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."



JUNE 2000



OSLO: THE REALITY...Bernard J. Shapiro 2

ISRAEL'S SACRED PLACES...Why The Arabs Want To Control of Them...Bernard J. Shapiro 3




THE COLLAPSE OF ZIONISM....Charles Krauthammer 8


ISRAEL AT 52 Dr. Steven Plaut 14



NOTES FROM HEBRON....David Wilder 20


THE MATAR PROCLAMATION....Nadia and Ruth Matar 24


THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS...Withdrawal from the Golan Heights = Deadly for Lake Kinneret....ARIEL CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 25


THE JEWISH MANDATE....Boris Shusteff 26

WOODEN-HEADEDNESS ...Boris Shusteff 29

BEYOND ABU DIS....Jay Shapiro 31

WAR OF ATTRITION to be followed by FULL SCALE WAR ....Emanuel A. Winston 33

ARAFAT AND JEW-HATRED....Prof. Paul Eidelberg 35


ABOUT JEWS....Mark Twain 37


THE ONE MIRACLE.....Bernard J. Shapiro 38

THE TALE OF THE MYSTIC BUFFALO..A Jewish Parable....Bernard J. Shapiro 40


ISRAEL'S SURVIVAL AND "THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH:" Timely reflections on the parable by Franz Kafka




Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661,


Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016, E-Mail: ** URL:

(c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro





The true nature of Israel's "peace" partners ('palestinian' Arabs) is revealed in their speeches and in their media. Their passionate demonstrations in favor Iraq and their pleas to Saddam to destroy Israel also reveal the truth. It is important to remember that when the Arabs refer to Palestine their definition is: all the land between the River (Jordan) and the Sea (Mediterranean) with Jerusalem as its undivided capital. They also usually mention that those who don't like this "can drink the (salt) waters of Gaza". This definition can be gleaned from the intensive study of over 1000 speeches and articles by Palestinian Authority leaders, including Yasser Arafat. The research was done by Dr. Aaron Lerner (Independent Media Review and Analysis) David Bedein (Institute for Peace Education) and the Israel Government Press Office (Prime Minister's Office).

It is my conclusion, that Oslo is a process of appeasement and not peace. I believe that there is NO way to "make it work in Israel's interest." Those who believe that Oslo will lead to peace must certainly fall into the following categories:

1. Good people without adequate information to understand the facts.

2. Good people with a cognitive disorder that prevents them from understanding the facts.

3. Idiots and fools [this category does not exclude seemingly intelligent people with doctorates and great expertise in specialized fields. Yossi Beilin, for example, is quite learned but a fool nevertheless.]

4. Members of the Labor and Meretz Parties [see #3]

It should also be mentioned that there are several categories of people who believe in Oslo precisely because it will lead to the destruction of Israel. They are:

1. Anti-Semites

2. Anti-Zionists (same as #1)

3. The US State Department (see #1)

4. The Arab States (see #1)

5. The 'palestinian' Arabs (see #1)

6. The United Nations (see #1)

7. Most European Nations (see #1)

8. Michael Lerner, Thomas Friedman, Mike Wallace, Anthony Lewis, Woody Allen, Peace Now and other self-hating Jews


1. Announce that Arafat has terminated Oslo by his words and actions. Israel no longer views it as a valid document.

2. Pursue a vigorous Zionist agenda by building and settling all parts of Eretz Yisrael.

3. Adopt a Jewish constitution for Israel along the lines that Dr. Paul Eidelberg suggests.

4. Vastly improve the education of Israelis (both children and adults) in Jewish history, religion and Zionism. Education should be designed to inculcate patriotism, nationalism and love of HaEretz ( Land of Israel) and Am Yisrael (the Jewish people)

5. Vastly increase the capability of the IDF and intelligence branches to ensure Israel's ability to preemptively crush any evil forces that threaten her.

6. Re-establish the rule of law by expelling all Arabs engaged in violent or political activities designed to damage the security of Israel and the safety of its citizens.

7. Terminate all interference and manipulation in Israeli policy by other nations, including friendly ones.

8. Strive to achieve economic and military independence from American foreign aid. Only by cutting the umbilical cord of US aid will Israel be truly free to pursue its unique destiny.

It is very late in the day for Israel. It is time to call a "spade a spade." Niceties aside there is tremendous damage being done daily to Israel by the Oslo process.

Please, if anyone has evidence that Oslo will bring peace and security to the people of Israel, I would like to hear it. In the five and half years since Oslo, I have seen mountains of evidence to the contrary. Among supporters of Oslo, I have seen only Chelm-like hopes for peace, totally without any basis in reality.

Auschwitz was NOT a Labor Camp. Oslo is NOT a peace process. Establishing a state of Palestine is NOT Zionism. Arafat is NOT a peacemaker. Let us call things by their correct names.

I have said these things before, and I plan to say them repeatedly until the necessary actions are taken to ensure their implementation. Only then, will Israel's future be secure.

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



An Editorial [THE MACCABEAN, August 1998]


Why The Arab Thrust To Seize Control of Them

By Bernard J. Shapiro

When the late Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn (September 1993), they initiated a process whereby Israel would lose control of its Sacred Places and its Holy Land. Even before Oslo, Moshe Dayan had surrendered the most sacred of Jewish Holy Places, the Temple Mount, to the Arabs. There is much more involved here than politics as ususal. I believe that there is something terrible dangerous about the removal of the Jews from their Sacred Places.

All over the world, from Stonehenge in England to the great temples of India, one finds Holy Places with great mystical power for the people who inhabit those lands. Some shrines of the East draw believers from across the globe. The power of these places can not be explained scientifically. One only needs to step onto Mount Abu in India to feel the presence of great mystical forces. And then there is Banares, the Hindu's Holy City of Light casting a warm glow over the sacred Ganges river.

Islam arose in the 7th century on the foundation of a pagan (Meccan) religion that worshiped a large black stone, known as the Kaaba. Muhammad learned the rudiments of Judaism from the many Jews living in Arabia. He created the Islamic religion by re-writing the Jewish Holy Scriptures (calling it the Koran) and fusing it with the local pagan customs. One pagan concept became horribly significant as Islam spread both east and west across the world. The reverence for the Kaaba and the belief that Arab power derived from it became a brutal principle in the conquest of other peoples. As Islam was spread by the sword, the Sacred Places of conquered peoples were destroyed and occupied.

It became a standard practice to destroy an Indian, Persian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Jewish or Christian temple and build a mosque on its ruins. This was always interpreted by historians as a kind of one upmanship. A way to demonstrate the superiority of Islam and humiliate the defeated. Koenraad Elst in his recent book NEGATIONISM IN INDIA writes: "In all the lands it conquered, Islam has replaced indigenous places of worship with mosques. In Iran, there are no ancient Zoroastrians or Manichean shrines left. In Central Asia, there are no Buddhist temples left. Similarly, in India (except the far South where Islam penetrated rather late) there are practically no Hindu temples that have survived the Muslim period (over 10,000 destroyed). But there are thousands of mosques built on the foundations of Hindu temples (for example, the Ayodhya temple)." In my opinion, this Islamic behavior was more than an exhibition of cruel superiority. It was based on the pagan belief that they would acquire the power of the defeated peoples by absorbing their Holy Places and making them theirs.

Let's see how these forces play out in the Arab war of extermination against the Jewish people (incorrectly called the Arab-Israeli Conflict). After Israel was conquered by the Arabs armies, the Temple Mount was used to build the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock) and the Al Aska Mosque. While Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran, modern Arabs make great pretense by claiming it as one of their holy sites. This, of course is nonsense.

The Arab claim that each and every Jewish Holy Place is rightfully theirs has become quite common and accepted by the western media. First Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, then Hebron and the Cave of the Patriarchs, and on to the Tomb of Joseph (Nablus), Ramat Rachel and more.

The Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of Solomon's Temple and sacred to Jews for over 2000 years, had been in Jordanian controlled Jerusalem since 1949. The Jordanians, acting with malice aforethought, had denied Jews access to their sacred Holy Place. I visited the Wall for the first time in 1967. When I placed my hands on this magnificent relic of our forefathers, I felt a surge of light and energy the likes of which I had never known. In what had to have been but the flash of a second, I felt at one with Jews from all periods of history. At the Passover seder we are told to thank G-d for delivering us from Egypt as though we ourselves had been brought out of bondage. At that moment in Jerusalem, this seder message was very real for me.

In an instant I saw the continuity of Jewish history and its unbreakable connection with Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel). I understood how modern Israel is the beginning of the Third Temple Period and the spiritual heir to Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. I frequently write about the security reasons for incorporating Judea, Samaria, and Gaza into the body of Israel. There is another side to this issue and that is the spiritual-religious side. The truth, which many find inconvenient, is that the Land of Israel was promised by G-d to Abraham and his seed in perpetuity. The Land of Israel is not speculative real estate to be bartered away for some high sounding (false) promises of peace. The hills and valleys of Judea and Samaria contain the collective memory of the Jewish people. It was here that the Israelites first entered the Holy Land. And it was here they fought the battles, built the towns, elected their kings and were preached to by their prophets and judges. And it was on this soil that they wrote the Holy Scriptures we call our Bible.

In my blinding flash of insight at the Wall, I also understood that Israel on its own soil was more powerful than the sum of its weapons and men. Jews who had wandered the earth powerless for two millenniums attained great power when re-united with the soil of Israel.

What about the Arabs? They are destroying the Jewish people by taking over their Sacred Land. There is something very real and awe inspiring about the Jewish connection to Eretz Yisrael and the Arabs KNOW it and seek to destroy that mystical connection. With profound stupidity and avarice the political Left in Israel is cooperating with this evil project. And worse, some religious Jews and members of the Right are also going along with the dismemberment of Israel. Some say it will save lives to appease the Arabs. Foolishness. The predatory Arabs already smell victory and each new concession makes their lust for Jewish blood grow.

Wouldn't the Arabs object to the removal of the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the rock) and the Al Aqsa mosque from the Temple Mount? Of course they would, but they have no legitimate rights in the area. "There is no reason the sovereign State of Israel, needs to allow this desecration Jewish Holy Places to continue." Today on the Mount, the Arabs are supreme. They are destroying all archaeological remnants of Jewish sites. They are storing weapons in their mosques to kill Jews.

One thing is clear to me: the L-rd has blessed Israel by re-uniting Jerusalem and bringing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza back under its control. It would be a horrendous sin against G-d and common sense for Israel to renounce this inheritance to which it is entitled. Israel holds these lands as a sacred trust for the Jewish people in perpetuity.

It would not only be sinful, but also criminal, to abuse that trust by denying future generations of Jews their Holy Land -- Land of their Fathers; the one tiny spot on planet earth given to them by G-d.


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

There is STILL no alternative.



An Editorial from the September 1998 issue of THE MACCABEAN

By Bernard J. Shapiro

"He who is merciful when he should be cruel will in the end be cruel when he should be merciful."...Midrash Samuel (Jewish rabbinic text from early Middle Ages)

From the very early days of the Haganah and continuing with the emerging Israel Defense Forces (IDF), there was a policy of self-restraint or havlagah. This policy mandated that defenders could only return fire, hold their positions, and never to engage in counter-terror. This policy was based on the false premise that the Arab masses did not support the war against the Yishuv (the Jewish population before independence) and then the State of Israel and would be brought into the conflict if Israeli forces were too aggressive. There were some good and practical reasons for restraint in the early days. There was legitimate fear that the British would cut off immigration if the Jews were to go on the offensive against the Arabs. Havlagah was essentially a Haganah (Labor/Socialist) policy and many supporters of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement broke off from them to form fighting units (Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern) unrestrained by that policy.

The modern IDF was dominated by Labor and quickly adopted the policy of restraint and the concept of "purity of arms" as its official doctrine. The later reinforced the former by adding that a soldier should never have to obey an illegal order to commit some atrocity. The enemy, including prisoners of war, should be treated with dignity and civilian populations should be spared as much harm as possible, even if this causes greater Israeli casualties. There was some flexibility in this strict moral code. A young officer named Yitzhak Rabin (1948) was sent to fire on Jewish teenagers swimming to flee the sinking Altalena (he killed 16 of them). Many retaliatory raids were launched against terrorist targets in neighboring countries, killing numerous civilians as collateral damage.

This policy of restraint may have been practical during the pre-state days and even during the early years of Israeli independence. These periods were characterized by weakness and relative dependence on foreign goodwill. Following the Six Day War in 1967, the need for havlagah decreased and the damage it caused began to become more evident. Israel became the preeminent power in the Middle East, yet failed to grasp the strategic opportunities that came with such dominance. Here are some of the historical highlights of the failed policy of restraint:

1. Following the Six Day War (1967) and the capture of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan turned over control of Judaism's most sacred place, the Temple Mount, to Moslem authorities. He did it to appease their sensibilities to the Israeli capture of the city. Jewish rights were ignored to please the defeated Arabs, who had plotted our destruction. Dayan also prevented a mass exodus of Arabs from YESHA, which ultimately led to the problems we face today.

2. During the War of Attrition with Egypt (1969-70), the Israeli forces adopted primarily a defensive posture. They built a system of bunkers (The Bar Lev Line) along the Suez Canal. Israeli soldiers were heavily pounded daily by Egyptian artillery. Finally they began to use aircraft to strike targets deep into Egypt. The policy of restraint kept them from striking anything but military and minor economic targets. Israeli soldiers died because the government was inhibited from causing Egypt 'real' pain.

3. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 is a classic example of restraint run amok. Israeli military intelligence did not fail to recognize the approaching danger as has been the common account. In fact, Israel's leaders made the political decision not to utilize the great power of the IDF to crush the Egyptian and Syrian armies that they KNEW were planning to attack. Thousands of Israeli soldiers died needlessly.

4. The Camp David Accord with Egypt was another example of the failure to exert Israeli power. The oil fields of Sinai would have given Israel economic independence from America. The cost of redeployment from Sinai placed Israel in almost permanent debt to American diplomacy (often pro-Arab). Did Israel achieve anything worthwhile at Camp David? I think not and believe history will bear me out. Egypt has become one of the most ant-Semitic and hostile Arab countries in the world. As a result of Camp David, the Egyptian army now threatens Israel, having been equipped with the most modern American weapons.

5. During the War in Lebanon (1982), the IDF reached Beirut and then failed to complete the destruction of the PLO. Our enemies were allowed to escape and prepare to fight another day. Why didn't the Israeli Navy sink the ships loaded with PLO troops (including Arafat) as they fled Beirut? RESTRAINT!

6. In 1987 the intifada began and the Israeli forces showed great restraint and thus were incapable of crushing it. Of course, Israel received no credit in the Western media for such restraint. The failure to defeat this uprising began a process of demoralization among the Israeli population.

7. The Persian Gulf War (1991) and the SCUD attacks on Israel led to further demoralization. The failure to adequately respond to Iraq's aggression and the humiliating sealed rooms, led to a rapid decline in Israeli morale and desire to defend itself. More and more Israelis began to feel impotent, weak and fatigued with the continuous battle for survival. The Oslo Accords were the logical outcome of this depression and feeling that they could not sustain the struggle.

8. The Oslo Accords (1993) were the ultimate failure of the policy of restraint. Israel actually was very powerful. The IDF was unequaled in the Middle East. Yet despite this power, its leaders, were ready to grant equal status to a band of murderers and ultimately create a state of "Palestine" which would challenge its right to the Land and its capital of Jerusalem.

9. Israeli forces in Lebanon should have been given a free hand to 'punish' all those who facilitate attacks on them including Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. No more agreements that tie Israeli hands.

The damage caused by havlagah (restraint) has been immense and it far past time to reverse that policy. Israel must massively and disproportionately retaliate for terrorist attack. The murderers of Jews must be plucked from their safe havens in Palestinian Authority areas. Oslo must be declared null and void due to Arafat's non-compliance with its terms. No more giving him "one more chance." The test is over. HE FAILED! He and his cronies should be arrested and tried for murder.



Bernard J. Shapiro is Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of THE MACCABEAN.



NOTE: The letter that follows is an urgent one sent by Minister Natan Sharansky to PM Barak. It details and questions his newest secret offer to Arafat. We encourage all who receive this copy to send emails urging Barak to consult with the Cabinet, Security Cabinet and Knesset.

Date: 30 May, 2000

From : Minister of the Interior Natan Sharanasky


To: Mr. Ehud Barak Prime Minister and Minister of Defense


Mr. Prime Minister,

In the last few days disturbing news has reached me regarding agreements, that you made or were made in your name, within the framework of the negotiations with representatives of the Palestinian Authority, in the current round of negotiations.

It pains me that you do not tend to share the developments in the negotiations with the members of the government or at least the members of the security cabinet and the heads of the parties that are coalition partners. So I am forced to learn about these developments from personal friends.

From my sources I learn the following things:

A. Jerusalem

1. Israel is willing for Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem to be under the municipal responsibility of the Palestinian Authority.

2. Israel relinquishes the physical separation between Jerusalem and the territories under Palestinian control and thus allows the free and unsupervised entrance of people into Jerusalem.

3. Israel relinquishes the setting of the final status of Jerusalem within the framework of this agreement.

B. Judea and Samaria

1. Israel retains only 5-8% of the territory of dense settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.

2. The Palestinian Authority demands, in return for these areas, compensation in Israeli territory within the borders of the "Green Line".

3. Israel relinquishes the Jordan Valley and Northern Dead Sea.

4. Israel will uproot the settlements that according to the agreement will remain within the territory of the Palestinian Authority.

5. Israel will resettle between 40,000 and 50,000 settlers, who will be uprooted from those settlements.

C. Border and border passages

1. Israel relinquishes the border with Jordan that runs from the north of the [Jordan] Valley until the northern Dead Sea, including the control of border passages.

2. Israel will allow a border between the Palestinian Authority and Egypt in the south-west part of the state.

D. Refugees

1. According to the agreement, the Palestinian Authority can bring into its borders and give citizenship to any person wishing to. This agreement opens the door for the entrance of millions of people to the territory of the Authority.

2. In this agreement it is not established that there is no "right of return" to Israeli territory within the borders of the "Green Line" for Palestinians who claim that they or their relatives lived in the past in settlements within the borders of the "Green Line".

3. The "right of return" will be given to refugees to within the orders of the "Green Line" within the framework of "family reunification".

From the agreement being developed a dangerous reality is being created according to which Israel relinquishes, in advance, all of its assets without insisting on the setting of the final status of Jerusalem, the refugees and the borders.

Honorable Prime Minister, just as the struggle for the independence of Israel, that reached its peak in the Six Day Way, strengthened the people of Israel and deepened the feeling of its identification with its State, so, to my sorrow, the developing agreement, instead of increasing these feelings, will challenge the standing of Israel and turn it into a state that relies on the benevolence of the nations of the world. There is no doubt that this change will effect the standing of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, weaken the people, and reduce their ability to identify with the State.

This is a dangerous process and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people living in Zion and outside of it cannot agree to it.

In light of this, I ask for an urgent meeting of the security cabinet to consider the matter. Likewise, I ask to raise the matter at the next cabinet meeting.


Natan Sharansky -


Minister David Levy, Foreign Minister -

Minister Eli Yishai, Chairman Shas Movement -

Minister Yosef Sarid, Chairman Meretz Party -

Minister Yitzchak Levy, Chairman NRP -

Minister Amnon Lipkin Shahak, Center Party -

MK Dan Meridor, Chairman Foreign and Security Committee -

Prime Minister Ehud Barak -

Phone: 011 972 2 670 5555
Fax: 011 972 2 651 2631
3 Kaplan Street
Kiryat Ben Gurion
Jerusalem 91919



ARUTZ SHEVA NATIONAL RADIO - May 31, 2000 - Iyar 26, 5760 - 41st day of the Omer


Thousands of Palestinians will attempt to "conquer" Jewish Yesha communities upon the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on September 13. So claims a Saudi Arabian newspaper, quoting a "Plan for Liberation of Lands" authorized by the Palestinian Authority. This report jibes with a statement made recently by leading PLO official Feisal Husseini, who said that on the day after the declaration of a Palestinian state "on all its lands," the Palestinians living in refugee camps will "march" towards Israeli cities and villages. Husseini acknowledged that violence during such a march would be likely, and that it could lead to a Palestinian conquest of Jewish towns in Yesha.

Residents of the Binyamin community of Nachliel sent an urgent letter to IDF Binyamin area commander Col. Gal Hirsch this week, warning that the IDF will be unable to reach Yesha towns in the event that the Palestinians carry through with their threats to overtake the communities.

Beit El Mayor Uri Ariel related to these threats today, and said, "We have raised these issues with the army and government, who are responsible for these matters. They are aware of the issue and are organized to deal with it." Ariel also said that the towns already have weapons that, in the opinion of the army, are sufficient to deal with external threats.


Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak's cooperation with mass murderers of Jews and his cooperation in the planning of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homes in YESHA, constitutes a WAR CRIME under the Geneva Conventions. Every effort will be made to bring him to justice for his crimes against not only the Jewish people but against humanity as a whole.



Reprinted from The Weekly Standard of May 29, 2000


By Charles Krauthammer

The most improbable story of the twentieth century is the return of the Jews to sovereignty in their original homeland. The establishment of a Jewish state after two thousand years of dispersion and powerlessness is an idea that just a hundred years ago, at the founding of the Zionist movement, seemed delusional. The only thing more improbable is this: That after merely fifty years of independence, the Jews of Israel would tire of it, lose faith in the enterprise, and forfeit their redemption. As things are progressing now, the collapse of Zionism may be the story of the twenty-first century.

For the last twenty years, Israel has been in retreat. One can make reasonable strategic arguments for some or all of the specifics. But the fact of retreat is undeniable. In the south, Israel gave up Sinai, three times the size of Israel, for a cold and hostile peace with Egypt. In the north, Israel is in the midst of a retreat from Lebanon that will leave its northern cities vulnerable to terrorist attack forthe first time in a quarter century.

Israel has already conceded to Syria the entire Golan Heights. The only thing that keeps Israel from carrying out this withdrawal is Syrian insistence on making it as humiliating as possible. Syria refuses to offer the minimal courtesies in negotiations or the minimal gestures toward real peace. Even Israelis on the left, such as the novelist Amos Oz, have come out against a deal with Syria and against Israel's abject negotiating stance. Assad, said Oz, is "demanding not just peace, and not even just the Golan, but that Ehud Barak should go to meet him dressed only in his underwear, with his hands raised in surrender, and, if at all possible, wearing a bandana on his forehead inscribed with the motto 'Israel sucks.'"

And on the most important front, on the Palestinian front, Israel has been engaged for seven years in a thinly disguised unilateral withdrawal. The Palestinians have not tempered their demands one iota since 1993. All the while, Israel has been ceding territory, authority, and legitimacy, while violating its own "red lines" on everything from final borders (the Jordan Valley is for the first time on the block) to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Just last week, Arafat instigated widespread rioting to remind Israelis that the military option is his to exercise whenever he wants. How did Prime Minister Barak respond? Even as Palestinian police were firing live ammunition at Israeli soldiers, he got his cabinet to approve the transfer of three villages in the Jerusalem area as a show of goodwill.

Some call such displays of magnanimity a sign of maturity. Another word for it is demoralization. In a recent essay in Commentary, Daniel Pipes pointed out the remarkable asymmetries, moral and material, in the Middle East today. On the surface, Israel has the appearance of a powerful, almost invincible, Middle East presence. It has a vibrant democracy, a highly developed economy, and continued technological superiority. (It is, for example, one of the world's Internet powers.)

Israel's Arab neighbors have none of these, but they do have will. Indeed, a half-century into their struggle with Israel, the Arab will to prevail is more powerful than ever. True, paper treaties have been signed. But the animus toward the very existence of the Jewish state has grown deeper, finding religious sanction in fanatic Islamicism and becoming the staple of official propaganda and popular culture. The Israelis, war weary and desperate for peace, willfully overlook these signs and search endlessly for just the right negotiating formula, just the right territorial concession, just the right dose of placation to bring them an illusive final peace.

The retreat is not just territorial. Israel's physical withdrawal is an epiphenomenon, a surface manifestation of a far more profound withdrawal: psychological and, ultimately, ideological. The territorial retreat tries to grapple (however mistakenly) with the question of how a Jewish state can survive; the ideological retreat raises serious doubts about why a Jewish state should survive.

These doubts, and the relentless attempt by Israel's intellectual elites to instill them in the mainstream of Israeli culture, have been chillingly catalogued in a new book by Yoram Hazony. The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul lays bare the debate that has been raging in Israel-in Hebrew, and thus beyond the ken of most Western observers-about the necessity, indeed the morality, of a state that defines itself as Jewish.

Hazony is the young head of the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think-tank that publishes the intellectual journal Azure. He's also a leading Israeli neoconservative (an admittedly small group), and he begins his book with a review of those voices in high Israeli culture-writers, artists, philosophers-that question the entire Zionist enterprise. He then offers a history of Zionism, probing into the great divisions between the followers of Theodore Herzl and those who opposed the idea of an exclusively Jewish state. In the last part of The Jewish State, Hazony tries to trace the influence of these early opponents on contemporary "post-Zionism."

The central contention of post-Zionism is that the idea of a Jewish state-with its unique calendar, flag, anthems, rhythms, ethos, and history-is atavistic, a throwback to the romantic nationalism of the nineteenth century that begat, among other things, fascism and Nazism. In the modern world of the Internet, the global economy, European integration, and growing transnational interdependence, this ethnic particularism is hopelessly retrograde. The advanced peoples of the West are surrendering sovereignty. Israel should, too.

There is something wildly out of place about this idea. This is all well and good for Liechtenstein. Unfortunately, however, the neighborhood in which Israel finds itself shows no sign of giving up nationalism, particularism, or religious fanaticism to join the global bandwagon. No matter. The post-Zionists are morally offended and aesthetically appalled by the grubbiness of their neighborhood and the brutal provincialism of their compatriots. One leading Israeli poet, Dalia Rabikovitch, parodies the longing for the Return in early Zionist poetry with this twist on the twenty-third psalm:

As for me,

He maketh me lie down in green pastures

In New Zealand...

Truehearted people herd sheep there,

On Sundays they go to church

In their quiet clothes.

No point in hiding it any longer:

We're an experiment that didn't turn out well,

A plan that went wrong,

Tied up with too much murderousness.

Aesthetic revulsion is compounded by a profound moral guilt about the Israeli experiment. In The Jewish State, Hazony highlights how much Israeli cultural production focuses on the original sin of Israel's founding and how the "new historians" consciously subvert traditional Zionist history with a version that places blame for the suffering and dispossession of Palestinians on Jewish aggression, terror, and hunger for power.

But the new historians are hardly content with exposing original sin. They insist on the view that Israel has lived in sin ever since. Take, for example, the Six-Day War. If ever there was a just war, a war of self-defense, it was Israel's war of June 1967 when its existence was threatened-indeed, its eradication promised-by the ring of states led by Egypt. President Nasser ordered U.N. troops out of the Sinai, where they had been acting as a buffer to guarantee Israel's security after its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1957. He blockaded the Straits of Tiran, cutting off Israel's southern access to the sea-an internationally recognized act of war. He massed a hundred thousand troops, concluded defense pacts with Jordan and Syria, and waited-either for war, or for Israel to collapse under the weight of mobilization. (A country with a very small standing army cannot function when its entire male population is at the front.) Israel struck on June 5 and won the war.

Now, observe how this is portrayed in the modern ninth-grade history textbook issued by the Ministry of Education. There's no mention of the closing of the Straits of Tiran. No mention of the blockade. No mention of the expulsion of the U.N. troops from the Sinai. No mention of the military pacts among the countries ringing Israel. What single military event is mentioned as precursor to the war? Israel shooting down some Syrian jets on the northern border in May.

The textbook is full of other such travesties. The previous textbook had a map of Israel at the time of the War of Independence with arrows marking the invasion routes of the five Arab countries that attacked the infant state. In the new textbook, the map has no arrows coming in, just arrows going out representing Palestinians fleeing the country.

Another striking omission is any mention of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. This might seem merely odd, unless one understands that antinationalist intellectuals deplore the glorification of that World War II uprising as a fetishistic celebration of the Jew as fighter, and thus symbolic reinforcement of Israeli militarism.

What does post-Zionism mean in practice? It means that Israel should be not a Jewish state, but a "state of its citizens," a democracy like any other with no particular commitment to the survival or advancement of any one culture or people. Thus the most fundamental law in the Israeli canon, "the Law of Return" that guarantees refuge and citizenship in Israel for any Jew in the world (and which David Ben-Gurion considered the most important law of the land) is under attack for being nationalist, particularist, even racist. A democratic state, it is said, would have no such ethnic tests.

Nor is it just the Law of Return. Respected public figures, writes Hazony, have advanced the demand to de-Judaize the flag (with its Star of David) and the national anthem (Ha-Tikvah, "The Hope," which speaks of the Jewish longing to return to the homeland), and drain school curricula, the army, and the constitution of their distinctive Jewish national character. "The Jews living in Israel are now being asked not only to give up on geographical territories. We must also implement a 'redeployment'-or even a complete withdrawal-from entire regions in our soul," writes the celebrated Israeli author David Grossman. And what does this psychic withdrawal, this Reformation, mean? "Giving up on power as a value. On the army itself as a value. . . . Refining a new existence for ourselves. One which is no longer drenched to the point of suffocation with the myth of our exile from the land, or with the myth of Masada, or with a one-dimensional lesson of the Holocaust."

Post-Zionism aches for freedom-a new, quite un-Zionist kind of freedom: freedom from myth, freedom from chosenness, freedom from history, and, above all, freedom from power. Power is corrupting. The post-Zionists prefer incorruptibility. They yearn not for Zion, but for the purity that Jews enjoyed before they reacquired sovereignty. As one leading Hebrew University professor said decades ago in opposing Israel's founder, David Ben-Gurion: "We are burying a dream, . . . the dream of a land of Israel, the state of the pure and the moral."

Over the last seven years, this quest for the pure and the moral has found expression in Israeli diplomacy and government. Of course, those in power are hardly going to call openly for the Jews to give it up unilaterally. How then to attain purity? The most ingenious solution to this conundrum comes from the architect of the Oslo accords, Shimon Peres.

Peres has discovered that power as traditionally understood does not matter anymore. In his astonishing 1993 book The New Middle East, he declares that "the traditional concept of national defense, which depends mainly on military and weapons systems...has changed." How? "The physical considerations of the traditional strategy-natural obstacles, man-made structures, troop mobilizations, location of the battlefields-are irrelevant." Or as he told the army's head of intelligence in a cabinet meeting: "There is economics and the military, and only a country which goes over to economics will win. Choosing between ten army emplacements and ten hotels, the ten hotels also constitute security. I'm for the European model, which emphasizes economics."

These statements would boggle the mind coming from anyone. But coming from the man who was only a few years ago at the helm of a besieged country, they are particularly ominous. Peres sees the Middle East as some sort of Benelux, where harmony and tolerance prevail, where power and weaponry are obsolete.

A lovely dream. And quite mad. The first problem is that Israelis seem to be the only people in the region who believe it. And it takes more than Jews to tango. Egypt has built a massive American-supplied military. Syria is trying to negotiate a huge new weapons deal with Russia. Iraq and Iran are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and missiles aimed at Israel. Syria already has missiles tipped with poison gas. Lebanon's Hezbollah vows to fight the Jews until Jerusalem is liberated. And the Palestinians have been building up their forty-thousand-man "police force." Its mission is not the arrest of burglars.

The idea that the Arabs have transcended the need for and use of power is simply delusional, as is the idea that they are prepared to enter into a kind of European Union with Israel. When the next war comes, when Arab tank forces come rolling through the Jordan valley (that Israel will have given up to Arafat in the current peace negotiations), we will see how much protection will be afforded Israel by its Maginot line of five-star hotels.

Peres's vision is not just geographically but historically adrift .Europe does represent a different model of co-existence. But that came only after the nations of Europe spent the better part of five hundred years in almost constant warfare with each other. The Middle East is where Europe was a few centuries ago-with very young and unstable nations still violently contending for primacy and power. Forget about Israel. Look at Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Kuwait, Syria-Lebanon, Syria-Iraq. Where in the Middle East do you find any model for Benelux?

Even assuming the Arabs were, inexplicably, to fall into line with this fantasy, what kind of vision is this new Middle East? During millennia of exile, the Jews of Persia and Babylon, of Poland and Spain, of Baghdad and indeed Belgium, dreamed and struggled and died for a return to Zion. So they could become Belgians?

The fundamental idea of Zionism was for the Jews to once again enter history as actors, not just as acted upon. And that meant acquiring sovereignty and power, and exercising both on behalf of the Jewish people. This idea is now under attack within Israel itself. Where did this loss of will come from? Why the loss of faith in the necessity, the legitimacy, indeed, the glory of a reconstituted Jewish commonwealth?

Hazony attributes this ideological collapse to the intellectual influence of a small group of universalist German-Jewish professors who dominated the Hebrew University, which in turn dominates cultural life in Israel. Best known of these is the philosopher Martin Buber, who opposed the establishment of the Jewish state at the time and, in Hazony's view, never reconciled himself to the reality of Jewish power. Hazony traces the intellectual influence of these professors through their students, and their students' students, on Israel's small but powerful intellectual elite.

Now, it is true that David Ben-Gurion and his Labor Zionists were more interested in concrete than culture. Farmer-soldiers are not very given to philosophy. They were too busy creating facts on the ground-an army, a new economy, a government, a state-to bother very much with ideas. They did leave that field open to their ideological enemies in the academy.

Nonetheless, to blame the collapse of Zionist will on the professors is to give them too much credit. There are more parsimonious explanations.

One is simple exhaustion. It's not the professors but the people who are tired of the price of Jewish power. It is the people who agitated for retreat from Lebanon and the territories, in search of respite. It is they who have suffered not just war but isolation, reprobation, often vituperation from everywhere-including their erstwhile friends in the West. They are tired of being outcasts. They are tired of the hard life of sustaining the Zionist vision.

Who can blame them? They have fought five wars in fifty years. They look across the ocean and see their fellow Westerners-and their fellow Jews-living prosperous and serene, while Israelis get buses blown up at home and lose sons in an endless guerrilla war in Lebanon. Beginning with the War of Independence when Israel lost one percent of its population (the American equivalent would fill fifty Vietnam memorials), Israel has been bleeding for half a century. It is hard to blame a people who have endured so much for so long. To maintain Jewish independence in a hostile Arab sea requires enormous determination. Israelis have been fighting for three, often four generations. How many generations can sustain a pioneer spirit?

Another explanation, fuller than Hazony's, would situate Israel within the broader intellectual context of the West. In their anti-nationalism, anti-patriotism, cosmopolitanism, and distrust of power, Israeli intellectuals are no different from their counterparts in America, Britain, France, and the rest of the West. Indeed, Israelis are just catching up with deconstructionism and multiculturalism, with Lacan and Foucault. Modern Israeli art and dance and theater offer almost comical attempts to imitate the nihilism of the Western avant-garde. Post-Zionism is really just Western counterculturalism applied to the Jewish Question.

But that Western style of counterculturalism has far more serious consequences in Israel than anywhere else. The West is rich, secure, and dominant enough to play at cultural revolution. It can afford the luxury of oppositional and subversive elites. The tragedy for Israel is that it does not enjoy such luxuries. It lives on the edge. It has no buffer zone, geographic or ideological.

The worst disaster suffered by the United States in the last half-century is Vietnam. Yet within a few years, America had cauterized the wound and recovered. Israel cannot so easily shrug off catastrophe. It has no safety net. It has real enemies standing at the gates. If the army issues a code of conduct with no mention of loyalty to the Jewish people, that will have consequences. If its young people are brought up to believe that the Six-Day War-and thus the acquisition of the occupied territories-was anything but defensive, that will have consequences. If the Supreme Court begins striking down laws that shape the Jewish character of the state (such as the Law of Return) in the name of universal democratic principles, that will have consequences.

The West can indulge visions of its own corruption and moral bankruptcy without risking extinction. For Israel, such visions are mortally dangerous. They are already having their effect in culture, law, and diplomacy. The most dangerous threat to a political entity is demoralization, for before the Fall-of the ancien régime in France, of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, of the Soviet empire in Russia-comes the loss of faith in one's own mandate from heaven.

In an interview last year, the leading Palestinian author and activist Edward Said ruminated about the prospect of eliminating the Jewish state. "We must find freer, more creative, more inventive means...I am speaking of a cultural battle...Israeli historians themselves . . . are in the process of reconsidering Zionist myths. We must use the contradiction and dissent that exist in the heart of the Israeli population." Said opposed the Oslo accords and broke with Yasser Arafat over them. He believes that there is no armed solution for achieving Palestinian goals. But he does hold out one hope, the hope that within Israeli society there are now voices that understand the true nature of the Jewish state and will seek its liquidation through internal transformation. "Do you think the Israelis will renounce Zionism one day?" the interviewer asked. "Some have begun to speak of it," Said replied. "I think that the most intelligent among them are in the process of realizing that, despite their incredible power, their situation is untenable."

Israel's enemies see the future, a future Israelis themselves may now be creating: a world without Zionism, a world without Israel.




(Communicated by the Defense Ministry Spokesman)
Jerusalem, 8 May 2000

[Editor's Note: The Freeman Center grieves for the families of these heroes but is saddened by the fact Israeli governments since 1992 have chosen to dishonor these men by giving away the Land they fought and died for....Bernard J. Shapiro]

On the eve of Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars, the Defense Ministry has announced that the number of fallen since 29 November 1947/War of Independence to today is 19,109 and prior to that date is 1,594. The total number of fallen since 1860 is 20,703 (including IDF personnel who died of their wounds).

The total population of bereaved families is 17,812, as follows: 3,344 widows, 4,474 bereaved single parents and 3,882 bereaved couples (7,764 individuals), 2,230 orphans, plus 81,879 disabled IDF veterans with a 0-100% handicap.

The opening ceremony for Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars will take place today (Monday) 8.5.2000, at 20:00, at the Western Wall, under the aegis of President Ezer Weizman and Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz.

Ceremonies will be held at the 42 military cemeteries across the country tomorrow and the Memorial to Fallen Bedouin soldiers at Hamovil Junction (near Nazareth) at 11:00, following the two minute commemoration siren.

The commemorative stamp for remembrance Day 2000 symbolizes the link between the people and the land of Israel.




By Dr. Steven Plaut

Today is Memorial Day in Israel and tomorrow is Independence Day. I have believed for years that the best way to commemorate these days is by turning them into a battle against the loss of perspective.

Memorial Day is the more troubling of the two days. The problem is that Israelis have lost their sense of Jewish perspective to such an extreme extent, and this becomes glaringly evident on Memorial Day. Israelis are incapable of viewing their problems and that of the state within the perspective of Jewish history, in large part because of the efforts of the radically secularist Israeli Left, which dominates civil discourse, the media, academia and politics, to detach all of Israel from Jewish history and to deny any connection between Israeli-ness and Judaism.

All of this is reflected in the whiny defeatism that dominates all thinking about the losses of life by Jews struggling for Israel's survival. It is blindingly apparent on Memorial Day.

First of all, the atmosphere of Memorial Day resembles that of Holocaust Remembrance Day in nearly all things in Israel: the same siren, the same closing of cafes and restaurants, the same conversion of the media to official mourners. The timing is also suggestive - Memorial Day is a week after Yom Hashoa. If anything, Memorial Day is the more dramatic of the two days, as there are TWO sirens sounded on Memorial Day but only one on Yom Hashoa. And this is not because the loss of soldiers is "more recent". The bulk of soldiers killed in Israel's wars, far more than half, died in the 1948 War of Independence, only 3 years after the end of the Holocaust.

The two juxtaposed days equate the Holocaust with a tragedy that is one six hundredth its size. Second, all sense of proportion has been lost. In ALL of Israel's wars, something like 19,000 soldiers died. This is a bit more than the number of Jews murdered each day at Auschwitz at the height of its "efficiency". In other words, had Auschwitz operated for only one day longer than it did, the losses of Jewish life would have been the same as all of Israel's military losses. And the soldiers killed in Israel died in valor, defending their people and country.

Here we are, 55 years after the Holocaust, and the country is gripped with the Grand Oslo Delusion, whose acronym seems to have replaced that other similar name. In 21st century Israel, the fact that one or two soldiers get killed per week in Lebanon is cause for unilateral surrender to Syria and panic-stricken retreat out of Lebanon to the "international border" from which the terrorists will conduct a bloodbath in all of northern Israel. Two deaths a week, deaths which could be prevented if the country's leadership had the courage to do so, are thought to be sufficient reason for abandoning all rationality and determination. Two deaths a week are enough reason to endanger the very existence of the country by giving the Golan Heights to the Syrian Fuhrer. Palestinians tossing rocks at soldiers were sufficient reason to import a fascist army of sworn enemies into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and to reduce the width of Israel at its Netanya belt to the length of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

Oslo is based on a total loss in the ability to reason rationally, a total loss of historic proportion, a relinquishment of reality for a make-pretend imaginary universe, and a complete loss in the Jewish willingness to survive. First and foremost, it is a complete loss in Jewish self-respect and dignity. Here we have the spectacle of Israeli leaders meeting, back-slapping and kissing the same Arab fascists who murdered Jewish children and only yesterday denied there had ever been a Holocaust but if there HAD been one the Jews deserved it. The Israeli media continues to be the occupied territory of Israel's extremist Left; the Independence Day issue of Haaretz features a banner Op-Ed by columnist Akiva Eldar, one of the most fanatic and dishonest in the Haaretz aviary, entitled "To the Glory of the States of Israel and Palestine," and explaining that Israel will never be truly independent until Palestine has pushed Israel behind its 1949 borders and liberated East Jerusalem.

In Orwellian Israel, defeatism is the greatest form of triumphalism, cowardice is the highest form of courage, and McCarthyism is the greatest expression of democracy. (Haaretz today has a long piece denouncing the imprisonment of a dissident in Tunisia who was jailed for criticizing the regime there; this is the same paper that celebrates the criminal investigation of Rabbi Ovadia for doing the same thing, declaring that this proves there is but one law for all in Israel. That law being that it is illegal to criticize the Left.)

The Israeli military is as blinded by the loss in perspective as the rest of the country. The military leadership is - if anything - ahead of the rest of the country in saying amen to Oslo and backing the suicidal instincts of the politicians. The military brass was louder than the media in demanding a unilateral unconditional surrender of Israel in Lebanon and relinquishing of the Golan. After explaining for three decades that Israel cannot survive militarily without Mount Hermon, the generals have suddenly discovered that the Hermon is "just another mountain".

A proof of this pudding as good as any is Ami Ayalon, about to retire as head of the Shin Bet General Security Services. Ayalon no longer is reticent about his Leftist views and spills them out in Haaretz today ( May 9, 2000). I have long argued that Oslo would not be possible without Israel's intelligence services having abandoned all intellectual seriousness in their efforts to suck up to the Labor Party establishment and support Oslo suicide. Carmi Gillon, the previous head of the Shin Bet, believed anti-Oslo demonstrators were a far greater security threat than Arab terrorists and suicide bombers and so turned the Shin Bet into a partisan wing of the Labor Party used to bash the Opposition in anti-democratic fashion.

Ayalon now declares proudly that the PLO is today fighting against the HAMAS far more effectively than Israel ever did, an astonishing admission that should in and of itself justify the court martial of Ayalon and Gillon. He rants on, like Gillon, about the cancerous threat to Israeli democracy from having people criticize Oslo (Like me and the Freeman Center) and government policies. He supports judicial activism. He declares himself a "bleeding heart" proudly (yafe nefesh) who cannot abide the idea of Israel ruling over "another nation", although the threat that this other nation seeks to perpetrate a second Holocaust does not seem to disturb his sleep. He declares he "is a great believer in the New Middle East vision of Shimon Peres," which means he is blind as a bat and dumb as an ox and that a new Pearl Harbor-like surprise of Israel is just waiting to happen. His fear of violence in the future is confined to violence by settlers being forced to submit to ethnic cleansing to appease the PLO, not from Arab terrorism and new Arab wars launched against Israel. He celebrates the fact that Israelis today are far more aware of the crimes and injustices Israel committed against the po' Palestinians, making them more sensitive (meaning, less likely to resist Oslo national suicide).

When Israel has been wiped off the face of the map, I suspect the Fascist Arab state of Palestine will issue a postage stamp with the portrait of Ami Ayalon. To celebrate its Independence Day.




By Emanuel A. Winston

Before the reader begins the substance of the following article, think about the remarkable timeliness of various Arab riots, Arafat's 'Green Lights', collusion between Israeli leaders, Arafat and U.S. Arabists to insure pressure on Israel to capitulate. Recall that just before the first Intifada both Rabin and Peres left the country and both refused to return as the riots spread and grew in strength.

The recently coordinated riots, just as Barak made the unpopular 'gesture' or 'down payment' of giving away Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara to Arafat carried the same smell. The collusion to create pressure on Israel's weak Knesset and a confused population by initiating riots is well understood and practiced by Israel's Left, in linkage with foreign interests who use their intelligence apparatus to foment political change.

Regrettably, Israel's opposition never insisted on a Court of Inquiry to probe Israel's collusion by her Leftist leadership to force political and territorial change which the Israeli public did not want.

The NEW YORK TIMES of May 17, following its usual pro-Arab, anti-Israel practice congratulates Ehud Barak for his perfidy and his vision for not responding to Arafat's 'Green Light' to riot. The TIMES author, Deborah Sontag, recasts Barak's collusion and betrayal as an 'Act of Vision'. Arab leaders congratulated Barak for his lack of retaliation to the Palestinian Police shooting with live ammunition at Israeli soldiers.


One has to admire the sheer, malevolent trickery of the Barak giveaway of Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara - soon to be followed by Anata, A-Ram and other Arab villages encircling Jerusalem. The idea of giving Abu Dis to Arafat was floated earlier by Yossi Beilin and Abu Mazen as the capital of the neo-Palestinian state. What wasn't mentioned was that Abu Dis is merely an extension of the Mount of Olives and separated only by a name and, thereby, is an organic part of Jerusalem.

Look at your maps and see! Abu Dis is an extension of the Mount of Olives. Only look out from the roofs bordering Har Bayit (the Temple Mount) and what do you see? Look across the Silwan Valley and up the hill to the Mount of Olives. There you see the road that King Hussein built across Jewish graves and over into Abu Dis and Eizariya. They're all one contiguous land connection through the Mt. of Olives directly into the Old City of Jerusalem. Beilin, Peres and now Barak knew they were giving the eastern section of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, along with Abu Dis as the 'cover'.

But, Peres, Beilin, Barak and Arafat could not state outright that the Holy Mount of Olives and eastern Jerusalem was to be gifted to Arafat as the capital of his soon-to-be-announced new state of Palestine. While such Jews as Barak, Beilin and Peres who are religiously nonobservant, have little regard for such things as Jewish Holy Sites and the vast ancient Jewish graveyards on the Mount of Olives, the Arabs know its true value.

Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara at first seem to be some ordinary Arab villages of little importance. But, if this Barak give away is now to take place, this entire connected area of the Mount of Olives, all the way down to the Silwan Valley would become the capital of the neo-state of Palestine. The Mount of Olives faces Israel's Old City and the Temple Mount and then so would be their capital. It would be only a matter of time before the Palestinians would succeed with their spurious claim to most of east Jerusalem and even 'west' Jerusalem.

The Arabs consider that area so important that, when they came into control of Jerusalem after Salahadin drove the Christian Crusaders out of Jerusalem, they built a Moslem graveyard outside of the Eastern Wall of the Old City in front of the Golden Gate which they sealed up. They walled up this particular Gate to the City in order to keep the Jewish Moshiach (Messiah) from entering Jerusalem - as legend said he would. Because the Jewish Messiah supposedly cannot walk on unholy ground or through a Muslim cemetery, they also buried several Muslim mujhadin (Islamic holy warriors) in front of that Gate - or so goes their lore.

Yes, the Muslims think a great deal about the Mount of Olives and making it their capital would fit their ideas of status by co-opting what is Holy and precious to the Jews. Of course, the Jewish graves would have to be moved out. But that would not trouble Yassir Arafat - just as it did not trouble King Hussein who controlled the Old City for 19 years - nor would it bother any Muslim ruler of today. While Hussein was in control, he drove out the Jews; he destroyed 58 Jewish synagogues; he desecrated the ancient Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives by building a road through them; he used their ancient memorial stones in the soldiers' latrines. Respecting Jewish graves would not stop Arafat or the Palestinians from building 'their' capital.

By giving the Arabs Abu Dis, Eizariya, Suhawara, Anata and the other villages surrounding Jerusalem, the entire Northern and East sections of Jerusalem would be almost completely sealed off from the rest of Israel if it became necessary to fight a defensive war. The sections called Givat Zev, Neveh Ya'acov, Pisgat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill would be cut off except for narrow access routes easily cut off. As a General, Barak understands this and so he is doubly guilty of exposing Israeli citizens to assault.

Making access routes dangerous for Jews to travel goes back to the Labor/Left plans of the early 1980s which intended to raise the 'misery index' of Jews to such a degree that they would be forced to abandon their homes. This, of course, is happening now.

When land was bought to build homes on Har Zeytim (the Mount of Olives) next to the Beit Orot Yeshiva, the Left and the Arabs went wild. These Jewish homes would block the Arabs' Plan to have contiguous access to the Temple Mount and their ultimate grasp for ALL of Jerusalem as the capital of the new state of Palestine. Arafat has loudly proclaimed this is his intention since the day that Oslo was signed in September 1993. Note that Har Zeytim is the extended tip of the block of territory containing Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara. So, underneath the misleading titles of a series of seemingly unimportant Arab villages lays the entire Mount of Olives as the capital of the neo-state of Palestine.

Perhaps that also puts in perspective the deal which the Pope cut with Arafat to have unimpeded access to their Churches and Shrines - which the Christians have now as do the Jews and Muslims for the first time under Jewish rule. This arrangement called for the Church to support Arafat's false claims to Jerusalem. It would appear that the Pope and Arafat knew well in advance that what Barak was giving away was the entire Mount of Olives so important to the Christians. The Christian world regards the Mount of Olives as a Holy Place. After all, they have Gethsemane, Church of St. Mary Magdalen, Chapel of the Ascension and more on the Mount of Olives. Was this then the underlying motivation for the Pope's strenuous pilgrimage to the Holy Land? Was he merely securing his claim on Christian properties in collusion with the Leftist Government of Israel and Yassir Arafat? It would appear so.

Shimon Peres, one of the early architects of the Plan to evacuate YESHA and the Golan Heights through the secretly evolved Oslo Plan, once again confirmed his method for trickery. Peres is quoted as saying that "Had PM Ehud Barak kept the proposal under wraps, which includes the hand over of Eizariya and Suhawara (the other two villages on the outskirts of Jerusalem) then it could have been an option." Barak later proclaimed the 'gesture' or 'down payment' of Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara without any referendum and, thereby, opened the gates to Jerusalem. It appears that this is part of a plan to give away Israel in small increments (gestures) therefore avoiding a meaningful Citizens' Referendum.

In other words, like Rabin-Peres-Beilin's Olso Plan - done in secret - which planned the evacuation of YESHA (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza), so too Peres wanted the Abu Dis/Mount of Olives giveaway to be conducted in secret before the Jews of Israel could stop it. This has now been done by Barak with the urging of President Clinton.

The betrayal of a nation can be called by many names but, it remains a betrayal. The secret of the Mount of Olives as the planned capital of the neo-state of Palestine can no longer be covered over with the trivial name of Abu Dis. The Knesset may no longer be allowed to sit in stupefied silence as if they didn't know. They now know and to their everlasting shame, they voted for it. As for those who crafted this shameless theft of our precious Jewish heritage, they should be brought to trial for treason against the State of Israel.

It is now Tuesday, May 16. Yesterday, the Arabs rioted - on command - across a broad front in Israel. The automatic weapons supplied by the Israeli government to Arafat's terrorist policemen were once again turned on Israeli soldiers.

Barak's government apologists were quick to make excuses and play down Arafat's 'Green Lights' to riot. Barak clearly belongs to anyone who will pay the price of keeping him in office. The Shas Sephardic and ultra-religious political Party has also been purchased as they predictably absented themselves from the vote in the Knesset on the gifting of Abu Dis, Eizariya and Suwahara to Arafat with access to Jerusalem going to the Arabs.

How mortified the Sephardim must be to see Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, sell his vote for tainted money and thereby to jeopardize Jewish sovereignty of Jerusalem.

The much praised and decorated former General Ehud Barak, called 'Mr. Security' has become a role model for betrayal and cowardice. Like Rabin in his early days, Barak has left his troops (the people of Israel) in the line of fire. Perhaps the nation may wake up in time and throw him out of office but, somehow I doubt that it will happen in time to spare Israel a bloodbath.

In closing, let us always remember Barak and Clinton who, with Yassir Arafat, fathered the abortive neo-state of Palestine which in its maturity will rise up like Frankenstein monster to kill all around it - in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst and commentator as well as a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of May 18, 2000


By Uri Dan

Woe to the people who bring the test of strength to
its own capital. It raises the question whether we really deserve a state.

The Israeli War of Independence officially commenced on May 15, 1948, about six months after the Arabs started it when they rioted, pillaged, and burned the commercial center of Jerusalem.

On May 15, 2000 the Palestinians started their own War of Independence, scenting the smell of victory over the Jews and the State of Israel. On a background of violence and terror on the part of the Palestinians and with overt firing by their PA "policemen" on IDF soldiers, the Jewish government met and decided to withdraw within the walls of its capital city, to retreat from Abu Dis and Eizariya.

Fifteen ministers, by voting in favor of the decision, brought Arafat's war arsenal even closer to the heart of their capital. From Ramallah, Arafat himself gave the green light for the violence which culminated in death. On the same black day in Israel's short history, the Jewish government in Jerusalem gave the impression that it was fleeing under Palestinian fire. And this is only the beginning.

The positive side of Prime Minister Ehud Barak's step in handing over Abu Dis and Eizariya to the absolute control of Yasser Arafat is that the future and security of Jerusalem have now been put on the table. Whether or not he intended to do so, Barak has armed the explosive Jewish-Palestinian conflict with the ultimate detonator. For if there is one issue, for which not only many Arabs but also not a few Jews are prepared to give their lives, this is Jerusalem. Many of them have for some time conceded the settlements of the north, the Golan Heights, and the settlements of Judea and Samaria.

Since 1967, every time negotiations have begun between the Jews and the Arabs, and the question of Jerusalem has of course been raised, the Jews have avoided discussing the issue. Some of them, such as Levi Eshkol, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir and of course Yitzhak Shamir, were, justifiably, not prepared even to hear of negotiations about Jerusalem.

There were also some who tried to be clever, such as the late Yitzhak Rabin and of course, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, and the apparatchiks of the Left who said that the question of Jerusalem would be discussed "at the end of the process." Or, in other words, after Israel has lost most of its territorial assets as a result of the Oslo accords "in order to advance the peace process," they would then discuss Jerusalem. They of course immediately added, with a pious expression, "Jerusalem was and will remain the undivided capital of Israel."

Barak has put the cart before the horse: Jerusalem now, in the middle of the process. THE PRIME minister's apologists are ridiculing the matter and declaring that this is a territorial concession totaling only "a few fractions of a percentage."

"Did our forefathers pray for Abu Dis and Eizariya?" they ask. These remarks probably result from ignorance or demagogy. I'd like to believe that Barak really knows what he is doing. He's bringing Arafat to the gates of Jerusalem and saying to him, as it were, 'now let's see if you agree to my demands regarding the framework agreement. Are you really prepared to be as flexible as I am? Will you prevent Jerusalem from being fired on from Abu Dis and Eizariya, or will your "policemen," when they arrive there, act in the same way as when they fired on our soldiers in Ramallah, with the Kalashnikovs we gave you?'

Even if I am mistaken and Barak does not intend to check this out, the handing over of Abu Dis and Eizariya is catalyzing the Jewish-Palestinian struggle for the heart of the capital of Israel.

In any case, woe to the people who bring the test of strength to its own capital. It raises the question whether we really deserve a state.

Every Jew in Israel and throughout the world will be able to view live the development of the Arab siege of the capital of Israel. They will be able to see how, in the next wave of rioting and violence, Fatah and Arafat's "policemen" will run wild, with a hail of shots, firebombs, and stones, launched not only from the Gaza Strip, Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah and Tulkarm. This wave, however, will be visible from their homes in Jerusalem: near Rehavia, Talbiyeh, Givat Ram, and of course near their homes in the Jewish Quarter, overlooking the Western Wall.

Perhaps Barak really believes that the advance payment, with nothing in return, that he gave to dictator Arafat when he advanced his "policemen" (soldiers) to the walls of Jerusalem, will satisfy Arafat's appetite so that he will be able to come to some kind of agreement with him.

However, reality and the facts have already proved him wrong. On the very same day on which he rushed to obtain the approval of his government and the Knesset for his concession in Jerusalem, the Palestinians rioted, under Arafat's orders, with wild firing.

Their War of Independence has entered a new phase, without the excuse of "Bibi's Tunnel," simply because Barak has given in to them. The results will be immediately more serious than those of 1948.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000



Below is a description of PEACE after 7 years. Do you like it? Does it fit your definition or that of George Orwell (peace is war, black is white)?

Yesha Communities Bulletin Board

4:00pm update on Yesha violence- 5/15/00

Update on widespread intifada violence at 4:00pm

(IsraelWire-5/15-16:00-DST) The ongoing Arab violence throughout Judea, Samaria & Gaza is being described as the worst since the unrest which followed the opening of the Hashmonean Tunnel in Jerusalem, some four years ago.

Gunbattles between Israeli and PLO Authority (PA) troops are being reported at Yosh Junction and in Jenin, in northern Samaria. The Kol MíHashetach News Agency reports at least two Arab fatalities in the Nablus area while Israel Radio reports that four PA security forces have been injured by Israeli gunfire. Two reportedly in grave condition and two in serious condition. Foreign agencies are reporting at least 300 injured rioters, primarily from rubber-coated steel bullets and seven from live ammunition.

Israel Radio is also reporting that at least one Arab journalist was seriously injured by PA security forces gunfire at Yosh Junction, situated 500 meters south of Bet El and immediately north of the autonomous city of Ramallah.

Earlier in the day, we reported that two members of the border police were injured, one moderately and one moderately-to-serious. Israeli forces have just ceased firing at Yosh Junction, in the hope of calming the situation and permitting PA officers of the District Coordinating Office to restore order.

In northern Samaria, violence is increasing in the area of the Balata Refugee Camp. Israeli troops are firing rubber-coated steel bullets and teargas, avoiding the use of live fire, in the hope of restoring order.

In the Jenin area, thousands of Arab demonstrators tried to storm the Jewish community of Ganim, but were repelled by Israeli forces.

The officer injured near Jenin is identified as Major Tiran Kayuf, who is undergoing surgery on his leg in the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. Kayuf is assigned to the District Coordinating Office in the northern Samaria area.

The Jerusalem Post reports that one of its correspondents had to flee from the live gunfire. Margot Dudkevitch was reporting from Yosh Junction.

Violence is still being reported in Gaza, where the residents of Netzarim have been locked in the community since the morning. The junction immediately outside Netzarim has become a battleground, with live fire being exchanged as rioters continue to hurl firebombs and stones at Israeli forces.

Security forces assigned to Rachelís Tomb in the PA autonomous city of Bethlehem have also come under attack.

Yael Bosem-Levy, the spokesperson for the trauma unit at Hadassah Hospital, in Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, reports that two additional casualties from the Bet El (Yosh Junction) area have arrived at the trauma unit a short time ago. One of the injured, a soldier, is listed in light-to-moderate condition and the second, a reporter, is listed in serious condition.

IsraelWire will provide additional details as they are made available.

News from Hebron -- The Hebron Press Office -- May 15, 2000

1. All Out War

Arabs throughout the Palestinian authority regions have declared war on Israel. In Jenin an Israeli officer was wounded by enemy gunfire. According to latest reports, a gun-battle is raging in the Ramallah area, at the Yosh Junction. At least one Israeli soldier was critically wounded and others are reported to have been injured. According to eyewitness accounts, the Arab attackers include 'Palestinian police.'

In Gaza, near the Israeli community Netzarim, hundreds of Arabs are rioting and throwing rocks at Israeli security forces, closing the road outside the community. Other areas attacked include Kever Rachel (Rachel's Tomb) in Bethlehem.

In Hebron Arabs attacked Israeli security forces with rocks, firebombs and burning tires. Over 30 firebombs have been hurled so far at Israeli soldiers near the Tarpat Junction, bordering Israeli controlled Hebron and the area abandoned to Arafat. Hundreds of rocks cover the road and four burning tires were rolled towards the soldiers. The Israeli forces shot rubber-coated bullets at the attackers.

The excuse given for the attacks throughout Judea, Samaria and Gazza is "Nakba Day" - or catastrophe day, marking the Israeli declaration of independence. The Arabs declared a general strike and sounded a siren at 10:00 this morning, saluting all those killed fighting Israel.

A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement: The Israeli response to the Arab declaration of war can only be described as humiliating cowardice. This morning the Israel government decided to abandon three Arab cities, bordering East Jerusalem, to Arafat, including Abu Dis and Azaria. This "gesture of good will" is supposedly in response to reports that Arafat's 'police' have captured and jailed Hamas terrorist Muhammad Def, reponsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis. Def, considered to be the most dangerous terrorist still free, has roamed the streets of Gaza as a free man, in spite of the outstanding warrants against him. Israel television reported last night that Def was apprehended a few days ago. This morning Arab sources denied the reports, saying that one of Def's deputies was arrested.

The Israeli cabinet, voting 15 to 6, approved Barak's cowardly surrender to the Arafat-Clinton demands that he transfer total military control of Abu Dis to the palestinian authority immediately. Voting against the plan were Ministers Rabbi Yitzhak Levi, Natan Sharansky, and the 4 Shas ministers. Minister Yitzhak Levi of the NRP (Mafdal) informed the cabinet of this party's withdrawal from the coalition. Levi suspended all of his ministerial activities and is expected to officially resign next week, following a meeting and formal decision by the NRP's Central Committee.

Abu Dis sitting on Jerusalem's border, overlooks Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site. Abandonment of Abu Dis to Arafat is the beginning of an Arab hangman's noose around the Holy City.

It may very well be that next year Israelis will mark Nakba Day - the Day of Catastrophe, together with the Arabs. The Arabs will mark the declaration of Israeli Independence and Israelis will mark the beginning of the surrender of Jerusalem to Arafat.

The current administration, with Ehud Barak at the helm, will undoubtedly be remembered in history as the most cowardly leadership in the annals of the Jewish people. The abandonment and division of Jerusalem on the very day that Israeli forces are being shot at by enemy forces is pathetic, inexcusable, and unforgivable.



AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL/AFSI; 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128; Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717; email:; May 23, 2000


By Helen Freedman, Executive Director, AFSI

It was at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy) Conference 2000 on Monday, May 22, that Israel's Ambassador and Member of Knesset Uri Savir called me a "racist." The morning forum discussion in which he was a featured speaker was entitled, "Status Check: A Survey of the Final Status Issues." The bulk of his talk presented an unbelievable moral equivalency in regard to Israel and the Arabs. He described two peoples with equal claims to the same land - two peoples who must agree on how the land must be 'shared' - as per the Oslo Accords which Savir is so proud to have crafted. In the Savir formula, Israelis have no more right to the land than do the Arabs, nor do they have any rights to more of the land, their sovereign statehood being a non-factor.

Savir minimized the problem with Arafat and the PA, as though the violence, shooting, firebombing, stoning, hatred, and threats of destruction aimed at Israel by the Arabs are all insignificant. He attempted to divert the audience to the "real physical danger in the Middle East and globally - the rise in fundamentalism, fed by hunger and despair, encouraging rogue nations to use unconventional weapons." And then Savir mumbled, "We have our own fundamentalists to deal with - like the murderer of Yitzchak Rabin." This reference to Yigal Amir was later enlarged to include Baruch Goldstein.

What diabolical mind would create an equivalency between global, state-sponsored Arab fundamentalism and two Israelis who many believe were set up as scapegoats to take the rap for the killings in which they were involved? Savir surely knows that Avishai Raviv, planted by the Shin Bet to incite right wingers so as to discredit them, was implicated with both Amir and Goldstein. He knows Raviv is on trial now for his role in the Rabin assassination. But still he fans the flames of Jew hating Jew by perpetuating the lies and drawing the equivalency between Arab fundamentalists and Jews.

Continuing with his duplicity, Savir spoke about the cooperation that was necessary between the Arabs who see "all Jews as potential beaters of their parents," and Israelis who see every Arab as a potential suicide terrorist ready to blow up buses. Even if this were true, are beatings comparable to body pieces being scraped off sidewalks and lamp posts? In Savir's equation they are the same.

When asked about PA violations of the Oslo and Wye agreements, Savir brushed aside the hundreds of well documented violations committed by the Arabs, and announced, "Both of us didn't keep our agreements." He blamed Israel for not redeploying in 1996, making Israel the culprit in the conflict. Pitying the Arabs he declared, "The Arabs feel humiliated; we feel rejected." Again, he created the balancing act and the sameness.

It was in the question and answer period that I asked Savir how Israel could contemplate removing 200,000 Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria, and 18,000 Jews from the Golan, creating new Jewish Displaced Persons. He had no answer except to say that it was an unfortunate problem. It was my question on the Knesset vote on Abu Dis that elicited his condemnation of me as a "racist." I asked how the Jewish state could engage in a vote on the giveaway of parts of Jerusalem without a majority vote of the entire 120 Knesset members. The absence of 15 Knesset members allowed the 12 man Arab vote to have undue power.

(At the Sunday forum on Jerusalem, where Savir had also been the principal speaker, he had declared the vote on Abu Dis "unimportant" because it "merely changed status from Area B to Area A." This was a dishonest presentation since there is a world of difference between the two areas, with even the IDF unable to enter Area A's in search of terrorist criminals who run there for safe haven.)

After calling me a "rascist," Savir launched into a rhapsody on the virtues of a democracy and announced that he'd rather not live than live in an undemocratic state. As we filed out of the forum room, many in the audience spoke about the macabre possibility of an epitaph describing the Jewish state, "HERE LIES THE STATE THAT CHOSE DEMOCRACY OVER SURVIVAL." Undoubtedly that would win sympathy and applause from our enemies. Unfortunately, the well-meaning, but largely unaware Jews who were in the majority at the AIPAC 2000 conference would have made their contribution to that epitaph.


It was Sunday evening, May 21. The huge ballroom at the Washington Hilton hotel in D.C. was decorated with a montage of black and white photos that made one think one had mistakenly wandered into a Clinton campaign rally. There was a featured blow-up of Clinton with Arafat, Hussein, and Netanyahu; Clinton with Barak; Clinton with Rabin and Arafat. There were some smaller photos of Truman and Chaim Weizmann, Carter, Begin, and Sadat, but they were overshadowed by the concentration on Clinton. In some sort of perverse way, there were times when the video cameras, projecting the dais images onto four huge TV screens placed around the ballroom, caught the speaker at an angle where Arafat's kafiyah framed each speaker's face. The association was unfortunate.

J.C. Watts, Congressman from Oklahoma, was a featured speaker, receiving an ovation when he supported moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Citing apathy as Israel's greatest danger, he credited his great success to the fact that, "I don't live my life as a victim." Was he suggesting that Israel stop acting as a victim? His ringing message about Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her bus seat on that December day in 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama seemed directed to the Israelis who claim they are "tired" of war and "tired" of the on-going Arab-Israel conflict. He quoted Rosa Parks, "The only 'tired' I was, was 'tired' of giving in." It resonated in my ears. I fear for the Israelis who are giving in to such a degree that they may eventually give up.

It was after a stimulating talk by Senator Patty Murray from Washington that the most moving moment at the Conference occurred for me. Larry Weinberg, an AIPAC member, was being honored for his exemplary work for the organization. A film had been created citing the highlights of his life. His wife, Barbara, was shown telling the story of an experience Larry had while serving in WWII. After confirming that Larry was Jewish, his commanding officer told him that there was a Jew who had been found hiding in the forest who wanted to speak to a Jew. Larry approached him and the dirty, broken looking man asked him in Yiddish if he was a Jew. He replied that he was. The man then spat in his face and said, "You've come too late." As Barbara Weinberg told the story, she cried. I cry re-telling it. Will we once again be "late" in recognizing the truth about our enemies? Will Israel give in again and again until it will be too late to salvage anything? We are reminded of the words, "Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."


At the Monday, May 21 luncheon session, Barak addressed the AIPAC members by satellite, unable to be present in person as planned because of the crisis situation in Israel and Lebanon. Barak repeated the platitudes of the "peace" camp and reiterated his "greater reliance on a bi-partisan Congress" of the United States to rescue him. He declared his expectation that the UN would support Israel's pullout from Lebanon, somehow missing the point that the UN is Israel's enemy and would never come to its defense. He boldly declared that Israel "cannot continue serious steps with Arafat while Israelis are being shot." Translated, that means that as soon as Arafat turns on the red light for a brief time, all "serious steps" leading to Israel's demise will resume.

My emotional pain continued as Dennis Ross, U.S. Ambassador to Israel spoke about "peace" and "reconciliation." He spoke about the "brittle" Syrian "peace" process and the "very resilient Palestinian track." With the bombs bursting in air around Israel, Ambassador Ross sees a great "promise of success today in negotiating with the PA." He reminded the audience that "no one gets 100% of what he wants," creating the moral equivalency again that Israelis and Arabs have the same right to demand 100% and should have the same realization that they must lower their sights. Warning that "confrontation" will occur without an "agreement" Ross concluded his remarks. I wondered whether he thought the present day violence could be considered a "confrontation." If so, what could his warning possibly mean?

And then, balm came to my heart in the form of Governor George W. Bush. Speaking without notes, he quickly got to the essence of his message on Israel. Stating that his support for Israel is not conditional on the outcome of the "peace process," he affirmed that the U.S. tie to Israel precedes Oslo, and that "PA firing on Israel is no way to make peace." At last there was someone speaking the obvious. At last someone identified the emperor without clothes. Bush didn't hesitate to state that Washington, meaning Clinton, has interfered in the Israeli elections bringing Barak to power. The GOP candidate received a standing ovation when he promised to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as one of his first actions if he were to become president. Speaking out in behalf of the 13 Iranian Jews now being tried in Shiraz for espionage, Bush said, "Iran will be judged by its treatment of the 13 Jews." This was especially welcome in the face of the IMF approval of millions of dollars in loans for Iran which occurred just last week. I loved the governor's remarks on the size of Israel. He spoke about his fly-over Judea and Samaria with Ariel Sharon, and how Sharon explained to him that before the 1967 war, Israel was only nine miles wide at some points. Bush exclaimed, "Why in Texas, there are driveways that are longer than that." There was something refreshing about a speaker who had some concept about the distances involved in Israel. Something refreshing about a man who could openly say that America has "tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables, but this is not the path to peace." Knowing that candidates often say the things they know people want to hear, it must be noted that this candidate said some things that might have been unpopular in that setting, so similar to a Clinton campaign hall. However, the AIPAC audience gave Governor Bush a standing ovation, and I joined them enthusiastically. At least for a moment some fresh air had blown in. May the winds of change prevail.




On behalf of the Yamin Israel Party, we the undersigned heartily endorse the Proclamation issued by Ruth and Nadia Matar, Co-Chairpersons of Women in Green.

These heroic women have issued a most extraordinary document, copies of which have been reportedly distributed to some 100,000 people in Israel. The Proclamation may well make history. [We shall add some bracketed comments.]

The Proclamation is preceded by an explanatory manifesto: "The Government of Israel, headed by Ehud Barak, is making every effort to rid itself of the nation's heartland, not as a result of a military defeat, but voluntarily. The Government is establishing an Arab terrorist state within the borders of Eretz Israel. These actions endanger the existence of the People of Israel in its land."

[This being so, one may well question the legitimacy of the Barak Government; for the first function of any government, as James Madison points out in the FEDERALIST PAPERS, is to provide for the security of its citizens.]

The manifesto continues: "The Arab enemy, with all its varied forces, despite all the agreements and concessions of our Government, does not conceal its intentions of initiating a total war for the destruction of the State of Israel. These proven facts do not cause the Government to reconsider its policies."

[The continuation of these Government policies is less the result of American pressure than of obtuseness and egotistical obstinacy, if not moral cowardice. This means - and the implications are profound -- that the Government of Ehud Barak is not susceptible to reason or moral suasion.]

As if the Land of Israel was their private property, "Cabinet ministers have proclaimed the Government's intention of handing over to the enemy roughly 80% of Judea and Samaria, Israel's heartland. Such an act constitutes a grave threat to the future of at least 100 settlements. It may be that the Government plans to send IDF soldiers to forcibly evacuate some of the settlements; however, most of the remaining settlements will probably be abandoned to the [emerging] terrorist PLO state. The expected wave of murderous terror against these settlements is meant to spur the Jews of Yesha to evacuate themselves from their homes and from their communities 'of their own free will.'"

[Apropos of abandoning Jews to Arab terrorists, one may recall the American Declaration of Independence, which denounces the British Government for "bring[ing] on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."]

Hence the manifesto declares: "It is incumbent upon us to struggle, in a determined manner, against this horrifying plan. As a first step, we must now issue a clear and decisive statement."

The statement is in the form of a Proclamation. The document was signed by some 150 women from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, who had held an emergency conference in the settlement of Netzarim. The Proclamation is addressed to the Prime Minister of Israel, the Government of Israel, the Knesset of Israel, and the People of Israel. Only parts of the document are quoted here.

The Proclamation declares that "Eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people for all time, and only to it - thus our Torah has established."

"No one is entitled to surrender a single grain of soil of Eretz Israel to a foreign people. There is no legal or moral validity to the handing over of parts of Eretz Israel to the Arabs. This is a betrayal of Judaism We will never accept this crime."

The Proclamation correctly affirms "that not even a referendum will make this act legal and moral." Ruth and Nadia go on to state: "We will not comply if, Heaven forbid, the people will betray its homeland. We will resolutely oppose any program for the uprooting of settlements."

Because the IDF is abandoning Yesha, "The new reality mandates that we be an integral part of the defense system of the settlements against the Arab enemy. We call upon women to practice self-defense and the use of arms, and to purchase weapons, that are approved by the law. This is the hour of pikuah nefesh, the saving of life."

The Yamin Israel Party applauds Ruth and Nadia Matar for their forthright and courageous stand against the Barak Government's betrayal of the Jewish People. We are appalled by the craven and unconscionable character of this Government. This Government, which surrendered parts of Jerusalem even while the PLO was waging war against us; this Government, which betrayed our Christian comrades in southern Lebanon and has thereby brought Hizbullah terrorists to Israel's northern frontier; this Government whose policies endanger the existence of our people - this Government of Ehud Barak has forfeited any legal or moral standing. We therefore call upon all who read this message to rally behind Ruth and Nadia Matar, two of the most outstanding women of Israel.

Professor Paul Eidelberg, President
Eleonora Shifrin, Chairwoman
Yamin Israel

[With a quarter of our membership now Israeli citizens, we feel qualified to sign this Proclamation also.]

Bernard J. Shapiro. Executive Director
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



Ariel Center For Policy Research (ACPR) ad: Withdrawal from the Golan Heights = Deadly for Lake Kinneret

The following Full Page Ad (#14) was published on May 9, 2000, in the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz:


Withdrawal from the Golan Heights =
Deadly for Lake Kinneret

1. Syria Has Systematically Violated Its Water Agreements with Lebanon,Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq: Syria seized the sources of the Orontes (al-Asi), near Baalbek, Lebanon in the 1970s. It has prevented Lebanon from constructing a dam vitally needed for irrigation and energy. Contrary to agreements, Syria withholds the waters of the Orontes from Turkey. Since 1953 Syria has violated all agreements for supplying water from the Yarmuk River to Jordan. It has diverted half of the Jordanian allotment, and has used the "Yarmuk Faucet" as a tool for political blackmail. In 1975 Syria and Iraq were on the verge of war because of a broken agreement on the supply of the Euphrates water by Syria to Iraq.

2. "Syria's attempt to divert these waters [of the Yarmuk] was a catalyst for the 1967 War. . . . Israel further relies on Yarmuk waters to reduce salinity in the Sea of Galilee and to recharge its aquifers via its National Water Carrier."(Dr. Joyce Starr, Middle East Water Covenant, Holt, New York, 1995, p. 184).

3. Chairman of the Kinneret Authority, Tzvi Ortenberg: "A potential Syrian success in diverting the sources of the Jordan and the Kinneret would mean only one thing: the destruction of Israel without resorting to military or political means. It is our deterrent capability, stemming from our presence on the Golan Heights, that makes Syria think twice before acting rashly." (Briefing, 16 April 2000)

4. "If regional cooperation in the utilization of water sources is possible, why does it not exist on the inter-Arab level?!" (Dr. Martin Sherman, Tel Aviv University, Globes business daily, 30 September 1999). For 1300 years Mideast water sources have been the cause of clashes rather than cooperation - among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia (the Nile), Syria, Turkey and Iraq (the Euphrates), Syria and Jordan (the Yarmuk), etc. (Middle East Water Covenant, 1995)


Israel has arrived at the red line of water supply to its growing population.

(Middle East Water Covenant, 1995, p. 49)

6. Secret Report of the Israel Water Planning Authority, 1991:

The Golan Heights, western and northern Samaria, northwestern Judea, and the Jerusalem environs are vital to ensuring the supply of Israel's water. (Dr. Martin Sherman, Tel Aviv University, Globes, 30 September 1999).

7. Chairman of the Kinneret Authority, Tzvi Ortenberg: The average annual water potential of Israel is 280 cubic meters per capita, compared to 2,000 cubic meters per capita in Syria, 700 cubic meters per capita for Israel's neighbors, and 1,400 cubic meters per capita in the Middle East as a whole. There is no precedent for the relinquishment of water sources. A country needs land, water, and people. The loss of any one of them -- or a mortal blow to it -- destroys the foundation of that country's existence." (Briefing, 4 May 2000).

8. Former Water Commissioner Gideon Tzur: "The Israeli water system, which is fully utilized, does not have even a drop of water to spare to a foreign entity. . . Syria could seize 200 million cubic meters (at least) from the sources of the Kinneret, which would mean a mortal blow to Israel . . . the death of the Kinneret and, indirectly, the destruction of the coastal aquifer that serves as Israel's only long-term reservoir." (Lecture in Netanya, 18 February 1996)

9. "70% of Israel's water sources will no longer be under its control if it withdraws from the Golan Heights (30%), Judea, and Samaria." (Dr. Martin Sherman, Tel Aviv University, Globes, 30 September 1999).





By Boris Shusteff

The Jews who wish for a State will have it.......(Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State).

In 1947 the United Nations decided to terminate the British Mandate for Palestine. It was obvious that Britain had failed miserably at the task of reestablishing the Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael. It was not a big surprise, since the British did not really want to do that. Pursuing their political interests they decided to "withhold application of the provisions of the Mandate" on 77% of the mandated land, and on it they created Jordan - an Arab state. In 1948, at the time that Israel picked up the leftovers of the Palestine Mandate, only 23% of the mandated territory were available for "close Jewish settlement on the land." However, the international community did not want to allow even these pitiful crumbs to fall into Jewish possession and suggested dividing up the remaining land, proposing to give another big part to the Arabs.

The injustice and unfairness of this proposal for the Jews is the topic of a separate discussion; the point remains that the Jews, bleeding after the Holocaust, agreed to accept the mandate for "Palestine," if one can even use this word to describe the remaining lands. The Arabs, who at that time already had one "Palestine," which they called Jordan, forfeited their chance to declare another Arab state (since UN Resolution 181, which recommended the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine, unequivocally stated that the "state shall come into existence in any case NOT LATER than 1 October 1948").

Instead, the Arabs launched a war with the hope of destroying Israel, but lost it. Thus, at the end of the first Arab-Israeli War the formerly Mandated territory was "shared" by Jordan and Israel, with Jordan possessing almost 82% of what had once been called Palestine. After the Six Day War Israel, by regaining the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha), reestablished the 23% to 77% proportion, in the distribution of Palestine's land, though not even coming close to correcting the injustice inflicted on the Jews by Britain in 1922.

The British Mandate for Palestine was not the first one related to this territory. The original Mandate for the Land was given to the Jews not by the world community but by the Almighty. There was no League of Nation or United Nations when the Jewish people received for the first time the Mandate for Eretz Yisrael. It is because of this Mandate from God, and not because of their love for the Jews, that the world community recognized the Jews' rights to Eretz Yisrael and, in San Remo, passed the Mandate to Britain for the re-establishment of the Jewish state, declaring in the preamble that "the recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine."

All of mankind was aware of the Mandate given to the Jews by God. This first real estate deed was registered in the holy book of the Jews - the Tanach:

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

(Genesis 17:7-8).

It was registered in the holy book of the Christians - the Old Testament. "The Lord gave Moses the following instruction for Israel: 'When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, Occupy the land and settle in it, because I am giving it to you" (Numbers 33: 51-53). It was registered in the holy book of the Muslims - the Koran. "Bear in Mind the words of Moses to his people. He said: 'remember, my people, the favor which God has bestowed upon you. Enter, my people, the holy land which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and then lose all'" (Koran 5:20,21).

Britain failed the mandate after holding it for 25 years. Israel performed better. During her 52 years of having the mandate she has facilitated the ingathering of the exiles and the number of Jews in Eretz Yisrael has increased by 800% from the day of the establishment of the state. However, Israel then failed the mandate, too. The Jewish idea was cut out of the fabric of Israeli society. Israel was given the Mandate to built a Jewish state. This purpose has become completely diluted and Israel began using the Mandate to carve out of its territory an Arab state and a "democratic state of all its citizens."

This did not happen overnight. The disaster was breeding for many years. In the must-read book The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul Yoram Hazony somberly unravels the anatomy of Israel's de-Judaisation. He explains why more and more Israeli Jews are escaping from their Jewishness.

The May 9, 2000 Gallup Poll, published in Israel's daily Maariv, supports Hazony's concerns showing that Israel's "progress" along this road is significant. Asked "How would you define yourself first and foremost, as a Jew or as an Israeli?" 49% answered - Jew and 33% - Israeli. However, when asked, "If you had to choose between a democratic Israel unrelated to Judaism or a non-democratic Israel related to Judaism, which one would you choose?" 58% chose a democratic but non-Jewish state and only 25% preferred a Jewish but non-democratic country. This means that even those who define themselves as Jews are ready to push aside their Jewishness in favor of universalistic values.

It is this rejection by Israel of her Jewish essence, of the Jewish values and Judaism that makes her ineligible to hold the Mandate to Palestine any longer. The Mandate should be given to the Jewish Jews. It was a Jewish Mandate from the very beginning, it should become a Jewish Mandate again. Israeli leaders can say whatever they want about their Jewish roots and their attachment to the Jewish people: their actions, however, prove the opposite - they do not put the Jewishness of the state at the core of their decisions.

One should not be surprised that Israel is so eager to part with Yesha - the heart of Eretz Yisrael, since the majority of Israelis have no concept of Jewish history. Apparently the names Hevron, Sh'chem, Jericho, Elon Moreh, Betar, etc. do not speak to their souls. Hazony writes in the introduction of his book about an "intelligent Israeli young officer" to whom he "pointed out Tel Shiloh, as we drove by in our jeep, the ruins of what had for nearly four centuries been the capital of the confederate Jewish tribes before the establishment of the kingdom. "What kingdom?" he asked in all seriousness. From him I understood that even the educated in Israel do not necessarily know what Shiloh was, or who King David was, or what he achieved for the people" (2).

The Israelis are unaware not only of ancient history, they do not even know much about more recent events, and the Arabs exploit this very well. Saeb Erakat, one of the most educated people in Arafat's team negotiating with Israel, who definitely knows the map of the British mandate, speaking at the Washington National Press Club, on April 21, declared that "the Palestinians have accepted 23 percent of Mandatory Palestine." On May 17 the same 23% were mentioned in a Palestinian National Authority editorial, "the Palestinian people as a whole demand as a basis for peace the very minimum an independent, sovereign, peaceful and democratic state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (23% of Mandatory Palestine)" (3). By using this magic number the Palestinian Arabs have extended the West Bank to the Jordan River, thus "innocently" declaring that "as a basis for peace" they can accept Israel's disappearance, since 23% of Mandatory Palestine is exactly the size of Israel, including Yesha.

The truth must be spoken. The Jewish Jews will not negotiate about the covenanted land with the Arabs, only the Israelis will. The continuation of the so-called "peace process" becomes the litmus test of one's Jewishness. It is still not too late for the Jews to repent and to wake up from the hypnosis of Oslo. Hazony writes that he strongly believes that the majority of the Israeli Jews still cherish their Jewishness. They are the one who must take the Mandate for Palestine in their hands.

The Jews rejected the British Mandate. The time has come for the Jews to also reject Israel's handling of the Mandate. The Jews are the only people in the world that have legitimate rights to it. There are enough patriotic Jewish Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora, who are ready to accept the Jewish Mandate. The Jewish Jews must take it over from the Israelis. The Israelis are tired from continuous struggle with the Arabs, and those that do not understand the purpose of the Jewish state must step aside and let the Jewish Jews become responsible for the Mandate. The Israelis have fulfilled their role: they did what they could, and now they must allow others to continue the work of building the Jewish state. Theodor Herzl wrote in The Jewish State, "He who will not come with us should remain behind. Let all who are willing join us, fall in behind our banner and fight for our cause with voice and pen and deed." The Jews who wish for a State will have it! [05/27/00]


1. James Parkes, Whose Land, Penguin Books, 1971.

2. Yoram Hazony, "The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul," Basic Books, 2000.



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




By Boris Shusteff

Barbara Tuchman, the winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, and one of the best American historians, wrote in her book The March of Folly that "a phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests" (1). According to her, "self-interest is whatever conduces to the welfare or advantage of the body being governed; folly is a policy that in these terms is counter-productive"(1). Tuchman considered folly to be the most dangerous act of misgovernment and saw it as a "self-destructive act carried out despite the availability of a recognized and feasible alternative"(1).

It appears that after her victory in the Six Day War, Israel placed folly at the foundation of all her subsequent polices. This became especially obvious prior to the Yom Kippur War when the Israeli leaders completely misread the plans of the Arabs, and only the courage and selflessness of the Israeli soldiers saved the Jewish state.

Tuchman indicated in her book that one of the criteria for the misgovernment to be classified as folly is the necessity of the policy in question "to be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and it should persist beyond any one political lifetime"(1). The acts of the Israeli leaders starting from Menachem Begin and all the way through Ehud Barak easily fall into this category. All of the Israeli leaders have tried to pursue a policy of surrendering land, which Israel had won in bloody wars for survival, to their sworn enemies, in exchange for the Arabs' acceptance of the Jewish state. While a feasible alternative course of action - the immediate annexation of all gained territories - was available, it was not even considered.

This is especially strange since the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) that returned to Israel's control have never formed an internationally recognized part of an Arab state. This is simply puzzling since the Jewish state did not arrive in the Middle East by chance. "It has come back. It has confounded persecution and outlived exile to become the only nation in the world that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name, and with the same religion and same language as it did three thousand years ago"(2).

Perhaps the Israeli leaders were simply scared to see themselves as rulers of a big country? Perhaps the Galut mentality, instilled in the Jews for two millennia, did not allow them to picture their state as any bigger than a ghetto-sized entity? Perhaps the European-born Israeli leaders were unable to understand the logic of the Middle East?

After being deprived of military power for two thousand years the Jews simply forgot how all other states were created. They forgot that even the "bastion of democracy" - the United States - came into being through acquisition of the lands of others. As Barbara Tuchman put it, "Territory lost through the fortunes of war is a commonplace in history. What is Texas but a 267,339 square miles of Mexico settled by Americans and then forcibly declared independent"(2)?

It will be a task for future historians to try to find out why the Jewish state was so stubborn in pursuing these counter-productive policies. Maybe they will be able to understand why Israel rejected the facts and the logic of ongoing events in the search for peace - the nonexistent commodity of the Middle East. Maybe they will be able to explain why the Jewish state ignored the lessons of relations between Middle Eastern countries that demonstrated the complete uselessness of the peace agreements in this part of the world. (It is a well known fact that the war between Iran and Iraq started very soon after both countries signed a peace agreement. It is also worth noting that Kuwait was supporting Iraq during the whole course of the Iraq-Iran War, but this did not stop Saddam Hussein from "swallowing" this staunch and loyal supporter as soon as he deemed it appropriate).

The Israeli leaders are dealing with the realities of the Middle-East as if they do not exist. They are cutting off pieces of their homeland with the Arab scissors of hatred and belligerence, in the desire to fit a coffin-sized Jewish state into a "peaceful" Middle East. As has happened many times in Jewish history, the Jews are trying to create for themselves a separate world in which they can live and forget all the troubles that surround them, trying not to allow anyone from the outside to come in. They think that if they sign "peace agreements" with the Arabs and then lock themselves in a self-built ghetto, the Arabs will acquiesce to their presence and accept Israel's existence.

This approach is nothing but a clear exercise in perversion, a simple wooden-headedness, described by Tuchman in the following way:

"Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a historian's statement about Phillip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns: "No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence" (1).

It seems that today Ehud Barak has surpassed even Phillip II of Spain in his wooden-headedness. His preconceived fixed notion of a "peaceful Middle East" forces him to completely ignore the core values that were placed at the foundation of the Jewish state. In order to obtain a piece of paper with the word "Peace" scribbled on it, the Israeli leaders are sacrificing the reason for the creation of the Jewish state. Nobody argues that Israel would love to live in peace with her neighbors, but she cannot sell her Jewish soul for it. The Jews cannot accept this Faustian deal.

A peaceful Middle East is a utopia. A Middle East without the Jewish state is a fast-approaching reality. As Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel's Beiteinu party, said recently in an interview in Jerusalem: "The country [Israel] desperately needs cardinal changes, perhaps even a revolution. If this does not happen Israel in twenty years will simply disappear. We already today stand on the edge of abyss"(3).

It is hard to believe that the things were completely different thirty years ago. Barbara Tuchman wrote in the beginning of 1967:

"With all its problems, Israel has one commanding advantage - a sense of purpose: to survive. It is conscious of fulfilling destiny. It knows it must not go under now, that it must endure. Israelis may not have affluence but they have what affluence tends to smother: a motive. On the whole and for the present, the pace-setters of the nation have a knowledge why they are there and where they are going"(2).

Thirty three years after these words were written the pace-setters and the majority of Israelis have no knowledge whatsoever why they are there and where they are going. The problem is that the dedication of the masses has been lost and that materialism has displaced the idealism of the early days of the state. The problem is in the surrender of the Jewish and Zionist ideology. The fabric of the Israeli society has been emasculated of its motive - to provide a secure place on the Earth for the Jewish people.

Today the Israeli left is much more concerned with the well being of the Arabs then with the fate of the Jewish people. The Jews living in Yesha are second class citizens for the Israeli left. For them, these dedicated Zionists are the hindrance that prevents the "peace" from happening. They have convinced themselves that if the Jews from Yesha are expelled and if Israel rids herself of the lands of Yesha, the Arabs will resign themselves to a peaceful coexistence with the Jews.

Although the Arabs keep reminding the Jews that the situation is much more complicated, the Jews have somehow forgotten that the issue of the "land" is only a part of the problem. As recently as on May 1, Azmi al-Khawajah, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, wrote in Ramallah's newspaper Al Ayyam:

"Baraq, Peres, and Beilin should not forget that the issue of refugees is crucial to the Palestinian people. It has been the basis for the emergence of Palestinian resistance since the fifties and until now. The Palestinian resistance in the Gaza strip, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria has basically emerged from Palestinian refugee camps. Similar to the issues of territories and Jerusalem, the refugees issue cannot be ignored and an independent Palestinian state must be established with Jerusalem its capital"(4).

Those who think that Israel is gearing towards a quick "peace" should temper their expectations. They are dead wrong if they think that the Arabs will be satisfied only with land. The Arabs want more and they know very well that they will get everything since the precedent has already been established. The Arabs know that the Jews do not have red lines anymore. Therefore, it is only a matter of time for the next Israeli concession to happen.

The Arabs have no doubts that after Israel accepted the legitimacy of the PLO, the withdrawal from Yesha, the tacit agreement to allow the PLO to be present in Jerusalem, the Jewish state will agree to the "return of the refugees" in spite of Israel's official position today. Mounir Makdah, a Fatah official in the Ain Helwi camp near Sidon, shrugged off an interviewer's comment that Israel today refuses to allow the return of refugees saying, "Israel's refusals have been many from the Madrid conference until now. But of these there remain only memories" (5).

It is much easier to foresee that in twenty years only memories will remain of the Jewish state in the Middle East, than to expect that the wooden-headedness of the Israeli leaders can be overcome without drastic cardinal changes, perhaps even a revolution. [5/04/00.]


1. Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1984.

2. Barbara Tuchman, Practicing History. Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1981.

3. "Novoe Russkoe Slovo", Interview with Avigdor Lieberman, 5/03/00.

4. The Zionist Organization of America's Israel News Connection (ZINC),

5. The Palestinian Presence in Lebanon: a Complex Chess Game. 5/01/00.


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



Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio -- May 18, 1999


By Jay Shapiro


Last week, we witnessed events that can only be described as surrealistic, even Kafka-esque: The Prime Minister of Israel decided to give part of Jerusalem away to terrorists whose aim it is to destroy us. As the Knesset was in the midst of voting, PLO terrorists - using weapons we had ourselves provided - were shooting at IDF forces throughout the country.


The people that have made these events possible are the coalition of the post-Zionist Israeli left, ruthless power merchants like Barak, Ministers Ramon and Ben Ami, and Israel's very own anti-Israel, anti-Jewish Arabs. Post-Zionists are those who are no longer interested in Israel as a state of the Jewish people - a state with ties to the Jewish Diaspora and roots in Jewish history. Guiding the legal side of the post-Zionist agenda is Chief Justice Aharon Barak and the Supreme Court, while politicians such as Oslo architect Yossi Beilin steer government policy. Neither the power merchants nor the post-Zionist left believe in the holiness of the Land of Israel, nor in the unique mission of the Jewish people. The post-Zionists actively oppose such ideals, while the power merchants are simply indifferent to them.


There is yet another group not yet mentioned: those who can be corrupted by the above coalition. An analysis of the Abu Dis vote in the Knesset shows us precisely who they are. The vote was 56 in favor and 48 against the giveaway. Conventional wisdom suggests that the eight Shas members who chose not to be present for the vote were told to do so in order to collect a 50-million shekel payment to the party's school system - what I would call "narrow party considerations." Had these 8 Shas members voted against the giveaway of Jerusalem neighborhoods, it would not have passed.

As far as Yisrael B'Aliyah is concerned, if party chief Natan Sharansky had not left the Knesset but had rather stayed to vote against, the number of opponents would have totalled 57. That same evening, Sharansky had the nerve to appear at a demonstration in Jerusalem protesting the giveaway. For reasons known only to himself, Sharansky chose his ministerial seat over the unity of Jerusalem. It is sad to see how, in a few short years, Sharansky has undergone a transition from a person who symbolized the triumph of the human spirit - to a small-time politician. I say this with great sadness. He is a historical figure whose golden halo has become tarnished by politics.

Even the National Religious Party finally reached a red line it could not cross. Rabbi Yitzchak Levy resigned his position because the unity of Jerusalem and the Jewish people are more important than coalition considerations and a seat in the government.


The last group in this unholy alliance are Israel's Arabs, who express overt support for our enemies. They exercise a significant yet subtle influence on the direction of the country, as well. It is commonly believed that, with the withdrawal from Lebanon, Ehud Barak capitulated to groups like The Four Mothers. His real reason for leaving Lebanon, however, may lie in several items that receive very little coverage in the Israeli media. One example: In central Israel, not far from the airport, are two "mixed" towns of Arabs and Jews: Lod and Ramle. In both places, but especially in Lod, the Arabs have engaged in illegal building on a massive scale. During the most recent elections, this was a major campaign issue; in fact, the local mayor was elected on a platform to halt just such activity. According to the mayor of Lod, more than 1,000 illegal buildings have been erected in the last few years by local Arabs.

The City of Lod successfully obtained court orders for the destruction of most of these buildings. Eight months ago, the mayor took action and tore down one structure. In response, hundreds of Arabs - led by some Arab Knesset members - rioted, stoned cars, destroyed property and began to rebuild the illegal structure. As the city authorities prepared to raze it again, none other than Shimon Peres intervened and asked the mayor to stop. In exchange, Peres promised that he would get the Arabs to stop the building. Nothing was done and the structure was re-built. Since then, municipal authorities have been powerless to impose the law as police refuse to execute the court orders. According to the minutes of a meeting held between the police and the city authorities, the police say that Prime Minister Ehud Barak has instructed them not to act on this matter.

It's my sense that Barak did not decide on a retreat from Lebanon, a move that endangers Israel's northern communities, because of the protests of a few Jewish women's groups. Rather, to hold onto power, he will do all that he feels necessary to placate the Arabs - because he needs their votes. It may be true that the Arabs will never vote for a right-wing candidate - but they may very well vote for other Arab parties or even stay home on election day.


Jabotinsky, the Zionist leader, was surprised time and again by the refusal of people to accept the logic of his conclusions when he exhorted them to leave Europe in the 30's. Max Nordau, the Zionist leader, explained with painful simplicity, "Logic is the wisdom of Greece, which our nation abhors. A Jew does not learn through logical thinking, he learns from tragedy. He will not buy an umbrella just because clouds have appeared on the horizon. He will wait until he is drenched and catches pneumonia."

We cannot afford to wait. The storm has already begun, and everybody must do all that he or she can. Rabbi Tarfon, in Ethics of the Fathers, said: "The day is short, the task is great, the workmen are lazy, the reward is great, and the Master is insistent. You are not called upon to complete the work, yet you are not free to evade it." Today, mid-way between the Festival of Freedom and the Festival of the Giving of the Torah, our future is in our hands. Jews and Lovers of Zion around the world - those dedicated to Israel's survival as a Jewish state - must remain strong and undaunted. Despite all the pain caused by the developments of the last few years, we will continue to battle our enemies while simultaneously engaging in the crucial spiritual-cultural battle with our brothers from within. Through our efforts and Divine help, let us pray that we succeed in preserving the State of Israel as a distinctly Jewish country.

* * * * * * *

Jay Shapiro heads a consulting firm dealing with United States Government contracting. Host of a popular current events show on Arutz-7 English broadcasts, he has worked extensively to promote aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Mr. Shapiro is the author of several books of essays about Israel describing trends of Israeli societal alienation from cultural, national, and religious roots that threaten the existence of the state. For information, e-mail <>.




By Emanuel A. Winston

The firebombing by a "policeman' of the Palestinian Authority of a two year old girl, Shalev Shabbat Egosi (whose name means Tranquil Sabbath), as her mother was driving through Jericho is only a small indicator of what is to come. She lies in a Hadassah Hospital with burns over 50% of her body. If she lives, she will be scarred for life. With great regret, I guarantee that you all will share the pain as Jews will be lost in the hundreds and thousands as Barak allows Arafat's 'War of Attrition' to ramp up to a Full Scale War. If you cannot feel the pain of two year old Shalev and her family, you will soon feel the pain of those closer to you.

When Rabin, Peres and Beilin pulled open the doors of Hell at Oslo, the devils came out. Now Barak has pushed open the door further, insuring that the devils will have greater ability to kill Jews. Even as Arafat's minions shoot Israeli soldiers with weapons provided by Rabin, Peres and Barak, he offers apologies. As Jews are being murdered by Arafat's soldiers from Hell, Barak and his Leftists cohorts offer their assistance by further exposing them to Arab killers.

The present government of the Jews has become slaved to the evil desires of other nations. They have made common cause with enemies who want to destroy the Jewish State and then go on to install Islam globally. Jews should be tearing down the iron fences that surround the Knesset and the Prime Minister's offices in rage. But, that is not what Jews have been taught to do. Not all - but most prefer passivity and excuses rather than to face reality.

Today, as several shells again fell in Northern Israel, everyone dived into their fetid shelters. In a Pavlovian response, Israelis dove for cover instead of faulting in rage a defeatist Barak government. Barak propaganda spin doctors pulled back his team of apologists from their secret back-channel talks in Sweden. Even as Israelis were being shot at with live ammunition by Arafat's Terrorist/Policemen, Barak was pleading with Arafat to take 80% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza - as well as the three villages which overlook the Temple Mount and cap the eastern military entrance to Jerusalem. When Arafat refused to accept these 'good will' gestures, Barak cravenly increased his defeatist offer to 90% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza - which Arafat also refused. Mr. Security has failed at every level with only Clinton and Arafat pleased with his frailty.

In the North, as I (and others) predicted, the Hezb'Allah (Party of God) terrorists occupied abandoned SLA/Israeli positions, along with the tanks and 130 mm. artillery pieces they left for Hezb'Allah. Now, for example, Hezb'Allah can easily shell the Haifa oil refineries 27 KM. away. Israeli helicopters were reported to have attacked their own former hardened positions to destroy what will soon be Hezb'Allah bases within rifle sniper distance from Israel's border towns. Again as I forecast, Barak is turning Northern Israel into a No-Man's Land. The PLO tested Barak and found him to be a weak leader - quick only in his penchant for appeasement gifts of the Land of Israel which Barak doesn't own and has no right to give away. Barak has backed down. Arafat digests whatever Barak surrenders and moves to the next level of his War of Attrition.

With the success Barak has given the PLO and the Hezb'Allah, the next step will be for Syria and Egypt to advance. Perhaps this assault will be triggered by one of the Israeli helicopters being hit by a SAM (surface-to-air missiles) currently being supplied to Hezb'Allah by Iran.

The War of Attrition won Arafat most of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and key entrances into eastern Jerusalem, leaving Israel in a vulnerable position. When the time comes to roll out her tanks to defend her eastern border with Jordan, she will be faced with armed Palestinians in Land given over by Barak in one of his gestures. This is where Syrian tanks will pour through. In the North, Barak is putting up an electrified fence as Israel's defense. Will that stop missiles or even tanks? Hezb'Allah is gathering arms from Iran and Syria to provide arms for the Palestinians in Lebanon.

As in the past six wars of aggression waged by Arab armies, no doubt, Iraq and Iran will send troops. This time they all now have various weapons of mass destruction to mount onto their various SCUDS and long range missiles. This includes NBC, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical which we know several of the radical Islamic rejectionist states have - secretly or openly.

Each move that Barak has made has raised the expectations of the Arabs to the coming fall of Israel. As long as Barak stays in power, he remains the symbol of Israel's weakness. This smug pug dog, Clinton's pet on a leash or as Clinton called Barak "My New Toy" has proven himself to be not only an incompetent leader as Prime/Defense Minister but he should be tried for treason. His surrenders will inevitably lead to deaths of his own people. He worked diligently with every foreign entity who wishes the State of Israel to vanish. Barak is not only a coward, but he is a traitor of the highest (or lowest) order. He and his Cabinet should be ejected immediately. He, his Cabinet and many in the Knesset have betrayed the State and deserve the most dire punishment the law allows.

As for the formerly vaunted Israel Defense Forces, it is time to clean out the Leftist officers whose prime concern is their hopes for political appointment after their discharge. The good fighters and leaders have been relegated to lower ranks while Leftist Pacifists were raised in rank. These Pacifists destroyed the morale and fighting spirit of a once formidable Army. Today's IDF leaders do not communicate the essential key to a successful army - that being: TO WIN. The IDF's weaknesses become obvious as Arafat's 40,000-50,000 Terrorist/Policemen/Army shoots at Israeli soldiers with weapons Rabin, Peres and Barak delivered to Arafat. Under the Labor government leaders, the standing order was to back away or be prosecuted by Leftist judges.

Regrettably, there is a Full Scale War coming, born out the present War of Attrition. The terrorists will be joined by the Israeli Arabs - a fifth column in place who no longer call themselves Israelis. Jews, already in danger driving on roads inside of Israel, will find leaving their house a mortal risk. Syria and Egypt will absolutely join the attack when Israel is embroiled in the escalating Terrorists War of Attrition. Other Arab countries will add their efforts when they perceive that Israel's ability to defend herself is virtually gone.

Families will continue to be immolated and assailed with fire bombs, bullets and concrete blocks as Barak retreats further into his shell of defeat. Barak, born out of the Leftists, finalized what Rabin, Peres and Beilin have initiated - namely a government that kills its own people.

Tell us, little Barak, will you take responsibility for the catastrophe you have delivered to the Jewish people? Will that mean that you will step down and out of our lives? I am sure that Arafat would welcome you as an honorary Palestinian for the services you have rendered to him.


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




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Why anyone should still be shocked by the virulent Jew-hatred broadcast by Yasir Arafat's Voice of Palestine is passing strange. Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has become inured to this Jew-hatred. He does not even complain about the Palestine Authority's unremitting incitement of Arabs to murder Jews - which incitement violates the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement. His silence, however, only heightens Arab contempt for Jews and incites them to more violence.

Incidentally, Arafat is a Cairo-born Egyptian, and the most obscene Jew-hatred is purveyed by Egypt's state-controlled media in violation of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty of March 26, 1979. Jew-hatred is endemic in the Arab-Islamic world, thanks largely to the Koran.

No less than Winston Churchill called the Koran the "Mein Kampf of war."True, one can find in the Koran "suras" affirming the Jews' God-given right to Eretz Israel. But in dealing with "infidels," what has animated adherents of the Koran for 1,300 years is the doctrine of JIHAD (holy war): "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends" (Sura 5:50). "Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on your religion nor driven you from your homes.... But he forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you ... or abetted others who do so" (Sura 60:8-9). From this passage comes the necessity on the part of Arabs to describe Jews as "aggressors." The Koran's imperative on dealing with "aggressors"? "Kill them wherever you find them" (Sura 2:190).

Why do Israel's political leaders turn a blind eye toward Arab-Islamic Jew-hatred? Why do they mislead Jews about "reciprocity" or about "security" or about "peace" with those who hate Jews and are committed to Israel's destruction? Why do they expect Yasir Arafat and Bill Clinton, neither of whom are famous for veracity, to abide by words on a piece of paper after Israel withdraws from her heartland, Judea and Samaria?

Jews can't handle Jew-hatred, even though they have been exposed to it for thousands of years. Here are a few chilling samples from Martin Luther's "Exhortation Against the Jews" of February 15, 1546 - and bear in mind that this Jew-hatred permeated the German mentality:

"The Book of Esther is dear to the Jews, it is so well in line with their bloody and poisonous sentiment. There is no people under the sun so avid of revenge, so bloodthirsty, believing itself to be God's people merely in order to strangle and immolate the heathens. "Know, Christian, that next to the devil thou has no enemy more cruel, more venomous and violent than a true Jew.

"These are thieves, brigands who do not eat any food, do not wear on their bodies a single thread, which they have not stolen from us and taken away by the most voracious usuries."Who prevents the Jews from returning to Judea? Nobody....We shall provide them with all the supplies for the journey, only in order to get rid of that disgusting vermin."

Religious fanaticism? No doubt. But let's not forget Voltaire, an atheist and a humanist, who had this to say in his article "Juif" in the widely read DICTIONNAIRE PHILOSOPHIQUE: "In short, we find in them [the Jews] only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched. Still, WE OUGHT NOT TO BURN THEM" (emphasis added).

Of course there are many Judophiles among Christians. But Jewish history has been influenced not by Christian love but by Christian hatred. And it will not be philoSemitism but antiSemitism that will influence Israel's immediate future.

Understandably, but also unfortunately, Jews would rather be loved than feared. The trouble is that love is fickle and depends primarily on others, whereas fear depends primarily on you, what you are and what you do. That' s why defense analysts talk about "deterrence."

The mere fact that Israel is preoccupied with peace arouses contempt in Israel's anything but peace-loving neighbors. (And Jordan is no exception.) Strange as it may seem, Israel's preoccupation with security is the greatest cause of its insecurity. And there the fault lies not with the Jewish people so much as with the shortcomings of Israel's leaders, which shortcomings, however, are magnified and multiplied by the unrepresentative and fragmented character of Israel's political institutions.

The tendency of a nation preoccupied with security is to react to others - if it reacts at all. In the case of Israel, however, or rather of prime minister Ehud Barak, he reacts to Arab violence by yielding more Jewish land to Arafat!

What Israel needs most is a positive goal, a Jewish agenda. That's why Yamin Israel's party program advocates not only a Jewish Constitution for the State of Israel, but a set of practical measures that will solidify the country and enable Israel to take the initiative in foreign affairs.

Interested readers should contact Yamin Israel via e-mail: or call 054-407581.

IN 1993 Shimon Peres brought back the Oslo Agreement to Israel. He and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared:"NO MORE WAR. PEACE IN OUR TIME."

Below is a description of PEACE after 7 years. Do you like it? Does it fit your definition or that of George Orwell (peace is war, black is white)?

Yesha Communities Bulletin Board

4:00pm update on Yesha violence- 5/15/00

Update on widespread intifada violence at 4:00pm

(IsraelWire-5/15-16:00-DST) The ongoing Arab violence throughout Judea, Samaria & Gaza is being described as the worst since the unrest which followed the opening of the Hashmonean Tunnel in Jerusalem, some four years ago.

Gunbattles between Israeli and PLO Authority (PA) troops are being reported at Yosh Junction and in Jenin, in northern Samaria. The Kol MíHashetach News Agency reports at least two Arab fatalities in the Nablus area while Israel Radio reports that four PA security forces have been injured by Israeli gunfire. Two reportedly in grave condition and two in serious condition. Foreign agencies are reporting at least 300 injured rioters, primarily from rubber-coated steel bullets and seven from live ammunition.

Israel Radio is also reporting that at least one Arab journalist was seriously injured by PA security forces gunfire at Yosh Junction, situated 500 meters south of Bet El and immediately north of the autonomous city of Ramallah.

Earlier in the day, we reported that two members of the border police were injured, one moderately and one moderately-to-serious. Israeli forces have just ceased firing at Yosh Junction, in the hope of calming the situation and permitting PA officers of the District Coordinating Office to restore order.

In northern Samaria, violence is increasing in the area of the Balata Refugee Camp. Israeli troops are firing rubber-coated steel bullets and teargas, avoiding the use of live fire, in the hope of restoring order.

In the Jenin area, thousands of Arab demonstrators tried to storm the Jewish community of Ganim, but were repelled by Israeli forces.

The officer injured near Jenin is identified as Major Tiran Kayuf, who is undergoing surgery on his leg in the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. Kayuf is assigned to the District Coordinating Office in the northern Samaria area.

The Jerusalem Post reports that one of its correspondents had to flee from the live gunfire. Margot Dudkevitch was reporting from Yosh Junction.

Violence is still being reported in Gaza, where the residents of Netzarim have been locked in the community since the morning. The junction immediately outside Netzarim has become a battleground, with live fire being exchanged as rioters continue to hurl firebombs and stones at Israeli forces.

Security forces assigned to Rachel's Tomb in the PA autonomous city of Bethlehem have also come under attack.

Yael Bosem-Levy, the spokesperson for the trauma unit at Hadassah Hospital, in Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, reports that two additional casualties from the Bet El (Yosh Junction) area have arrived at the trauma unit a short time ago. One of the injured, a soldier, is listed in light-to-moderate condition and the second, a reporter, is listed in serious condition.

IsraelWire will provide additional details as they are made available.




By Mark Twain

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour; then faded to dream-stuff and passed away: the Greeks and the Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

The above was written by Mark Twain and first published in HARPER'S magazine, September 1887.




By Rachel Gold

All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? ["Concerning the Jews" Harpers (1899)]

The history of Jews and Judaism is a unique phenomenon. It is the most long-lived historical continuum in the emergence, development and spread of western civilization. Since its appearance as a differentiated entity in the ancient Near East about four thousand years ago, Jews and Judaism have been active participants in every phase of the development of the civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. They are tightly interconnected with the rise and fall of the Hellenistic monarchies and the waxing and waning of Roman hegemony. They gave birth to Christianity and successfully warded off the rivalry of their offspring. They sustained a creative and differentiated identity under the Sassanians despite the challenge of Zoroastrianism.

They played a vital role in the launching of Islam, even as they spawned a variety of novel forms to cope with the creative expansiveness of this world-girdling religion. And most remarkably, this history not only did not remain confined to either Palestine or the Near East, but spread throughout the western world forming viable and significant communities in Africa, Asia Minor, the Balkans, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England, the slavic lands, even reaching as far east as India and China. This diaspora history is all the more remarkable, because it represents the bulk of the history of the Jews and Judaism during the past two thousand years and because it demanded adaptive powers that border on the phenomenal. In any given century Jews would be living simultaneously in as many as three or four radically different societies, each of which demanded a distinctive form of Jewish adaptation if survival was to be sustained. Not only was this challenge met, but it was met without annulling a distinctive Jewish identity.

But this variety by no means fully exposes the uniqueness of Jewish history. Not only did it successfully traverse the ancient and medieval worlds, but it preserved itself as a viable strand within the modern world...a strand so viable as to excite the wish to annihilate it, give birth to the modern nation state of Israel, sustain flourishing communities and multiple Jewish identities throughout the western world, and be deemed worthy of upholding the responsibilities for the highest values of western civilization.

This is the empirical record. The facts as stated are not open to refutation. The uniqueness is there for all to verify. It is not a projection of some religious or ethnic wish.



Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion once said that only a miracle could save Israel. But, not to worry, Israel is a land of miracles.


By Bernard J. Shapiro

I went to call on the L-rd in His house on the high hill, My head full of anxiety over five million Israeli Jews, having to grow up overnight. "If ever a people, L-rd, needed a miracle!" The L-rd He looked at me as a mountain might look at a molecule. "So you want a miracle, "said the L-rd. "My, my! You want a miracle." I suppose you mean that you want me to come sliding down a sunbeam and make five million egotists overnight into five million co-operative angels. "Brother, "said the L-rd, in a voice that shook the windows, "that isn't the sort of universe you're living in. And that isn't the sort of G-d I am."

The room was suddenly vast, with the stars set bright in the ceiling. "There is only one miracle," said the L-rd. "All else is cause and effect. All else is law." The thunder withdrew from the Voice, and the words came hushed and clear like the first stars in the twilight, each star a newborn glory. "There is only one miracle, and it is already accomplished. That miracle is the soul of the Jewish people.

The L-rd He lifted His head and the Milky Way was His hair. "The Jewish soul is like the atom," He said. "Wonderfully like the atom. Consider the atom. So minute, no lens you can make can enlarge it to a point where your eye can see it, yet there's a whole solar system inside it , whirling round a nucleus like the planets around the sun. So feeble in its unreleased state, yet actually the greatest force, save one, in creation. The greatest force in creation, save one."

The L-rd strode through His house so the timbers whispered to each other, "He's thinking of the soul tonight, of the Jewish soul, and the power asleep in the soul. He always shakes the house when He thinks of the power, the power asleep, asleep in the Jewish soul."

"I have given you a soul, "cried the L-rd, "and you ask me to come down and do a magician's trick! The people who smashed the atom didn't beg Me to come with a thunderbolt and split the nucleus for them. They knew that there was power in the atom and they set to work to release it.

"There is power in the Jewish soul, When you break through and set it free, Like the power of the atom. More powerful than the atom, It can control the atom, One of the few things in the world that can. I told you that the atom is the greatest force in the world, save one. That one is the Jewish soul."

"But," said the L-rd--and the stars in the sky seemed to stand still and listen--"The power must be released, as the atom-smashers released the power of the atom. They had to get past the electrons to get at the energy packed in the nucleus. And I have to get past a great deal of ego to release the power that is packed in the Jewish soul. I keep shooting My rays toward the nucleus, And the charged field keeps fending then off. But now and then one gets by, The nucleus is split, the power is released and things begin to happen on a scale that makes men gasp and talk about miracles. The rebirth of Israel and the ingathering of the exiles is one such miracle. The spectacular victories of the Israeli army against overwhelming odds is another. But it isn't a miracle. It's just the soul of the Jew coming to its own. It's just the Jewish soul freed at last to be itself."

The L-rd He looked at me and His eyes pierced like hot wires. "Perhaps, there's something in you and numerous others that will have to be cracked open, if five million Israelis are going to grow up overnight. Something in you," said the L-rd, "something, perhaps, in you."

That was a joke, and I laughed. But the L-rd wasn't laughing. I hastened to reassure Him. "There's nothing the matter with me. It's the other fellow that's the trouble, all five million of them."

"I know all about the other five million Israelis," said the L-rd, and I thought he seemed a little tired as he said it, "but I don't at the moment seem able to see anyone but YOU."

I adapted the parable above from an apocryphal tale I heard more than 40 years ago. The original author is unknown. It was first published in [First published in the Jewish Herald-Voice on February 10, 1994]



Editor's Note: This parable has been slightly updated from the original in 1994]


A Jewish Parable

By Bernard J. Shapiro

My interest in the history of the Old West has led me many times to study the buffalo. No creature in America, except possibly the horse, has had as much influence on the course of history as this noble animal. Standing over 6 feet at the shoulder, it was indeed and impressive creature. To the Native Americans of the Great Plains, the buffalo was the source of all their needs. They harvested food and clothes from the buffalo and even used their hides to construct their homes. It was common for a warrior, who had gone many days without finding water, to save his life by killing a buffalo. The warrior would cut out its heart and drink the blood trapped in its chambers. The blood provided enough liquid and nutrition to continue his journey. The buffalo was so important to the Indians that it was worshiped in their rituals and ceremonies.

The buffalo were very brave and would fight vigorously against the wild animals that sought it as prey. But the buffalo had a great weakness: they could not understand man and the devastation that he brought. One could stand upwind from a large herd and shoot one at time with a Sharp's 50 caliber or Hawken rifle. The herd would keep grazing, as if nothing happened. As the white man moved west it became clear that the best way to destroy the Indian was to destroy the buffalo. And so it was done. The vast herds that once covered the horizon for over 20 miles at a time were exterminated. The brave Native Americans were reduced to paupers dependant on government handouts of beef and grain.

Has it ever occurred to you that Jews and the Israelis are unfortunately like the buffalo? The non-Jews have been picking us off for thousands of years, yet we continue to act as if nothing has happened. Then came the Holocaust and we were exterminated in large numbers like the buffalo, but in a more efficient manner. Israel was founded as a rebellion against the impotence and weakness of the buffalo-like Diaspora.

Israelis stopped being easy prey like the buffalo until recently. Then the Palestinians swooped down on the Israelis and started picking them off one by one. First they were cautious. Then when they saw that the Israelis would not react forcefully, they got bolder. The sight of Israeli soldiers, unable to react to 12 year old Palestinian boys throwing stones, strengthened their resolve to throw the Jews out of Israel. Israelis interpreted the behavior of their military as moderate and compassionate, but the media thought it was brutal, and most important the Palestinians thought it was weakness. The poor buffalo (Israelis) were attacked everywhere, on the roads, in the cities, in the countryside. Hunting for Israelis became a great sport.

Then Labor came to power, with a famed military men, first Yitzhak Rabin and then Ehud Barak, at its helm. They would know what to do, said the Israeli people. They would solve this problem. Barak's solution (as was Rabin's) was simple: The Palestinians don't want us to live in some parts of Eretz Yisrael, so we will retreat. An so it was with the buffalo, first they were slaughtered in the Great Plains and then in the deserts, the mountains and the forests. Soon there was no place to hide. And the Jews may retreat to the coast, leaving the hills of Judea and Samaria, but the hunters will come after them. There will be no peace, but the peace of the grave.

And what about the heart of the Jewish people. The Palestinians are cutting it out. They have claimed Jewish history as their own. Jesus was proclaimed a Palestinian prophet. They claim descent from the Canaanite, Jebusites, and Philistines as the rightful heirs to Israel. Jerusalem is really theirs and Yossi Beilin has a plan to give it to them. Hasan Tahboub, president of the PLO backed Supreme Muslim council, claims that Jews have no rights in the Cave of the Machpelah. That it is a Muslim site and Abraham was a Palestinian. Palestinians now talk about their "diaspora" and about their "holocaust" at the hands of the Jews. Yes my friends, they are cutting the heart from the buffalo and drinking its lifeblood.

When will the buffalo return to its true self: the Lion of Judah?


Bernard J. Shapiro is director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, Houston, Texas and editor of THE MACCABEAN. This parable was first published in The Jewish Press (NY) on February 25, 1994 and Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) on April 21, 1994 and in March 1994 issue of The Caucus Current.




Timely reflections on the parable by Franz Kafka

By Louis Rene Beres

June 2000

  • The Messiah will come only

    when he is no longer

    necessary; he will come only

    on the day after his arrival;

    he will come, not on the last

    day, but on the very last.

  • Kafka himself never examined Messianism from the standpoint of Zionism, but it is surely reasonable for us to explore his parable, "The Coming of the Messiah," with a view to understanding Jewish redemption in the State of Israel. What might we learn from this parable about Israel's ever more desperate survival in the coming years? Understood broadly as the requirements for such survival, rather than in the traditional sense of a particular "deliverer," the "Messiah" of Kafka's parable may hold messages of considerable importance for Jerusalem. What, exactly, are these messages?

    "The Messiah will come only when he is no longer necessary." Seemingly self-contradictory (the Messiah's very rationale, after all, is to arrive when he is still needed), this statement points, through paradox, to human responsibility. The Messiah will come, but only after antecedent conditions are met, in our concerns, by the State of Israel. What these conditions might be, and whether or not they are themselves dependent upon prior or coincident activity by the Nation of Israel in the diaspora, are altogether essential questions.

    Today, the survival of Israel as a State depends entirely upon a terrible and ironic awareness, that genocide against the Jews is not only still possible after the ingathering of exiles, but especially possible. This is the case because Zionism's 1948 solution to the "Jewish Problem" has also become, in the missile age, a source of new and perhaps unprecedented danger. Genocide and war need not be mutually exclusive, and certain State enemies of Israel could, in the not-too-distant future, unleash unconventional (chemical/biological/nuclear) attacks that "intend to destroy" the Jewish People who live in the State of Israel. Such attacks are all the more likely because of a sorely misnamed "peace process."

    Curiously, and in stark contrast to warnings contained in the opening sentence of Kafka's parable, Israel's leadership appears not to take notice. It does, of course, devote substantial time and energy to Oslo-mandated surrenders, but the results of such devotion have been a catastrophe in the making. It has also, of course, been involved in controlling terrorism, and in countering the potentially genocidal preparations now underway in Iran, but has certainly failed to see the grim connections between these dangers. As a result, Jerusalem fails to meet the conditions needed for "redemption." The Messiah will come, we recall, but only after the State of Israel fulfills its responsibility to itself. Moreover, this condition will be more easily met to the extent that the worldwide Nation of Israel can assist leaders of the State of Israel to make appropriate preparations for defense and security.

    What sorts of preparations would be "appropriate?" Because the technology of mass destruction is spreading rapidly among its many enemies, and because survival cannot be assured by means of deterrence, missile interception capabilities, or diplomatic settlements, Israel must always prepare for preemptive strikes against enemy hard targets. Known as anticipatory self-defense in the language of international law, such strikes, should they be needed, could be all that remains between the Third Temple Commonwealth and annihilation.

    International law is not a suicide pact. The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack appears in Hugo Grotius' THE LAW OF WAR AND PEACE. Recognizing the need for protection against "present danger" and threatening behavior that is "imminent in point of time," Grotius indicates that self-defense is permitted not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where "the deed may be anticipated." Or, as he says a bit later on in the same chapter: "It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill...."

    A similar and authoritative position is taken by Emmerich de Vattel.

    "The safest plan," he argues.... to prevent evil, where that is possible. A

    Nation has the right to resist the injury another

    seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every

    other just means of resistance against the

    aggressor. It may even anticipate the other's

    design, being careful, however, not to act upon

    vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run

    the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.

    Significantly, as we are concerned here with uncovering meanings of survival for the State of Israel, Grotius and Vattel parallel the Jewish interpreters, although the latter speak more generally of interpersonal relations than of international relations. The Torah contains a provision exonerating from guilt a potential victim of robbery with possible violence if, in self-defense, he struck down and even killed the attacker before he committed any crime. In the words of the rabbis, "If a man comes to slay you, forestall by slaying him."

    Israel can, therefore, make provision for security that is both tactically required and legally permissible. But to what extent, if any, can the Nation of Israel assist the State of Israel in this task? Most importantly, Jews in the diaspora must learn to understand that Israel is unquestionably the single most endangered State on Earth, and potentially the object of the most grievous human rights violations ever committed in the Middle East (i.e., a genocidal war against the Jewish State). Armed with such an understanding, the worldwide Nation of Israel could begin to act upon realistic assessments of the "Peace Process," replacing naive faith in "reason" and "confidence building measures" with a productive dedication to law and power.

    The State of Israel exists for the Nation of Israel; not the other way around. The State of Israel is merely the vessel that must safeguard the Nation of Israel. In exalting the vessel, in elevating the State of Israel above the Nation, the governing authorities in Jerusalem now jeopardize the entire Nation of Israel. This defiling exaltation of a vessel cannot be consistent with Jewish survival. It must not be allowed to continue.

    Our sages instruct that whenever the Jewish Nation disavows its uniqueness under the singular province of God, great danger is at hand. Accordingly, the role of the current State of Israel should not be to "fit in" with all of the other states, but rather to guide the Jews toward a place beyond politics, beyond the ordinary. Recalling words of the Talmud, "The People of Israel are not subject to `fate'....," but their survival does require them to distinguish what is truly important from what is manifestly a facade.

    From its very beginnings, all Jewish Law has been viewed as an expression of God's will. Biblically, the law is referred to as the "word of God," never of humankind. God is the sole authentic legislator, and righteousness lies in observance of His law. The absence of righteousness places at risk the lives and well-being of both the individual and the entire community.

    For ancient Israel, law was always the revealed will of God. All transgressions of the law were consequentially offenses against God. The idea that human legislators might make law independently of God's will would have been incomprehensible. Indeed, as God was the only legislator, the sole function of human authorities was to discover the law and to ensure its proper application. According to Talmud: "Whatever a competent scholar will yet derive from the Law, that was already given to Moses on Mount Sinai."

    It follows from all this that in the Jewish tradition, the principle of a Higher Law is not only well-established; it is the very foundation of all legal order. Where the law of the state stands in marked contrast to this principle, it is altogether null and void. In certain circumstances, such contrast positively mandates opposition to the law of the state. Here, what is generally known as "civil disobedience" is not only lawful, but genuinely law-enforcing.

    What sorts of circumstances are we describing? Above all, they are circumstances that place at existential risk the very survival of the State. In such circumstances, which have already been identified in Halachic Opinion by Prominent Rabbis in Eretz Yisroel Concerning Territorial Compromise, the matter is one of Pikuach Nefesh and it demands apt forms of resistance. Israel cannot endure strategically without the heartlands of Judea and Samaria. As the Torah is a "Toras Chaim," a Torah of life, Jewish authorities in the State of Israel are "forbidden, under any circumstance," to transfer Jewish land to Arab authorities.

    The writer Hillel Halkin, fearing that the state of the Jews might one day be ruled by Hebrew-speaking Gentiles (a fear already widespread among American Zionist thinkers like Maurice Samuel and Ludwig Lewisohn) once wrote: "I do not believe that a polity of Israelis who are not culturally Jews, whose roots in this land go no deeper than thirty years and no wider than the boundaries of an arid nation-state, has a future in the Middle East for very long. In one way or will be blown away like chaff as though it never were, leaving neither Jews nor Israelis behind it." And in a more recent essay the same writer observed that the actual hatred of Judaism by a very large portion of Israeli intellectuals, including those who now create a theoretical legitimacy for certain policies in Israel, has become a hatred of Zionism.

    Halkin's fears were and still are well-founded. Under the Barak Government, Israel continues to be transformed not only into a polity that is more and more detached from cultural Judaism, but into one that positively undermines both Judaism and Zionism. Lest this argument appear to be an exaggeration, the reader need only recall that segments of the Israeli Left now offer Hitler a posthumous victory. Seemingly unsatisfied with turning over the Land of Israel to enemies who are still sworn to destroy the Jewish State, these individuals launch unimaginable verbal attacks upon some of their fellow Jews. Describing the Haredi orthodox in terms that might have been drawn from Der Sturmer, these writers, "intellectuals," Knesset Members and public figures reveal an historically unprecedented level of self-loathing.

    Unfair? An exaggeration? Let the reader judge. Here are some of the ways in which the most pious Jews have recently been characterized by certain members of Israel's Jewish Left. Collected by Dr. Arieh Stav, the distinguished editor of NATIV in Israel, they include the following direct quotations:

    "Black Ants"

    "Dogs tied up in the back yard barking psalms all night."

    "Humming Locusts"

    "Forces of darkness of our age."

    "A deadly plague"

    "Forces of darkness and kidnappers of Souls"

    "Vulgar baboons"

    "Barbarians, the Black Front...representing the magical, bewitched and most primitive...whose schools are colleges of darkness."

    "The darkest and most horrible phenomena (sic) of our age."

    And from two different Members of Knesset:

    "Leeches, snakes, suckled on the same evil urges As Nazism, greedy and domineering, evil and primitive, corrupt, parasites, ambitious."

    "A horrible evil, a black devil."

    Finally, Arieh Stav quotes one of Israel's best-known writers:

    "A band of armed gangsters, committing crime against humanity, sadists, pogromchiks and murderers."

    Coincident with such self-destructive feelings are the developing correlates of the "New Middle East," a region wherein a new enemy Arab State is now being carved out of the still-living body of Israel. Here we witness, among other things, the transformation of Israel's capital into the capital of Palestine and the re-diasporization of Israel's Jews before the coming catastrophic war.

    Can the Barak Government, having inherited "Oslo" from Rabin and Peres and Netanyahu, protect its citizens? Clearly, the Peace Process has already been transformed, for Israelis, into a Terror Process. Soon, as the territories become Palestine, the Peace Process will also become a War Process. Here, deprived of its essential strategic depth, Israel will have become an increasingly tempting object for aggression by certain enemy states. In view of what is already known about enemy state nuclearization, including Iran, and about ballistic missile developments in these states - developments that can never be effectively countered by anti-tactical ballistic missile systems - the War Process could even be ignited against Israel by unconventional war. It is with these grave dangers in mind that Israeli opponents of the Peace Process must now engage again in essential civil disobedience.

    Jewish Law rests always upon two principles: the overriding sovereignty of God and the derivative sacredness of the individual person. Both principles, intertwined and interdependent, underlie the reasoned argument for civil disobedience in Israel. From the sacredness of the person, which stems from each individual's resemblance to divinity, flows the freedom to choose. The failure to exercise this freedom, which is evident wherever a response to political authority is merely automatic, represents a betrayal of individual legal responsibility.

    What are the likely costs of such a betrayal? Above all, they include increased loss of life and expanded human suffering. Failing to exercise their obligations as free citizens, Israelis who stand by passively as the Barak Government proceeds with a Terror Process/War Process are effectively complicit in the deadly consequences of their betrayal.

    Civil disobedience in Israel can save lives. This path does display the highest imperatives of free citizens in a free society. To the extent that it can stop and even reverse the Peace Process, it can reduce the number of Israelis who now die regularly at the hands of Arab terrorists and those who might still perish as a result of newly probable aggression by certain Arab states and/or Iran. There is, then, a manifestly concrete benefit to civil disobedience in Israel. This is not merely an abstract matter of theory and jurisprudence. It is a distinctly flesh and blood matter of national self-defense and survival.

    "...he will come only on the day after his arrival." What can we learn from such a paradoxical conjunction of terms? First, it is apparent that as the Messiah will come "only when he is no longer necessary," the "day after his arrival" will be a day when he is not needed. But how shall he arrive after his arrival? Perhaps an answer lies in assigning two different, although related, meanings to the same word, an answer supported by Kafka's sequential reference to "come" and "arrival" rather than "arrival" and "arrival" (" wird erst einen Tag nach seiner Ankunft kommen...."). Here, the day of Messianic arrival is a day when he will be needed; the day on which he will come - the day after - is a day on which he will not be needed. This day after, moreover, will be a commemoration of human preparations undertaken earlier, preparations without which Messianic arrival would not have been possible. Examined in light of Israeli security and survival, this suggests that the day on which he will come will be a time after Jerusalem has made the previously discussed provisions for safety based upon power, a time when the Jewish State has fully learned to ask the question of the Roman Stoic, Cicero: "For what can be done against force without force?"

    Second, it may be that Kafka was familiar with an old saying that is the basis for many Jewish legends: on the day of the destruction of the Temple, the Messiah was born. Creating an inseparable connection between historical catastrophe and redemption, this saying expresses meaning through paradox, but not the same paradox offered by Kafka. While this legend links suffering with renaissance, it does not tamper in any way with time and chronology. Our parable, on the other hand, rests upon a fundamental inversion of calendars and clocks, or at least upon the ascription of multiple meanings to particular words.

    Yet, it is possible to determine connections between Kafka's "...he will come only on the day after his arrival" and legend's juxtaposition of calamity and redemption. If, as we have already suggested, the day after Messianic arrival will be a day following productive and lawful affirmations of Realpolitik, this will be a day that precludes rather than succeeds calamity. This would mean that the only apparent connection between Kafka's parable and Jewish legend is the self-conscious and complete rejection of the latter by the former.

    This is as it must be. If, in the past, redemption has sometimes been dialectically intermeshed with terrible catastrophe, in the future no such linkage is possible. Faced with altogether unprecedented powers of destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear attack, the Third Temple Commonwealth must now place all redemptive hope in avoidance of such harms. Nurtured not by Apocalyptic legends that find promise in ashes, but by Messianic thinking that is centered on prevention, Israel can and will endure. Kafka's parable on "The Coming of the Messiah" is a useful fount for such thinking.

    "...he will come, not on the last day, but on the very last." This final sentence of our parable is closely interwoven with the preceding sentences, culminating what amounts to a perfectly coherent, integral "argument." As Messianic arrival will be determined by prior fulfillment of human responsibilities - in our example, by the State of Israel's military preparations - and by steadfast avoidance of overriding threats to the Third Temple Commonwealth, he will come "not on the last day," the day when he is still needed and the day of his "arrival." Rather, he will come "on the very last" day ("...sondern am allerletzen"), the day when he is no longer needed. Understood as survival of the Jewish State, this means he will come when Israel has already taken care of itself.

    This conclusion may seem vastly more consistent with the essential tenets of philosophical existentialism than with those of Messianic Judaism. Yet, the traditional Jewish view of a deliverer is hardly one of an outside "intervention," a view that would detach redemption from human responsibility. Instead, it is a view that ties Messianic arrival to compliance with particular moral codes and norms of ethical conduct. To the extent, therefore, that pragmatic Israeli preparations for security may be construed to exhibit such compliance, these preparations may be decidedly compatible with traditional views on the coming of the Messiah.

    But is it reasonable to so construe such pragmatic Israeli preparations? In answering this question we come face to face with an antecedent issue, namely the extent to which Israel itself, as the Jewish State, can be consistent with Messianic redemption. If, after all, the fulfillment of Zionist expectations must oppose such redemption, Israel's survival is not only unsuitable as an expression of "the coming of the Messiah," it is fundamentally an impediment, an obstruction whose very existence thwarts the Nation of Israel.

    To a point, this view is embedded in standard interpretations of the Jewish legends we discussed earlier. Since catastrophe spawns redemption, and since Jewish statehood precludes catastrophe, redemption cannot occur so long as Israel endures. Indeed, inasmuch as redemption depends upon "the experience of exile," or "homelessness," the State of Israel - a state that blocks coming of the Messiah - can be productive only where it ceases to exist.

    Now that Israel is a fait accompli, it is hard to imagine a Jewish position that would willingly go so far to meet these particular Messianic preconditions. Yet, a debate did rage on the underlying issues before 1948, when Martin Buber and Hermann Cohen argued fiercely on Zionism and Messianism. Buber advanced the view of Exile as a tragic situation, while Cohen denied that Diaspora was Exile. In seeking an end to Diaspora, Cohen maintained, Zionists were negating the essential vision of Messianism. Buber countered that Zionism actually furthers the realization of Messianism:

    Zionism opposes not the messianic idea, but rather the misrepresentation and distortion of this idea found in a considerable part of Liberal - Jewish, anti-Zionist literature. This misrepresentation and distortion glorifies, in the name of messianism, the dispersion, debasement, and homelessness of the Jewish people, as something unconditionally valuable and fortunate, as something that must be preserved because it prepares humanity for the messianic age.

    How different is Hermann Cohen's assessment, which proclaims, "The ghetto mentality is not the ghost, but the true spirit of Judaism and of Jewish reality." Recalling Micha, "And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples, like dew from the Lord," (5:6, 7) Cohen expresses his "proud conviction" that Jews must "continue to live as divine dew in the midst of the peoples, and to remain fruitful among them and for them. All of the prophets place us in the midst of the peoples and their common perspective is the world mission of the remnant of Israel."

    But the role of "divine dew" must certainly be re-evaluated after the Holocaust. Could Hermann Cohen affirm today that Judaism, because of its Messianic core, "is thoroughly a world religion?" Could he claim, some sixty years after the great tragedy of diaspora Jewry, that this Messianic core "cannot be impaired by historical reality, by misfortune, or even by the auspicious granting of equal rights?" Are "hope and trust" truly the correct path to Jewish survival? "Happy is he that waiteth," (Dan. 12:12), cautions Cohen, but how much longer shall be the wait? And who shall bear responsibility for harms suffered in the interim?

    Although enormously painful to acknowledge, Cohen's argument, however unintentional, does point to the overriding irony of Zionist success. Seeking to solve "The Jewish Question" by creating a Jewish State, Israel has concentrated about one quarter of the world's Jews within a tiny space of extraordinary vulnerability. Moreover, as unconventional weapons technologies spread throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf areas, Jewish vulnerability within the Jewish State is likely to become greater than anywhere in the diaspora. In spite of Herzl's

    dream that a Jewish State would resolve the "Jewish Question," there is today no more dangerous place on Earth for Jews, as Jews, than the State of Israel.

    This extraordinary irony must not be minimized. Rather, it should be taken as the starting point for rebuilding the foundation of Herzl's "house," from the ground up, before it is razed altogether. ("We are here to lay the foundation stone of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation." These were the very first words uttered by Theodor Herzl on August 29, 1897, at the First Zionist Congress in Basel). Now we require nothing less than a new Zionist Congress, one which will no longer need to create a Jewish State, but to preserve the existing Third Temple Commonwealth. We require such a Congress to save the imperilled State of Israel.

    Israel's only real option for the future is to endure. Whatever the relative merits of the Zionism-Messianism debate earlier on in history, Jewish redemption today positively requires survival of the Jewish State. The destruction of Israel would represent great loss for the entire world. A world without Israel would be a world of darkness, a world of the sort forseen by the poet Yeats: "There is no longer a virtuous nation, and the best of us live by candle light."

    Every Jew is familiar with Deuteronomy 30:19. "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live." But in choosing life, there must be a prior anxiety about death. Without such anxiety, there can be no correct understanding of what is needed to endure. What is true for individuals is also true for entire states. As Israel now approaches its collective demise, the citizens of Israel - at least a very substantial fraction of these citizens - appear strangely smug about national permanence. Seemingly oblivious to the coming of Palestine and the associated eradication of Israel, these stubbornly "confident" Jews want no part of any national anxiety. As a result, they are unable to fulfil the most basic expectations of Torah (let alone common sense), that is, to "choose life."

    Israel now suffers acutely from insufficient anxiety. Refusing to tremble before the growing prospect of collective chaos and disintegration - a substantially forseeable prospect including both genocide and war - this state is now unable to take the necessary steps toward life. What is more, because death is the one fact of life which is not relative, but absolute, Israel's blithe unawareness of its exceptional mortality deprives its still living days, however precarious, of indispensable absoluteness.

    For states, as for individuals, confronting death can give the most positive reality to life. In this respect, a cultivated awareness of nonbeing is central to each state's pattern of potentialities as well as to its very existence. When a state chooses to block off such an awareness, a choice currently made by the State of Israel, it loses, perhaps forever, the altogether critical benefits of "anxiety."

    Anxiety stems from the awareness that existence can actually be destroyed, that one can actually become nothing. An ontological characteristic, it has commonly been called Angst, a word related to anguish (which comes from the Latin angustus, "narrow," which in turn comes from angere, "to choke.") Herein lies the relevant idea of birth trauma as the prototype of all anxiety, as "pain in the narrows" through the "choking" straits of birth. Kierkegaard identified anxiety as "the dizziness of freedom," adding: "Anxiety is the reality of freedom as a potentiality before this freedom has materialized."

    This brings the reader back to Israel. Both individuals and states may surrender freedom in the hope of ridding themselves of an unbearable anxiety. Regarding states, such surrender can lead to a rampant and delirious collectivism which stamps out all political opposition. It can also lead to a national self-delusion which augments enemy power and hastens catastrophic war. For the Jewish State, a lack of pertinent anxiety, of the positive aspect of Angst, has already led its people and Government to the codified surrenders of Oslo and to an altogether conceivable rendezvous with extinction.

    Let us return to Kafka, to our illustrative parable. The coming of the Messiah, which we understand as Jewish survival within the State of Israel, requires antecedent preparations for protection and self-defense. To aid such preparations, Jews in the diaspora must first begin to see that plans to annihilate the Jewish State represent an assault upon themselves. The phrase "Death to Israel" is always uttered in the same breath as "Death to the Jews." One implies the other. To assume that the former can be detached from historical anti-Semitism that is spawned by politics rather than by theology is to validate delusion and to invite massacre.

    From the beginning, Arab states have regarded Israel as the institutionalized manifestation of multiple crimes, and fit, therefore, only for destruction. A linguistic analysis by Yehoshafat Harkabi shows official Arab statements abounding with terminology that approves of "liquidation" and "extermination" of Israel and the Jewish people. As Islamic fundamentalists seek to wrest political control from secular authorities in Iran and the Arab world, the declared enemy is identified not as Zionists," but as "Jewish occupiers." In the words of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of the pro-Iranian Party of God, "The only way to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East is the return of all the Jewish occupiers to the lands from which they originally came." Islamic Jihad, the terrorist group claiming responsibility for multiple acts of terrorism against Israel, declares: "The war is open until Israel ceases to exist and until the last Jew in the world is eliminated....Israel is all evil and should be wiped out of existence."

    In the words of al-Da'wa (The Mission), a fundamentalist publication, the status of Israel is identical to the status of the Jew. What, precisely, is this status? "The race (sic) is corrupt at the root, full of duplicity, and the Muslims have everything to lose in seeking to deal with them; they must be exterminated."

    Historically, the Islamic world's orientation to genocide against the Jews has not been limited to idle phrasemaking. Even before Israel came into existence in 1948, on November 28, 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin, met in Berlin with Adolph Hitler. The subject of their meeting was "the final solution of the Jewish Question." This meeting, which followed Haj Amin's active organization of Muslim SS troops in Bosnia, included the Mufti's promise to aid German victory in the war. Later, after Israel's trial and execution of Nazi criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Iranian and Arab newspapers treated the mass murderer of children as a "martyr," and congratulated him for having "conferred a real blessing on humanity" by liquidating six million Jews.

    What is Israel to do? Remembering that past is prologue, that "Death to Israel" is merely a new phrase for an old hatred, leaders of the Jewish State must not be deceived. Acknowledging that Israel's future is linked to its Jewish past, and that Jewish leaders bear primary responsibility for "the coming of the Messiah," they must seek safety by rejecting weakness. Seeing in Israel the historic plight of the individual Jew facing genocidal destruction - the Jew as macrocosm - Jerusalem must not forget that civilization is always an oxymoron and that civility among the barbarians leads only to death.

    The Greek poet Homer understood that the force that does not kill right away - that does not kill just yet - can still turn a human being into stone, into a thing, while it is still alive. Merely hanging ominously over the head of the vulnerable creature it can choose to kill at any moment, poised portentously to destroy breath in what it has allowed, if only for a few more moments, to breathe, this force makes a mockery of the fragile life it intends to consume. The human being that stands helplessly before this force has effectively become a corpse before any lethal assault is even launched.

    Israel is now this individual human being writ large. Throwing itself upon the mercy of genocidal enemies, it lies diminished and dishonored even before it is forced to disappear. Almost alone among the nations, this suppliant state incessantly quivers and trembles. Offering plaintive entreaties on its knees, Israel moves inexorably toward a new Final Solution to the Jewish Question. Unlike the Holocaust, this Final Solution - if it is not prevented - will be largely self-inflicted.

    When Priam enters the tent of Achilles, stops, clasps Achilles' knees, and kisses his hands, he has already reduced himself to a hapless and unworthy victim, one to be disposed of without ceremony and in very short order. Realizing this, a gracious Achilles takes the old man's arm, pushing him away. As long as he was clasping Achilles' knees, Priam was an inert object. Only by lifting him up off his knees could Achilles restore him to a position of self-respect and to a living manhood.

    Here Israel and Priam part company. Israel's many enemies, animated by Jihad, will not act in the honorable manner of Achilles. Their aim is not the gracious revitalization of a pathetic and despised adversary, but rather the annihilation of that inert object by means of genocide and war. It follows that the Illiad offers certain important lessons for Jerusalem,but that these lessons must be based upon a brutally realistic appraisal of Israel's foes.

    For whatever reasons, Israel under Barak has come to accept a view of itself that was spawned not in Jerusalem, Hebron or Tel-Aviv, but in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Teheran, Jericho and Gaza. Degraded and debased, this is the view not of a strong and powerful people, determined to remain alive, but of a conspicuous corpse-in-waiting, ingathered from exile only to make its relentless fate easier to inflict. After Auschwitz, after Belsen, after Warsaw, after Lodz, can there be any more hideous and humiliating expression of Jewish disaster than Israel's groveling, its desperate groveling, before Arafat?

    Viewed from the standpoint of our governing parable, the standpoint of Israel's survival as a State and its associated nurturance by the diaspora, Israel's imperative rejection of self-imposed disaster is more than a tactical expedient. It is also a sacred duty. Of course, this duty must never be fulfilled via gratuitous harms inflicted upon enemy populations, or by any intentional attacks upon "soft" (non-military) targets. Rather, it requires preparations for preemptive destruction of enemy "hard" (military) targets, especially those weapons and associated command/control facilities now being readied for unconventional and genocidal action against Israel.

    Israel's required preparations bring us back to time, a dominant leitmotif of our parable. Traditionally, philosophers have distinguished dimensionally between space and time, but today Israel forges a new conceptual unity. Surrendering Israel's space, one piece at a time, Jerusalem exhibits the ominous temporal interrelatedness of sequential territorial loss and imminence of military defeat. The more Israel's land is transferred to enemy hands, the less time Israel has to endure. Left to proceed with their misnamed Peace Process, the leaders of the Jewish State will discover too late that time is power, that the power of time is transmitted with the power of space, and that the powerful influences of time now accrue entirely and portentously to Israel's enemies.

    The pertinent space-time power relationship has at least two complex dimensions. First, incremental territorial surrenders by Israel reduce the amount of time Israel would have to resist particular military and/or terrorist assaults. Second, such surrenders, considered cumulatively, provide time for Israel's enemies to await optimal strategic opportunity. In an apparent but inauthentic paradox, time now serves Israel's enemies by both its diminution and by its extension.

    But it is not yet too late. For Israel, there is still time to recover, still an opportunity to transform time from a source of debility to a source of power. Israel's very existence is always emerging, it is always in the process of becoming, always developing in time. Never to be defined in fixed or static terms, this existence is always more or less durable, more or less problematic. To survive into the future, to ensure preservation of the Third Temple Commonwealth, Israel must now draw understanding from the ancient Hebrew experience of time as the essential flux of righteousness and strength. While the Greeks experienced temporality as the decline of order, the Hebrews identified it as the source of unlimited opportunity and even of messianic liberation and redemption. In this identification, of course, ancient Israel understood little concerning the coincident importance of political space.

    There is something else. For Israel, the power of time is made manifest not only by its relationship with space, but also as the source of memory. By recalling the historic vulnerabilities of Jewish life in the world, and by recalling that others will not recall, Israel's leaders could still begin to undertake needed steps back from national dissolution.

    "Yesterday," says Samuel Beckett in his analysis of Proust, "is not a milestone that has been passed, but a daystone on the beaten track of the years, and irremediably part of us, heavy and dangerous." Aware that tomorrow will be determined, in large measure, by "yesterday," especially by the memory of "yesterday," Israel has yet another chance (a chance not to be missed) to recognize that time is power.

    In the end, the coming of the Messiah, contingent upon time, requires Messianic deeds. At this time in Jewish history, there is no better way to define such needs than from the standpoint of Israel's survival. Where they are meaningfully directed toward preservation of the Jewish State, of the Third Temple Commonwealth, Messianic deeds will be the authentic deliverer. Seeking to avert catastrophe, rather than to discover redemption in Apocalypse, those who commit such deeds can ensure celebrations in Jerusalem "not on the last day, but on the very last."

     HOME  Maccabean  comments