Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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



JULY 1999







WHERE WAS THE WEST?....Richard Shulman




THE GOLAN FOREVER....Bernard J. Shapiro



THE HEIGHTS OF FOLLY?....Frank J. Gaffney Jr.





FIRST THEY CAME FOR........Dr. Kenneth Price, Jr.

THE OPENING POSITION......Boris Shusteff





ALWAYS UNDER PRESSURE....Christopher Barder





 Letter to The Jerusalem Post published on Internet on June 20, 1999


by Bernard J. Shapiro

I am sick and tired of Israelis whining about the location of the American Embassy. Any normal country with one ounce of self-respect would have demanded that ALL embassies be located in its capital. Israel should announce that consulates and consulates-general would be welcome in Tel Aviv. ONLY Embassies would be permitted in Jerusalem . There would be temporary diplomatic difficulties, but in time, Israel's capital would be respected by the world community. Don't blame America, this is a problem of Israeli failure to exercise its proper right of sovereignty.




An Editorial


The Harsh Reality

The dangers facing Israel that we have written and faxed you about, are all still there. The election of Ehud Barak as Israel's new Prime Minister has not made even the slightest change in the Arab plans to eliminate the Jewish State from the Middle East. The anti-Semitism of Palestinian radio, television, newspapers and Islamic sermons is as Nazi-like as ever. The goal of Arafat and his terrorist cohorts to create a new 'Palestine' from the river to the sea (replacing Israel on the map), has not changed. The use of PA territory as safe havens for terrorists and the terrorist infrastructure has not changed. The hostile diplomatic campaign against Israel, now using the 1947 Partition Resolution, has not ended. The illegal construction by Arabs on Israeli lands continues unabated. The murder and harassment of Jews by Arabs in Israel has also continued. The demand from the Arabs and the Israeli left to ethnically cleanse YESHA is growing louder.

One fact is clear: The election of Barak was supported by the Arab world, President Clinton, the U.S. State Department and with cheers from Israel's traditional enemies, including the extreme left.

With friends like these, Israel needs no enemies.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor




Some Advice Prime Minister (Elect) Ehud Barak Didn't Ask For


(Editorial from June 1996 issue of THE MACCABEAN)

Some Suggested Do's & Don'ts For Netanyahu's New Government

.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor

[Editor's Note of June 29, 1999] I will grant that I was a bit arrogant telling an elected leader of Israel what he should or should not do. Please forgive my arrogance and ask yourself whether Bibi would still be in office had he followed this Zionist [not originally mine] advice? We all know he didn't, though he regretted this fact in the last months before the election. Wouldn't Barak be better off revitalizing the Zionism of his youth? Believe me, in the next election his advisor might be from Gaza and not Texas.]




Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of June 22, 1999


An Honest Broker?

By Evelyn Gordon

By refusing to recognize Israel's right to west Jerusalem, Clinton is taking an anti-Israel position so extreme that even the Palestinians have not dared to take it officially.

President Bill Clinton once again postponed the US Embassy's move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last week. According to a 1995 law passed by Congress, the embassy was supposed to have been moved this year. However, the law permits the president to move the deadline back indefinitely by issuing a waiver every six months. To issue such a waiver, the president must declare the postponement vital to America's "national security interests." In this case, the "national security interest" Clinton considered at stake was the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Since both sides have agreed that Jerusalem's fate will be determined during final-status talks, the White House explained, it would be inappropriate for America to do anything that would appear to favor one side's claim to the city over the other's. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would irretrievably damage America's status as an "honest broker" in Palestinian eyes, Clinton said. It would be impossible to argue with Clinton's logic, were it not for one tiny problem: the site of the new American embassy is not in disputed east Jerusalem, but in undisputed west Jerusalem.

Even the Palestinians have not officially demanded that west Jerusalem be placed on the negotiating table. The PLO, of course, claims that all of Israel is occupied Palestinian land, but it knows this is an untenable negotiating position. Its official demands, therefore, have been limited to the territories Israel conquered in 1967, combined with a "right of return" for Arabs from pre-1967 Israel. West Jerusalem, which has been Israel's since 1948, is not included in this claim. Nor has Israel ever agreed that any of its pre-1967 territories should be up for discussion.

Thus, by refusing to recognize Israel's right to west Jerusalem, Clinton is not serving as an "honest broker" Instead, he is taking an anti-Israel position so extreme that even the Palestinians have not dared to take it officially: that even pre-1967 Israel should be up for negotiation during the final-status talks. The Palestinians, of course, have gleefully encouraged this position by declaring that yes, the US would forfeit all credibility in their eyes if the embassy were moved. For them, this is a godsend - the American president is making a claim on their behalf that they would not dare to make themselves. No one in the Clinton administration appears to have bothered asking how recognition of Israel's right to even the 1948 borders could constitute dishonest brokering.

If Clinton is serious about wanting to promote the peace process, his biased decision on the embassy is the worst possible move. For starters, by signaling that the US considers west Jerusalem to be on the table as well, Clinton significantly raises Palestinian expectations. Since no Israeli government could match these expectations, this makes a permanent agreement much less likely.

Even worse, however, Clinton's action reinforces all of Israel's worst fears about American mediation. Though most Israelis have accepted the idea of territorial compromise [Editor's Note: This is not true of Freeman Center members in Israel], this acceptance is conditional on the belief that whatever deal is worked out will be final: that the Palestinians will not be back in another 10 or 20 years with yet more territorial demands, backed by threats of armed violence. A major component of this belief is the fact that the US is pledging itself as a guarantor of the agreement. If, however, the US cannot be relied on to fulfill this role - if it will instead turn around and pressure Israel to accede to new Palestinian demands in the future - even moderate Israelis might start thinking that giving up the West Bank and Gaza is a step on the road to dismemberment rather than peace.

By refusing to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, Clinton is sending a loud and clear message that any Israeli concessions will indeed be met with pressure for more concessions. The Rabin government made an almost unthinkable concession when it agreed to put east Jerusalem on the negotiating table, in defiance of the virtually wall-to-wall consensus within Israel. Now, instead of rewarding Israel for that concession, the Clinton administration is trying to get west Jerusalem thrown into the pot as well.

It is, of course, hard to lay all the blame on Clinton. One cannot reasonably expect the American government to be more pro-Israel than the Israelis; and the Israeli government has acted like the lamest of lame ducks on this issue. It has not challenged the Palestinians to explain why west Jerusalem should suddenly be considered disputed territory, nor has it sent the US a strong message of the type the Palestinians have, warning it that it is forfeiting all credibility in Israeli eyes.

But Clinton should remember that winning a lame-duck government's complicity is not enough. Ultimately, the new government will have to sell its final-status agreement to the Israeli people. By undermining US credibility in Israelis' eyes, Clinton is making the Barak government's task - and achievement of his own stated goal - much harder.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Evelyn Gordon comments on current affairs.





By Richard Shulman

In reaction to NATO's current intervention, someone asked where was the West during the Holocaust. Half the West was perpetrating it. The other half was watching with satisfaction. With that in mind, the question should be, where is the West now, while the Arabs are preparing another Holocaust? Answer: the West is provisioning the Arab forces and undermining Jewish resistance. The early stage of this is called "peace process."

And now you see why, while I'd like Israel to win world public opinion over to its side, I do not think it should obey world public opinion. Now you can see why I do not think highly of world opinion.


Another reader challenged us to show him an Arab who admires Saddam. When Saddam poses as the Arab world's nose-thumper at the West, the Arab masses admire him. They did the same for Nasser. The coalition against Saddam had difficulty retaining cohesion, because Arab governments were leery of popular enthusiasm for their modern "Saladin." The PLO still favors Saddam, as it did when the PA masses cheered the scuds en route to Tel Aviv.



"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and that one was of the opposite opinion, it would be just as wrong for the world to silence that one man as it would be for that man, if had the power, to silence all mankind"......

..........John Stuart Mill (ON LIBERTY).

I received two presents from him for Hanukkah in 1956: Mill's quote and a book, GUIDES TO STRAIGHT THINKING by Stuart Chase. They were among the most valuable presents I ever received..........Bernard J. Shapiro




In 1934, Harry W. Freeman, my grandfather, was already lecturing about the dangers of Hitler and Nazism. Nobody listened. The Holocaust was not prevented. Today, in 1999 there are one billion Arab & Moslem people who plan a second Holocaust against the Jews of Israel. Their first stage is to use the so called "peace process" to weaken Israel and strip it of its strategic territories. They are being aided by the same hypocrites and accomplices in the West who failed to aid the Jews of Europe in their darkest hour. Unfortunately, even left-wing Israelis have fallen victims to the seductive lure of peace and have begun a policy of appeasement similar to that tried with Hitler. The results will be no different.

The Arab propaganda full of slanders and libels; the media bias against Israel replete with double standards and the rewriting of history are all working to the same end: the de-legitimization of Israel. Israel is the only country considered by many to be GUILTY OF ORIGINAL SIN by virtue of its very existence. This process of de-legitimization has as its goal creating a world climate in which the DESTRUCTION of Israel is acceptable. Many in the Jewish community are either apathetic or fail to recognize this threat.

I founded the FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES (1992) in order to create a powerful voice to arouse the Jewish community to the action necessary to frustrate the evil designs of the enemies of Israel. I need your help to accomplish this mission. Many of you have taken the Freeman Center for granted. It will not exist without financial aid from ALL OF YOU who understand................Bernard J. Shapiro

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





Approved by the IRS Code 501(C)(3)

P.O. Box 35661

Houston, TX 77235-5661


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




Assad mumbles to a western journalist (Editor's Note: Recently in 1999 it is Patrick Seale, British author and biographer of Assad) that he might possibly, maybe, could, almost accept a Jewish entity someplace on the planet earth. The media and some Israeli officials proclaim loudly, "ASSAD READY FOR TRUE LASTING MESSIANIC PEACE WITH ISRAEL."

Reprinted from THE FORWARD of July 9, 1999


By Hillel Halkin

Here we go again: The Golan Heights are back on sale. The last time we had this "everything on the Golan must go" atmosphere was during the Rabin-Peres administration, when the rumors flew as fast as the envoys between Jerusalem and Damascus that an Israeli-Syrian deal was around the corner. The deal was, of course, "land for peace": Israel would cede the entire Golan to Syria in return for a peace treaty that would include security arrangements and the promise of an Israeli embassy and Israeli tourists in Damascus.

The Netanyahu victory in the 1996 elections scotched this scenario, and many Israelis, including quite a few who had voted against Mr. Netanyahu, hoped it had scotched it for good. Indeed, this hope was supposedly shared by Ehud Barak, who as chief of staff in the Rabin-Peres years was said to have been opposed to the total concession of the Golan. Now, however, we have been surprised twice: Once by recent reports that Mr. Netanyahu himself was secretly seeking to negotiate a settlement with Hafez al-Assad similar to that proposed by his predecessors, and a second time by the rapidly growing impression that the newly elected Mr. Barak is preparing to do the same thing.

The world, needless to say, is delighted. Why shouldn't it be? The world cares (and knows) as much about the history and geography of the Golan as it does about the Kalahari Desert. The world wants peace and quiet in the Middle East - especially quiet. The Syrians have clearly told the world that it can have them if and only if Syria gets the entire Golan. The Israelis have mumbled. They have been mumbling about the Golan for the past seven years.

The world understands clear speech better than it understands mumbles. It would like the Israelis to give the Syrians what they want so that it can stop worrying about another damnned war in the Middle East. And, indeed, why not give the Syrians what they want? The only reason I can think of is that for Israel, this would be unjust, demoralizing and dangerous. That needn't perhaps worry the world. It should worry us.

It would be unjust because the Syrian claim to the Golan is not a good one - certainly no better than Israel's. True, Arabs lived on the Golan for hundreds of years, but so, before them, did Jews, who fought and died there for their indepen-dence, as any visitor to the spectacular archeological site of Gamla knows. Nor, since Syria only became an independent state in 1944, which means that it controlled the Golan for a grand total of 23 years as opposed to 32 so far for Israel, were the Golan's Arabs politically Syrian. Indeed, the pre-1967 border itself dates back no further than 1920, when England and France carved up Syria and Palestine between them. Israel occupied the Golan militarily as a result of a defensive war of the kind that has changed numerous international frontiers in our times (among them the Polish-German and Russian-Japanese ones) and has developed the area economically beyond anything the Syrians ever dreamed of. Moreover, Security Council Resolution 242, to this day the most authoritative international statement of the "land for peace" principle, never demanded a total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan or any other Arab land conquered in 1967. By what conceivable moral, legal or historical right, then, does Syria have the whole Golan coming to it? What kind of "compromise" (ah, how the world loves that word!) will it be if Syria gets 100% of the territory under dispute and Israel gets zero?

Giving up the whole Golan in spite of its unfairness would be demoralizing, first, because to do so would mean acknowledging that Israel, although the militarily stronger party, is more afraid of a war with Syria than Syria is of a war with Israel - presumably because Israelis are easier to frighten; second, because Israel has invested an enormous amount not only economically but also emotionally in the Golan, the loss of which, along with the eviction of nearly 20,000 Jewish residents from their homes, would be devastating, and third, because ever since 1982 the Golan has been officially as much a part of Israel as the Galilee or Tel Aviv. What happens to the psyche of a nation that treats its sovereign territory as someone else's?

And this is why giving the controlling heights of the Golan to Syria would be dangerous not only to Israel's military security, but even more, to Israel's psychological security. If Israel caves in on the Golan because of its fear of war, why should it not cave in on Jerusalem - indeed why should the Arabs not expect it to cave in and threaten it with war until it does?

It is fooling oneself to imagine that a total return of the Golan will not make the Palestinian Arabs more intransigent about a total handing over of the West Bank, just as the total return of Sinai in 1977 made the Syrians more intransigent about the Golan. And suppose that in 10 or 15 years the Palestinian state that will exist then comes to Israel with pan-Arab backing and says: "Do you want to live in peace with us? Then please hand over those parts of the Galilee that have an Arab majority and that were assigned to us by the 1947 U.N. partition resolution." On what basis would those who support ceding the whole Golan to Syria today oppose yielding to such a demand tomorrow? What will they tell Israelis - what will Israelis tell themselves - when the Golan gone, they are once again asked to make "reasonable" territorial concessions for the sake of peace? No Israeli in his right mind wants a war with Syria and the thought of the human cost that such a war would entail is quite rightly enough to make one tremble.

But it should be - there is every indication that it is - enough to make the Syrians tremble, too. The argument that the only way to avoid such a war is to give Syria the Golan so that Israelis can frequent the bazaars of Damascus is absurd. Apart from its national pride (Israel, of course, is not supposed to have any), Syria has no need of the whole Golan, which comprises one-half of one percent of its total land area, while Israelis certainly do not need to shop in Damascus. In fact, Israel has nothing to gain, economically or in any other way, from diplomatic relations with a third-world police state like Syria, with which a simple state of non-belligerency would be quite sufficient. "Land for peace?" By all means! But let Israel give less land and get less peace. It is still not too late for the Barak government, which is taking its first steps this week, to stop mumbling and tell the world and the Syrians loud and clear that, yes, Israel is willing to compromise but not to play the international sucker.


New version of an article from several years ago…


Will Barak Fall For The 'Mubarak Gambit'
On The Golan?

By Bernard J. Shapiro

The word has gone forth from Jerusalem. Now there is no doubt, despite a multitude of denials. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had already agreed to surrender the whole Golan Heights to Syrian dictator Hafez Assad. It took months of couching, but finally Syrian dictator Hafez Assad has learned to say the word "peace." Does he mean it? The United State's State Department has announced that once peace is made with Syria, then 18 other Arab countries will make peace with Israel. The pressure to accept a withdrawal will be immense. Golan residents are beginning massive resistance, including hunger strikes and demonstrations.

The time has come to clear the smoke and mirrors. There is a significant Israeli dilemma in the negotiating framework with Syria. I call this dilemma:

The "Mubarak gambit." After Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat's death, his successor Hosni Mubarak discovered that Egypt could ignore its peace treaty obligations to Israel with impunity. Sadat had signed over 50 agreements and amendments to the Camp David Accords, which spelled out in great detail normalization of relations with Israel. These included trade, tourism, science, cultural and other attributes of peaceful relations. The late Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, fully believed that his sacrifice of Sinai, with its air bases and oil, was worth the inauguration of peaceful relations with the most important country in the Arab world. With every passing year, it became clearer to Mubarak that the Israelis were too timid to protest Egyptian violations. It also became clear that America would continue to supply aid (especially military aid) in the billions of dollars to Egypt, despite Egypt's obvious violations of their most solemn commitments to both President Jimmy Carter and Begin.

From this experience Mubarak devised the "Mubarak gambit," which sets out the principle that an Arab country can promise Israel peace and full normalization as a negotiating tactic in order to force an Israeli withdrawal from territory. Then after the territory is recovered, the Arab country can ignore the normalization part of any agreement. It is such a painless gambit, one would have thought that all of Israel's neighbors would have rushed to use it. In the Arab world, however, symbolism is very important and it took many years before they were ready to use this tactic. Mubarak, first convinced terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, to try out the "Mubarak gambit." We all know what has happened, including the famous handshake on September 13, 1993. We also know that all of Arafat's promises to the Israelis, including revising the PLO Charter and stopping violence, have not been honored.

Now, after much tutoring, Assad has learned the principle. It has been with great difficulty that he even speaks about peace with Israel. While he is never very clear about his meaning of peace, one thing was clear: he has learned to use the "Mubarak gambit." We will be hearing a lot from him and State Department officials about how he has changed and now "really" wants peace. Don't believe it.

Most of you understand the strategic significance of the Golan Heights so I will concentrate on the other side of the equation. If Syria wants Israel to exchange the Golan for peace, we must ask ourselves the following:

(1) Is Syria capable of giving Israel peace?

(2) Is peace really possible?

(3) Does Syria deserve to get the Golan Heights ?

(4) Is the Golan really Israeli territory?

(5) What are Syria's true intentions toward Israel?

Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad, while very intelligent, is a sociopath with extreme paranoid delusions. His brutal record of killing everyone who disagrees with him or poses even the slightest political threat bears out this analysis. In my opinion, he is incapable of living up to any peace agreement with Israel. Whether peace is possible depends upon your relative propensity to believe in fairy tales. If you believe in the real possibility of achieving utopia or nirvana; and if you believe in the tooth fairy, then peace with Syria is not only possible but desirable.

Any review of Israel's relations with Syria would indicate that the Syrians do not deserve to get the Golan. This point is rarely mentioned but is important. The bloodthirsty behavior of the Syrians, when they controlled the Golan (1948-67), makes me comfortable with depriving them of its return. When the Israeli Defense Forces conquered the Golan, we all vowed never to give it back. In the memory of the tortured Israeli POW's who fell into Syrian hands (1973), we must say No! Nothing has changed.

Is the Golan really Israeli territory? The Golan was a part of the original League of Nations Mandate at the San Remo Conference in 1920 to Great Britain, for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. In 1921, The British gave Eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah, who named it Transjordan. Then in 1923, they gave the Golan to the French to become part of the French Mandate of Syria. In both cases, the intent of the League of Nations was violated and the area of the future Jewish state was diminished. Going back even farther, one finds reference to the Golan as an Israelite territory in the Holy Scriptures (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8; I Chron. 5:56). Israeli archaeologists have also found numerous ancient synagogues on the Golan.

My final question is: What is Syria's true intention? The answer can be found in a recent meeting of ten rejectionist Palestinian terrorists groups held in Damascus . They swore with Assad's backing to prevent peace with Israel and to work for its total destruction. Syria is also involved in an unholy alliance with Iran whose aim is to make the Middle East Judenrein (Jew-free).

In conclusion we find Syria incapable of making peace; that peace is not possible now anyway; that the Syrians do not deserve the Golan; that the Golan really belongs to Israel; and that war, not peace, is Syria's true intentions. Assad maybe whispering sweet nothings in Barak's ear about peace, but we must tell Barak not to be seduced.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



[An earlier version of this article was published by The Jewish Press (NY) on September 23, 1994, the October 1994 issue of The Caucus Current, and the October 1994 issue of THE MACCABEAN]


A Dangerous Idea That Just Won't Go Away

By Bernard J. Shapiro

Last week United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher toured the Middle East trying to get the peace talks started. Everyone seemed eager to get the talks going again, except the Palestinians who want to use the deportee issue to force concessions from the Americans and Israelis. No party seemed more anxious for the talks to resume than the Syrians, who sincerely believe that a return of the Golan Heights is within sight.

Labor Party Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is primarily responsible for this sudden Syrian interest in negotiation with Israel. He has launched "trial balloons" about an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan. He has given the Israeli public mixed signals saying that Israel would never "come down from the Golan," and then saying there would be "withdrawal on the Golan" but not "withdrawal from the Golan." Rabin has further confused the public by saying that Jews living on the Golan would not be affected, since the withdrawal he envisions involves just the Israel Defense Forces. His negotiators have told the Syrians that the" extent of the withdrawal" would be determined by the "extent of the peace" offered by Syria.

Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu reported on February 24, 1994 in an interview with David Landau (JTA) in Jerusalem that Israel and the US were discussing a three-stage plan for a total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan. All of this may be confusing to you, and it should. All such talk and negotiation about withdrawal from the Golan is dangerous, misleading, and ultimately harmful to Israel's interest.

In conclusion we find Syria incapable of making peace; that peace is not possible now anyway; that Syria offers Israel nothing; that the Syrians do not deserve the Golan; that the Golan really belongs to Israel; and that war, not peace, is Syria's true intentions. Assad may whisper sweet nothings in Rabin's ear about peace, but I trust that Rabin will not be seduced.



Written sometime in 1994, true today!


By Bernard J. Shapiro

We should not be upset at this development. We must understand the "Alice in Wonderland" world we inhabit. When the Israel Defense Forces were slugging it out with the terrorists forces of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, United States President Bill Clinton praised Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad for showing restraint in the face of Israeli attacks. This, despite the fact the Syria was responsible for whole escalation of violence in the area.

Surely Clinton and his State Department aids know that Syria controls the territory from which the Hezbollah attack Israel. Surely they know that weapons and money for Hezbollah operations pass through Syrian controlled territory in Lebanon. And surely they know that Syria is using the violence in Lebanon to pressure Israel to make ill-advised concessions on the Golan Heights.

This ability of US and sometimes Israeli officials to modify the truth in discussions and plans for the Middle East is the central reason the Peace Talks are doomed to failure and they should be. Close observers of the Middle East were shocked when Syria was exonerated for its role in the Pan Am 103 bombing.

When Syria massacred 600 Christian soldiers (POW's with their hands tied) in Lebanon during the Persian Gulf Conflict, the media and the US State Department failed to even protest. In fact, Syria was praised and rewarded ($3 billion) for its support of Desert Storm, though its soldiers were instructed not to fire a singe shot at the Arab enemy. The Israeli negotiators have consistently failed to tell the Israeli public the truth about Syrian policy.

Assad mumbles to a western journalist (Editor's Note: In 1999 it is Patrick Seale, British author and biographer of Assad) that he might possibly, maybe, could, almost accept a Jewish entity someplace on the planet earth. The media and some Israeli officials proclaim loudly, "ASSAD READY FOR TRUE LASTING MESSIANIC PEACE WITH ISRAEL."

US Secretary of State Warren Christopher is traveling through the Middle East telling the regions leaders not to miss this opportunity for peace. It just isn't so. When real peace comes to the Middle East, we will not hear phrases like "risks for peace" or "territories for a promise of, maybe, could be peace if it snows in Houston in July". When real peace comes we will see the "Mosiach coming into the Jerusalem on a white ass."



Reprinted from The Washington Times of July 7, 1999

The Heights of Folly?

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

The full costs of President Clinton's latest diversion of the U.S. military into a distant and highly problematic peacekeeping operation have not yet been properly estimated, let alone paid for. It is a safe bet, however, that the tab for the Kosovo mission will turn out to be very high, costing the Pentagon billions of dollars that are desperately needed to restore its troops' combat readiness and provide for that needed in the future.

Given this backdrop, it is little wonder that the Clinton administration hopes that it can quietly get the United States committed to another, similarly open-ended peacekeeping mission - a mission that is, if anything, even more fraught with danger and potentially costly risks than that under way in the Balkans today.

For at least five years, the Clinton team has sought to lubricate negotiations between Israel and Syria, and increase the prospects that they would produce a peace agreement, by offering to assign U.S. troops the task of guarding the strategic plateau between the two countries known as the Golan Heights. The theory is that Israel would feel more comfortable relinquishing physical control of high ground that has long been recognized as critical to its security if U.S. forces were in place there. This theory appears about to be put to the test. Ehud Barak, who was finally installed yesterday as Israel's prime minister, has made it clear that he intends to make the completion of a treaty with Syria a top priority. In point of fact, the governing coalition he has painstakingly cobbled together appears to have only one common denominator: A determination to make peace with Israel's Arab neighbors on whatever terms are necessary.

In the case of Syria, that means paying the price long demanded by the Syrian despot, Hafez Assad - the surrender of the Golan Heights captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War. In his inimitable fashion, Mr. Assad - long recognized as one of the most cunning and ruthless dictators in the Middle East - has responded by combining laudatory public comments about Mr. Barak with an arms-shopping spree in Moscow. There he hopes to purchase new fighter jets, tanks and other military hardware that might prove useful should he wish to launch future attacks on Israel once the Golan Heights are restored to Syrian control.

Those who favor Israeli territorial concessions to Syria often argue that a U.S. deployment on the Golan would mitigate against such a danger in several ways:

First, they suggest that U.S. peacekeepers would ensure Israel continues to receive the sort of early warning and other critical intelligence about Syrian military activities the Jewish state has collected from installations on the heights for the past 32 years.

Second, they have implied that U.S. forces would serve, at a minimum, as a trip wire that Syria would have to reckon with were it to decide again to mount an attack on Israel from this vantage point.

Third, some have even argued that the U.S. deployment could be sufficiently large and powerful to defend the plateau - and, therefore, the Galilean valley below it - against a determined Syrian attack. Unfortunately for the advocates of an American mission on the Golan, none of these propositions stand up to close scrutiny. In fact, in 1994, a blue-ribbon group sponsored by the Center for Security Policy carefully considered each argument for deploying U.S. troops on the Golan and found them to be seriously defective. (To see the full text of this study, visit the Center's web site at This group, whose 11 members included five four-star general officers (notably, former Chiefs of Naval Operations Admirals Carl Trost and Elmo Zumwalt and former Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray), determined that:

* If Israel withdraws on or from the Golan, it will be required to adopt measures to compensate to the extent possible for the military risks inherent in relinquishing the territory.

* It will have to consider invetment in more surveillance assets, higher sustained readiness for air and other forces, a larger standing army, and means and methods to increase the speed of military mobilization.

* All such measures entail large costs, political and societal as well as financial. A U.S. force deployment to the Golan will not significantly reduce those costs. One of the dangers of such a deployment is that it may create a false sense of security in Israel and discourage the investments necessary to address such risks. This would not serve U.S. interests, much less Israel's.

This last point is especially important. If Israel decides it wishes to assume the risks associated with making a peace agreement with a notoriously untrustworthy despot like Mr. Assad, that is its business. But the Jewish state must understand that those risks will be sharply increased, not kept the same - let alone mitigated - were U.S. forces to replace Israeli forces on the Golan.

The Center for Security Policy panel of top former military and civilian officials concluded that:

* There is no mission or rationale for a U.S. peacekeeping force on the Golan that would justify the resulting costs and risks.

* Indeed, the net effect could be negative for Israel's security and regional stability, while the consequences could include the loss of U.S. lives and, possibly, a credibility-damaging retreat of the U.S. forces under terrorist fire.

* In any event, such a deployment would increase the danger of direct U.S. involvement in a future Middle East war and undermine Israel's standing with the U.S. public as a self-reliant ally.

These facts demand that the question of deploying U.S. forces on the Golan Heights be subjected to rigorous public debate now, before such a deployment becomes an integral part of any Israeli-Syria deal. Otherwise, Congress is likely to be presented with another Clinton fait accompli, whereby any action to prevent an ill-advised commitment of U.S. troops is portrayed as a mortal threat to the "peace process" and, therefore, politically untenable.

The interests of a true regional peace will only be served if an agreement between Israel and Syria is forged on the basis of genuine mutual reconciliation and a shared commitment to peaceful coexistence. Absent such sentiments on the part of Hafez Assad, a Golan in Syrian hands will likely once again become a locus for conflict. It would be a double disservice if the commitment of U.S. forces has the effect of increasing the chances for such a conflict and of thrusting American troops into its midst.


Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is the director of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.



Originally appeared in Hebrew in Yediot Ahronot June 18 1999 -- Translated by Aaron Lerner -- June 23, 1999


By Shimon Shiffer

Netanyahu plans in the book he is currently writing to publish several details that will considerably embarrass the president of the United States. In one of the chapters Clinton will earn the title 'International Swindler'.

And this is the story. In September '98, Yom Kippur Eve, Clinton and Netanyahu met for a conversation in the White House, during the course of which Netanyahu agreed to attend the conference at Wye Plantation with Yasser Arafat on condition that Clinton would act to immediately release the spy Jonathan Pollard. Clinton, according to Netanyahu and his closest advisors, agreed to the condition. Netanyahu explained to him that this gesture would help him to get the support from his constituents for the painful part of the agreement he expected to sign - continuation of the withdrawal from the territories. 'Bibi went to Wye knowing that Clinton would immediately release Pollard with the signing of the agreement with the Palestinians,' the advisors of the departing prime minister said this week.

During the course of the Wye summit the matter of Pollard was discussed several times between Clinton and Netanyahu. There were only a few in on the great secret: ministers Sharon, Mordechai and Sharansky. At the end of the conference, at 5:00 AM, after arrangements had already been made for the signing ceremony, Clinton put his hand on Netanyahu's shoulder and asked him to step aside with him so he could tell him a few things. One of those present in the room saw Clinton and Netanyahu as they spoke from a distance. 'Netanyahu turned pale, and Clinton hugged him.' The man said this week.

When Netanyahu returned to the center of the room, he told his advisors and ministers that Clinton had announced to him that he could not honor his promise to release Pollard. 'We were shocked,' said one of them. 'We thought that Bibi should go back to Clinton and tell him: 'if that is the case then there is no agreement with the Palestinians. You lied to me.' Our problem was that we did not want to find ourselves again in the terrible situation that both in Israel and the world Netanyahu would be presented as a liar, and would not talk at all about the real liar. Foreign Minster Sharon, who was summoned to the room, was of the opinion that the agreement must not be signed. Minister Sharansky also said that the signing ceremony must be postponed. At the end, after Clinton promised to continue acting for the release of Pollard, the Israeli side folded. The signing ceremony was held with some delay, and Pollard remained in prison.'

Netanyahu plans to reveal his full account in his book, in which Clinton will be presented as a scoundrel who did not intend, from the outset, to honor his part in the process that led to the Wye conference.



Washington Sets New Price for Pollard

News Flash ! July 20, 1999

[New York] When pressed, following a Sunday 18/07/99 meeting with select members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Prime Minister Barak admitted that he had not raised the Pollard issue in his talks with President Clinton, contradicting earlier press statements by his Jerusalem office.

Echoing the words of White House spokesman Joe Lockhart who previously stated that he does not anticipate a decision on Pollard in the foreseeable future, Barak indicated that he does not intend to raise the Pollard issue with Clinton in the foreseeable future either .

A close advisor to the Prime Minister has confirmed to individuals close to the Pollard case that there is a tacit understanding between Messrs. Barak and Clinton that Pollard will be returned to Israel as a "consolation prize" following a full and unqualified Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights - again this contradicts Mr. Barak's current public position on yet another critical issue, namely the terms of withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

An American official involved in formulating the deal, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed Mr. Clinton's offer to swap Pollard for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces and installations from the Golan. The official further indicated that Mr. Clinton feels no obligation to honor the commitment he made to the former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to release Mr. Pollard as part of the implementation of the Wye Accords, concurrent with the freeing of Palestinian terrorists. Clinton has now set a new price for Pollard.

Participants at the Sunday meeting indicated that Prime Minister Barak dodged direct questions on whether or not he had raised the issue of Pollard's release in his talks with President Clinton. Instead, they said, he obliquely assured his audience that Pollard has been in prison long enough; that he deserves to be returned to Israel; and that his government is fully committed to securing Pollard's return.

For Further information See:

Persian Carpet* For Sale...Again by Steve Rodan

Netanyahu Reveals Clinton Double-Cross On Pollard Release by Shimon Shiffer

Peace Process or Spin Politics? by Kenneth Timmerman



First they came for...

First they came for Hevron,

but I did not speak up, because I was not from Hevron.

Then they came for Merom Ha-golan,

but I did not speak up, because I was not from the occupied territories.

Then they came for Kiryat Shemona, Metulla, Tel Hai and Rosh Pina,

but I didnot speak up because I was not from the Galil.

Then they came for Beersheva and Eilat,

but I did not speak up because I was not from the desert.

Then they came for Jerusalem,

but I did not speak up because I was not a religious fanatic.

Then they came for Hertzliya Pituach -

but there was no one left to speak up for me.


By K. P. Price, Ph.D. (with no apologies to Bishop Martin Niemohler)




by Boris Shusteff

On May 14, 1948 proclaiming the reestablishment of the Jewish state David Ben-Gurion said, "We extend a hand of peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

Almost thirty years later on November 20, 1977 speaking in the Knesset during Anwar Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem, Menachem Begin bitterly remarked that the "hand outstretched for peace was not grasped." The Arab's answer to Israel's yearning for peace was a continuous war.

When Israel offered peace to her neighbors she did not ask them to give her land for this. It was Peace for Peace. Israel did not bring up her very justifiable claims to all of historical Eretz Yisrael. Israel did not demand that Trans-Jordan allow Jewish settlement on the East Bank of the Jordan River, which had been "postponed" for more than a quarter of a century. Israel accepted the "game" that started from square one. The Arabs did not. However, all their attempts to destroy the Jewish state led only to more and more territorial losses.

Never in history was an aggressor rewarded with additional land for an aggressive action in which it was defeated. It was the aggressor who paid for the aggression with its own land, not the victim of the aggression. The international community did not demand that Czechoslovakia return the Sudetenland after Nazi Germany acquired this territory in 1938 and later lost it during World War II. Quite the contrary; although in 1938 more than 3.5 million Germans lived in this territory, in 1945 the Sudetenland was returned to Czechoslovakia, one of the victors of the war, and the Germans were expelled. The United Nations did not request that the Soviet Union return the Kaliningrad region to Germany after World War II. It did not matter that before the war the region had formed the northern half of German East Prussia. After the war the German population was evacuated to Germany, deported to the USSR, or expelled.

However, it appears that history lessons are not applicable to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Middle East is like Lewis Carrol's Wonderland. If one compares Israel's and the Arabs' opening positions on the eve of the final "negotiations" one can easily see that the sides have changed their roles.

The Arabs' opening position is strong and uncompromising. Already on November 20, 1977 in Jerusalem Anwar Sadat said: "Our land does not yield itself to bargaining, it is not even open to argument. To us, the nation's soil is equal to the holy valley where God Almighty spoke to Moses.. We cannot accept any attempt to take away or accept to seek one inch of it nor can we accept the principle of debating or bargaining over it."

Since then, the Arabs have repeated and reiterated this position over and over again. On June 26, 1999, at the opening session of the Arab Parliamentarian Union meeting, Syrian parliament speaker Abdul-Kader Kaddoura said "Our commitment to peace as a strategic option does not mean, in any way, approving a peace that is not based on the full restoration of the occupied Arab lands."

A day before that, Sheikh Hamed al Beitawi, the grand Mufti of Nablus, and Head of the Palestine Ulama Association, warned against "giving up any iota of Palestine." "This is an Islamic land with a decision from God.this is the sacred land." On April 30, Yosuf Abu Snenah, Arafat-appointed cleric said in a Sermon at Al Aksa Mosque:

Our position is firm and will not change. All of Moslem Palestine remains one indivisible unit that cannot be partitioned. There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, between Lod and Ramallah or between Jerusalem and Nazareth, since the land of Palestine is holy land that is the exclusive property of all Moslems from the East and from the West. No one has the right to relinquish it nor to divide it.

If one compares this Arab stance with the today's Jewish opening position, one would be shocked at how drastically it has changed from 1967. The degradation is stunning. In 1988 the Likud Party platform declared that "The state of Israel has rights and claims to sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and the Gaza sector. Israel shall forward this claim and press for fulfillment of this rights." It also said that "The autonomy agreements agreed upon at Camp David are a guarantee that there shall be no further territorial partition of the area of Western Eretz Yisrael, and under no conditions shall a Palestinian state be there established."

Ten years later the sacredness of Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people is forgotten. The lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are set for squandering. Western Eretz Yisrael is on the eve of partition. Ariel Sharon, foreign minister in Netanyahu's government summarized this "new" territorial position on April 28 in Jerusalem at a briefing to the diplomatic corps,

The Jewish people is the only nation in the world, that was ready to hand over territories - not only a certain part of the country, but the cradle of the Jewish people, where the Jewish people was born thousands of years ago. We are the only nation in the world that has not been defeated, but was ready and is ready to make territorial concessions in order to reach peace.

Israeli eagerness to sacrifice her territory fits comfortably into the Arab design for the Jewish state. The Arabs are ready to accept the Land. As the Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said in Beirut on April 26 addressing a rally of more than 300,000 people, "Israel should not exist... we only accept from Israel every grain of sand they occupy in the Arab world."

This catastrophic weakening of the Israeli stance is further proof for the Arabs of "Jewish inferiority." They strongly believe, as Anwar Sadat put it in his April, 1972 speech on the anniversary of the Prophet's birthday, that they "will, with God's help take [the Land] back from those of whom our Book says that lowliness and submissiveness is their lot."

That submissiveness is apparent today as the Jewish leaders steadily weaken their negotiating stance and turn to weeping over their fate. While the Arabs want to drown the Jews in the sea, the Jews, apparently, are planning to drown the Arabs in Jewish tears. CNN reported on June 17 that the British author Patrick Seale, a well-known expert on Syria, recently traveled through the Golan Heights with a top Israeli general, Uri Saguy, who told settlers "that hard decisions may be coming." "There were tears in his eyes and their eyes as he had this tough discussion with them," Seale said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak took part in the "crying" campaign too. In an interview with Ha'aretz on June 18, he stated, "I feel the pain of having to part with sections of the Land of Israel, .I have an emotional bond with those places. As for parting with sections of the Land of Israel in Judea and Samaria, I am moved to tears when I stand on the northern slope of Mount Ibal [north of Nablus].

It is not Saguy and Barak who should cry. It is the Jewish people who should cry at having such leaders. Although the tears will not help. Only the change in the Israeli position could put things in proper perspective and bring Israel back from the Wonderland to reality. It is time for the Jews to recall their Covenant with God. It is time for the Jewish state to recall that it has one of the best armies in the world. It is time to recall that its sons and daughters fell defending every single inch of Eretz Yisrael, which is now so cheap in the eyes of many Israelis. It is time to realize that without Eretz Yisrael the Jewish people will cease to exist.

The only way to prevent disaster is by declaring that all of Eretz Yisrael is destined for the Jewish people, and if anyone dares to demand that the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza be put on the chopping block, then the land of Jordan should be placed their first.


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




By Rachel Gold

If one wishes to understand why the Jews of Israel retreat and face catastrophe while the Arab star ascends, listen to the two voiceslisten to the contrast. The Arab voice is shrill, loud, brazen and confident. The Jewish voice is defensive, apologetic, and guilt-ridden.

CNN reported on Saturday that President Saddam Hussein said Iraq will not give up its fight against Israel until the Jews leave the region or accept living as citizens under a Palestinian Arab state. Hussein's remarks come as Israel's new Prime Minister Ehud Barak has vowed to not only accelerate the peace process with the Palestinians but also make peace with avowed enemy, Syria, after withdrawing troops from southern Lebanon.

"Is it possible for anyone who acquiesces and concedes occupation by the Zionists and al-Quds (Jerusalem) being under the Zionist occupation or captivity to be called a faithful believer and to believe his prayers would be received by God?" Hussein asked.

"Down with Zionism," he said. "Palestine is an Arab land, the homeland of the Palestinians, as a part of the great Arab homeland and the glorious Arab nation."

The Arab shouts ITBACH-AL-YAHUD (Slaughter the Jews), and the Jews smile, ready to concede at every turn. Between two such opponents, there is no contest!!!

The angry Arab shout over the expropriation of land is in reality a tactic to cover the incredible amount of state land stolen by Arabs over the years. This illegal building has reached an epidemic stage.

What is Labor defending? Is it Israel's Declaration of Independence which calls for equal rights of all while neglecting to mention equal obligation from all, especially in the matters of taxation and serving in Israel's military. If it grants equal rights then it grants the right of the minority to become the majority. Is this what Labor defends? Will PM Barak stand like a modern-day Voltaire, shout to the howling Arab mob that cries for an end of a Zionist state and say, "I will differ with you over this but defend to the death your right to become a majority." My, my, how difficult it is today to be both a liberal and a Zionist.

A Jewish state can exist in peace only with a large Jewish majority. It cannot grant the right to a minority to take its home away. It is a contradiction that the Arabs are determined to resolve in their own favor, and democracy is joined by demography to plunge Israel down the road to catastrophe.



Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshivat Kiryat Arba 7 Av 5759

Antidote to the "Weeping of the Generations"

By Rabbi Eliezer Waldman

The prophet Zecharia has promised that the fast days commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple will be transformed into days of celebration. The verse expressing this prophesy ends with the words, "And you should love the truth and peace". The connection between these words and the prophesy requires an explanation. Our sages teach us that the fast is not a goal in and of itself, but a means to arouse us to repent on the sins that were the cause of the destruction. Only by rectifying our deeds and restoring complete faith in our G-d can we bring about the rebuilding of the holy Temple. Many sins are mentioned as the causes of the destruction of the Bet Ha Mikdash. Among the sins that brought about this national calamity, our sages point out two major ones.

First is the sin of the spies whom Moses had sent to scout out the Land. Upon returning to Moses and the Jewish People, they expressed a lack of faith in G-d by declaring, "We will not be able to go up and inherit the Land because they are stronger than Him," (Numbers 13:31). Worse then that, they incited the Jewish People against going up to the Land. The Torah describes the response of the Jewish People, "And the people wept that night." (Numbers 14:1). Our sages tell us that night was the night of Tisha b'Av, and G-d said to them, "Since you cried needlessly on this night, I will arrange good reason for your crying in future generations." (Tractate Taanit, 29). The lesson to be learned is that our lack of faith is the root of all tragedies. The refusal to believe in G-d's ability to keep His Promise that we will inherit the Land despite all obstacles, was what brought about the destruction of the Temple on Tisha b'Av.

The second major sin is described in the Talmud, Tractate Yoma 9, which states that the second Temple was destroyed because of the sin of unfounded hatred (sinat chinam). At the time of the first Temple, Jews were guilty of committing the three cardinal sins for which a Jew is commanded to give up his life rather than to commit them, idol worship, sexual immorality, and murder. Yet, despite this, our Rabbis tell us that the sin of hating your fellow Jew is weighed against all of these sins. We are taught by our sages that HaShem pleads with the Jewish People, that even if we abandon Him, at least we should continue to be united in love for one another. When Jews are united in love, they are more open to be influenced by the teachings of the rabbis. Thus they are more likely to be inspired to strengthen their faith in G-d and adhere to His Commands.

HaRav Kook, z"tl, has taught us that the only way to remove every trace of this "sinat chinam" is to fill our hearts with simple love for every Jew, "ahavat chinam". This unconditional love for every Jew stems from our belief that a Divine spark kindles in every Jewish soul. This love cannot be dependent upon the degree of his faith or Jewish observance, and it is a prerequisite for the return of G-d to Zion and the rebuilding of the Bet HaMikdash.

The sin of the spies is eroding the Jewish soul to this day. That lack of faith in the Divine character of Eretz Yisrael and its power to create a complete Jewish life for our people is still the cause of our national weakness today. The lack of Jewish pride, the willingness to surrender our rights to our land, the unwillingness to fight for what is ours, all this is a result of the sin of the spies which still weakens the faith among some of our leaders. This cancer must be removed from the soul of our people. Our faith must be strengthened by opening our eyes to the Divine dimension of the Zionist process in our time. The ingathering of the exiles; the establishment of Jewish independence in Eretz Yisrael; transforming the Jewish State into the spiritual Torah center of the Jewish People; defeating overwhelming enemies who rose up to destroy us; and the return of Jewish life to the heart of Eretz Yisrael, Judea and Samaria; these miracles must strengthen our faith in this G-dly process of redemption. The recognition of these truths by our people will restore Jewish pride and give our leaders the strength and determination to defend our rights to our Land. This will finally remove the sin of the spies and the weeping of the generations will be transformed into joyous celebration.

Now we understand why the prophecy of the fast days being transformed into days of celebration ends with the words, "And you should love the truth and peace". The only way to achieve the fulfillment of this prophecy is by rectifying the two major sins that created the fast days. The sins of hatred, sinat chinam at the time of the second Temple and the rejection of the G-dly command to inherit the Jewish Land by the Jews in the days of the spies must be converted into a flowing stream of faith in G-d and love for the Jewish People.

That is why the prophet Zecharia mentions the two principles of truth and peace. By truth he means the Truth of Torah, and of Eretz Yisrael. And by peace, he means peace and love among the Jewish People. By adhering to these principles we will succeed in bringing the blessing of peace to the peoples of the world.

"Thus said the L-rd of Hosts, the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the House of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts, And you should love the truth and peace." Zecharia 8:19




By David Basch

"... Kennedy's unwise recklessness brought him and those that depended on him to destruction. Alas, too many of Israel's leaders take Israel on similar reckless trips that place the survivability of the nation into question."

I read in today's news that Barak has expressed a willingness to compromise. This is hardly news since the history of Israel is her willingness to compromise and her sacrifices in proving this willingness. What would be news is Arab willingness to compromise, which I have not seen yet.

In all agreements, the Arabs come out affirming their principles, which, if Israel refuses to knuckle under to, are for the Arabs legitimate causes for continued war. I have yet to find the Arab side making compromises on principle, compromises that are the only road to peace in the region. After all, can anyone expect that having 3.7 additional Arabs come to Israel is a step toward peace or that Israel will accept that impossibility? That such a sizable stateless people continues to exist in Araby expected to go to Israel is a sure sign that the Arabs have no intention of living in peace.

Moreover, if the Arab side insists that Israel occupies Arab territory by being in existence and that this "sin" must be undone, how is it possible for Israel to find peace with them? Under such circumstances, the agreements that Israel signs are merely temporary halts in the Arab war against Israel, which war is to be resumed as Israel is weakened by repeated onslaughts.

That Israeli governments have failed to inform Israelis of this is responsible for the leftist Israeli willingness to continue to make fruitless and dangerous concessions to the Arab enemy that lead Israel ever closer to the abyss of destruction. I just heard how Kennedy's unwise recklessness brought him to his own destruction and to that of those that depended on him. Alas, too many of Israel's leaders take Israel on reckless trips that place the survivability of the nation into question.

Israel's firm resolve not to weaken herself will be a sign of her maturity. Her announcement to the Arabs that they won't be allowed to succeed in their aims, but will only sow the seeds for the Arabs' own horrible destruction, is a message that the Arab man on the street will appreciate.

When the Arabs get that message, even their Islam allows them to desist from starting ruinous wars that bring these ends about. After that the Arabs will be ready for a true peace in the region that will even benefit them.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of July 16, 1999


By Moshe Zak

The damage has been done. The conference of the Fourth Geneva Convention's signatory nations, which opened yesterday, has already inflicted the harm intended by its Arab sponsors. This is so because the conference adjourned with a consensus statement that it "reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."

The damage can be further broken down into a number points. Firstly, the conference was convened on the basis of a General Assembly resolution passed in February, that east Jerusalem is "Palestinian territory."

Second, the conference paves the way to a procedure circumventing the US veto at the Security Council against resolutions threatening Israeli with sanctions.

Finally, "Palestine" was invited to participate in the conference, together with all the signatory nations, with the same status, even though it is not a signatory. The conference, convened yesterday without the participation of Israel or the US, was not called to discuss the situation in the territories, as the Israeli media have inaccurately reported in the last few days. Nor was it called to amend the Convention. It was called to endorse - by its mere convening - the interpretation of the UN decision that the paragraph in the Convention signed in 1949 was applicable to a part of Jerusalem that was incorporated into Israel in 1967, as well as to other "Palestinian areas."

The UN decision to convene the conference, which only the US and Israel opposed, brings to fruition a previous action by the Arabs. At the UN conference in Rome in July 1998 to set up an international criminal court, the Arabs managed to insert into the definition of "human rights crimes," a clause describing Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria as a breach of human rights.

This ridiculous maneuver by the Arab states forced Israel to vote against the proposal, even though it was one of the countries pressing for the punishment of such crimes. This past week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat gave Ehud Barak an eight-week period to settle on the course of the negotiations with Israel's neighbors, but the PLO representative at the UN, Nasser Al-Kidwa, has stepped up the pace. He wants to set up legalistic obstacles on all the roads leading to a possible compromise. At his initiative the UN decision also imposed a prohibition on bypass roads in Judea and Samaria. This is an outright attempt to set up obstacles that will prejudge total withdrawal as the only option for the permanent settlement.

The barbed-wire fences that the Palestinians are trying to surround us with in Jerusalem via decisions by international conferences may lead to absurd consequences - such as a Palestinian institution filing a suit in the international courts against the minister for internal security for setting up an office in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line, in an area defined as occupied Palestinian territory.

Shlomo Ben-Ami doesn't have to worry. There will be no such foolish attempts for the next few years. But there is a custom in the UN of recycling resolutions and thawing out decisions that have been long frozen, such as the status of Jerusalem as stated in UN Resolution 181 of 1947, which has suddenly risen from the grave to threaten us. Not that it will decide our fate, but it is as annoying as the buzzing of a persistent mosquito.

Those who initiated this conference want to make the clause in the Convention forbidding forced transfer of population and demographic changes in conquered territories to apply also to "occupied east Jerusalem and other occupied Palestinian territories." Israel totally rejects the claim that any part of Jerusalem is occupied territory. It doesn't agree that the clause, which was included under the influence of the terrible acts of World War II, when the Nazis transferred millions of people, should be used to declare houses in French Hill or Ramot as illegal construction. Israel doesn't conduct expulsions and hasn't forced the Arabs of Jerusalem to leave. On the contrary, Arab neighborhoods have been built and others are in the planning stage, with the government's authorization and encouragement.

STEVEN Schwebel, now acting as president of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, published an article in 1970 in a scientific journal, in which he proved that Israel's connection to the territories is stronger than Jordan's. Those were the days when Jordan was demanding the return of the territories from Israel. How much stronger is our status when weighed against that of the Palestinians', who can't even claim that the territories were conquered from them. They had no sovereignty there recognized in international law before 1967.

Nevertheless, Israel announced that as a humanitarian gesture it would treat the Arab population of the territories as required by the Geneva Convention. Meir Shamgar, then judge advocate-general, issued the instructions for the IDF's treatment of the population according to that principle. But there was never any justification for Israel freezing development of Jerusalem, nor is there now, just because an automatic majority in the UN is trying to make a clause directed against the actions of the Nazis apply to Israeli actions in Jerusalem.

This insolent comparison must be rejected immediately. Nor should we fall into the trap of an attempt to postpone the continuation of the opening session by three months. That is a transparent attempt to put the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations directly under a sword of Damocles, representing either the threat of an anti-Israel UN resolution, or warnings of an outbreak of violence.

(c) 1999 The Jerusalem Post




By Christopher Barder

What was so sad about the plight of Bibi Netanyahu's Likud and ought to be regarded as disastrous about the prospects for Ehud Barak is the way in which they each have been subjected to the will (no pun intended) of the White House, a kind of relentless pressure to have to conform to the State Department's regional plans.

Whereas it is reasonably clear from Israel's history that Israel does not much matter to the USA which has instead invented a mythology that it is Israel's best friend (which after all it would not be hard to be) and that it cares terribly that Israel has a strategic and military edge over the Arabs, in reality it determines to pare Israel down and therefore to render it more or less indefensible. The process which is underway is one called 'peace' and it is pursued with a territorial plan in mind which cannot be stopped or reasoned with without terrible repercussions in the diplomatic sphere at the very least. The EU is more openly hostile and has resorted to threats about sanctions were Israel to be seen to be the one refusing to further 'the peace process'. Rational questions about security and territorial necessities are irrelevant both to the process and the people driving forward the policy, such as Sr. Moratinos, the EU special envoy to the Middle East.

Somewhere in the thinking of the world's chancelleries, Israel is not entitled to debate upon or to refuse external 'solutions' to the problem which is fundamental to her existence in the region: Islamic rejection of a non-Molsem state in that part of the world. Former Arab land must always be Arab land even if it has not been since the Seventh Century. It is an affront that such a place should be in the hands of the Dhimmi. It is an affront that Arab armies should have been defeated.

Thus in global terms it is as if at least one touchstone for states is attitude to Israel. They may be viewed as worth investment and trade if they are not perceived as too accepting of Israel. The Arab world may buy their goods, sell oil, buy arms, and maintain investments, make property purchases, send students to study. But in days supposedly post boycott nothing could be further from the truth than that Arab attitudes to Israel are softening. Therefore other states' attitudes must not be seen to be softening. Put in a nutshell: Israel is in the way. It is in the way of pro-Islamic policies yielding their fruit (supposedly) and of a neat bloc of Arab states able to be dealt with by the mighty USA and EU beneficially to each. It is an irritant muddying the waters. The Arabs have made plain their demands and the West has no scruples about meeting them.

The Arabs want the result of the past wars reversed. Like Anwar Sadat, they may find diplomacy helpful - at least until the final assault when Islam will throw the Zionists either into the sea or into Dhimmitude for good. Like Jimmy Carter at Camp David, and James Baker III and President Bush after the Gulf War, so Indyk and Ross for Clinton act as diplomatic conduits for Arab objectives. Unlike the EU they at least mouth how good it all is for Israel and how beneficial for the region and how they care about Israel's security (which is, apparently, in Warren Christopher's phrase 'iron-clad'). The EU just says Israel must hurry up in assisting the creation of a Palestinian state as demanded nearly 20 years ago in the Venice Declaration.

Might is right and it is not just a matter of an Hegelian state. Rather it is that the Great Powers have always had plans for the region. They intend to see them fulfilled. They have to coincide with Arab plans. Maybe, it is averred, Israel should not have been created. It was a kind of aberration at a particular point in history. Now the damage must be undone. Seriously, the powers believe they have a right to reorder what the region looks like. They are therefore determined to bring about that ordering which best suits their ambitions which are not uncoincident with those of the Arabs. This means that the 'Phased Plan' of 1974 for Israel's slow dismemberment has been in effect and the Madrid--Oslo 'window of opportunity' has been used to every extent possible, despite highly questionable legality according to the principles of international law and the application of Israeli law.

In other words the dubious legality has not counted for anything much at all. If anyone should 'take risks for peace', a piece of absurd contradiction if anything was, it is the victim of the wars, Israel. It is not that there has been a long-lasting terror war against the Arabs. But Israel must take further risks with the lives of its population to appease Arab failure to destroy Israel. Syria should suffer no ill effects for its aggression and hundreds of attacks on civilians as well as war-mongering and war time attacks on Israel. Instead it should gain the Golan. The reality of course is that abject contrition over decades should be demanded and overt friendliness before a single Syrian 'settler' should be allowed to live on such Israeli territory. Assad should get what drug dealing and protecting Alois Brunner would merit in any decent court in the world, not to mention genocide in Lebanon and auto-genocide at Hama in Syria and violation of the ban on chemical weapons use. There is a kind of ugly irony in President Clinton's wooing of Assad. It makes the whole business of justice surrounding Pinochet and Milosovic look rather..selective.

Nor can any case in terms of consistent justice within the international order be made for keeping Yasser Arafat out of court and away from the severest sentence possible. And yet it is Israel that is pressurised to please him. It is Israel that is held up to disrepute and discredit rather than the cronies and murderers who serve Arafat in the at least seven brutal 'security services' he has nurtured in order to rule by terror and embezzlement. Sponsorship of an entity whence there is no extradition from and no serious curb on crime against Israel is tantamount to support for a rogue and lawless gangsterism. Yet the same continues unabashed in the policies of the USA and the EU. Thus Israel is asked again and again to make gestures and to sacrifice real security for nothing in return except unimplemented promises repeated again and again. The whole 'process' is the same thing, again and again. It consists of demands for cutting Israel down which will not appease the Arabs and cannot, will not buy peace and have been hitherto endless.

So those countries which support this support in fact a terror state (the Palestinian Arab one in waiting) and the attempted destruction of another one. In the knowledge of this, Israel's governments at least from 1992, have wantonly fallen in line with this process of dismemberment. They have accepted an amount of land be given away (to be negotiated with their aggressors and haters no less!) in order to buy less overt ill-will. They know from the debacle at Camp David that in news media and cartoons and in professional associations and Arab 'parliaments' and schools they will be hated and vilified. But still they go on with the process designed to create their own self-destruction. They cannot seemingly even compel foreign governments to site their embassies in the capital city.

The state of Israel in some circles is regarded as a nuisance and/or as a pariah. It must be compelled to do what its neighbours want. It must fit the plans for the region hatched by Kissinger and a host of others who seek for a shaping of the region to their liking. These pressures are neither new nor unpredictable nor are they benevolent. At some point there must be a willingness to say no to it all. But the question must be asked in the light of NATO and Kosovo, can the price for saying no be made to be worth paying; but also there is thisother question, too: is there any alternative? Which way is less of a gamble with citizens' lives? How great a punishment might there be for saying no to indefensibility? It is hard to say but the cause would be just and however painful the results, the alternative of being forced to give away strategic and military, historic and meaningful assets for nothing seems too horrible. In the meantime, as Ehud Barak starts his time in office, he should be judged by his capacity to end this endless pressure on Israel to become abject and prostrate before its enemies and those who seek to bring it to such a place. So far there is hope but little in the way of substance to suggest so stark a reality has produced a strategy for dealing with it. But maybe the relative silence suggests understanding. One hopes.


Christopher Barder is the editor of ISRAEL BULLETIN (England) and writes often on Middle East affairs




The Freeman Center financed the research and writing of a new book by Yossef Bodansky, ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT. A project that took over a year and half. We CO-published it with the Ariel Center in Israel. It is the first serious update of Yosephat Harkabi's ARAB ATTITUDES TO ISRAEL written in 1968 and the first to analyze the Arab/Islamic world since Oslo. [I first introduced Harkabi to UC Berkeley students in 1963. He gave the Arabs students who came to disrupt him a very hard time. Unfortunately he got soft in his later years.] Freeman Center supporters are among the few people who have the intelligence and academic background to understand Bodansky's monumental new work.........Bernard J. Shapiro

Copies of this book may be obtained from the publishers.

PRICE: $14.95 + $3.00 postage and delivery in the USA. Outside USA: please add $7.50 Air Postage.

In the USA: The Freeman Center for Strategic Studies

P.O.B. 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661

Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail:

Internet Website (URL):


(C) Copyright April 1999 - Yossef Bodansky ISBN: 0-9671391-0-4


In Israel: The Ariel Center for Policy Research

P.O.B. 830 * Shaarei Tikva 44810 Israel

Tel.: 972-3-906-3920 * Fax: 972-3-906-3905 * E-mail:

[The opinions expressed in this book are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, US Congress, or any other branch of the US Government.]




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Writing at a time when one did not have to fear the mindless charge of racism, the late Professor Y. Harkabi, once head of Israel Military Intelligence, referred to Islam as a "combatant," "expansionist," and "authoritarian" creed - this, in his book ARAB ATTITUDES TO ISRAEL. He states that "The idea of the Jihad is fundamental in Islam," in consequence of which "hatred," "hostility," and "conflict" are endemic to Arab culture. Moreover, he acknowledges that "the use of falsehood," "distortions of the truth," and "misleading slogans" are typical of Arab political life. Harkabi goes so far as to suggest that mendacity is "second nature" to the Arabs, that one may rightly regard "falsehood as an expression of [Arab] national character."

Indeed, when I asked Shimon Peres' political adviser Asher Ben-Natan (shortly after my making aliya in 1976) "What is Israel's main problem?" he replied: "We can't lie as well as the Arabs." I responded, "Then why not tell the truth." Since then I have learned that Israel's political elites are no less mendacious than Harkabi's Arabs. They not only lie incessantly about the "peace process," but they do so knowing that this peace process is leading Israel to war and potential annihilation! Israel's political elites are well aware of the facts documented in a December 1996 U.S. House of Representatives Task Force Report on International Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare (Yossef Bodansky acted as director and researcher for the Task Force), which states, in part:



To further expose the mendacity of the "peace process" and of those who foist this deadly charade on the public, let us quote from the 1998 Fateh Constitution. Fateh, the ruling faction of the PLO, controls (and bankrolls) the Palestinian Authority. Not an iota of the Fateh Constitution does not have the approval of PLO chief Yasir Arafat, Israel's "peace partner" so often wined and dined by President Bill Clinton.

Below are 11 of the Fateh Constitution's 27 paragraphs:


1. Palestine is part of the Arab world, the Palestinians are part of the Arab nation and their struggle is part of the struggle of the Arab nation.

4. The Palestinian struggle is an integral part of the worldwide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism.

5. The liberation of Palestine is a national duty demanding physical and spiritual assistance from the whole Arab nation.

7. The Zionist movement is racist, colonialist and aggressive in its ideology, its goals, is organization and its methods.

8. The foundation of Israel's existence in Palestine is the Zionist occupation, based on colonialism.


12. The complete liberation of Palestine and the economic, political, military and cultural elimination of Zionism.

13. Establishment of an independent, democratic state in all of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.


17. A revolutionary military struggle as the sole method of liberating Palestine.

19. A military struggle is not a tactic but a strategy, and the military revolution of the Arab Palestinian nation is a decisive component in the struggle for the liberation and the removal of the Zionist entity; the struggle will not be complete until the Zionist state is destroyed and Palestine, in its entirety will be liberated.

22. Opposition to any political solutions recommended as an alternative to the destruction of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

25. Convincing the countries of the world to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine as a method of solving the problem.

The rulers of the so-called [sic] democratic State of Israel are aware of this document, a document more insidious and lethal than the PLO Covenant. Yet, while contending for personal power and for paltry partisan advantages, they not only ignore the deadly goals and military preparations of Israel's enemies, but they appear almost anxious to surrender the heartland of the Jewish people to the successors of the Nazis!


Prof. Paul Eidelberg is a weekly columnist for the largest Jewish paper in the world, THE JEWSH PRESS, NY), former professor at Bar-Illan University, and now the president of the Foundation for Constitutional Reform in Israel. You may contact Eidelberg by email: [The Freeman Center supports his important work and urges you do likewise.]