Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

THE MACCABEAN ONLINE

POLITICAL ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ON ISRAELI & JEWISH AFFAIRS

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

VOLUME 9 B"H JUNE 2001 NUMBER 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JUNE 2001

PAGE

SHARON AND THE CEASE-FIRE A Satire.....Bernard J. Shapiro 2
ARAFAT SELLS HIS NONVIOLENCE RUG TO THE ISRAELIS AGAIN....The Editor 2
NATIVE AMERICANS, BUFFALO AND ISRAEL....Bernard J. Shapiro 3

THE OSLO IDIOTS
THE REAL DANGER....Berel Wein 4

TERRORISM
FOR THE THREE SINS OF OSLO.... Israel Harel 6
73.7% OF PALESTINIANS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBING 8
MARK LANGFAN, MORTARS AND KATYUSHAS....Bernard J. Shapiro 9

LESSONS FOR THE ISRAEL'S FUTURE
LAND WITHOUT PEACE Why Arafat Will Not Stop His War.....Charles Krauthammer 12

STRATEGIC LESSONS FOR ISRAEL
AFTER NETANYA SHOULD TERRORIST MASTERMINDS BE ASSASSINATED?.....Louis Rene Beres 14
TAKING OFF THE GLOVES ....Boris Shusteff 16

HISTORY
THE MYTH OF "OCCUPIED" TERRITORIES ....Boris Shusteff 19
MA NISHTANAH....G.M. Ettinger 22
WAITING OUTSIDE... M. Ettinger 25
SADDAM BENT THE FATHER; ARAFAT BENDS THE SON....Emanuel A. Winston 27

EUROPEAN AND OTHER BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL
SEX AND THE SETTLEMENTS .... Michael Freund 30
OBFUSCATION OF TRUTH (Reading Mitchell's Report)....Boris Shusteff 32

 

THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
Published Monthly by the
FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661
THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL:
http://www.freeman.org/online.htm
Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail:
freemanlist@aol.com
URL:
http://www.freeman.org
Copyright (c) 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

* Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3).

 


 

Notes and editorial from the June 2001 issue of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE

ARAFAT SELLS HIS NONVIOLENCE
RUG TO THE ISRAELIS AGAIN

What we are witnessing today is Arafat's attempt to sell the Israelis the promise of ending violence. He did it at Oslo, Gaza-Jericho, Oslo 2, Hebron, Wye, and Sharm. The world looked on and urged, indeed demanded that Israel pay a price to make the deal. This time it is "settlements." Last time it was land. Arafat continues to incite to murder and in fact is the true inheritor of the Nazi aim of exterminating the Jews, this time in Israel instead of Europe.

THE QUESTIONS:

ARE ISRAELIS SO LACKING IN HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS FACT?

Why is the Israeli Foreign Ministry praising The Mitchell Report, which is full of lies and distortions that impact very negatively on Israel?

The Editor

 


 

SHARON AND THE CEASE-FIRE

A Satire

The Freeman Center has calculated a number of important statistics which might be of interest to our readers. These raw figures relate to Sharon's cease-fire and Arafat's war. [All figures +/- 4%]

1. Number of Jews that must be killed before Sharon ends cease-fire: 10,000

2. Number of Jews that must be maimed before Sharon ends cease-fire: 50,000

3. Number of times Israel will be condemned by the UN for allowing the Arabs to kill them: 1500

4. Number of times the US Secretary of State will ask for a cessation of violence on both sides: 10,000

5. Number of times the UN Secretary General Kofi Anan will blame Israel for excessive force: 8000

6. Number of times the Amnesty and the Red Cross blame Israeli for not dying faster so the conflict would be over sooner: 7000

7. Number of times construction of a Jewish home is considered the equivalent of mass murder in the media and diplomatic circles: 50,000

8. Number of times that Israel's left-wing news papers blame YESHA and religious Jews for Arab anti-Semitism: 25,000

9. Number of times Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin will try to undermine Israeli government policy: 5000

10. How many members of the Israeli Left admit to having sexual fantasies about Arafat and his revolutionary chic: 500,000

THE FREEMAN CENTER ASKS: WHEN WILL SHARON FULFILL HIS PROMISE TO BRING SECURITY TO HIS PEOPLE. IT IS PAST TIME TRYING TO PLEASE THE WORLD.

The Editor

 


 

NATIVE AMERICANS, BUFFALO AND ISRAEL

Bernard J. Shapiro

Native Americans unfortunately had some of the same characteristics of the Israeli Left (Meretz, Peace Now). Young warriors would proudly declare (a common philosophy) upon embarking on battle: "The world was created the day I was born and will cease to exist the day I die." The world continued to exist despite their deaths and the delusional Left will also be faced with the consequences of their delusions.

Native Americans had no conception of land ownership, believing that all land belonged to the Great Spirit. The were easily cheated out of their homelands for useless scraps of paper. Peres, Beilin and Rabin were equally guilty of naivete in accepting Oslo, just a piece of useless paper. When it was obvious to most that Oslo had failed (even until today) the delusional Left refused to give up its delusions.

The Israeli Left tells you they are fatigued from constant war with the Arabs. They were willing to sacrifice anything to the inheritors of the Nazis for "peace." Let me tell you the story of the brave Nez Perces Chief Joseph in 1877. In order to escape being place on revolution far from his homeland, he led his people (150 warriors, 550 women, children and old men) on a 1700 mile retreat through the roughest terrain. He was trying to reach Canada and safety. The US Cavalry caught him miles from the border. As he saw that he was defeated he said the following:

"I am tired; my heart is sick....From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."

Chief Joseph and his followers were sent to a reservation where most died.

The Jews of Israel have no choice but to fight.

THE TALE OF THE MYSTIC BUFFALO

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 man, Yitzhak Rabin, at its helm. He would know what to do, said the Israeli people. He would solve this problem. Rabin's solution 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?

 


 

The Jerusalem Post May, 17 2001

THE REAL DANGER

By Berel Wein

The unabating violence of the Palestinian terror groups and leaders against Israel, and Israel's response, militarily and otherwise, has shaken world Jewry to the core.

But in spite of all of the facts and problems that apparently should be clear to all, there is a basic lesson that the Jewish people, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora, has not yet faced up to. And that is, that anti-Semitism - dangerous, militant, violent, pre-Holocaust-style anti-Semitism - is in vogue in large sections of the modern world.

It has been a long time since Arab leaders have allowed themselves to utter the foul anti-Semitic words that Syrian President Bashar Assad spoke in front of the monarchs of Spain and later in the presence of the pope. The anti-Semites must have gained great comfort from the fact that neither the monarchs of Spain nor the pope of Rome found it necessary to contradict or even comment on Assad's incendiary hatred.

The Muslim world, even countries that are thousands of kilometers away from the Arab-Israeli struggle, are educating their young to hate and even to kill Jews. Not Israelis - Jews. All of the ancient canards and lies have been revived in the public arena of communication and education. The cultivation of hatred of Jews in the Muslim world is enormously worrying.

Pulling the blanket over our heads and avoiding the bitter truths that are now so apparent will only lead to greater danger, not only to Israel, but to Jews everywhere. The battle for Jewish survival is now on in earnest, even if the political, organizational and religious leaders of Israel have not yet come to terms with its reality.

Listen to the pronouncements and comments coming from Europe. The newly found European sympathy for the Palestinians is couched in vaguely disguised anti-Jewish phrases. The young Socialists in Norway speak again of Israeli (read Jewish) "intransigence," "excesses," "exploitation." The vocabulary of 19th- and 20th-century anti-Semitism resonates again in Europe. To the Left we are "exploiters" and "settlers" and to the Right we are again "violent" people. To the Arab papers and media we are "atheistic" and "occupiers," while to the Europeans we are "ultra-religious" and "chauvinist messianics."

Much of this criticism simply reeks of hypocrisy. Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, whose regime is justly suspected of anti-Jewish activity in Russia and elsewhere, sharply condemned Israel for the use of "excessive force." This from a man whose army in Chechnya has killed tens of thousands of civilians, and who brands all Chechnyans as terrorists. Russia has deflected all world criticism and condemnation over its brutal war against the civilian population in Chechnya. And now it piously lectures us about "excessive force." For shame!

There are those Jews who still prefer to turn a blind eye to all this. They still speak in terms of "partners" and "settlements" and the "third withdrawal." They somehow believe that all of the lasting damage done by the barrage of anti-Semitic invective that is part of the Arab war against Israel - the suicide bombers, the mortar firers, the child stoners - all will disappear if only the Israelis will make more concessions.

Thus there are the dutiful visits to Arafat, the pious platitudes about the peace process and the deeply, almost fanatically held hope that somehow the mirage of the Oslo Accords will yet turn into reality. One is almost tempted to say that this is a repeat of the weak and misguided Jewish response to the anti-Semitism that raged in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, and that created the public climate that facilitated the Holocaust.

Then too, Jews blamed other Jews for the hatred and venom poured out against them. Except that today they are our own politicians and should by now have learned better.

It certainly appears that there are no magic formulas that will extricate us quickly from our present situation. Firmness, judicial silence and wise response, determination and a balanced hand are the requirements of the government and people of Israel.

The real danger lies in our somehow believing the lies directed against us. Anti-Semitism should be seen and identified for what it really is, and not smoothed over with diplomatic niceties.

It should be answered and fought against with all the means at our disposal.

We should do so for our benefit and for that of the world as well.

 


 

Ha'aretz , May 17, 2001

FOR THE THREE SINS OF OSLO

By Israel Harel

Before entering the cave where the murders had been perpetrated, M.C. paused for a moment, put a hand on the stone wall and rested his head inside the natural arch. M.C., who, for the past 20 years, had seen and experienced almost everything, gathered his strength, took a deep breath and, his voice still shaking, pointed to the protuberances on the rocks against which the murderers had banged and shattered the heads of the two young boys."When we combed the cave," he was now once more in command of his normal speaking voice, "we could immediately discern the projections against which the heads of the two boys had been banged and where their skulls had been crushed. Only after they were already prone on the ground, apparently when they were still alive but dying, the stoning began. As a result of the stoning, their faces were so distorted that we could barely identify them. Despite the dedicated and strenuous efforts of the volunteers who come with their cloths and plastic bags, it was impossible to remove the bloodstains from the rocks."

Outside, once you could breathe freely once more in the open air, your breath was once more taken away by the blindingly beautiful landscape of the Tekoa stream and the cliffs of the Judean Hills.

In the face of this magnificent natural setting, which has not changed since the spirit of God descended upon Amos, the sheep rancher from Tekoa, the prophet of morality ("Hate evil and love good, and see that justice is carried out at the city's gate"), the prophet of rebuke ("For the three sins of Edom ... for his having pursued, sword in hand, his brother and for his utter ruthlessness"), the prophet of solace ("I will plant them firmly on their soil and they will never again be uprooted from it"), it is almost impossible to comprehend the base cruelty of the murderers.

Nadav Shragai (Ha'aretz, May 13) is wrong when he argues incitement in the Palestinian media and in Palestinian textbooks is the main factor behind the murderous behavior of the Arabs. In Algeria, the populations of entire villages - including children and the infants - have been slaughtered over the years, and not because of any inciteful broadcasts by Palestine Radio. In the not-too-distant past, the same thing occurred in both Syria and Lebanon.

Thus, it is difficult to understand why Rabbi Avi Gisser, the rabbi of Ofra settlement decided to lodge a complaint with the police against Ze'ev Sternhell for having written (Ha'aretz, May 11): "Many in Israel, perhaps even the majority of voters, do not doubt the legitimacy of the armed resistance in the territories themselves. The Palestinians would be wise to concentrate their struggle against the settlements and avoid harming women and children..."

Rabbi Gisser's complaint that such statements are incitement and they encourage murderous acts against men like him who live in the settlements of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was proved blatantly groundless last Tuesday evening.

Around the time Rabbi Gisser filed his complaint, the Arabs once more committed murder, the victim this time being a young woman, Idit Mizrahi, and they once more inflicted injury on a child - her brother, Amit.

Granted, it can be understood from the complaint that Sternhell is being accused of having rebuked the Arabs for a lack of tactical wisdom but not for their acts of murder. However, it makes no sense to claim - surely, an individual like Rabbi Gisser, given his standing in society, should comprehend this point - that one of the Israeli academic community's most prominent crusaders for moral and ethical behavior actually intended in the article, written only two days after the gruesome stoning incident near the Tekoa stream, to encourage murderous acts against Rabbi Gisser or any other settler.

Similarly, there is no basis to the argument that, for much less severe offenses, the Israeli system of justice sent Tatyana Susskin to serve a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence and sent Rabbi Ido Elba to serve a three-year prison sentence. How, one must ask, is it at all possible to compare the offenses committed by Susskin and Elba to what Professor Sternhell has done?

In order to kill Jews, my most esteemed Rabbi Gisser, the Arabs have no need for any encouragement from Jews. The Arabs have enough self-motivation without any outside help, although perhaps they do require moral backing so that their murderous acts can appear legitimate in the eyes of the world. The truth is they enjoy - irrespective of the ghastly nature of their crimes - cartloads of legitimization.

Thus, the words of a respected academic ("Many in Israel ... do not doubt the legitimacy of the armed resistance...") have no real impact either way. Not much logic can be found in the question or complaint as to why Jews rail against the moral indifference of the world when here in Israel Jews write and say things about other Jews that are far worse than anything written or said about Jews in Europe or America.

Through Oslo the murderers received more than just rifles. Oslo deepened and widened - and this is one of the major catastrophes it produced - divisions among Jews. Oslo also established a bond - a true Gordian knot - between the Arabs of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine.

In addition, Oslo gave rise to the idea of the Nakba. From a term of negligible importance, the Nakba has been promoted, in the wake of Oslo, to the status of a Concept, a magic ritual that has devastating implications for the entire Middle East, especially for Israeli Arabs.

At this point in time, most Jews, even those who are represented by the government of Ariel Sharon, have no answers - moral, ethical, military or political - to the chain of disasters Oslo has brought down upon the heads of Israel's Jewish population

(c) 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved

 


 

Editor's Note: Sharon talks about not harming the "good" Palestinians and just going after the terrorists. I don't see much difference. It is time for an all out war against the enemy who lusts for Jewish blood.......Bernard

=============

April poll finds 73.7% of Palestinians support suicide bombing operations against Israeli civilians in Israel

JMCC (Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre) Public Opinion Poll No. 40 On Palestinian Attitudes Towards Politics including the Current Intifada April 2001: http://www.jmcc.org/polls/2001/no40.htm

A random sample of 1200 people over the age of 18 were interviewed face-to-face throughout the West Bank (5,6,7 April 2001) and Gaza Strip on (10,11,12 April 2001). The margin of error is 3 percent, with a confidence level of 95.

 


 

MARK LANGFAN, MORTARS
AND KATYUSHAS

By Bernard J. Shapiro

Back in September of 1992 a young New York attorney, Mark Langfan, published a landmark article in JINSA's magazine, Security Affairs. It was entitled, DEMILITARIZATION RISKS, and boldly pointed out the dangers of allowing the creation of a Palestinian State or Authority in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. As you will learn form this article it has become frighteningly prophetic. In the light of very recent news from Israel, please read the following excerpts from Langfan's original article:

A "demilitarized autonomous zone" has been proposed as a solution for a gradual lessening of Israeli administration of the territories of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. At some point in the ongoing Middle East peace talks, the exact legal meaning of the term "demilitarized autonomous zone" will have to be agreed upon by Israel, the surrounding Arab states, the Palestinians and, if necessary, outside peace keeping guarantors. (Ed. note: Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, has announced that negotiations on Palestinian autonomy in the territories will proceed rapidly.) One problem facing Israeli negotiations will be a structure to prevent determined individuals from smuggling impermissible weapons into the "demilitarized zone."

In this regard, the Israeli negotiating team must grapple with the reality that, no matter what settlement is reached, there will continue to exist well-funded, organized and violent Palestinian nationalistic and Islamic extremist elements which will attempt to smuggle weapons into the "demilitarized zone" which they will use to kill Israelis.

In evaluating how strong a security net is required to prevent smuggling, the Israeli negotiating team must evaluate the relative dangers of small and easily transported weapons. A standard terrorist weapon, for purposes of such a discussion, is the Soviet-designed Katyusha artillery rocket. For over 20 years, the Katyusha has been used extensively by terrorists in Lebanon to bombard northern Israel.

While Katyusha rockets are usually fired in barrages of dozens at a time, they can also be fired singly. If launched into the very densely populated Tel Aviv-Netanya corridor, they would surely kill and spread unimaginable terror . Israel's coastal corridor contains 70 percent of Israel's population and 80 percent of her industrial base. The technological simplicity and ease of transportability of many weapon systems with sufficient range to cause havoc and death in Israel make smuggling of weapons into the West Bank a grave concern for Israeli negotiators.

Internal security measures are another issue to be addressed. The greatest protection Israel now has against terrorist attacks and weapons smuggling is the maintenance of an intense surveillance regime in the territories. If internal jurisdiction was transferred to an independent Palestinian entity, Israel would lose this crucial ability. Unlike the barren deserts and hills of the Egyptian and Jordanian border regions, the West Bank has hundreds of cities, towns and villages. Therefore, terrorists operating from the West Bank could easily find safe refuge within the surrounding population.

In addition, what right of action will Israel have if a Katyusha or other weapon is fired into Israel from the "demilitarized autonomous zone?" If such reprisal is restrained in expectation of justice being served by the authorities of the "autonomous zone," what is the Israeli recourse when nothing happens? There will exist plausible deniability in the failure of the "autonomous zone" authorities to capture terrorist. Unlike in state-to-state relations, there is the likelihood that no one person or group of persons will have the authority or means to halt attacks on Israelis.

===========================

PA SMUGGLES WEAPONS INCLUDING KATYUSHAS

Dr. Aaron Lerner repots on May 7, 2001 that a Palestinian weapons boat seized yesterday represent major a change in the threat against Israel. This evening the Commander of the Israeli Navy Yedidya Yaari told a press conference televised live from Haifa Port that a weapons boat had been seized by the Israeli Navy. The operation was handled by professional Lebanese smugglers who took the boat ("Santorini") from North Lebanon and were supposed to leave the weapons in barrels off the Gaza Coast for pick upon behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The weapons were believed to have been sent by Ahmed Jibril.

The weapons captured were displayed at the press conference as was the boat.The boat had been monitored over the weekend. Yaari noted that on board the ship a wide variety of weapons were discovered, among them surface to air missiles, RPG launchers, mortars, mines, weapons, and many kinds of ammunition.

List of Weapons:

20 RPG-7 launchers
9 Sights for RPG-7
100 PG-7 rockets
50 OG-7 rockets
150 Propellant for RPG-7
120 Anti-tank grenades RKG
4 SA-7 Strella anti-aircraft missiles
2 60mm mortar
98 60mm mortar bombs
50 107mm Katyusha rockets including fuses
62 TMA-5 mines
8 TMA-3 mines
24 Various hand grenades
30 Hungarian Kalashnikov assault rifles with 13,000 rounds of 7.62mm rounds for ammunition
116 Magazines for Kalashnikovs

Dr.Aaron Lerner reports further that the SA7 Strella anti-aircraft missiles have a range allowing them to shoot down Israel aircraft over Israeli airspace from inside the Palestinian Autonomy. Channel Two Television military correspondent Roni Daniel noted that the anti-tank weapons found on the boat would have been able to pierce the armo being used by Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians. He also pointed out that the Katyusha range would bring much of the Sharon Plain (greater Tel Aviv area) within striking distance from within the Palestinian Autonomy.

Ha'aretz (IMRA) reports that Minister of Defense Ben Eliezer said today that "very soon you will be stunned to hear things that will make it clear just how large the extent o smuggling has become. it is possible that we will soon see the Palestinians move from the stage of mortar shelling to new and more dangerous stages.

Danny Rubinstein (Ha'aretz 8 May 2001) Says that the weapons were meant for many fighters. (IMRA) Israel Radio reported this morning that the spokesman for the PHLP-GC in Gaza said the weapons were meant for general distribution to security forces in Gaza and not the PHLP-GC) Based on information gathered during questioning, the source of the weapons and other military materials found on a ship headed for Gaza is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) headed by Ahmed Jibril.

This relatively small organization, whose activities are nearly all abroad, including in Syria and Lebanon, has nearly no presence in the West Bank and Gaza. It is therefore difficult to suggest that such a large quantity of weapons was meant only for the members of Jibril's organization in Gaza. The Katyusha rockets and the Strella SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles, the explosives and other materials, were meant to reach bigger groups in Gaza, with the operational capability to distribute them to trained persons who are capable of using them.

In other words, if these weapons were not directly meant for the Palestinian Authority, they would surely have reached organizations linked with the PA. These comprise the various "resistance committees," and other gangs of Fatah members (the Tanzim), the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, who operate in cahoots with the Palestinian security services and who initiate the majority of the shooting incidents.

Ahmed Jibril, 70, is a Palestinian born near Abasiya (Yehud). A former Syrian officer, he once headed one of the leftist organizations against Arafat and fought on the side of renegades from Fatah and Syrian troops against the PLO during the latter part of the war in Lebanon in 1982. During the last decade, Jibril has forged links with Iran and Islamic radicals.

During the previous Intifada, in early 1988, Jibril lent his assistance by setting up a radio station, Al Quds, in Syrian territory on the Golan Heights, which broadcast to the territories. In recent years, several operations were initiated by Jibril's operatives in southern Lebanon, but all failed.

Ha'aretz (May 8, 2001) correspondents Amnon Barzilai and David Ratner and Aluf Benn quote Navy Commander-in-Chief Yedidia Ya'ari that there was no guarantee that similar shipments had not successfully reached the PA in the past. There would undoubtedly be similar smuggling attempts in the future, he said. Israel Radio senior diplomatic correspondent Yoni Ben Menachem reported today that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told a foreign press briefing today that the arms smugglers caught over the weekend smuggling anti-aircraft missiles, Katyushas and other weapons to Gaza successfully delivered THREE shipments to Gaza in the past.

"The arms that were captured change the balance of forces between us and the Palestinians, particularly the 107mm Katyushas, which have a range of 8.5 kilometers," Ya'ari told reporters during a press conference at the naval base in Haifa. "Even more worrying are the Strella personal anti-aircraft missiles, which are capable of hitting aircraft inside Israeli territory."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon informed the U.S. administration of the captured ship yesterday, terming it "an extremely grave violation of all the agreements that [PA Chairman Yasser] Arafat signed with Israel." This was "not a minor violation, but an attempt [by the Palestinians] to equip themselves with serious weaponry that could injure Israeli citizens," he said. The message was relayed to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice at a meeting with Finance Minister Silvan Shalom, who is now in Washington; Shalom asked Rice to pass it on to President George W. Bush.

Israel Radio also reported that a senior defense source said he believes the Palestinians have mortars and mortar launchers in the West Bank. The correspondent relaying the story noted that the much ridiculed warnings by Sharon and others that Oslo would ultimately lead to the cities of Israel being threatened by shelling are now becoming reality.

Arutz Sheva reports in its broadcast on May 8 that Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said "The extent of these weapons makes a mockery of all our security-coordination meetings with the Palestinians," said. "We talk about peace and returning to the negotiating table, while they are preparing for war." He was referring to the discovery on Sunday of a vessel laden with heavy weapons headed for the Gaza coast from Lebanon. The shipment contained four anti-aircraft Strella missiles, 120 anti-tank missile launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar shells. In addition, there were Kalachnikov submachine guns with 13,000 7.62 mm bullets, Katyusha rockets with a range of 8.5 kilometers - as opposed to the 1.5-kilometer range of the mortars used by the PA until now - as well as dozens of RPG launchers, mortar bombs, mines, and more. The shipment was sent by terrorist leader Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Israeli officials invited international diplomats to see the wide array of weapons saved from reaching their destination in the PA. The Oslo and Wye Agreements forbid the PA from holding weapons such as Katyushas, rockets, and mortar launchers, and it is bound to hand them over to U.S. officials for destruction.

Voice of Israel reporter Yoni Ben-Menachem said today, "A government minister reminded me that in 1994, after the 'Gaza and Jericho first' agreement, then-Likud MK Ariel Sharon told the Knesset that it will only be a matter of time before the PA fires Katyushas from Gaza onto Ashkelon; later, then-Labor party Minister Chaim Ramon mocked Sharon and said, 'Where are the Katyushas that you promised us?' Now it looks like we will soon see them..."

Israeli defense leaders said today that the Palestinians already have weapons of the type that were seized Sunday. Smuggling of weapons to the PA has been taking place for years, chiefly via underground tunnels from Egypt to Rafiach and in Arafat's plane. Other Palestinian VIPs, whose cars went unchecked through Israeli checkpoints, also smuggled in various weapons. A security source told Arutz-7 today, "Almost every time a VIP car returned from Jordan, we saw that it was heavily weighted down - but we were not allowed to check it."

THE BOTTOM LINE

As Langfan predicted the Palestinian Authority would smuggle weapons, including Katyushas in to the areas under its control to attack Israel. The rapid rise in the use of mortars by the PA terrorists points to a testing of Israeli resolve. The relative difficulty of the IDF to stop the mortar attacks has been noted by the enemy. As has the ability to terrorize and kill with a weapon fired from a distance. The Left who mocked Langfan's warnings and those of the Nationalists Camp will live to see their delusions crumble as the bloodbath accelerates.

==========

Mark Langfan is a New York-based attorney who has written on Middle Eastern affairs and security issues confronting Israel. He has created a three-dimensional topographical model of Israel to explain the implications of strategic height and depth for Israel's security. This model has been endorsed by the Spokesman's Office of the Israel Defense Forces and is used by JINSA. Langfan is also the Freeman Center Military Analyst.

============

Bernard J. Shapiro is Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE.

 


 

The Washington Post, May 18, 2001

LAND WITHOUT PEACE

Why Arafat Will Not Stop His War

By Charles Krauthammer

On May 6, the Israeli navy intercepted a Lebanese ship headed for Gaza. It carried afull cargo of weapons, including Katyusha rockets and Strella antiaircraft missiles. These are not weapons of protest. These are not weapons for demonstrations. These are weapons for all-out war. The Katyushas can reach the most densely populated parts of Israel. The Strellas can bring down airplanes, military or civilian.

According to the ship's captain, two similar shipments had already made it through to Gaza. Yasser Arafat's war on Israel, begun eight months ago, is about to escalate dramatically.

Arafat has released all Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists from his jails. Many of them are working in his security forces. His own Fatah movement sports a guerrilla army called the Tanzim whose specialty is drive-by shootings of Jewish motorists and shooting into Jewish neighborhoods that border on Palestinian territory.

The next escalation will involve mortars. The Palestinians have been launching them from the sanctuary of their own territory in Gaza, both against Israeli settlements and against towns in Israel proper. They have now smuggled mortars into the West Bank. Soon the suburbs of Tel Aviv will be in range.

Thus far Israel has responded by sending its tanks into Gaza to suppress the mortars -- and then withdrawing. Palestinian spokesmen have denounced these cross-border Israeli raids. "They're not only designed to blur [boundaries]," said Nabil Shaath, Palestinian international planning minister. "They're designed to blur the whole prospect of peace."

Boundaries? Peace? This would be comical if it were not so tragic. Israel gave Palestinians this territory under the Oslo peace accords in return for the solemn Palestinian pledge to renounce violence and to settle all outstanding disputes through negotiations. Last October, Arafat decided to tear up Oslo and start his guerrilla war against Israel; now he complains that according to the piece of paper he has torn up, his territory is inviolable. Even Hitler did not have the audacity to complain about Britain's declaring war on him (after he invaded Poland) on the grounds that Britain had pledged peace at Munich.

Why did Arafat start the war? The Palestinian Authority's various rationales are becoming baroque.

First, violence ostensibly broke out because of Palestinian anger over Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount on Sept. 28. Palestinian post and telecommunications minister Imad Falouji thinks not. "Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong," he said in a speech to Palestinians in Lebanon. "This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton" by rejecting Israel's peace proposal and thus incurring blame from the president of the United States for the failure of the talks.

(Falouji, reportedly under pressure from Arafat, has subsequently denied that he said this. Unfortunately for Falouji, a similar statement of his at a Gaza symposium was reported in the Palestinian-affiliated daily al-Ayyam.)

Recognizing that it is a little much to expect the world to believe that Sharon's visit spawned not one or two or three but 230 days of shooting, rioting, bombing and murder, the Palestinians adopted another tack. They're fighting, they now say, because of the expansion of settlements.

That rationale -- which has found its way into the report by the Mitchell Commission, set up to adjudicate the causes of the fighting -- is equally absurd. At Camp David and then at Taba in the dying days of the Clinton presidency, Israel offered the Palestinians their own state and Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of the disputed territories. The vast majority of settlements would have been uprooted. The remaining ones (grouped on a tiny 5 percent of the West Bank, an area smaller than one of Ted Turner's four Montana ranches) would revert to Israel. And Israel would give Palestine an equivalent 5 percent of its own territory to make up the difference.

Result? A Palestinian state on land amounting to 100 percent of the West Bank -- with no settlements, no Jews.

Arafat turned that peace offer down. Yet now he pretends he is fighting to get rid of settlements.

Why is he fighting? Read the speech he gave May 15, "Catastrophe Day," as the Palestinians commemorate the date of Israel's birth. He is fighting because the Jew-free Palestinian state is hardly his only goal. There will be no peace, he pledged, until the millions of Palestinians living abroad are returned to Israel -- and thus extinguish it as a Jewish state.

Palestine first, then Israel. For decades the West assured Israel that its security depended on "land for peace." Arafat, it turns out, is fighting for land without peace.

(c) 2001 The Washington Post Company

 


 

AFTER NETANYA

SHOULD TERRORIST MASTERMINDS
BE ASSASSINATED
?

By Louis Rene Beres

18 May 2001

For a time, Israel has used assassination (more or less successfully) to deal with terrorist masterminds. Is such Israeli military action permissible under international law? Indeed, is assassination ever permissible as a form of counter terrorism?

Whether or not such a controversial remedy could ever make long-term tactical sense for Israel remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that such assassinations could - in certain very limited circumstances - be judged law-enforcing according to international law. Matters might be different if we lived in a world legal order with effective and competent central authority structures, but we do not yet live in such a world.

Normally, assassination is a crime under international law. Yet, in our decentralized system of world law, self-help by individual states is often necessary. In the absence of particular assassinations, terrorists - like those Palestinian elements who ceaselessly wreak havoc against defenseless civilians in Israel - could remain altogether free. Immune to the proper expectations of extradition and prosecution, these terrorists would continue to murder Jewish men, women and children who are shopping for Shabbat. And while it is true that custody over terrorists may be achieved by forcible abduction and subsequent trial in domestic courts, this remedy inevitably costs a great many more innocent lives, both in the operation itself and in the form of additional terrorism.

For now, our world legal order still lacks an international criminal court with jurisdiction over individuals. Only the courts of individual countries can provide the judicial context for trials of terrorists. Where states or aspiring states harbor such criminals and refuse to honor extradition requests (e.g., the Arab/Islamic states and the Palestinian Authority), the only decent remedies for justice available to victim societies lie in unilateral enforcement action.

What if the terrorists should have "just cause?" Palestinian bombers who indiscriminately maim and kill Israelis certainly think themselves to be fighting for decent objectives. But even if these objectives could be accepted under pertinent international law (and they can not be so accepted) the barbarous means used in their murderous operations can never be taken as lawful. The law of armed conflict makes perfectly clear that the ends can never justify the means. A cause, even if it were legitimate, can never excuse the use of violence against the innocent.

By the standards of contemporary international law, terrorists are known as "common enemies of humankind." In the fashion of pirates, who were to be hanged by the first persons into whose hands they fell, terrorists are international outlaws who fall within the scope of "universal jurisdiction." That Arab/Islamic bombers' crimes are always directed specifically at Israel assuredly removes any doubts about the reasonableness of Jerusalem's particular jurisdiction.

No doubt, assassination is normally an illegal remedy under international law. Yet, support for a limited right to assassination can be found in the classical writings of Aristotle, Plutarch and Cicero and even in Jewish history - ranging from the Sicarii (who flourished at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple) to Lehi (who fought the British mandatory authority). Should the civilized community of nations ever reject this right altogether, it will have to recognize that it would, in certain instances, be at the expense of justice. Lacking any central global institutions to interpret and enforce the rules against terrorism, the existing law of nations must sometimes continue to rely on even the most objectionable forms of self-help.

Assassination, subject to the applicable rules of law, may be the least injurious form of available punishment. Moreover, where additional terrorist crimes are still being planned, as is certainly the case today among PA/Fatah, the permissibility of assassination may even be greater. This is the case because our world legal system is obligated to protect us all from clear and terrible infringements of our human rights.

In the best of all possible worlds, assassination would have no defensible place as counterterrorism. But we do not yet live in the best of all possible worlds, and the negative aspects of assassination should not be evaluated apart from all alternative options. Rather, such aspects should always be compared to those expected of these other options. If the expected costs of assassination appear lower than the costs of alternative counter terrorist options, then assassination could emerge as the rational choice. However odious it might appear in isolation (because it is GOAL NEFESH, meaning, in Hebrew, "disgusting") assassination, in such circumstances, could represent the least injurious path to improved safety from terrorism.

Assassination, even of a terrorist, will almost always elicit indignation. After all, living, as we do, in the "modern" age of comity and culture, how else should decent people react to the idea of killing as remediation? Yet, the civilizational promise of modernity is far from realized, and imperilled states must inevitably confront choices between employing assassination in very residual circumstances or renouncing such employment at the expense of justice and safety. In facing such choices, these states, especially Israel, will discover that all viable alternatives to the assassination option also include violence and that these alternatives may often exact a much larger toll in human life and suffering.

===========

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law and terrorism. His work on counterterrorism is well-known to American and Israeli intelligence communities.

 


 

TAKING OFF THE GLOVES

By Boris Shusteff

"Many years ago, during Israel's War of Independence, David Ben-Gurion faced a similar choice. Should the IDF be allowed to enter the areas allocated to the Palestinians under the UN partition plan? Had he ordered the IDF to refrain from occupying any such areas that war might have continued to this very day." (Moshe Arens, "Haaretz," 5/15/01)

After the May 18 suicide bombing in Netanya that killed 6 and wounded more than 70 Israelis, Dan Meridor, head of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, said, "There is only one address where the responsibility lies, Mr. Arafat, all the gang around him." It is regrettable that it has taken Israel so long to understand this simple truth. Yasser Arafat was, is, and always will be a terrorist. It was not Arafat, who relabeled himself as a "peace partner." Israel did everything with her own hands.

Speaking on May 4, 1998 in Washington at the Middle East Insight Symposium James Baker said:

"When I was Secretary of States Arafat was perceived to be a terrorist. We branded him as a terrorist, we would not deal with him, that was the position of Israeli government. But then the Israeli government itself chose Yasser Arafat as its negotiating partner and having done so, they certainly legitimized him in my eyes and in the eyes, I think of most Americans."

That means that the first step that Israel must take in order to defeat Arafat is to admit to this terrible blunder. Israel chose the arch-terrorist as a negotiating partner, and Israel must admit that she was terribly wrong. The whole Oslo process was a sham, intended to lure Israel into a deadly trap. Every day more and more Israelis are beginning to realize that their dream of a "peaceful Middle East" is disappearing - not because they did not embrace Arafat warmly enough, but because he has not changed in the least since the day he became the leader of the PLO.

Uzi Benziman wrote an article in Ha'aretz on May 18 entitled "Begin was right about Arafat from the first day." He enumerated several well-known episodes of Arafat's behavior after he signed the Oslo agreement, which clearly indicated that he had not changed his design for Israel. He recalled how in a speech in Johannesburg, Arafat invoked the famous analogy between the Oslo accord and the deceptive agreement that the Prophet Mohammed made with the Quraysh tribe. Benziman wrote, that "in the wake of this [speech], the legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Yoel Singer, said that the basis for the accords was null and void, but no one in the Israeli establishment took heed of his warning."

A mere six months after its signing, the Oslo accord was null and void. Israel had a chance to prevent disaster, but preferred to be deceived. Benziman noted that Benny Begin warned that "both Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet security service were duped by the mistaken conception." This misconception, according to which Arafat was ready to accept Israel's existence, puts the Jewish state in mortal danger, as another misconception did in 1973, on the eve of the Yom Kippur War.

It is hard to believe that the Israeli intelligence community completely missed the information that appeared in 1987 in the book Red Horizons, written by the former head of Romanian intelligence, Lieutenant General Ion Micai Pacepa. Although for the most part it describes the Romanian dictator's crimes, lifestyle and corruption, a substantial part of the book is devoted to the relationship between Ceausescu's regime and Yasser Arafat and his PLO.

Pacepa candidly demonstrates how the concept of a "peaceful" Arafat was born in Ceausescu's mind, since he wanted to receive a Nobel Peace Prize by bringing Arafat into the "peace process." Pacepa describes one of the meetings between Arafat and Ceausescu. "Congratulations," said Ceausescu. "How about pretending to break with terrorism? The West would love it." "Just pretending, like with your independence?" "Exactly. But pretending over and over. Political influence, like dialectical materialism, is built on the same basis tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation." "A snort of pacifist Arafat day after day?" "Exactly, Brother Yasser. The West may even become addicted to you and your PLO" [(1) p. 25].

Pacepa writes of how Ceausescu tried to convince Arafat to establish a government-in-exile, since "it would be much easier to persuade the West to negotiate with a government-in-exile than with a terrorist organization. I am not talking about important change, only a fireworks display. And you will remain a revolutionary. The only thing I want to change is the nameplate on your door" [(1) p. 28].

Arafat was stubbornly against the idea, explaining that "he could not put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle against Israel" [(1) p .28]. The Romanian dictator continued to unravel his plan, "There is no doubt in my mind," Ceausescu said sympathetically, "that a war of terror is your only realistic weapon. In the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many operational groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name. They could mount endless operations all around the world, while your name and your 'government' would remain pristine and unspoiled, ready for negotiations and further recognition" [(1) p. 28].

After reading these excerpts one must admit that Arafat has brilliantly brought Ceausescu's ideas to life. He has even enhanced them. Hamas, Hizballah, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups mount endless operations against Israel, while Arafat's Palestinian Authority remains pristine and unspoiled, ready for "peace" negotiations. Israel and the West are hypnotized by this "terrorist-reborn-political-leader" who keeps telling them that he strives for the "peace of the brave."

It seems they are unaware that General Munteanu, chief Romanian Middle East expert, who spent countless hours in conversations with Arafat, said of him that "Arafat tells a lie in every sentence" [(1) p. 93]. There is only one exception to this - only one case in which he tells the truth. This happens when he speaks about Israel. As General Munteanu noticed, "His hatred of Israel is literally in his blood" [(1) p. 96]. Arafat himself never really tries to hide it. Pacepa writes that attempts to convince Arafat to compromise on the issue of the government-in-exile were in vain. During one of the meetings Arafat exploded,

"I'll never compromise. I cannot and I will not. I am a revolutionary. I have dedicated my whole life to the Palestine cause and the destruction of Israel. I will not change or compromise. I will not agree with anything that recognizes Israel as a state. Never. Nobody, neither friend nor foe, can force me to compromise" [(1) p. 92].

The Jewish state has learned through the so-called "peace process" that Arafat told Pacepa the truth. While Israeli leaders continued to hope that they could come up with some kind of formula that would allow them to "give something" to Arafat and to "keep something" for themselves, Arafat rejected all compromises and unleashed the hounds of terror against them.

It is ironic that another President, this time American President Bill Clinton, also wanted to become a Nobel Peace Prize winner by bringing Arafat and Israel together. His obsession with this idea dramatically endangered the Jewish state's already precarious position. Benjamin Netanyahu admitted on May 10 in an interview with Russian radio "Sedmoy kanal" that the Clinton administration pressured him terribly for compromises, without understanding that the word "compromise" does not exist in the Arab dictionary.

On May 3, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Bureau had issued the following statement, "The current attacks are the result of a strategic decision by Arafat. The organizations subject to Arafat - including Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizballah - understand that they have a 'green light' to continue attacks against Israel."

On May 16 Israeli Public Security Minister Uzi Landau told Reuters Television in New York, "You have a clear decision by the Palestinian Authority to step up terrorist activities until by violent means they will be able to push us around and extract concessions that we are not prepared to do."

Ze'ev Schiff wrote on May 8 in "Ha'aretz" that:

"Despite the American statement, which was critical of Israel's actions, Bush knows for a fact that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is the individual who is primarily responsible for the violence and that he is actually the initiator of that violence. Arafat's standing in the eyes of both the Washington administration and Congress is extremely low.

All this put together means that Israel has no more excuses for inaction. After seven and a half years of constant concessions, after Palestinian Arab terror activity that has killed almost 600 Jews and maimed several thousands, Israel must act. The truth must be spoken to the world. Arafat is a terrorist. The PLO is a terrorist gang. They must be eradicated. This can be done only through military force. The sooner, the better. 05/18/01

NOTE:

1. Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, "Red Horizons," Regnery Gateway, Washington D.C., 1987.

============

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

 


 

THE MYTH OF "OCCUPIED" TERRITORIES

By Boris Shusteff

One of the most misused, misapplied, and misunderstood definitions in the dictionary of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the term "occupied territories." The vast majority of people simply do not know the facts or misinterpret them, thus completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews. The truth of the matter is that, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling the lands of Yesha.

On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement. This document was created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference when the Principal Allied Powers agreed o assign the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for econstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).

There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of Palestine. As a side note it is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, were not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."

With the disbanding of the League of Nations, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, were not hurt. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

Then in November 1947 came time for Resolution 181, which recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply arecommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights" (1).

If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution. By the time of the cease-fire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.

Now we approach the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the puzzle of the "occupied" territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations. Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the Persian Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why from Iraq the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body, while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.

On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs' position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-'Arabi, gave an explanation of this "paradox." She was asked, "What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?" She answered:

"I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter."

To better understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon's Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-'Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following:

"There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation. The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter... This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions... None of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."

Since no mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of international law FOR THE JEWS IT IS NOT AN OCCUPIED LAND.

This conclusion was confirmed not long ago by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabeling of the lands of Yesha. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, "What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?" Baker replied, "They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories."

All of this means that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are not building them on "occupied" territories. If one wants, one may call them "disputed" territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of international law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.

And as a final note, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of exactly the same conference. The Jews finally deserve to settle freely on their territories as well. It is time to stop labeling them "occupied".05/07/01

NOTE:

1. Abba Eban. Voice of Israel. Horizon Press, New York, 1957.

============

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

 


 

MA NISHTANAH

By G.M. Ettinger

1948:

THE ALTALENA. In the middle of Israel's fight for independence and survival, (Labor)"Jews" destroyed a ship full of arms, and killed the volunteers (Irgun) who had come in the Altalena to defend Medinat Israel.

2000 to 2001:

In the middle of the Arab intifada, "Jews" regularly arrest Jews who are desperate to defend their relatives and friends in Yehuda and Shomron.

1920 to 1947:

SETTLEMENTS. Jews build settlements overnight. The mandatory forces do not destroy the settlements, once a water tower has been erected.

2000-2001:

Jews build small points of presence where their relatives and neighbors have been murdered. "Jewish" forces destroy these small settlements, and destroy the mobile homes. "Jews" regularly arrest the Jews in these settlements, even though the courts order them released afterwards.

About 1930:

MURDERS AND KIDNAPPINGS: Yosef Trumpeldor and seven other Jews are murdered while trying to defend Tel Chai in the Galil. The murderers are Arab terrorists disguised as French policemen from the Lebanon.

2000:

Omer Suewed, Binyamin Avraham and Adiel Avitan are kidnaped by Arab terrorists disguised as United Nations "peace keepers". Elchanan Tannenbaum is kidnaped from Europe.

1947:

DOCTORS AND NURSES MURDERED. Forty Jewish doctors and nurses are murdered on their way to Hadassah Hospital on Har HaTzofim. The commander of the Mandatory forces knew of the planned ambush, but took the day off. His forces arrived long after the doctors and nurses had been killed.

1998 (July 17):

MACHINE GUNS. Gov't to discuss giving weapons to Hevron Arabs: Whether to supply submachine guns to the Palestinian police in Hevron is issue for government meeting. Minister Shaul Yahalom warns Prime Minister that additional guns to Palestinians will increase the mortal danger to the Jews. He asks how Israel can demand a reduction in the number of Palestinian policemen and arms while we ourselves supply them with additional weapons (from Arutz Sheva).

2001:

JEWISH DOCTOR MURDERED IN THE SHOMRON, and other Jews murdered and injured on the roads of Yehuda and Shomron. "Jewish" forces arrive long after the killings, and arrest Jewish travellers who had tried to defend themselves.

3000 years ago in Egypt. 1941-1945 in Europe:

CHILDREN MURDERED. Egyptians plan to murder Jewish male children. Germans murder one and a half million Jewish children.

1929-2001:

Arab terrorists murder Jewish children all over Eretz Israel. First Mandatory, and then the "Jewish" authorities prohibit Jews from carrying out any defense against Arab terrorists who fire again and again from the same places. (Note: The Mandatory forces actually took action sometimes against the terrorists.)

0070

RETIRED GENERALS: Flavius Josephus, retired general of the Jewish Defense Forces, moves to Rome, where he receives the freedom of the city, and writes "Jewish Antiquities", denigrating the Jewish religion.

After 2001:

Jewish general, expert in escaping from training accidents, does not even wait to retire from high office, before praising his "peace partner".

0070:

PROMOTION: Roman general Titus, who commanded the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, is promoted to Caesar.

2001:

Retired general, from far away across the ocean, strongly criticizes the Israel Defense Forces for trying to defend Jews against terrorist attacks.

2004:

PROMOTION: Will this retired general be elected to the world's highest office?

1941-1945:

EUROPEAN ARMY: Hitler's European Army, the Waffen SS, is the first modern European Army since the Crusades. Its actions against European Jewry are well known . The Waffen SS was composed entirely of non-German Europeans from Belgium, the Baltic countries, Slovakia, Croatia, France and other European countries. (Note: This is less well known.)

2001:

European Union plans entry of "peace-keepers" into Eretz Israel. The next head of the European Union, foreign minister of the first mentioned country which provided a whole Waffen SS division, has just expressed strong criticism of Israel, and his unconditional support for the intifada.

1904:

ALFRED DREYFUS incarcerated on Devil's Island.

1986:

JONATHAN POLLARD incarcerated at Butner, USA. When will Jonathan Pollard be released and rehabilitated?

1941:

GOVERNMENTS, RED CROSS, AMNESTY. Allied governments refuse to believe reports about the holocaust taking place in Poland, or to take any action. (Read the marginal notes scribbled by Foreign Office officials on the reports.)

1990s:

Red Cross and Amnesty refuse to take any action, or even express any criticism whatsoever, about the imprisonment of the Jewish MIAs RON ARAD, ZACHARY BAUMEL, ZVI FELDMAN, YEHUDA KATZ, OMER SUEWED, BINYAMIN AVRAHAM, ADIEL AVITAN, ELCHANAN TANNENBAUM AND THE JEWS IMPRISONED IN IRAN.

0070: ETHNIC CLEANSING: Jews forbidden by Roman Emperor Vespasian on pain of death to reside in Jerusalem.

1939:

WHITE PAPER. Jews ordered by British to stop immigrating to Eretz Israel.

1998 to 2000:

Only some settlements will be dismantled. ("Jewish" ministers)

2001 (May 4th)

MITCHELL REPORT. Jews to stop all building, and never to shoot back at terrorists. Jews ordered by "Jews" to leave the Western Wall. Arabs requested by "Jews" not to throw more rocks from Har HaBeit today.

Ma Nishtanah in 3000 years?

George Ettinger

Poole, England. 106161.2430@compuserve.com

 


 

WAITING OUTSIDE

By G. M. Ettinger

It is happening again. Israel ordered to kindly wait outside until Mitchell issues his decision. No reservations will be accepted. Just sign. (Actually, not even signatures required, as this might embarrass Arafat.)

But this was not the first time. In 1937 Britain issued the PEEL COMMISSION REPORT, and in 1939 the infamous WHITE PAPER. No reservations accepted. Jewish immigration to be stopped, and land purchases to be restricted to an area of 5% (five per cent!) of the Western part of Palestine. No comments from Chaim Weitzman accepted.

What about the EVIAN CONFERENCE in the summer of 1938? Golda Meir reported* on the "International Conference on Refugees": She was there "in the ludicrous capacity of the observer from Palestine, not even seated with the delegates, although the refugees under discussion were my own people....!" It is well known that this conference of 32 countries formally declared that the lives of the Jews meant nothing to them.

The MUNICH CONFERENCE of 1938 is fully known, or is it? Listen to the description by G E R Gedye**: Hitler, Chamberlain and Daladier and Mussolini were in the conference room, planning the destruction of Czechoslovakia. "The final betrayal of Czechoslovakia was at hand. Chamberlain's speech in the British Parliament had contained no indication of how Hitler's map would entirely destroy the political, financial and economic independence of the Czech people, who would have to eke out some kind of existence by the grace of the German dictator, so long as they showed complete subservience to him. Hitler's map had been cunningly devised to take from the Czechs every possible strategic defence position and its most vital communications."

Further quotes from Gedye**: To the Munich conference, Czechoslovakia was not admitted. While the four premiers drew up their final maps, cut up Czechoslovakia's territory, destroyed her fortifications, seized her industries and retired her UNDEFEATED ARMY, the Czech delegates were not allowed to enter the conference room. The final diktats were handed to M. Mastny, the Head of the Czech delegation. When he wished to make a few observations, he was told the British and French delegations did not desire to hear them. No answer or comment was required from Czechoslovakia, only VERY PROMPT COMPLIANCE. Dr. Masaryk was a member of the Czech delegation, and Gedye quotes at length from his official report. While the Czechs were waiting, they called a British official's attention to the consequences of the (pre-arranged) plan. The official, Ashton-Gwatkin, pointed out that the Czechs were ignoring the DIFFICULTY OF THE SITUATION OF THE GREAT POWERS, and that the Czechs did not understand how hard it had been to negotiate with Hitler. Masaryk's report continues: We were handed a map showing which areas were to be occupied at once. "Your evacuation," he was told, "starts tonight." Mr Chamberlain was yawning continuously, without any attempt to conceal his yawns.

The French delegate concluded casually, that NO ANSWER WAS REQUIRED. They regarded the plan AS ACCEPTED. The Czech government had to arrange the evacuation of the first zone by 5pm. The atmosphere, the Frenchman warned, was BEGINNING TO BECOME DANGEROUS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

Gedye continues: To speak of "acceptance" of the Munich Diktat by the Czechoslovak government is to use a word which had no meaning. Note the wording of the Munich communique: "The Agreement is between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy: These powers have agreed, and Czechoslovakia is held responsible." Nothing was done to protect the hundreds of thousands of loyalists, Czechs, German democrats and Jews in the territories to be occupied, no offer to provide asylum. Later came a gesture by Lord Halifax: Britain would take 350 refugees. (When the list was drawn up, the British government struck out a number of names of those in the most deadly peril. Soon HORDES OF TERRORISTS came from Poland and Hungary to spread destruction as an accompaniment to Mr Chamberlain's "Peace with Honour.

This is not all. Remember RAMBOUILLET, where less then three years ago, the Serbs of the Yugoslav Republic were told, just like the Czechs, by Marilyn Albright what they had to do. Again, no reservations. Just get on with it. When the Serbs expressed reservations, the world war against Yugoslavia was unleashed. Hospitals, TV stations, railways, bridges, homes, all destroyed in the name of world peace.

Returning, sadly, to Mitchell: Few people bother to read his report in detail , or to query its legal basis. But read M. Keinon's*** article or the Israel Foreign Office analysis. The Jews are just ordered to FREEZE ALL BUILDING. (It seems that Shalom Akshav are ready to be the monitors). The Arabs to obtain CONTIGUITY, which means that the remains of Medinat Israel are to be cut up. Just one difference. MASSADA WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN, AND WE MEAN IT.

NOTES:

* Golda Meir, "My Life", 1975

** G.E.R. Gedye, "Fallen Bastions", Victor Gollancz, 1939.

*** Keinon, M. Jerusalem Post 22 May 2001, and Freeman Centre Broadcast: Israel Foreign Ministry Issues Paper.

G.M. Ettinger

106161.2430@compuserve.com

 


 

SADDAM BENT THE FATHER;
ARAFAT BENDS THE SON

By Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The Mitchell Commission's Report was carefully crafted by Arabists in the State Department who began under Bill Clinton and continued into the new George W. Bush Administration. It has not been noted in the Media that George Mitchell is a Lebanese Arab or that the "Peace" he supposedly crafted in Ireland has collapsed - but, that agreement at least demanded that the IRA give up their weapons - something Mitchell did NOT demand of Arafat's PLO terrorists.

The Mitchell Commission was exquisitely planned to bridge over to the next Administration and designed to remain under the control of the U.S. State Department. The Clinton Administration formulated it to be the instrument to press the next Administration to continue its meddling into the conflict between Arafat and the Israelis.

Note! The Mitchell Commission's conclusions did NOT castigate either side but, had carefully buried in its language a Virus which called upon Israel to cease her natural expansion of her towns and villages as if this was the ‘sine qua non' (only reason) that Arafat wages his unnecessary war of attrition. What nation on this planet is restricted from expanding her cities as her population grows? But then, we Jews in America are familiar with "restrictive covenants", having fought long and hard for our freedom to live in non-Jewish communities. In Israel, the ancient home of our ancestors, Arafat demands that Jews be ethnically cleansed so only Palestinian Muslims may live and walk on the land.

Saddam Hussein bent President George Bush Sr. by refusing to cease his aggressive actions and continuation of building his war machine. Saddam successfully enlisted other Arab nations and such nations as France, Russia and China who wanted his business.

Similarly, Arafat demanded that the other Arab nations side with him against Israel, although they mostly despise Arafat. Other Arab nations, namely Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, lobbied the European Union (E.U.) to support Arafat's claims knowing they would lead to the eventual elimination of Israel.

Inside of our American nation, we have always had the growing power of an arrogant bureaucracy which became a "Shadow Government" owing its allegiance to the military-industrial complex (as defined by President General Eisenhower). These are the State Department apparachniks who stay in power through all Administrations and run our foreign policy as they see fit. They work their way around any President, the Congress and only respond to certain industries, regardless of their malevolent goals.

Foisting such a game plan upon the next Administration was typical of the U.S. State Department bureaucrats who see themselves as America's true governing body - creating her foreign policy according to their own vested interests. They view Presidents and Secretaries of State as mere temporary impediments to be rolled over and manipulated - unless the President or the Secretary of State is in tune with their policy.

In the case of Israel, the U.S. State Department was defeated in 1947-8 in their attempts to insure that the new Jewish State of Israel would not be born. However, they have worked diligently ever since to subvert Israel's well-being whenever possible. They are dedicated Arabists, tied closely to American oil corporations and weapons' industries - each of whom are loyal to their Arab oil client nations. These industries act as well paid lobbyists for their clients, in addition to contributing generously to both controlling political parties.

This translates into a Washington power block whose main task is to implement the hostile intentions against Israel by all the Arab nations. They are, in effect, a highly powered fifth column who owes their first allegiance to foreign nations - not America. This Arabist power block would have succeeded years ago into weakening Israel sufficiently so that the surrounding Arab nations could win one of their seven successive wars to eliminate Israel. They were, however, usually blocked by the American people and the American Congress who like, admire and respect Israel and the Jewish people.

These anti-American actions include arming the Arab nations with every weapon and advanced technology the West could develop for cash and influence. This also includes advanced conventional weapons as well as catastrophic weapons of mass destruction such as NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons).

While our greedy oil and weapons' industry made obscene fortunes in sales, we in the West also sold the Arabs the technology to level our own cities and poison our own atmosphere with chemicals that kill instantly and biological substances that kill every organic thing, including humans, animals, plants and our own water resources.

Our Presidents allowed this potential apocalypse to evolve because they were deceived into believing that it was good for business when we pleased and patronized the Arabs. Were it not for the oil and the lucrative markets flowing from it, the West would have viewed the Arab nations as a dangerous backward people who could not be trusted with BB guns, let alone missiles, high tech aircraft, nuclear bombs, and biological horrors any radical Islamist could carry into civilized cities and scatter into the wind. Could it be that the hoof and mouth epidemic in Europe was brought in by one or more of Saddam's cohorts?

Presently, there is an effort to stop Israel from defending herself against an onslaught of primitive rioting Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" - although their parents or grandparents came from the surrounding Arab countries as transient workers. (1) Secretary of State Powell, in the name of the "Shadow Government" called the U.S. State Department has already abused the powers of his office by demanding that Israel cease defending herself against the killing terrorists.

The terror goes on in a myriad of ways via 160 mortar shellings of civilians, suicide bombing, drive-by shootings, sniper shooting of babies, lynching and mutilating of children - killing of Jews in any and every way possible - all on the "Green Light" orders of Yassir Arafat. The Media generally quotes only the statistics since the Arabs began their war of attrition on the Jewish New Year September 28, 2000. They usually ignore the mortality rates since the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords September 13, 1993. Almost 500 Jews have been killed and thousands more injured, some maimed for life.

Each time Israel strikes at the source of the Arabs' shootings, the Europeans and the State Department howl "unfair and excessive use of force". The Leftist Media invariably accuses Israel with reports so biased that one can only be reminded of Josef Goebbels and his manipulation of a willing world Media to persuade the public at large that eliminating Jews was a good and proper thing.

Now, we have the Mitchell Report greasing the path of President George W. Bush and the U.S. State Department's foreign policy to condemn Israel's defense of her own citizens. Arafat is ramping up the use of heavy weapons smuggled in to his Palestinian Authority to prepare for his coming major war. The most recent smuggling was by boat from Lebanon. When Israel caught that boat they laid out the weapons showing that Arafat had anti-aircraft SA-7 Strella rockets, anti-tank missiles, RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, Kalashnikov rifles, bombs, explosives, Katyusha rockets with the range to reach all of Israel's populations centers. Bush, Jr., Colin Powell, America's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all know that Arafat is deliberately inviting attacks by Israel so that he can scream to the international community to come and save his people (who he cares so little for).

Arafat feeds his own women and children (as well as the Israeli women and children) into his machine of human sacrifice. The more blood, the louder and louder the well-rehearsed howls from the Media, the E.U., the U.N. and the Arabist community. The end product is to force the current Bush Administration to come down hard on Israel. Israel is to be coerced into establishing a Palestinian State which will be the last link connecting a string of hostile Arab nations together. This will be a necklace of dangerous nations who have adopted strict Islamic law which mandates that they be dedicated enemies to any non-Moslems. It is their Muslim duty to continue their ‘jihad' (Holy War) against the rest of the world until the world accepts Islam. Perhaps a good example is the Islamic Taliban in Afghanistan who recently implemented Islamic law against Hindus who will now be required to wear a distinctive yellow mark as non-Muslims. This is reminiscent of Hitler's yellow star which he used to mark Jews for later ethnic cleansing. Islam views itself as an exclusive religion which the West is just starting to face as an unrelenting force which is dedicated to the subjugation or elimination of all other religions.

The neo-terror state of Palestine will be the centerpiece in a deadly necklace stretching from Iran, Iraq, Syria to Jordan and Lebanon. Lebanon will be absorbed by Syria just as quickly as Jordan is being subverted by its majority population of Palestinians who are loyal to Arafat. From there the necklace spreads to Sudan where the Muslims are decimating the Christians.

Saudi Arabia will fall to Egypt which itself is under pressure by the Muslim Brotherhood to become another strictly Islamic State. Only this time Egypt, with its full compliment of American arms will become an Islamic military colossus in the South, just as Iran is in the North.

Then there is the American State Department which is actually a "Shadow Government" only concerned with its own vested interests. Unfortunately, their misguided foreign policy and their blunders will probably lead to the Third and last World War. Historians will look back and identify the time frame where the U.S. State Department played a leading role in the destruction of Israel and coalescing the militant forces of radical fundamentalist Islam to face the West in a war to end all wars.

Israel's demise will be the lynchpin that will release all the accumulated military energies of the Arab nations - all with our American help. We Americans have always looked off-shore for our enemies. Indeed, they were there. First the Soviet Union (now called Russia) and a growing China to whom we have transferred some of our most terrible technology - as well as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

If ever there was an evil empire, our State Department's "Shadow Government" fits that description insofar as the Jewish State of Israel is concerned. Clearly, it is a dark castle that needs airing. Israel is and remains a high profile target on their firing range, despite deep and genuine support by the American people and the American Congress for the only democracy in the Middle East.

As Saddam bent the father so now is Arafat bending the son - with the help of an ongoing Arabist U.S. State Department. The free and civilized world will soon be confronted with the choice of eliminating the threat of extinction from radical nations or accepting their demands of submission as America is asking/demanding of Israel.

NOTE:

1. "From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine" by Joan Peters, Harper & Rowe, NY, 1984

 


 

The Jerusalem Post May, 25 2001

SEX AND THE SETTLEMENTS

By Michael Freund

At first glance, former senator George Mitchell's report on the violence in the Middle East seems eminently reasonable and pragmatic. Its primary recommendations amount to what appear to be a few simple steps: first, the Palestinians halt their terror campaign, followed by an Israeli freeze on settlement construction, and then the two sides work out a way of returning to the negotiating table.

Leaving aside the rather obvious fact that the outbreak of the current violence had nothing to do with Jewish settlements and everything to do with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's intransigence, there are two critical problems with the Mitchell Report's approach: it is both impractical and discriminatory.

When he presented the report at a press conference on Monday, Mitchell emphasized that Israel should halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, including what he referred to as their "natural growth." The obvious question that arises is: what exactly does he mean by "natural growth"?

In the simplest of terms, demographers define natural population growth as the number of births minus the number of deaths, plus the net inflow resulting from migration. Other than adopting Chinese communist-style restrictions on childbirth or Soviet-era limitations on freedom of movement, there is little a government can do to halt the "natural growth" of any community.

Indeed, the most natural type of growth results from reproductive activity. Taken to its logical and rather absurd conclusion, then, perhaps Mitchell means to suggest that Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza no longer engage in marital relations, for the result might be a sweet, little bundle of "natural growth," diapers and all.

Of course, the policy implications of such a recommendation would (pardon the pun) be breathtaking. Should the United States consider airlifting contraceptive devices to Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in exchange for an end to Palestinian mortar attacks? Will the CIA begin monitoring all forms of nocturnal activity in Jewish settlements, lest it result in some "natural growth"?

What the Mitchell Report fails to appreciate is that Jewish settlements, like communities anywhere, are dynamic, living organisms. People come and go, children are born, families grow and expand. Clearly, then, Mitchell's call for a freeze on the "natural growth" of the settlements is simply impractical.

The other troubling aspect of the report's recommendations is that it lends credence to the discriminatory notion that certain places should be off-limits to Jews simply because of who they are.

Mitchell himself hails from the state of Maine, whose capital Augusta lies just 80 kilometers east of the town of Hebron. Were the senator to suggest that the right of Jews to live in Hebron, Maine should be restricted in any way, he would immediately be denounced as a racist and an anti-Semite. Yet when he suggests a freeze on the right of Jews to move to Hebron, Judea because they are Jews, it is described as a "confidence-building measure."

Call it what you will, the insistence on a settlement freeze is little more than an outdated, archaic form of bigotry and racial segregation. To suggest that Jews, or blacks, or any other ethnic group, should not be allowed to live and build freely in a certain area because of who they are went out of fashion in the United States nearly four decades ago. There is no reason to begin applying it to the Middle East today.

Just as Jews have the inalienable right to purchase homes in Tekoa, Washington, or Shilo, Arkansas, and to engage in "natural growth", so too do the Jews living in the original Tekoa and Shilo. Civil rights for Jews, like any universal human right, cannot be restricted in time or place. They must be applicable regardless of where a person chooses to live.

According to the Bible, the first Jewish settler in history was the patriarch Abraham who, upon ascending to the Land of Israel, went to Shechem (Nablus) and then Beit El, ultimately settling in Hebron. The Jewish people, following in their ancestor's footsteps, have now returned to reclaim their national patrimony. Neither Palestinian mortar rounds nor the Mitchell Report's recommendations can stop this historic process from unfolding. The growth of the Jewish people, "natural" or otherwise, can and will continue.

(Michael Freund served as deputy director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

 


 

OBFUSCATION OF TRUTH

(Reading Mitchell's Report)

By Boris Shusteff

It is hard to believe that nowadays the majority of people are transformed into robot's that digest information without critical thinking. Nothing proves this better then the Mitchell's Report, presented to the public as a "balanced document" that can serve as a "basis for future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs."

Even a brief glance through the report demonstrates how biased it is. Although Israeli government has already sent a letter to Mitchell's Commission with its preliminary observations, it is simply a must for the Jewish state to perform another thorough review of the document and treat it as a biased and distorted one.

The Report contains so many inaccuracies, distortions and deficiencies that it is almost impossible to analyze all of them. Therefore we shall discuss only these issues that make it absolutely unacceptable for the Jewish state. The most important point that was completely missed by the commentators is the fact that for the first time since the beginning of the "Oslo process" an official document, that is suggested for the use of the both parties, includes mentioning of the establishment of a "Palestinian state." In the "Rebuild Confidence" part of the Report one of the paragraphs states: "The GOI [Government of Israel] may wish to make it clear to the PA [Palestinian Authority] that a future peace would pose no threat to the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state to be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

Moreover, in the "Why Did It Happen?" part the authors of the Report wrote that "for the Palestinian side, 'Madrid' and 'Oslo' heralded the prospect of a state." These two statements completely distort the essence of the Israeli-PLO agreement. The fact is that neither "Madrid," nor "Oslo" spoke about additional separate "state" for the Palestinian Arabs. By distorting this fact the Report creates an absolutely false impression that the purpose of the "Oslo" accords was the establishment of another "Palestinian state" - thus promoting the Arab position.

Paragraph 4 of Article V of the 1993 "Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles," that started the whole disastrous for Israel process, was included into the agreement, apparently, to allow Israel to reverse the situation if needed. It stated: "The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period." That means that Israel has all legal rights to return to any place that was under her control before it was transferred under the jurisdiction of the PA.

Not a single word is mentioned about creating a "Palestinian state" in any of the documents signed between Israel and the PLO-PA. By including these dangerous for Israel wording into the Report the Commission demonstrated that it totally accepted the Arab point of view while completely ignoring Israel's interpretation of the issue. No wonder that Arafat's Palestinian Authority embraced the document unconditionally.

Another extremely worrisome point is the use by the authors of the Report of the terms "Palestinian territories", "Palestinian area" and "occupation." Between the wording "area under Palestinian control" and the terminology of the authors of the Report there is a very significant difference. The Report's terminology implies that the "territory" legally belongs to the "Palestinians," while in reality from the standpoint of the international law it is a disputed territory. The term "occupation" was not used in any of the previous Israel-PA agreements. It is clear that Israel did not allow it to be included.

Since it is a disputed territory, already mentioned Article V of the "Declaration of Principles," allows it to fall under Israel's jurisdiction. By using indiscriminately the ambiguous terminology the authors of the Report make an attempt to prejudice the fate of the disputed land.

Many commentators discussed already the issue of the so-called "settlements" or, to be more precise, the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The authors of the Report accepted without reservations the Arab point of view and declared that "a cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity. Settlement activities must not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations." This statement is tantamount to an incitement to violence. Technically, it hinted to the Arabs that they may continue the "violence" till Israel "freezes all settlement."

The commission recommendation to Israel to "freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural growth' of existing settlements" is a blatant attempt to change the international legitimacy of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. On October 21, 1991 Eugene V. Rostow, a Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, clearly explained in "The New Republic" that, "the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable [by international law]. That right has never been terminated."

The Israeli daily "Jerusalem Post" quoted on May 8 Joel Singer, the Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser, a main drafter of Oslo agreement, who wrote that "the PLO tried to obtain a clause prohibiting the establishment of new settlements, but Israel rejected this demand." It is more than obvious that the authors of the Mitchell's Report are unequivocally siding with the Palestinian Arabs by suggesting to stop the development of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

In the part of the Report entitled "What Happened?" the authors of the Report managed to present the armed confrontation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs as a one-sided use of firearms by Israel against the "Palestinian demonstrators." There is not a single word in this part about the use of the firearms by the Arabs. When in the part "Rebuild Confidence" the authors of the Report for the first time indicated that the Arabs also used guns, they accompanied their statement with an outright lie. The Report stated: "For the first three months of the current uprising, most incidents did not involve Palestinian use of firearms and explosives." It is hard to believe that the representatives of the Mitchell's Commission were unaware of the fact that during the first three months of the "uprising" the Palestinian Arabs had murdered 42 Israelis using only firearms and explosives.

Even during the first three WEEKS the Arabs heavily used the firepower. On October 1, 2000 the border policeman Madhat Yousef, 19, of Bet Jon, was killed while defending Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. He bled to death over a four-hour period during a non-stop Arab shooting. On October 19, 2000 Rabbi Binyamin Herling was killed in the shooting at mount Har Eval. He was wounded and bled to death over five hours, since the gunfire from the Arabs was so intense that the IDF was unable to approach him. Just this two examples are more than enough to prove the pro-Arab bias of the Mitchell's Commission.

The Report is replete with this kind of bias. For the first time in the English language document associated with the Israeli-PLO conflict, the authors of the Report use the Arab name Haram al-Sharif together with the internationally recognized name Temple Mount. Moreover, in two instances out of three, the Arabic name is written first as if it is a common thing in the English language literature.

It is extremely important to pay attention to the way the opinions of the Israeli and the Arab parties are presented in the Report. In the part "Why Did It Happen?" one can find only the Arab interpretation of the Camp-David events:

"Israel's proposals at Camp David provided for Israel's annexation of the best Palestinian lands, the perpetuation of Israeli control over East Jerusalem, a continued military presence on Palestinian territory, Israeli control over Palestinian natural resources, airspace and borders, and the return of fewer than 1% of refugees to their homes."

The reader will not be able to find the Israeli position no matter how hard he tries. The Mitchell Commission somehow "forgot" even to mention the unprecedented concessions offered to Arafat by Barak in Camp David. The Report also takes Arafat's stand on the issue of the Arab shooting at Israelis from populated areas. One may even decide that Arafat's words were included in the report verbatim. The paragraphs in the part "Rebuild Confidence," pertaining to this issue is written in the following way:

"Palestinian gunmen have directed small arms fire at Israeli settlements and at nearby IDF positions from within or adjacent to civilian dwellings in Palestinian areas, thus endangering innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike. We condemn the positioning of gunmen within or near civilian dwellings."

Instead of condemning the use of gunfire itself the Report condemns "the positioning of gunmen." Such wording can encourage the Arab shooting from areas not "within or near civilian dwellings." This conclusion does not sound unrealistic taking into account that in the Recommendations the Commission again speaks only about preventing "gunmen from using Palestinian populated areas to fire upon Israeli

populated areas and IDF positions." One will be hard pressed to find condemnation by the authors of the report of the drive-by shootings which led to the majority of the Israeli deaths. Actually the drive-by shootings are not mentioned in the Report at all.

The pro-Arab tilt of the Report is more than obvious. Even when the Mitchell Commission speaks about Holy places it can't force itself to present the truth. The paragraph pertaining to the matter is worded in such a "neutral way" that it is absolutely impossible to find out what is really happening. The Report states:

"It is particularly regrettable that the places such as the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem have been the scenes of violence, death and injury. These are places of peace, prayer and reflection which must be accessible to all believers. Places deemed holy by Muslims, Jews, and Christians merit respect, protection and preservation."

The authors of the Report hide under the word "violence" the outrages scenes of destruction committed by the Arabs at the Joseph's Tomb. They completely ignore the burning to the ground by the Arabs of the ancient synagogue in Jericho. Not a word is said about the irreparable damage that was inflicted by the Arabs to the Solomon's Stable on the Temple Mount and the destruction of the priceless archeological artifacts pertaining to the time of the Second Temple.

Even the semantic subtlety of enumerating "Muslims" prior to the "Jews" speaks for itself. The places that are mentioned became first holy to the Jews and only because they were holy to the Jews they became holy to the Muslims as well. Although it is still not clear since when the Rachel's Tomb is considered holy by the Moslems? Is it because everything that Arabs simply want to call holy for them automatically becomes unquestionable for the authors of the Report?

There are numerous other instances of Report's obvious inaccuracies, flaws, pro-Arab biased statements, omissions, etc. The only thing the authors of the Report succeeded at, was the attempt to make it look

even-handed. Even when they were talking about "incitements" they tried to place an equal blame on both sides, which is absolutely outrageous. Obfuscation of truth - is the only proper subtitle for the Report. It is a must for Israel to reject it. It is honorable for the United States to dissociate from it. 05/20/01

============

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



 HOME  Maccabean  comments