."

And if you think the Jewish vote doesn't matter any more in American politics, then think again.

According to a 2001 study by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 55 to 60 percent of American Jews consistently vote Democratic, 10 percent are loyal Republicans, while 30 to 35 percent "can be lured by any party depending on its position." Sprinkled among key battleground states in the campaign, that large group in the middle "adds up to a swing vote representing up to 2 percent of the electorate in states like Florida and Pennsylvania," says the study.

In either case, "a shift of that amount would have changed the result in that state and, in all probability, single-handedly crowned the American president. Put another way, the Jewish swing vote, mobilized behind a particular candidate, would have given him the 2000 election."

Thus, the Jewish vote remains key, and is sure to play an important role in next year's presidential election campaign.

But the political risk to Bush may be even greater than just the loss of Jewish votes, for his strong-arm tactics against Israel have also started to arouse the ire of a key component of his core constituency, the Christian right.

Just last Thursday, Bush received a political warning shot across his bow from Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and a former Republican presidential candidate.

Speaking on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Robertson declared, "the President of the United States is imperiling the nation of Israel. Not only is he going against the clear mandate of the Bible, which is very important, but he's also setting up a situation where Israel will no longer have secure borders."

He even suggested that Bush's insistence on establishing a Palestinian state "will be the beginning of the end of the state of Israel as we know it."

Those are pretty strong words, the kind of words that could cost Bush and his fellow Republicans a lot of votes next year if they aren't careful.

Sure, Bush's approval ratings may still be riding high after the recent war in Iraq, but as the memory of the victory fades, and a lethargic economic recovery sets in, if at all, those numbers will begin to slide, and the president knows it.

Hence, as unlikely as it may seem right now, the outcome of next year's presidential race is far from being a foregone conclusion.

It is therefore imperative that Republicans - Christian and Jew alike - speak up now, loudly and unequivocally, against the road map.

Not just because it endangers the future of Israel, although that should be reason enough, but also because it threatens to undermine the principled stand which the party has taken in the global war on terror, in the process needlessly driving away countless numbers of sympathetic Jewish and Christian voters alike.

There is simply no good moral, political or ideological reason for Bush to be twisting Israel's arm, and he needs to understand that he will pay a price at the ballot box if he does.

Republicans who care about Israel, then, need to rise up and send the president a clear and unambiguous message: If you choose Palestine, then come November 2004, we will not hesitate to choose someone else in your stead.

The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning under former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.




By Naomi Ragen

What is it about the office of prime minister of Israel that turns fearless generals into spineless jellyfish? How is it that people who can read complicated strategic maps and plot the crossing of the Suez Canal under enemy fire suddenly can't negotiate their way across the street without getting run over?

We cannot blame the disastrous stewardship of Israel over the last 10 years that has left her people battered, her economy near ruin, her political stature at its nadir on any particular party line. The fact is, prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon, although on different points on the political spectrum, have all fallen equally into the same incomprehensible patterns of self-destructive leadership. All share equally in the ongoing disaster that is the stewardship of our precious Jewish homeland, the State of Israel.

It was Rabin who invented the Orwellian doublespeak of terror victims as "sacrifices for peace." It was Barak who continued to absorb terror attacks with a stiff upper lip, saying they wouldn't "deter him from pursuing peace."And now it is Sharon who tells us that lack of reciprocity on the Palestinian side "won't budge" him from blindly ripping up settlements in exchange for nothing. And he says it as if it's a good thing, a brave thing he's doing, instead of utter stupidity.

I WOULD have thought that if Israelis had learned anything at all from the wave of terror following Oslo it might have been the simple concept that when you sign an agreement and keep your end, you have to insist that the other side do the same and be held accountable for violations.Otherwise, what you have is capitulation and defeat, and the abandonment of your people to mass murder.

I think part of the answer to the question of the failures of Israel's last three governments Sharon's included is that the Israeli people simply refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.Recent surveys show that about 58 percent of the Israeli people are in favor of taking down settlements. The same survey shows 53% believe that the road map has no chance of succeeding.

Sharon was recently booed out of his own party conference, a party that only months ago supported him with fanatic fervor despite clearly stated policies that went contrary to everything the Likud party has ever stood for, and which he is now simply putting into practice.When it comes to politics, the Israeli people are not rocket scientists.

Maybe the dichotomy of people willing to give something for nothing shows more about how Israelis have been brainwashed by their own politicians into believing Palestinian propaganda, which points to settlements as the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those with a slight historical perspective, of course, know that the attacks and murders and delegitimization of the Jewish state precedes West Bank settlements.

However, even if Israelis couldn't care less about these pioneer outposts they should be made to realize by their leaders that taking down settlements in the current situation is like a man swimming in shark-infested waters deliberately cutting his finger. Taking down even one flag-waving teenager on a hilltop in Samaria while the other side continues to pursue terror as a tactic is tantamount to letting the sharks taste blood.

Like Oslo, the road map is a disaster forced on us by those who do not have our best interests at heart, aided and abetted by our elected leadership, who, once again, have betrayed us.

The only question now is how many of us are going to die until they lay the road map to rest, only to replace it with yet another "peace plan" that won't work because, obviously, for the Palestinians, terror continues to pay.

The writer is a best-selling novelist.



The Jerusalem Post, Jun. 3, 2003


By Arthur Cohn

It seems to me and many other Jews abroad that the latest developments in the political scenery of the Middle East reflect an enormous victory for terror, and for Yasser Arafat personally. While in the Oslo Accords all the difficult questions Jerusalem, refugees, settlements were to be discussed after a lengthy process, and before the establishment of a Palestinian state, now suddenly a provisional state will be proclaimed before the main issues are resolved. Even before a Palestinian state comes into existence, Israel has to dismantle "illegal" outposts and curtail expansion of settlements, even for natural population growth.

How can it be that the main issues will be discussed only after a Palestinian state is proclaimed and recognized by the international community?

What has Israel then to offer in exchange for a final settlement?

As usual, the Palestinians promise to fight terror. That is exactly what Arafat committed himself to in 1993, as it was the main Israeli goal of the Oslo Accords.

Does anyone really expect that the initiators of the road map (Europe and the UN Israel's "old friends") will really insist on the full elimination of the terror infrastructure? Nor is it likely that Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) will arrange even a temporary armistice until a Palestinian state is established. Afterwards, expect him to allow a fresh wave of terror to be launched from a much better position to bolster further Palestinian demands.

Arafat endeavored for years to internationalize the Arab-Israel conflict, knowing full well the advantage such a step would bring, given the UN and the EU's anti-Israel bias. There is no question that he has now succeeded. The involvement of the international community in this new peace process is frightening.

It is also regrettable that this type of road map could get America's approval. It is a plan that does not hold the Palestinians to any clear requirements. They are not even expected to put a full stop to the incitement in their schoolbooks and media. Moreover, there is not even a clear demand that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized.

From a Diaspora perspective, it is difficult to understand how the Israeli government, working closely with President George W. Bush and his top advisors, couldn't find a way to influence the road map to avoid its terrible shortcomings.

And one asks oneself: How is it possible that after its energetic anti-terrorist moves in Afghanistan and Iraq, America could reward terror in the Israeli-Arab conflict?

For years, Arafat never mentioned the word "peace" in Arabic in connection with Israel. It seems that he and his successors aren't expected to use it in the future, either. The basic elements of a real peace are entirely lacking in the road map, which is simply an international dictate for a political agreement that does not require of the Palestinians any true readiness for peace with Israel.

As the prestigious Swiss newspaper Neue Z rcher Zeitung recently commented, "The present plan toward peace in the Middle East could be a recipe for a new disaster."

During the 55 years of Israel's independence, many bad peace proposals have been made but not realized. This one is fundamentally different. The road map is being advocated by powerful international forces the UN, the EU, Russia, and the US and what is even more important and, unbelievable as it may sound, it has been accepted by the Israeli government.

The writer is a film producer based in Switzerland whose films include The Garden of the Finzi-Continis, Central Station and One Day in September.




By Edward Alexander

Of the variegated forms of murderous assault that the Palestinian Arabs have unleashed against Israel since they began the Al-Aqsa Intifada - the Oslo War - in September 2000, none has proved so cruel or lethal, or so perfectly embodied absolute evil, as suicide bombings. Certainly none has exercised so hypnotic a spell upon the "learned classes." Since the beginning of Arafat's campaign to "soften up" Israel up for concessions even more far-reaching than those of the Oslo accords, 292 suicide bombers have succeeded in detonating themselves-in crowded buses and cafes, in university cafeterias, at a Passover seder, and almost anyplace where children could be found in sizable numbers. They have killed 330 people and maimed thousands.

These human bombs, most of them teenagers inculcated from kindergarten with Jew-hatred, act out of a superabundance of hope: hope of driving the Jews out of Israel; hope of making their families wealthy with the enormous bonuses formerly guaranteed by Iraq and Arafat, now by other Arab (and Iranian) benefactors; and above all, hope of heaven. And so, of course, professors imprisoned in Marxist cliches of socioeconomic determinism have concluded-on the basis of no evidence whatever-that the suicide bombers, mostly products of upper middle class families, act out of poverty, hopelessness, and despair. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has observed that the "root cause" of suicide bombings is "money, education and privilege." Islamic Jihad has itself declared: "We do not take depressed people [to become suicide bombers]."

This particular form of atrocity has not only failed to disturb the equanimity of our heavily petted professors, but has elicited from many of them a stream of rhapsodic admiration, sympathetic identification-with the murderers, not their victims-and high-toned apologia. A few examples from among many-a philosopher, a literary critic, and a theologian-will illustrate the pattern.

Ted Honderich, a Canadian-born philosopher who became a British subject and spent his career in England, has been a popular speaker on North American campuses, where he seems to appeal powerfully to the new bloodlust among the learned-especially where it is Jewish blood that is in question. Although his speciality is "Mind and Logic," Honderich's itch to be clever has often led him to stentorian pronouncements about politics, especially violent politics. In 1980 he published an "ethical" defense of violence and mass murder called Violence for Equality, a title that calls to mind Dickens' encapsulation (in A Tale of Two Cities) of revolutionary France's Reign of Terror: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death."

Not long after 9/11, Honderich decided to shine the light of pure reason and moral philosophy upon that day's horrific massacres in a book called After the Terror. The essence of his argument is that there is no moral distinction between acts of omission and acts of commission. The West, having failed to eliminate the poverty that its capitalist system brought to the world, was collectively responsible for 9/11. "Is it possible," Honderrich asks, "to suppose that the September 11 attacks had nothing at all to do with...Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Sierra Leone?" He stops a hair short of saying that bin Laden and his fellow idealists were justified in murdering thousands of people in order to feed millions.

The philosopher is far less cautious about the "moral right" of Palestinian Arabs to blow up Jews, a right he defends vigorously: "Those Palestinians who have resorted to violence have been right...and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves." In an interview, the eminent logician explained the distinction between suicide bombings in Manhattan and in Jerusalem: "The likely justification depends importantly on the fact that the suffering that is caused does have a probability of success." In other words, if Palestinian terrorists should succeed in their goal of destroying Israel, mass murder will have been justified; if they fail, it will not.

Upon finishing After the Terror, Honderich - a socialist millionaire - offered to donate 5,000 British pounds from his advance on royalties to Oxfam. But to his astonishment - and indeed that of many who have observed England's moral debacle of recent years - the charity refused the money, which it viewed as morally tainted by what old-fashioned people call incitement to murder. "Oxfam's purpose," said a spokesman, "is to overcome poverty and suffering. We believe that the lives of all human beings are of equal value. We do not endorse acts of violence."

But Honderich's North American audiences have been far less squeamish. Palestinian Arabs, he told a receptive crowd in Toronto in September 2002, have a "moral right" to blow up Jews, and he very much wanted to encourage them to exercise that right, i.e., to do still more. "To claim a moral right on behalf of the Palestinians to their terrorism is to say that they are right to engage in it, that it is permissible if not obligatory."

Honderich spent his academic career at University College in London. Those familiar with that institution know that it houses the nicely-dressed skeleton (and Madame Tussaud wax head) of Jeremy Bentham, the philosopher who measured morality by the quantity of pleasure delivered: if the greatest happiness of the greatest number of citizens could be arrived at by 29 of them deciding, because they had the power to do so, to feast upon citizen number 30, then it was right and proper to do so. If Dostoevsky's idealistic utilitarian Raskolnikov was Bentham with an axe in his hand, then Honderich is Bentham with a bomb in his brain.

Nor is he the only academic luminary whose lucubrations on suicide bombing demonstrate the explosive power of boredom. There is also Columbia University's Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. What philosophy has become in the hands of Honderich, the opaque pseudo-jargon of literary postmodernism has become in the hands of Spivak. George Orwell wrote in 1946 that in our time "political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell's crowning example was "a comfortable English professor" defending Soviet totalitarianism and mass murder with polysyllabic gibberish and Latinized euphemism. Already in 1989, Spivak had "explained" Edward Said's call for the murder of Palestinian Arab "collaborators" as "words for Palestinian solidarity." But in June of 2002, speaking at Leeds University, this celebrated tribune of "international feminism" outdid even herself:

"Suicide bombing-and the planes of 9/11 were living bombs-is a purposive self-annihilation, a confrontation between oneself and oneself, the extreme end of autoeroticism, killing oneself as other, in the process killing others....Suicidal resistance is a message inscribed on the body when no other means will get through. It is both execution and die with me for the same cause, no matter which side you are on. Because no matter who you are there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing...It is a the state terrorism practiced outside of its own ambit by the United States and in the Palestinian case additionally to an absolute failure of hospitality."

This is what Lionel Trilling called the languag of non-thought, employed to blur the distinction between suicide and murder, to obliterate the victims-"no designated killees" here!-metaphysically as well as physically.

By bringing America into the range of her imperial intellect, Spivak goes beyond Honderich. Although he blamed America itself for the Arab massacres of 9/11, he stopped short of moral justification for the attack; like many other English academics he is hesitant about biting the hand he hopes will feed him. But Spivak, already comfortably ensconced at Morningside Heights, has no such compunction.

The third member of my trio of academic apologists for suicide bombing is Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun who specializes in comparative religion, has written a best-selling book called Understanding Islam, and played a key role in the scandalous recent PBS series celebrating the life of Muhammed. In a lengthy interview with Al-Ahram Weekly last July, Armstrong recounted how, during her time in Israel in the mid-eighties working on a documentary about St. Paul, she herself had a revelation: she heard some Israelis refer to "dirty Arabs" and instantly recognized that today's Israelis are to today's Arabs what Nazis were to Jews in the thirties and forties, and that "the Israelis can do what they want because America will always support them." Vigorously insisting that there is "nothing...anti-Western" about Islam, she calls for a reinvigorated jihad by her Muslim friends, whom she advises to "march down the street at Ground Zero in New York." Palestinian suicide bomber are motivated not by religion, because "this is not how religion works"-QED-but by "absolute hopelessness." Armstrong's justification for suicide bombing grows out of her fine sense of equity in military struggle. These poor people, she complains, "don't have F-16s, and they don't have tanks. They don't have anything to match Israel's arsenal. They only have their own bodies." In other words, murdering innocent people is a permissible, indeed praiseworthy grab for equality by an "occupied" people.

It goes without saying that Armstrong, like all of Arafat's professorial apologists over the years, overlooks the troublesome facts that it was Arab hatred and aggression - in 1967 as in 2003 - that led to "occupation" and not occupation to hatred and aggression (or indeed, that Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories has invariably led to greater Arab violence and extremism). She also has failed to notice that Arafat, Abu-Mazen and Co. are backed militarily, financially, and politically by 1.2 billion Muslims, by 21 Arab nations (as well as the non-Arab nation of Iran), and by the European Union. Not to mention just how powerful and "equalizing" a weapon in the hands of radical Muslim Arabs is the total disregard for the sanctity of human life, as a result of which 19 technically competent barbarians could attack two American cities, killing thousands of people and causing billions of dollars of property damage. But for Armstrong the only thing 9/11 revealed was the "intolerance" of Western society, and perhaps-now I'm stretching her argument-the need to create strategic equity for disadvantaged Muslims by giving them nuclear bombs.

Armstrong has for years taught Christianity and comparative religion at London's Leo Baeck College. As if mindful of the irony that she should be employed by a school named after a scholarly, mild-mannered Jew who was forced into a tragic leadership role during the Nazi period, she has bared her teeth in a gesture of mean spite towards her occasional employers, alleging that Jews who kick up a fuss over the resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe and the Arab world are "stuck in the horrors of the Nazi era." Armstrong's only qualm about suicide bombings is that they may tarnish the glorious image that Palestinian Arabs currently enjoy in England. For ethical temperaments like Armstrong's, it is detection, not sin, which is criminal.

Honderich, Spivak, and Armstrong all offer variations on a single theme. But they all treat the dead and mangled bodies of innocent people as if they were so much fertilizer to fuel diseased imaginations. If these professors of terror looked upon the victims as human beings they could not possibly justify the mass murder of Israelis and others using speculative arguments and licentious moral equations, based upon political and historical ignorance so vast that they would shock an ordinarily attentive sixth-grader.

Hitler's professors were the first to make anti-Semitism both academically respectable and complicit in crime. They have now found their successors in Arafat's professors, whose grotesque antics serve as a reminder that knowledge is one thing, virtue another. If you expect moral nourishment from professors, you should try getting warmth from the moon.



Saudis Fabricate Report Of Jews Teaching Hatred

By Art Moore

'Study' Made Up Quotes, Facts, To Prove Israeli Kids Want Arabs To 'Burn In Hell'.

In an apparent attempt to turn the tables on critics, a Saudi-owned weekly published a story claiming a study shows Israeli society is teaching its children to hate Palestinian children, making a peace agreement impossible.

However, in a statement sent to WorldNetDaily, the author of the study says Arabic-language al-Majalla magazine completely misrepresented his work.

The story – published also in English by the Saudi state-approved daily Arab News – claimed research presented to the London School of Economics showed this generation of Israeli parents knows "how to plant hate and anger toward Arabs in children's minds to such an extent that children are happy to hear of the death of Palestinian child or to hear news of a Palestinian official's being assassinated."

The article says "the hate Israeli children harbor toward Palestinians has reached a high point."

"Children under the age of 8 have pictures in their minds of Palestinian children as blind and with no teeth," the al-Majalla story says. "They wish that those children would suffer from AIDS and burn in hell. Israeli children admitted to these feelings. What is even stranger is that they used very strong language, which cannot be published here."

But researcher Asi Sharabi says the writer of the story, Tarsier Jabber, never spoke with him. The Israeli student, studying in London, says Jabber fabricated quotes and selectively used material from his research published in a 2001 story in an Israeli newspaper.

"I have never said, nor have been quoted as saying, that 'all Israeli children believe that Arabs are bad and Israelis are good, that Jews want peace and Arabs want war and that Jews are human and Arabs are not' nor that 'such feelings are increasing in these children,'" Sharabi said.

The researcher continued: "Neither did I ask an Arab child to write a letter to an Israeli child or say – as was quoted in al-Majalla – The letter came as a shock to me."

The al-Majalla story appears to be a response to monitors of Middle East society who show how Palestinian culture, through its schools, media and political propaganda, is teaching children to hate Jews and strive for martyrdom.

Sharabi also said he never presented his work to a teaching committee at the London School of Economics and never had the work translated into Arabic as the article asserts.

The al-Majalla article, published June 8, was titled "Israeli Children Manifest Shocking Hatred of Arabs." Arab News titled its version "Psychological Study of the Mentality of Jewish Children" and included an uncaptioned photo of children who appear to be laughing over the abuse of a bird.

The story claimed Sharabi conducted the study "because of a contradiction in Israeli policy."

"In August 2000," the article says, according to Arab News, "Ehud Barak promised to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in August 2001, Sharon was talking about the assassination policy."

Sharabi said Jabber made that up.

The actual reason he did the study, he said, is "because I wanted to try to explore how Jewish-Israeli children construct the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in order to modify those attitudes, which are presently created and foment the hostile environment."

Sharabi said Jabber also fabricated this quote, which purports to show the "difference of vision" between Israeli and Palestinian children: "The Arab girl wrote: 'To the Israeli child that I saw at the Pyramids in Egypt. My father refused to allow me to talk to you. I told him I wanted you to be my friend so I could ask you why Israelis are killing Palestinians.'

"The above words are fiction, not journalism," Sharabi said, directly challenging Jabber. "Show me your evidence of these quotes, or of this conversation."

But al-Majalla followed that quote with its conclusion, after hinting a study of Palestinian children would reveal attitudes that contrast with Jewish children.

The most important question is who – or what – is responsible for forming these beliefs in young [Jewish] children. Israel has achieved a huge success in molding the minds of children younger than 10. Thus does Zionist thought develop day by day. Hate and anger are being planted in children and this will make it impossible to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples.

Sharabi said he "deeply regrets that peace-oriented research, conducted with the ultimate goal of exploring and exposing the consequences of violence, hatred and fear ... is being used as a flaying tool."

Glorifying child 'martyrs'

As WorldNetDaily reported, Palestinian authorities meanwhile are rewarding children for embracing violence and hate by honoring letters extolling those themes in a recent youth writing contest.

Other WND stories have shown how in Palestinian nurseries, preschools, entertainment venues, classrooms and summer camps, children are taught to hate Jews, to glorify "jihad" (holy war), violence, death and child martyrdom almost from birth, as an essential part of their culture and destiny.

One example is a monthly children's magazine published by the Hamas terrorist organization that urges Palestinian and Iraqi children to pray for Allah to "destroy the cruel, rapist Jews" and bring victory to the Palestinian and Iraqi causes.

According to Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch, examination of Palestinian Authority television reveals "incessant broadcasting" of programming that "extols and glorifies the dead and especially their willingness to be killed, and portrays their afterlife as idyllic."

One particular film, he says, "openly and explicitly tells the children to seek death by portraying the most famous child 'martyr,' Muhammad al-Dura, calling to other children to join him, in his idyllic afterlife."

In 2000, the Mufti of Jerusalem, the city's highest Muslim religious authority, calling for the complete "liberation" by Palestinians not only of Jerusalem, but of all of Israel, said "sacrifice" and "martyrdom" of Palestinian children prove that "the new generation will carry on the mission with determination."



Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2003

What Does the "Palestinian Nation" Offer the World?

By Cynthia Ozick

And what rough beast, its hour come at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?

--W.B. Yeats

When, some years ago, Golda Meir contentiously remarked, "There are no Palestinians," she was historically correct and evolutionally mistaken. She was right because the people who had only recently begun to take on the name "Palestinian" were ethnically and civilizationally Arab, part of what the Arabs themselves were pleased to call, with the poetic resonance of indivisibility, "the Arab Nation." Palestine, moreover, had its origin as a term of malice, the Roman invaders' way of erasing Judea by naming it after the Philistines who warred against the Jews. And like the Palestinians today, who deny the ancient reality of the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, the emperor Hadrian also had the distinction of reassigning the history of Jerusalem; he dubbed it Aelia Capitolina, in honor of Jupiter.

Yet at the same time Golda Meir was mistaken: She declined to recognize a growing sectarianism rooted not merely in the bitterness of contemporary politics--the Arab war against the Jews--but far more comprehensively in a particularized and developing cultism. Whether the Palestinians nowadays constitute a cult or a sect or a nation within the greater Arab world is scarcely to the point. They have become a nation in their own eyes--and, with the blessings of the road map, internationally as well. Nevertheless it is not the determination of political borders that makes a nation; a nation is defined by its traits and usages, by its heroes and aspirations--in short, by its culture.

History, in Benedetto Croce's formulation, "is about the positive and not the negative." No one can refute the truth that the Palestinians have fashioned a culture peculiarly their own--but one so steeped in the negative as to have been turned into a kind of anti-history. In order to deprive Jews of their patrimony, Palestinians have fabricated a sectarian narrative alien to commonplace knowledge. Although the Arab invasion of Palestine did not occur until the 17th century, Palestinian Arabs are declared to be, according to activist Salah Jabr, "the descendants of civilizations that have lived in this land since the Stone Age." With equal absurdity, other such deniers of Jewish patrimony claim a Canaanite bloodline. By replacing history with fantasy, the Palestinians have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors. And they have been assisted in these deviations by Arab rulers who for half a century have purposefully and pitilessly caged and stigmatized them as refugees, down to the fourth generation. Refugeeism, abetted also by the United Nations, has itself been joined to the Palestinian cult of anti-history. A people respectful of history, including its own above all, will work to fructify and invigorate life; it will not debase and vitiate it.

The salient attribute of any culture is originality and its legacies. Genius, no matter how rare, is a human universal. It sends into the world new perception and new experience, inspiring duplication: Out of Israel came monotheism, out of Greece philosophy, out of Arab civilization science and poetry, out of England the Magna Carta, out of France the Enlightenment. What has been the genius of Palestinian originality, what has been the contribution of the evolving culture of Palestinian sectarianism? On the international scene: airplane hijackings and the murder of American diplomats in the 1970s, Olympic slaughterings and shipboard murders in the 1980s. And toward the Jews of the Holy Land, beginning in the 1920s and continuing until this morning, terror, terror, terror, terror.

But the most ingeniously barbarous Palestinian societal invention, surpassing any other in imaginative novelty, is the recruiting of children to blow themselves up with the aim of destroying as many Jews as possible in the most crowded sites accessible. These are not so much acts of anti-history as they are, remarkably, instances of anti-instinct. The drive to live is inherent: The very mite crawling on this sheet as I write hastens to flee the point of my pen. The child who has been taught to die and to kill from kindergarten on, via song and slogan in praise of bloodletting, represents an inconceivable cultural ideal. And it is a cultural grotesquerie that Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a pediatrician entrusted by his vocation with the healing of children, is in fact a major recruiter of young suicide bombers. (When his wife was asked by a neighbor why her husband did not outfit his own teenage son in a bomber's vest, the good doctor instantly sent the boy abroad.)

Confronted by this orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death, there are some who would apply the term psychopathological. But it is metaphysics, not Freud, that is at stake: the life force traduced, cultism raised to a sinister spiritualism--not because the "martyrs" are said to earn paradise, but because extraordinary transformations of humane understanding are hounded into being. A Palestinian ethos of figment and fantasy has successfully infiltrated the West, particularly among intellectuals, who are always seduced by novelty. We live now with an anti-history wherein cause and effect are reversed, protection against attack is equated with the brutality of attack, existential issues are demoted or ignored--"cycle of violence" obfuscations all zealously embraced by the State Department and the European Union.

The Road Map permits no contradiction to the Palestinians' emerging nationhood. But if it is teachings and usages that characterize a nation, then what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches out of Bethlehem to be born?

Ms. Ozick, a novelist, is the author of "Quarrel & Quandary: Essays" (Knopf, 2000).



[Freeman Center editor's note: Notice that the Arabs are selling the same "rug" to the Israelis and the world for the zillionth time. Santayana use to say "If you don't learn from history, you are condemned to repeat it." (Will the Israelis ever learn or will they remain clueless??? Of couse Shimon Peres was recently quoted as saying that "You can learn NOTHING from history!" Judge for yourself.]


By Shawn Pine

As President Bush ponders his trip to the Middle East to facilitate the road map to peace plan, its failure is already cast. Proponents of the road map call it a historical, pragmatic approach. Indeed, a reading of the text does require both sides to undertake tangible, pragmatic steps to resolve the conflict. However, anyone experienced with the conflict knows that the obligations required by both sides in the first phase are unobtainable and therefore the road map is a facade. The road map is destined to fail as it is fundamentally flawed and fails to address the fundamental core problems that underscore the conflict.

What precludes peace from being reached between the Israelis and Palestinians is the fact that the Palestinians have not abandoned their desire to destroy the Jewish State, either through its physical destruction or through their demand of the "right of return." Indeed, recent polling among the Palestinians indicates that the time is not propitious to return to a repackaged form of the Oslo process. A process that was exemplified by a process of tangible Israeli concessions for vociferous, albeit vacuous, series of commitments by the Palestinians.

In an April 2003 poll conducting by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, 75.3 percent of respondents favored the continuation of the intifada and some 59.9 percent continued to support suicide bombers. There are signs that shifts are beginning to occur within Palestinian society that might ultimately bring about the requisite changes in Palestinian culture. The percentages of those favoring continuation of the intifada and suicide bombers were slightly lower than the percentage cited in previous polls. Moreover, the recent spontaneous protests by some 800 Palestinians against Hamas are the first notable expression that a fissure may be developing within the Palestinian society and that the Palestinians are coming to the realization that violent struggle has done little to facilitate the achievement of Palestinian national aspirations.

However, although an encouraging manifestation for those seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict, it has been an isolated event which indicates that the Palestinian eschewing of terrorism is in its embryonic stage. In a society in which "martyrdom" is worshiped and religious and political leaders urge its young to sacrifice themselves and to kill Jews, achieving the requisite change in Palestinian culture will be a generational process and not one that will occur over night. Until such time as a fundamental change within Palestinian society occurs any progress towards achieving a lasting peace between the two peoples will be ephemeral. Unfortunately, previous attempts to resolve the conflict, and the current situation, will ensure that the conditions under which the road map will be implemented will not be fundamentally different from those under which the Oslo process proceeded. Progress towards a real and comprehensive peace will occur only with the political isolation of Arafat and the destruction of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as effective terrorist and political forces.

Only then will more pragmatic and reasonable Palestinian voices be able to speak out and compete for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. Until such time, any attempt to reach a final settlement will not only proves fruitless, but will exacerbate the pain and suffering of both peoples. Given this reality, it is hard to fathom the motivations behind the decision to implement the road map at this time. Undoubtedly the decision by the United States to present the road map is largely part of the quid pro quo for Arab acquiescence and British support for US military operations against Iraq. The destination of the road map is the creation of a Palestinian State and a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005. By setting a date the US has placed Israel in an untenable position. Regardless of the lack of tangible progress that will be made in implementing the components of the road map the Quartet will seek to achieve a final settlement by the end date.

This will be done only by forcing Israel to make the type of concessions that were previously offered by Ehud Barak, and rejected by Arafat, without compelling the Palestinians to fulfill any of their obligations under the road map. It is the ultimate irony that the United States, having exerted so much political, economic, and human resources to remove two despotic regimes within the past two years, is now embarking on a political effort to create a similar regime in Gaza and the West bank. The US will use its considerable influence to pressure the Sharon government to make tangible concessions to the Palestinians, such as easing the closure of the territories and freezing settlement expansion, in exchange for promises from the Palestinians to dismantle its terrorist infrastructure and take action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

However, in reality there is little desire or motivation by the Palestinian Authority to take such action. Indeed, with the facade of Arafat being a viable peace partner having been removed, there should be little expectation that substantive progress towards peace will be achieved. On the contrary, Arafat will seek to undermine Abbas' political base while competing with Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. Whatever the personal desire of Abbas, he clearly lacks the political and military support to confront Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Moreover, whatever the facade of cooperation that exists between Abbas and Arafat, any expansion of power and authority that Abbas achieves comes at the expense of Arafat. Consequently, Abbas only hope for his political, and personal, survival is to function as a figurehead for Arafat. If history is any indication, Abbas will argue against immediate Palestinian implementation of their obligations called for in the road map. Abbas will cite his lack of political influence and credibility among the Palestinians. He will argue that he needs to deliver more tangible concessions to his people.

The US, faced with a barrage of pressure from its European and Arab allies will be hard pressed not to pressure Israel to make such concessions. This will set in motion the same cycle that occurred during the Oslo process in which the Israelis will seek to ease the conditions within the territories which will enable Palestinian terrorist groups to launch more frequent and effective terrorist attacks. These attacks will precipitate an Israeli response, which in turn will lead those promoting the road map to exert more pressure on Israel. The end result will be something similar to what occurred under the Oslo process. However, if the international community is serious in implementing a process that has a chance of success, then there is a way to test both the intentions of the Palestinians and the willingness of the Israelis to make the "painful" concessions alluded to by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. During his visit, the President should reach an agreement with Sharon in securing Israeli withdraw from a defined number of Palestinian villages and towns in which there is a known and identified Hamas or Islamic Jihad presence.

The Israeli withdrawal should occur concomitantly with the introduction of Palestinian security forces into these villages and towns. This means that Israel should not withdraw from the areas until the Palestinian security forces are prepared to accept responsibility for the areas turned over to their control. Additionally, Israel should share with the Palestinian security forces intelligence information they have on persons within those areas identified with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If the Palestinians undertake the steps outlined in the road map to arrest terrorist member and destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure, then Israel can continue its withdraw from other Palestinian towns and villages. However, each withdrawal should only occur when Palestinian security forces indicate that they are prepared to fulfill their obligations under the road map.

The importance of this approach cannot be underestimated. This process would test the Palestinians willingness to fulfill it obligation under the road map to "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere and to "confront all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure" while testing the Israelis obligation under the road map to withdraw "as comprehensive security performance moves forward progressively from areas occupied since September 28, 2000."

Unlike the Oslo accords, this approach would be a real demonstration of the willingness of both sides to implement the road map. Unfortunately, that is precisely why the Palestinians, and its supporters, will militate against such an approach. Rather than address the core problem in reaching a final settlement (namely a Palestinian desire to destroy the Jewish State), proponents of the Palestinians attempt to obfuscate the core obstacles to achieving a final settlement.

The attempts to draw a de facto moral equivalency between the Israeli building of settlements and the Palestinian use of terrorism, is astounding given the lessens that should have been learned from the Oslo process. Historically, while the expansion of settlements is an irritant, it has been a negligible deterrent in reaching a comprehensive settlement. Whether Israel continues expanding, freezes or dismantles its settlements on the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to obtaining peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Settlement activity in Gaza did not preclude the Israeli - Egyptian peace treaty and the subsequent dismantling of settlements in the late 1970's. Moreover, settlement activity throughout the last 40 years did not preclude Ehud Barak from offering Arafat some 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza in a comprehensive settlement.

As President Bush ponders on how to implement the "road map" he should be reminded of a time honored fundamental principle of military leadership. It states that a leader should never ask his subordinates to do anything that he would not do himself. As America leads its allies in the war against terrorism it would behoove our policy makers to follow that advice, lest they embolden our enemies and alienate our allies.


Shawn Pine is a Middle East military and strategic analyst and a research associate with the Ariel Center for Policy Research. He has published a myriad of articles and policy papers concerning the prevailing military and strategic environment in the Middle East. His works have appeared in Israel Affairs, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, The Jerusalem Post, and Nativ. He also contributed an article to the work From Rabin to Netanyahu: Israel's Troubled Agenda. He received a Master of Arts degree in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Texas at Austin and holds a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service degree from Georgetown University. He is currently a Major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence. Pine is also a research associate for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by Herbert Sunshine

Individuals unite to form governments to accomplish what they, as individuals, cannot. Foremost among their fundamental needs is that of security and defense. Among political scientists, this exchange, individual rights for common security is known as a Social Contract.

The Father of American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, drafted a Declaration to the King of England against whose government, the American colonies had a long list of grievances.

The Declaration speaks to events in Israel today.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the bonds which have connected them... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security."

Israel today has abandoned its Creator and worships the god America. We have traded our sovereignty over Holy Land for a dubious promise that our objections to the creation of a terrorist neighbor will be taken into account.

The government of Israel has disregarded the will of its people, ruling instead, by a cabinet, appointed by an executive who is unresponsive to public opinion.

On the life and death issue of the surrender of our lands and its inhabitants, there will be no vote of the elected Knesset; there will be no vote of the citizens affected. Despite promises tht our security will not be compromised, a sovereign state will be shoehorned between the Jordan and the Sea.

Our Prime Minister has declared that the "transfer" of Arabs is "racist", the removal of Jews from Judea and Samaria is not. Tolerating the murder and maiming of thousands of Jews, the government of Israel has foregone a military solution.

Dominated by the opinion of the "world" deaf to the word of the God of Israel and the tenets of Judaism, the government of Israel has surrendered unconditionally, shamefully and totally to a gang of murderers.

There is no security. There is no peace within our Land. What Jewish home is safe from removal? What Jew can be certain that he will be living under Israel's protection?

We are deceived and betrayed. The pronouncements of our government are more propaganda than fact. The media is controlled; opposition television and radio is raided and closed.

Citizens are jailed without charge, the right to bail or access to legal representation is denied. The Courts are appendages of the political arm; their rulings reflect the ruling class.

Therefore, the Jewish citizens of Israel declare that there be:

1. Immediate cancellation of the dangerous "road map" which contains no mutuality of obligations.
2. The submission of the question of Arab sovereignty in the Israel to a vote of the people; a binding referendum.
3. Calling general elections for the Knesset, and separately, for the Prime Minister and for the Judiciary. Knesset candidates shall represent districts to which they are responsible.
4.. The drafting of and submission to a vote of the general electorate, a written Constitution, calling for separation of powers, checks and balances, and a bill of rights for Jews, specifically the right to bear arms
5. The cancellation of Article 7A of the fundamental laws permitting a political party to ban another party from seeking office.

A truly democratic government is the instrument of the will of its people.

At present, the government of Israel is the enemy of the Jewish people.

There is only one more red line; that of the blood of Jews whose government tolerated their murder in our Holy Land.

The American Declaration concludes,

"With firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Adjunct Prof. of Law (ret.)
P.O.B. 31738, Jerusalem, ISRAEL



IHC's Jerusalem Fact Sheet


Compiled and copyrighted by the Israel Hasbara Committee (IHC)

1. General Considerations

a. The connection between the Jewish People and the City of Jerusalem is one of the most well documented facts in world history.

In Jewish traditional sources, the word "Jerusalem" is mentioned over 600 times, at least 140 times in the New Testament, but never in the Koran.

There is a reference in the Koran (17:7) to the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which were located in Jerusalem.

There is also a reference in the Koran (34:13) to King David and his son, King Solomon who built the First Temple in Jerusalem.

But the Koran, which is about 1,400 years old, does not explicitly mention the word "Jerusalem."

Considering the word "Jerusalem" existed for about 2,000 years prior to the birth of Islam, this is noteworthy.

b. Jerusalem was founded by King David on the former Jebusite city of Jebus about 3,300 years ago when he renamed it and gave it a Jewish character.

Jerusalem has been both the political and spiritual capital of the Jewish people, the latter without interruption to the present through good and bad times.

c. Throughout the past 3,300 years Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other people, including the Arabs and Muslims, a remarkable fact considering the city has been conquered by so many different peoples.

2. Observations of some famous people about the connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem:

a) "To a Muslim" observed British writer Christopher Sykes, "there is a profound difference between Jerusalem and Mecca or Medina. The latter are holy places containing holy sites." Besides the Dome of the Rock, he noted, Jerusalem has no major Islamic significance. (The Dome of the Rock is built on the remains of the First and Second Jewish Temples.)

b) Sir Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister, to diplomat Evelyn Shuckburgh, 1955:
"You ought to let the Jews have Jerusalem; it was they who made it famous."

c) Sari Nusseibah, the PA's former representative in Jerusalem:
"I would be blind to disclaim the Jewish connection to Jerusalem." (Source: Bard, Mitchell G., Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Inc., 2002.)

3. Some Records of Jewish Presence in Jerusalem, 705 CE to 1967 CE.

705 CE-"From the time of Caliph Abdel-Malik (d. 705) and henceforth Jews were among those who guarded the walls of the Dome of the Rock.

In return, they were absolved from paying the poll tax imposed on all non-Muslims.

The Jews were employed in clearing the Haram area of waste." Mujir al-din in his History of Jerusalem and Hebron.

863- This is the presumed date of the move of Yeshivat Eretz Israel from Tiberias to Jerusalem to become the central religious authority of the whole region.

The last of Jerusalem's Ga'ons (sages) was Evyatar Ben Eliyahu Hacohen (1112)." Nathan Schur, History of Jerusalem.

1167-"Two hundred of those Jews dwell in one corner of the City, under the Tower of David." Benjamin of Tudela in his famous Travels.

1395-"The Jews in the Holy City live in their own special residential areas." Traveler Ogier D'Anglure in Le Saint Voyage de Jerusalem.

1499-"Among the very many Jews in Jerusalem I found several natives of Lombardy, three from Germany and two monks who had converted to Judaism."
Arnold von Harff's travelogue Die Pilgerfarht 1.

1546/47-"Many Jews dwell in Jerusalem and there is a special street of the Jews." Ulrich Prefat of Slovenia in his chronicle.

1611-"And in this Land they [the Jews] live as strangers . . . open to all oppression and deprivation, which they bear with patience beyond all belief, despised and beaten. In spite of all this, I never saw a Jew with an angry face." George Sandys, son of the Archbishop of York in Travails.

1751-"As 4,000 persons arrive yearly besides as many Jews who come from all quarters of the world." Swedish traveler Frederick Hasselquist in Voyages and Travels in the Levant.

1860-First Jewish Quarter built outside the walls of Jerusalem.

1889-"Thirty thousand out of 40,000 people in Jerusalem are Jews . . . at present the Jews are coming here by the hundreds." The Pittsburgh Dispatch, July 15, 1889.

1925-Hebrew University opened at Mount Scopus, Jerusalem.

1967-Arabs defeated in their new war against Israel - the Six Day War.
Jerusalem reunited. Western Wall and Temple Mount liberated.
(Source: Tal, Eliyahu, Whose Jerusalem, International Forum For A United Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 1994.)

4. Israel's Respect for Places of Worship of All Religions

With the exception of the period 1948-1967 Jerusalem has never been a physically divided city.

In 1948, the Jordanian Arab Legion under Glubb Pasha (really John Bagot, an Englishman) overran Jerusalem.

Jordan controlled the city from 1948 to 1967 and expelled all Jews.

The Jordanians made the ancient City of Jerusalem judenrein.

Under Jordanian rule the following occurred:

Fifty-eight synagogues in the ancient Jewish Quarter -some centuries old- were destroyed and desecrated. The Jordanians turned some of them into stables and chicken coops.

The Jordanian Arab Legion desecrated the ancient 2500-year-old Jewish cemetery on the nearby Mount of Olives. A road was built across the ancient cemetery to connect the Intercontinental Hotel to a highway. The Jordanian Arab Legion used tombstones of saintly rabbis for pavement and latrines.

Despite a provision in the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, permitting Jews to visit their holy places, the Jordanians prohibited Jews from visiting the Western Wall in the Old City or the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The Hebrew University on Mount Scopus and the Hadassah Hospital were all but cut off and the buildings left derelict.

Despite Jordan's dismal record of complete disrespect for hallowed Jewish holy places, the U.N. did not pass a single resolution decrying it. Compare this to the U.N.'s record of resolutions against Israel. In contrast, Israel's treatment of all holy places in Jerusalem and her surroundings since 1967 has been exemplary. Former President Jimmy Carter said there is "no doubt" that Israel did a better job safeguarding access to the city's holy places than did Jordan.

5. Jerusalem Population

Many are unaware that since around 1840, the Jews have constituted the majority of Jerusalem's population.

Year Jews Muslims Christians Total
1844 7,120 5,000 3,390 15,510
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030
1896 28,112 8,560 8,748 45,420
1922 33,971 13,411 4,699 52,081
1931 51,222 19,894 19,335 90,451
1948 100,000 40,000 25,000 165,000
1967 195,700 54,963 12,646 263,309
1987 340,000 121,000 14,000 475,000
1990 378,200 131,800 14,400 524,400
2000 530,400 204,100 14,700 758,300

(Source: Bard, Mitchell G., Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Inc., 2002.)

6. Conclusion:

When the Jewish people claim Jerusalem as their Eternal City they are on solid ground with the strongest case possible.

No other people have claims to Jerusalem as strong as the Jewish people have.

The Jewish claim is the longest unbroken claim. Jerusalem is the one and only spiritual center of Judaism.

Jerusalem, in all its long history, has only been the capital of one people - the Jewish People.

Jews have constituted the majority of Jerusalem's population for the last 160 years.

And, most importantly for the international community, Israel has by far the best record of protecting the holy places of all faiths, and in Jerusalem, the holy places of all religions are accorded proper respect.

Jerusalem is the logical capital of the State of Israel and all men of truth and good faith should recognize this as such.


Bard, Mitchell G., Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Inc., 2002.

Ben Gad, Yitschak, Politics, Lies and Videotape, Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., New York, 1991.

Cohen, Saul B., Jerusalem: Bridging the Four Walls, Herzyl Press, New York, 1977.

Gilbert, Martin, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, Chatto and Windus Ltd., London, 1996.

Tal, Eliyahu, Whose Jerusalem, International Forum for a United Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 1994




By Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University

As should be plainly evident from today's barbaric attack upon pasengers on a Jerusalem bus, there is no "cycle of violence" in the Middle East, only frenzied Arab murders of Jewish civilians followed by essential Israeli measures of self-defense. Hamas argues that it was "retaliating" for Israel's prior day's attempt at assassination of a lead terrorist, as if to say that a constituted democratic state and an outlawed terrorist gang are of equivalent legal stature. Yet, such an argument exhibits the perverse logic of an arch criminal who sees no difference between law violation and law enforcement.

Hamas has no right to "retaliate;" it is a flagrantly criminal organization that recognizes no boundaries whatsoever in its persistent targeting of innocents. This should be especially evident to President Bush, whose recent criticism of Israeli self-defense stands in ironic contrast to America's vastly more massive use of force in Iraq. So far Operation Iraqi Freedom has generated almost 3500 Iraqi civiilan casualties as collateral damage to targeted-killing of Saddam Hussein. And Israel is rather more vulnerable than the United States; the entire country could fit comfortably into Lake Michigan.

Civilized societies acknowledge no equivalence between the inexcusable violence of murderers and the indispensable violence of lawful authorities. But what is Israel to do? Now there is even an explicit Arab threat to escalate to biological terrorism. Recently the Lebanon-based Palestinian weekly, Al-Manar, published an article titled: "Will We Reach the Option of Biological Deterrence?" Here, according to a translation by the highly reputable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Palestinian terrorists plan to deploy such "death-carrying devices near Israeli water resources; the Israeli beaches....the markets and the residential centers." The plain objective, for the Arabs, is " create a balance of horror in the equation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

What is Israel to do? The Palestinian Prime-Minister says that he will not use force against Hamas, and Hamas recognizes only a "One State Solution." For them, all of Israel - not only West Bank and Gaza - are "Occupied Palestine." They state openly, and categorically, that they will not cease violence against "The Jews" until "all of Palestine is liberated." Now, shall Israeli Prime Minister Sharon declare Hamas leadership immune to Israeli self-defense strikes? Is there a national leader anywhere on earth who would conceivably make such a declaration?

All of the Palestinian leadership - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority, it makes no difference - share an expressed delight in the murder of Jewish noncombatants. This is because for all of these leaders, the issue is not territory, but religion. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is only superficially about land. More profoundly, it is about GOD, and about Arab unwillingness to allow a Jewish State, ANY Jewish State, in an Islamic region. Under no circumstances are the Palestinians willing to allow Jewish sovereignty over Muslims. Even if the Jews "occupy" a land that is less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California, it is a "cancer" on the World of Islam that must be cut out.

Consider how deliriously the present Palestinian leadership articulates its idea of "liberation." Announced joyously, as if killing Jews were always much more than a necessary evil, this idea is genuinely savored. It is savored in almost every communal context; in family gatherings, in the schools and of course in the mosques. Whatever brings death to "The Jews" is judged to be good, true and beautiful. Violence against Israel need not be specifically purposeful or instrumental. Rather, it is always "delightful" (in the literal meaning of that word) in its own right.

What is Israel to do? Israel must understand all this, and take care not to assume standard military reasoning among its Palestinian enemies or its enemies elsewhere in the Islamic world. Israel, which generally assumes enemy rationality in its counterterrorism and war-planning scenarios, can no longer overlook the fact that this assumption is often incorrect. In the Islamic Middle East, violence within and between states is often self- propelled, generated for its own sake, for what a Fatah Manifesto calls its "healing powers among the people." For many of Israel's enemies, Clausewitz is being replaced with De Sade. For these enemies, violence against Jews is deliciously naked, tantalizing only for the sheer pain its can bring to unbelievers. The aggressivity of this violence is disinterested in strategic gains or losses. Notwithstanding the assertions of all Palestinian leaderships, it is often politically unmotivated. Sometimes it wills only its own will. Lately it is pure frenzy; a "perfect" irrationality.

There exists among Israel's Palestinian enemies a voluptuousness of violence. It is in Israel's immediate existential interest never to lose sight of this primal inversion of normal world politics. Israel's enemies, at least on occasion, are ready to disregard ordinary calculations of cost- effectiveness and military balance. Instead, they are now routinely animated by the most hideously aberrant human needs and expectations. For the Palestinian leadership elites, representing all factions and parties, agony is infintely more important than logic; not their own agony, to be sure, but the agony they can inflict upon "The Jews." Living happily only under the sovereignty of a rancorous hatred, they increasingly prefer the lascivious enthusiasms of cruelty to the gentle possibilities for peace. As soon as violence against "The Jews" beckons, these leaders join merrily together, dreaming contentedly of inferno, slaughter and "paradise."

Curiously, much of the Palestinian leadership tells the truth about its tactics and hopes. Not only Hamas, but also Yassir Arafat and his other brothers-in-arms have sometimes harbored their exterminating sentiments openly. The killing and maiming of Jewish innocents has become their most conspicuous life force, even their raison d'etre. One wonders, reciprocally, why so many people still stubbornly refuse to listen. Even in Israel.

What is Israel to do? There is no cycle of violence in the region, only a continuous and gratuitous murder of Jews on their own land. With a palpable greed for violence, with a feverish greed still unrecognized in Washington, the Palestinian leadership impatiently awaits Israel's dying moments. Nothing less will ever satisy them. Absolutely nothing.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and publishes widely on Israeli security matters. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



The following article was written by Professor Louis Rene Beres only a month after the first Oslo Agreement in 1993. Its persistent truth after almost ten years of enlarged Jewish suffering now speaks for itself.


By Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University

Re-released June 12, 2003

A vulture was hacking at my feet. It had already torn my boots and stockings to shreds, now it was hacking at the feet themselves. Again and again it struck at them, then circled several times restlessly round me, then returned to continue its work. A gentleman passed by, looked on for a while, then asked me why I suffered the vulture. "I'm helpless," I said. "When it came and began to attack me, I of course tried to drive it away, even to strangle it, but these animals are very strong, it was about to spring at my face, but I preferred to sacrifice my feet. Now they are almost torn to bits."

"Fancy letting yourself be tortured like this!" said the gentleman. "One shot and that's the end of the vulture." "Really?" I said. "And would you do that?" "With pleasure," said the gentleman, "I've only got to go home and get my gun. Could you wait another half hour?" "I'm not sure about that," said I, and stood for a moment rigid with pain. Then I said: "Do try it in any case, please." "Very well," said the gentleman, "I'll be as quick as I can."

During this conversation the vulture had been calmly listening, letting its eye rove between me and the gentleman. Now I realized that it had understood everything; it took wing, leaned far back to gain impetus, and then, like a javelin thrower, thrust its beak through my mouth, deep into me. Falling back, I was relieved to feel him drowning irretrievably in my blood, which was filling every depth, flooding every shore.

Franz Kafka, THE VULTURE

Even by the standards of Kafka's uncannily prophetic insights, the parable of the Vulture is remarkable. Examined as a lesson for Israel in its protracted struggle for survival in the Middle East, especially after its recently concluded agreement with Yasir Arafat, this cautionary tale is right on the mark. Indeed, it reads as if it were written originally with no other struggle in mind.

Consider the scenario. A man is being destroyed, slowly and painfully, by a fierce and predatory bird. Repeatedly, the bird hacks at its victim, immobilizing him systematically and purposefully, piece by piece. The man, of course, has not allowed this process of sequential dismemberment to proceed without defensive reaction. Fearing, above all, for his face, for his very being, he has preferred to "sacrifice my feet." Rather than confront his enemy head on, frontally, with some hope of emerging victorious, he has calculated instead, quite rationally he maintains, the cost-effectiveness of appeasement. In the end, his rational calculations prove altogether erroneous. It is true that our victim does draw some satisfaction from the final mutuality of death - the vulture drowns "irretrievably" in the man's own blood - but it is a satisfaction that is necessarily short-lived.

There is more. Before the dreadful demise of both victim and victimizer, a "gentleman" promises aid to the former. The gentleman needs only to return with his "gun;" the man needs only to "wait another half hour." All the while, the vulture, not merely a beast animated by instinct, "understands" the plan against it, and decides, again after "calm" and careful calculation, to launch decisive thrusts. So what if they turn out to be more carnivorous frenzies. It is now too late to stop the hacking.

Events have achieved an unstoppable momentum of their own. What must be done must be done.

The "gentleman," of course, never returns. Like the vacant American President Clinton, who now urges Israel onward with a delusionary "peace process," he has other, more urgent, preoccupations. The problem with his promises is not that he is necessarily deceitful or meanspirited (he is, after all, a "gentleman"), but that he is interested only in himself.

For too many years, the "vulture" has been hacking away at Israel. From its fragile beginnings, Israel has been heeding one "gentleman" or another. Although the United States has hardly urged the Jewish State to deal with its painfully progressive decomposition by explicitly recognizing the advantages of firing "one shot," the implicit promise is always present: "Negotiate, compromise, yield, beg; there is really no risk involved. There is always the last resort of overwhelming military power." This promise, whether it refers to American or to Israeli forces, or to both, is of little or no value. Taken too seriously, it will likely lead Israel toward one form or another of the "Samson Option." While enemies of the Jewish State will "drown irretrievably" in the full fury of Israel's most terrible weapons - in the unspeakable lifeblood of a victim that has waited for too long to ensure its survival - this fate will occasion no celebrations in what is left of Jewish Jerusalem. Faced with the end of the Third Temple Commonwealth, Israel's leaders will curse their enemies and their "gentleman," but it will be an indecipherable curse, a curse heard by no one.

It will emerge, of course, that this Oslo "peace process" is an oxymoron, a paradoxical conjunction of terms that could seal the fate of an imperilled ministate - one smaller than some counties in California. For Israel, a long-suffering and increasingly directionless victim, the process may lead to complete and irreversible helplessness. Sacrificing more and more essential security in the hope that predators will be satisfied, it will learn too late - unless Kafka's revealing parable is understood by the endangered People of Israel - that the lure of carrion only inflames the vulture. In an unspeakable irony genuinely savored by the insatiable vulture, Israel could even become the Final Solution to the Jewish Question.


LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Prof. Beres is the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.





By Jack Engelhard

How is this thing supposed to work? The more Jews these Arabs kill, the more land they get?

They've already murdered more than a thousand of us, and for this they get Judea, Samaria and Gaza. For the next thousand, surely they'll be entitled to Haifa and Tel Aviv.

Yet another thousand and they get all of Jerusalem. Who said terrorism doesn't pay? It pays and pays and pays. (Just ask Bush and Sharon.)

We now hold "summit meetings" with killers. After their summit with Abu Mazen, Bush and Sharon will surely hold a summit with those two Beltway Snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

Sharon wants to make "painful" concessions? Here's one. Leave! Leave office, and this you can do right away.

Who should take Sharon's place? Beats me. When it came to that vote, Bibi ran for the hills. (Good thing there are still some hills to run to.)

For the first time in the history of the world, a cabinet voted itself out of its own country.

We are left with a single hope -- Jewish women!

Men have turned into frogs. Virtually all Jewish leaders and spokesmen have been drained of testosterone. (Cal Thomas can't be Jewish. He wholeheartedly loves and defends Israel.)

That leaves the women, G-d bless them.

I'm talking about women like the ones who rescued us once before, the midwives in Egypt (Jochebed and Miriam...) who heroically saved the firstborn even against Pharaoh's sword.

Thank heaven for little girls...they grow up in the most delightful way.

Isn't there a legend that when Golda met with her cabinet and generals she was the only man in the room?

As men continue to wimp out, our strength, once again, comes from our wives, sisters, daughters and mothers. That's where you'll find the valor. They're the ones with the passion for Zion. Watch them as they march. Watch them as they protest. They write, they sing, they fight. By the thousands they go onward. Nothing stops them. Dozens of such women of valor come to mind (drawn mainly from Internet connections), but I dare not mention them because if I forget even one, no dinner tonight.

Okay, I will name Women In Green, just as an example of feminine courage, courage to answer as the angels, Na'aseh V'Nishmah.

So I'm not going to mention such fighters in the spirit of Deborah as Ruth S. King, Ruth Matar, Nadia Matar, Trudy Gefen, Naomi Regan, Ellen W. Horowitz, Aliza Karp, Charlotte West, Suzanne Davidson, Caroline Glick or Arlene Peck, who, by the way, was dropped from a Jewish newspaper for "not being nice to the Arabs." Did that stop her? Are you kidding? It only got her started.

But I will mention a couple of righteous gentile women of valor. Say what you will about Whitney Houston -- she went to Israel with love. The antidote to Sean Penn.

Another one is Brigitte Bardot. No, I'm not kidding. She took on the entire PC world when she warned that her native France was being overrun by Islam.

During Uprising Part One I did some writing for the media watchdog group CAMERA, there in Philadelphia, and it was the women, much more than the men, who were rarin' to go.

I understand that somewhere a voice is heard. A Hebrew daughter has been born...Look out!

If you run this piece, please include the following byline:
Jack Engelhard is the author of the international bestseller "Indecent Proposal" (ComteQ Publishing) and is completing his latest novel, "The Uriah Deadline," a fictional thriller involving Mideast news manipulation.

HOME Maccabean comments